Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-22 - incl public hearing 5 Freese RdPage 1 of 17 Town of Dryden Planning Board May 22, 2014 **Please note that the following minutes include the Comp plan review by the Ag committee and the minutes from the Public Hearing on 5 Freese Road which include answers and thoughts by the Planning Director and the Planning Board. Members Present: Joe Laquatra (Chair), Heather Maniscalco, John Kiefer, Marty Hatch, and Craig Anderson. Thomas Hatfield and David Weinstein were excused. Guests: Chris Hooker, Dryden Courier Town Hall Staff: Mary Ann Sumner (Town Supervisor) The meeting was opened at 7PM by Chairman Laquatra Review and approval of minutes from March 27, April 24 and the 5 Freese Road Public Hearing. H. Maniscalco moved to approve the minutes, C. Anderson seconded the motion and the minutes were passed unanimously. Following is the review by the Ag Committee of section 2 in the Dryden Comprehensive Plan. Plain text is from the Comprehensive plan and the Ag Committee’s comments are in italics. 2. Agriculture Dryden has long been supportive of local agriculture, as evidenced by the Town’s Right to Farm Law, and zoning that has permitted agriculture in all districts. This comprehensive plan will build on existing strengths by taking the steps outlined below. Goal Promote the long-term economic viability of the agricultural community in the town, and preserve agricultural land resources, without unduly infringing on property rights. Objectives Adopt land use regulations which grant agriculture primacy as a land use in areas zoned for agriculture, and which recognize the nature of contemporary agricultural enterprises in those areas of the town designated for agricultural use in this comprehensive plan. Agriculture and related enterprises will continue to be permitted in other areas throughout th e town, but will have special rights in the areas where primacy is granted. The farmers agree that the Comp Plan has met this objective. However, the objective was too narrow; it only applies to areas that have already been determined to be zoned Ag. It is very limited, preventing farmers from engaging in certain Ag practices in other zones even though farming has been historically been permitted. Direct inappropriate intensity levels of residential development away from productive agricultural areas of the town to minimize loss of higher quality agricultural lands, the unnecessary fragmentation of agricultural land resources, and the potential for conflicts between farm and non-farm residents. To the extent possible, use non-regulatory methods to achieve this objective. No, this has not necessary happened. In some areas, zoning has been changed to permit development of housing on and around land that was formerly Ag. An example provided is on Page 2 of 17 Bradshaw Road where several parcels were changed from ag (it used to be a minnow farm) and has been changed to rural residential. It is not directing development away from farm land. The committee did agree that PDRs have been encouraged. Encourage investments in public infrastructure, such as extensions of public water or sewer service, if, when, and where such services become necessary for agriculture related operations. This objective does not appear logical to the farm committee. There would be no need for public water or sewer on a farm. There wasn’t any discussion about other farm related enterprises but based on the objectives and goals of the Agriculture section, this objective is not viable. Permit commercial retail and service enterprises that serve the needs of the agricultural community. Yes, although the committee couldn’t determine whether this has been tested. Promote the continued stewardship of the land through agricultural practices that minimize soil erosion, surface water runoff and water pollution. The Committee’s first reaction was that the farmers are the stewards, not the Town. No, this is not within the purview of the Town; Soil and Water, DEC, etc cover this objective. Maintain a Town Agricultural Advisory Committee that will review and make recommendations regarding proposals for local ordinances that may affect agricultural practices and lands. Yes. The Town of Dryden created an Ag Advisory Committee but not until after the Zoning Ordinance was established. The farmers feel this should have been done before the Zoning was established so they could have input in the Ordinance. Promote the use of existing programs to enhance the viability of agriculture and to protect farmland, as provided through the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, the Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District, and other governmental and private non-profit organizations. Yes, the Farmland Protection Grant, PDRs, etc. It is a work in progress. Following are the Agricultural Advisory Committee’s proposed recommended changes to the Zoning Ordinance in Dryden. Section 501: Allowable Use group Chart “P” means the use is allowed as of right, but in many cases requires a Site Plan Review; “SUP” means the use requires a Special Use Permit; “X” means the use is not allowed in that particular district; “AR” means the use would be allowed as of right; Use Tables; “Farm Operation” as defined by NY Ag and Markets Law and operates within the County Ag. District Uses Zoning District NR RR RA CV H MC LIO Agricultural-Related Enterprise AR AR AR AR AR AR AR Agro-tourism AR AR AR AR AR AR AR Commercial Horse Boarding AR AR AR AR AR AR AR Equine Operation AR AR AR AR AR AR AR Farm Operation AR AR AR AR AR AR AR Farm Stand AR AR AR AR AR AR AR Farm Workers Housing AR AR AR AR AR AR AR Page 3 of 17 Mining for Agricultural Activities AR AR AR AR AR AR AR Nursery/Greenhouse Retail AR AR AR AR AR AR AR Timber operation AR AR AR AR AR AR AR Section 400: Zoning Districts; AD – New York County Agricultural District; The purpose of agricultural districting is to encourage the continued use of farmland for agricultural production. This New York State Agriculture and Markets program is based on a combination of landowner incentives and protections, all of which are designed to forestall the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Included in these benefits are preferential real property tax treatment (agricultural assessment) and protections against private nuisance suits involving agricultural practices, government funded acquisition or construction projects, and overly restrictive local laws. Section 401: Zoning Maps: Appendix B. 2011 New York Agricultural District Map of Dryden Definitions Agro-tourism “The public visiting any working Farm Operation or Agricultural Related Enterprise for the purpose of enjoyment, education or active involvement in the activities of a Farm Operation. As defined in New York Agriculture and Markets Law.” Agricultural Related Enterprise Add; “as defined in New York Agriculture and Markets Law” Delete Agricultural Use Change to “Farm Operation” Auto Salvage/Junk Yard Add; “shall not apply to Farm Equipment being stored on a Farm Operation” Commercial Horse boarding Add; “as defined in New York Agriculture and Markets Law” Equine Operation Add; Equine Operation recommended definition, “as defined in New York Agriculture and markets Law” Farm Operation Add; “as defined in New York Agriculture and Markets Law” Farm Stand Remove: the word “seasonal” and add, “as defined in New York Agricultural and Markets Law” Farm Worker Housing “On farm buildings used for on-farm housing of permanent and seasonal employees, as defined in NY Agriculture and markets Law Add; see “Farm Worker Housing” to Boarding House definition Page 4 of 17 Junk Yard “shall not apply to Farm Equipment being stored on a Farm Operation” Mining for Ag. Activities The on the farm excavation, removal and disposition of minerals in the aid of agricultural activities. See Sec. 1304: H. 2. And as defined in New York Agriculture and Markets Law. Removal of 1000 tons or 750 yards of minerals, whichever is less, from the earth within 12 calendar months may be subject to NY DEC jurisdiction. Nursery/Greenhouse Add; “as defined in New York Agriculture and Markets Law” Signs, Section 903: Add; “E. The above shall not apply to a Farm Operation or a Farm Stand” Add; Table 1, h. “Farm Operations” and Farm Stands Change; Number of signs (3) to “No Maximum” Change; Maximum Sq. /ft. (16) to “32” Timber Operation Add; “as defined in New York Agriculture and markets Law” J. Laquatra asked about the term “Farm Worker Housing”. C. Anderson said that the town has “boarding house” which requires a SUP and is town wide. Farm Worker Housing is a right that a farm operation has. The idea was to add a definition that is exclusive to an ag operation. He said that J. Liefer (Town Board member) suggested that the Ag Committee try to work in new definitions to the zoning without changing all of the zoning. A lot of the terms have had “as defined in New York Agriculture and Markets Law” added. New terms include agro-tourism, equine operation versus boarding facilities, they took out seasonal for farm markets and they were concerned about junk yards. Old equipment on a farm could be considered a junk yard but Ag and Markets exempts farm equipment based on the belief that most farmers keep the old equipment for parts. H. Maniscalco recommended adding “operable” farm equipment or “working” farm equipment to prevent the build-up of rusted out equipment. C. Anderson said that part of the reason for the zoning changes is to give some protection to town residents, to let them know that these are potential activities that could occur on a farm. His example was someone building a house next to a sheep farm but then changing to a pig farm, it is allowable through Ag and Markets and this might make people more aware of the possibilities. C. Anderson said that the other part of the Ag Committee’s proposed changes was a new use table with a new term “allowed as a right” (AR). He recommended that the Planning Board members review the information available via the links below. http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AP/agservices/agdistricts.html http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AP/agservices/maps/agTOMP2014.pdf#zoom=75 H. Maniscalco expressed her concern that there isn’t any size differentiation, a big farm versus a small farm. She supports small farmers but there aren’t restrictions to prevent a corporate farm like Tyson Chicken coming in and doing damage. She doesn’t see a lot of restrictions on farmers and worries that they have carte blanch to do whatever they wish. You as a farmer own your property but so do your neighbors and Page 5 of 17 she believes they (the farmers) have a responsibility just like everyone else to not pollute the water supply, etc. The way this was written, it gives them a whole lot of latitude and to fight them would be too much for most homeowners. C. Anderson said that if someone wanted to open a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) they would have to follow all of the USDA regulations. His point is that it would require extensive planning and money to meet the requirements. H. Maniscalco said she has no problem with vegetable farms but there are issues when you get into certain practices that would be in violation of the character of our community. There is nothing here that differentiates types of farming. C. Anderson said that farming is a right built into the state constitution. It is a right to farm. H. Manscalco doesn’t deny it is in the constitution but that doesn’t mean we can’t regulate it. C. Anderson said it is already regulated. M. Hatch agreed with H. Maniscalco in regard to the size of farm operations which is a zoning issue. H. Maniscalco returned to the issue of farm equipment, she doesn’t think a farmer should be allowed keep derelict old equipment which could affect another person’s property or enjoyment. She feels the Ag Committee took great care to eliminate it from our purview to consider by changing the verbiage. J. Kiefer said the first time he had heard the phrase right to farm was at the Ag Committee meeting last week so he has been checking into some of the things he learned. An example of the power Ag and Markets wields: the NYS building code exempts farms. A person can build a barn without needing to follow building permit. When the zoning law was adopted, the Ad Hoc Ag Committee was told Ag and Markets would review the law before it would be approved. That didn’t happen so the members of the ad hoc committee sent it to Ag and Markets for a review and these are the areas that are in violation of Ag and Markets Law. The Zoning changes by the Ag Committee addresses those violations. J. Kiefer recalled that at the Ag Committee someone said that they were forced to adhere to the local laws despite the fact that it is not required by Ag and Markets. He feels the Ag Committee wants to change some of the zoning, such as the old farm equipment, to avoid the possibility of more confusion and potentially a lawsuit. C. Anderson thinks this is a good way to approach the zoning; it protects both the farmers and the non-farmers. That is part of why Ag districts were set up so people understand that certain uses are acceptable and the current use might change. For example, if someone built a house near a sheep farm but then the farm changed to a CAFO, the person who just built the house will not be happy but if they are aware that the potential exists, they may chose to build elsewhere. The Ag districts also identify areas that you are more likely to see ag related activities like tractors on the road, or manure being spread on a field. The County ag district overlaps neighborhood residential which could create problems. Within the County Ag district, the uses identified in the chart (from the Ag Advisory Committee) are allowed as a right. So even if the Town has zoned an area neighborhood residential, if the County has identified the area as an ag district, then ag and related operations are permitted in that area. Page 6 of 17 M. Hatch asked how we can restrict the ag district. C. Anderson said it is reviewed every eight years by Cooperative Extension with assistance from the Planning Board which provides information regarding who is still farming, not farming and what new areas are being farmed. Farmers can request to be in the district once a year. M. Hatch said that the benefit of being in an ag district is that you can do anything you blessed well please as long as you say it is agriculture. H. Maniscalco said it is not a right but a dictatorship. C. Anderson said you have to be a farm, you have to meet an agricultural assessment. To do that you have to earn $10,000/ year in gross sales which M. Hatch doesn’t think is very hard and thus not much of a restriction. H. Maniscalco asked if we can codify what happens in the ag districts. She is not opposed to having ag districts and farming but there are farming activities that don’t comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Is there any way to regulate that? C. Anderson pointed out that this is zoning. If a person was to build a farm worker house, they still have to meet other requirements such as septic and water, etc. J. Laquatra recommended the discussion be picked up again next month after the Board reads some of the information from Ag and Markets. Liaison to the Ag Advisory Committee: John Kiefer Liaison to the Conservation Board: Marty Hatch and Heather Maniscalco Supervisor Sumner reviewed the Town Board’s charge to the Planning Board regarding the Comprehensive Plan. She is wondering where the Planning Board is with their assessment. At this point, the Planning Board has reviewed the Goals and Objectives and given the information to J. Nicholson. Supr Sumner is hoping that the Planning Board can have a plan for the actual update by December. Supervisor Sumner said she is addressing the need for another planner in the Planning Department. The Planning Board has recommended that the next person have a focus on economic planning and M. Hatch encouraged Supr. Sumner to look for someone with a background in land use and development. The Planning Department is developing a matrix of how the current plan deals with sustainability issues. The Planning Board has been talking about what degree the Comprehensive Plan recommendations are being implemented. H. Maniscalco asked whether the Board is supposed to be constrained by the current zoning or should we think outside of the box and adjust the Comprehensive Plan to what we want to see the Town look like. Supr. Sumner said that the Plan is supposed to be a cycle, adjusting with the times. The first Plan was in 1968. In the 1990s the Planning Board started the Comprehensive Plan which was passed in 2004. We are trying to get to a cycle of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning to keep current with the needs of the community. C. Anderson pointed out that there are parts of the plan, like transportation, that were never worked on and we could start working on it. J. Kiefer asked about the second to last paragraph, Plan Proposal. Who will write the proposal? H. Maniscalco believes that J. Nicholson will codify what we say. That will be a topic at the next few meetings. Page 7 of 17 M. Hatch feels an essential component has come up in the Ag Committee. If the County Ag districts are going to undermine the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, then we need to look at some of those issues. Supr. Sumner believes that the Farmland Protection Plan grant will inform the discussion. C. Anderson pointed out that the FPP will reach out to the farmers, not just the Ag committee. H. Maniscalco believes that most of the farmers in this area would not mind if there were limitations on certain types of farming and certain sizes of farms. She said she grew up around farmers, on a 360 acre farm in Ohio, and said she knows what it is like. If you get farmers who are raising chickens and doing it in the right way and then Tyson mcnuggets comes in; the small farmers are done. She doesn’t think the small farmers like the idea of the big corporate farms coming in. C. Anderson suggested that the Planning Board be patient and see what the Agriculture Protection Plan does before making changes. We don’t have the big farm mentality. H. Maniscalco said they (corporate agriculture) are out there, with the mentality. M. Hatch believes the Comprehensive Plan should be plugged into issues like the relationship between zoning and ag and markets idea of what right to farm is and what is the relationship between that and economic development in the Town. A development planner might be thinking more comprehensively about the spirit of the community. Supr. Sumner said part of the challenge that we are facing is the fact that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning have only been addressed once in the recent past. If we can shorten the cycle the process of updating both will be easier. H. Maniscalco suggested that the Planning Board look at some of the less controversial parts of the Comprehensive Plan and identify the best order for the Board to tackle. Following is a copy of the minutes from the Public Hearing for 5 Freese road with questions from the public and responses from the Planning Board and the Planning Department. The responses are in italics and follow the date of the meeting, 5/22/2014. Planning Board Public Hearing regarding proposed Bellisario-Phillips project located at 5 Freese Road, Varna, NY. Members Present: Joe Laquatra, Chair, Marty Hatch, John Kiefer, Craig Anderson, and Heather Maniscalco. David Weinstein and Tom Hatfield were excused. Other staff present: Jane Nicholson, Planning Department Director Guests: Janet Morgan, 940 Dryden Road James Skaley, 940 Dryden Road Richard Crepeau, 112 Mt. Pleasant Road Melody Johnson, 112 Mt. Pleasant Road Kim Klein, 14 Freese Road Laurie Snyder, 36 Freese Road Susan and Kim Simmons, 832-836 Dryden Road Page 8 of 17 J. Laquatra opened the hearing at 5 PM. He read the public notice as it appears in the Ithaca Journal: Please take notice that the Planning Board of the Town of Dryden will conduct a public hearing to consider the application of Nickolas Bellisario and Otis Phillips for site plan review to establish a 16 unit townhouse development at 5 Freese Road, Varna. A public hearing is governed by the Open Meetings Law of the state of New York and the sole purpose is for the Planning Board to hear any concerns of town residents. Planning Board members may ask questions for clarification but we are prohibited from getting into a discussion. You are all welcome to attend the Planning Board meeting next Thursday at the Town Hall from 7-9 PM. Janet Morgan, 940 Dryden Road Ms. Morgan is the Chair of the Varna Community Center this year but she was at the meeting to represent herself, not the Community of Varna. She said she thought there was going to be a presentation but was agreeable to asking the applicants questions in lieu of a presentation. She wished to make sure the Board and the public are aware that she is not opposed to development in Varna. She knows that many things need to change in the Hamlet, including development and that is why the Hamlet of Varna Community Development plan was created and passed by the Town in 2012. This is the first project that has come up as a proposal since the Hamlet plan was approved. Ms. Morgan expressed her concern regarding the sight line along Route 366. Mr. Phillips stated that the entrance/exit to the development will be at the far end of the lot so it should not have any negative impact. She wasn’t comfortable with the lack of evidence (analysis). Mr. Phillips pointed out that the number of trees and brush that used to be on the corner (when they bought the property) made the sight line far less than it will be with the finished project. She also asked about the corner of the buildings and whether they will block the view. Mr. Phillips pointed out that the buildings will be set back far enough that they won’t interfere. Ms. Morgan asked whether any accommodations made for a bus pull off or the people waiting for the bus. Mr. Bellisario indicated that falls in the town or the state’ right of way. Phillips said they will have a sidewalk set back from the road although it doesn’t show on the current plan. They have not received their new plans yet. Ms. Morgan was happy to learn that plans for the sidewalk have been created but Mr. Bellisario stated the fact that he has until 2018 to complete the sidewalks (per the Planning Board). Ms. Morgan referenced the Varna Plan which doesn’t mention any exemptions or deferments in regard to the sidewalks. J. Laquatra clarified that the Planning Board is requiring a sidewalk plan. Ms. Morgan asked if the site is structurally stable and said there appears to be some slumping on the north side. Mr. Bellisario responded that yes, the top is stable and crown vetch has been planted on the slopes. Ms. Morgan asked about the lifecycle of the buildings. Mr. Phillips responded that these are not going to be cheap mobile homes but stick built houses that will last a long time. She said she understood the buildings were going to be prefabricated. Mr. Phillips responded that they are going to build on-site. Page 9 of 17 She asked about the timeline for construction. Mr. Phillips said that they cannot say when they will start since they don’t have a permit yet but it might be as late as next year and then will take 2-3 years to complete. They are going to work in phases, they are going to build the front two buildings first and the back two later. Ms. Morgan asked what direction the buildings will face, what will be the view for people driving on Route 366? Mr.Phillips said the tenants will access the buildings from behind where they park their vehicles but there will be a “front” door facing Route 366. Ms. Morgan asked how many and what hours they will be working. The applicants said they don’t have set hours; they are going to work when they have time. It will be daylight hours. Ms. Morgan also asked about the noise level for people living nearby. The applicants said it shouldn’t be any louder than the typical road noises that exist now. Mr. Bellisario pointed out that although it may take them up to a year to complete construction, that doesn’t mean continuous construction. Once the foundation is poured, then it will be framing the buildings and basic construction rather than a lot of loud vehicles. Ms. Morgan asked what they are predicting to be the timeline for the two front buildings. The applicants replied that they cannot say for certain, depending on who is hired to build. They believe it could be a matter of 2-3 months of outside work and then they can work inside during the winter months. Ms. Morgan turned in the rest of her questions which are attached below. James Skaley, 940 Dryden Road See attached. In response to Mr. Skaley’s question regarding the County (l) and (m), J. Nicholson said that the Planning Board has already reviewed the letter and the only comment was regarding sidewalks. Mr. Skaley has some questions listed regarding segmentation. As the public hearing was site specific, these questions are irrelevant. Laurie Snyder, 36 Freese Road Ms. Snyder has recently moved back to the area and has watched the past few years as the fill was dumped onto the site. She is not against development at this site but is very concerned about several things. She strongly encouraged the applicants to take advantage of the fact that they have a bus stop at that site and to provide a place for people to wait. She has found that the people waiting for the bus create a sight line block. She asked the applicants to make that corner as aesthetic and functional as possible. Ms. Snyder asked about the address “5 Freese Road” rather than an address on Dryden Road since the entrance is from Dryden Road. The applicants said that was the name on the property when they bought it. Ms. Snyder asked about street lights. The applicants plan on putting lights over the entrance doors to the buildings. Ms. Snyder asked what will keep children from falling down the steep slope at the backside of the property. The applicants don’t believe the slope is too steep or dangerous. Ms. Snyder asked that a fence be put up along the top of the slope. 5/22/2014 the Planning Board determined that this is not something they can require Page 10 of 17 (the fence) and although they could suggest it, they don’t feel it is necessary or visually appealing. Melody Johnson, 112 Mt. Pleasant Road Ms. Johnson says she watched the fill coming in and testing whether to see if the fill was stable. She says she understood that it wasn’t stable enough to put a two story building up and she is wondering how they know it is stable enough for a one story building. She said it has some background. She said Lucente was going to put a development on Sapsucker Woods road and his engineer signed off on the development that would have had 60 houses in it. The neighbors were concerned because that area was a wetland so they hired their own engineer who determined that there was no way that many houses could go up on a wetland. She wants to know who determined the site was stable enough for this development; was it an independent consultant, was the consultant hired by the developer and if so, shouldn’t the Planning Board be asking for an independent consultant? Susan Simons, 836 Dryden Road Ms. Simons asked what the applicants target market is, who are they anticipating will be living in the apartments. The applicants responded they expect graduate students. Ms. Simons pointed out that brings the fence issue back, graduate students tend to have children. She asked about the size of the apartments and whether they will be the same size. The applicants responded that they are all 2 bedroom apartments. Ms. Simons said that the rent would be the same for all the units. The applicants concurred. She then asked if the applicants knew what the rent was going to be set at. The applicants responded that they did not know yet. Ms. Simons asked if there was going to be a building manager living on site and if they knew who that person was going to be. The applicants responded that they did not intend to have a manager on site and they will be the managers (Mr. Phillips and Mr. Bellisario). Janet Morgan returned to the subject of a fence along the back of the property. She mentioned that Cornell has an access road at the foot of the slope so there could be traffic. Kids playing on the slope with traffic coming through could be an unsafe situation. Another attendee added that the rocks at the bottom of the slope added to the unsafe environment. Questions for the Public Hearing regarding the 'Monkey Run' housing project in Varna Submitted by Janet Morgan, 940 Dryden Rd. 5/15/2014 Safety: 1 From Freese Rd, how well can one see traffic heading west on Rt 366? To what extent will traffic exiting the development block one's line of sight? See above 2 What accommodations will be made for people waiting for the TCAT bus? Have you allowed for a pull-out so that people have a safe place to stand even when there are snowbanks? See above 3 The Varna Community Development Plan calls for sidewalks along Dryden Rd . What is your rationale for not including a sidewalk in your site plan? See above Page 11 of 17 4 Is the site structurally stable? How concerned are you about what appears to be 'slumping' on the north side of the filled area? See above. 5/22/14 J. Nicholson said we are still waiting for the engineer to stamp the drawing. 5 What do you expect the life-cycle of your buildings to be? What data have you used to create this expectation? See above. 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson said the second question is outside the Planning Boards role of SPR Quality of Life in Varna: 1 What will the landscaping be? Please describe what it will look like. See above 2 What is the timeline for construction? When will the development be complete? See above. 3 How many hours per day will construction be going on? What is the earliest time construction can start in the morning? What is the latest time it is permitted? How many days per week is construction allowed? See above. 4 What will the noise level be for people living close to the construction? See above. 5 What is the rationale for making this a residential development only when the Varna Community Development Plan guidelines say new development should be mixed use? 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson pointed out that residential development is al lowed via SPR in the zoning. The developer is allowed to choose what he wants to build. The Varna Community Development plan is a set of guidelines, not laws. Supr Sumner said that the Varna Plan allows for mixed use but does not require it. 6 You have done a great deal of clear-cutting and earth moving on the parcel you own closer to Fall Creek? What are your plans for that parcel? What is the timeline? 5/22/2014 This is irrelevant to the project site. 7 Who do you expect will live in the units you've proposed to build? See above. Quality of Life in Varna, cont'd: 1 Are all the units the same size? Will the rent for all the units be the same? What will the rent be? Yes, see above. 2 Will there be a building manager living on site? No, see above For the planning board: 1 What is your vision for the hamlet of Varna? 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson said the vision is the plan but as far as the Planning Board is concerned, the developers’ vision for the community doesn’t matter. 2 How do you define 'mixed use'? 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson said this is in the plan. From the Planning Board, mixed use is commercial and residential. 3 When you consider proposals for development within the mixed-use zone in Page 12 of 17 Varna, how do you weigh the desires of a developer with the Varna Community Development Plan guidelines? From the Planning Board, we only have so much latitude to weigh the desires, we have to go through the laws and determine whether the applicant meets the requirements which they do. 4 The Freese Rd -Rte 366 intersection is an excellent spot for high quality development to serve as an 'anchor' for the hamlet of Varna. From your perspective, how well does the current proposal fit with this vision? 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson said this is a subjective question. From the Planning Board, the site as it is renders in not such a high quality place for development. It is not an excellent spot for high quality development because of what has been done to the site. 5 Is it your plan to make a decision on approval of the site plan at your meeting next week? 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson is anticipating the next review will be in June, pending all the necessary paperwork is submitted. 6 Will you have the storm water management plan by your meeting next week? 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson said this is a separate issue and building permits will not be issued without a SWM plan. 7 Has the planning board sought an independent structural analysis of the proposed development site? 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson said this is the applicant’s liability. From the Planning Board, this is no t part of our job. 8 If there is not time for all of these questions at the hearing, will we get answers prior to final approval of the site plan? Page 13 of 17 To: Dryden Town Planning Board May 15, 2014 RE: Comments pertaining to the Monkey Run Town house development located at the corner of Freese/Rt 366 (Dryden Rd); and regarding the Planning Board interpretation and implementation of the Varna Community Development Plan (VCDP) to promote "mixed use buildings" at this location as part of what is referred to in the plan as lhe Gateway Plaza. Fr. James Skaley, 940 Dryden Rd, Hamlet of Varna Firstly, I question whether the Planning Board has considered this project in the context of the Varna Community Development Plan-I reference several points from the Plan to illustrate and question whether this project meets the objectives of the Plan or conforms and adheres to the guidelines as stated in tbe zoning. There are a number of issues that relate to this, the first proposed development within the VCDP: First let me remind the Planning Board of THREE GOALS OF VARNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 -Protect and enhance hamlet character therein "shift to character zoning" away from zoning as traditionally defined by zone or parcel. 2-Develop a transportation system that is balanced, safe, and equitable for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists -including pedestrian safety. 3-Protect and improve the quality of the life in the hamlet -i.e. add amenities and services as described in the Plan The Plan States: "Create a mixed-use development and plaza at the intersection of Freese Rd /Mt Pleasant Rd. The plaza should include outdoor dining and gathering spaces incorporated into the new "mixed-use buildings" p. 75 VCDP Section 400 of Town of Dryden Zoning Sec. H Hamlet District "The purpose of the Hamlet (R) District is to allow mixed-use development ... [defined as} mixed use (residential/commercial) buildings" There is no mention of single use structures for this part of the hamlet pI9n-- The developer describes the proposed structures as "townhouses" while what is presented is a plan for manufactured modular housing. Townhouses are typically defined as two-story or multi-story connected structures for residential purposes and may or may not be home ownership. According to the Residential Code of New York State: “Townhouse. A single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof and with open space on at least two sides.” Page 14 of 17 In fact the developer's proposed site plan only proposes single use, i.e. residential rental, within single story structures in a phased development project whose completion appears to be determined according to the application based on "commercial success". --What is the Phased Time-line for completion? What is to be the determination of the Town should the project not be completed within a defined time-line? And how will this project impact further development within the Gateway Plaza? Under SEQR agencies are required to address the "whole action" of their review. Reviewing the "whole action" is an important principal in SEQR; interrelated or phased decisions should not be made without consideration of their consequences for the whole action. (SEQR handbook). [In other words should this project be approved for a single use what will be the impact on other proposals in this area defined by mixed use?] 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson said that we have not had other proposals so it is hard to know what the impacts will be. "Under the guidelines for retail/mixed use areas" new buildings should be constructed using brick, stone, or other materials that are compatible with the surrounding architecture". The proposed manufactured modular structures from Ritz-Craft do not appear to use such materials. Also the plan provides incentives to use LEED construction-there is no indication that this project would adhere to that- or that the buildings could be subsequently modified to meet such standards in the future. 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson pointed out that the developers don’t have to adhere to LEED, it is their choice. Also under the same guideline" building frontages including windows, entrances, and other architectural features should be active spaces and enhance the pedestrian scale experience." From the site plan it is not clear how these modular units are to be placed =are the main entrances directly to the street? Sidewalks are required on the front of the buildings for pedestrian use and protection from traffic on Rt 366. There is no indication on the site plan showing sidewalks fronting the street. Likewise, there is no plan for a bus-stop to coordinate with public transport in line with proposed sustainability planning. { I would remind the Board that a previous proposal for this site did reserve some space for commercial as part of a "mixed use" building plan and also provided for a bus pull-out} J. Nicholson pointed out that was from an old site plan and cannot be considered with this one. It is irrelevant. Other Questions pertaining to the site- What affirmation is there based on a structural analysis of the site that it is in fact stable to support the proposed structures-?-(a previous proposal was pulled when soil analysis suggested that the site may not support the two story development envisioned.) Does the town have that information or can it be acquired? The second revision for the site plan shows areas to be shored up with concrete retaining walls and other materials. In addition the back of the site appears to be re--graded to reduce the slope-is this meant to stabilize the site? 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson pointed out that the previous proposal that was pulled is not something that the Planning Board actually knows, it is hearsay. The structural analysis done by the previous applicant is not available to us. From the Planning Board, the applicants are saying that the site will support one story buildings; they are being Page 15 of 17 built on concrete slabs. The applicant is not likely to build something that is going to fall down. The proposal indicates that driving and sidewalk surfaces will use material to allow water to percolate into the underlying fill material. What evidence do we have that this design will not further weaken the fill structure over time as water finds its way out - are there collection systems built into the structure to divert water to the catchment basin on the NE corner? Where does the water go when it reaches the catchment basin? Given the catchment basin is located on the side of the slope-what assurance is there that this is a stable construction-T.G. Miller has questioned the feasibility of this kind of construction. 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson said they will be the ones to ok the final SWPPP. The structures located on the Freese Rd side appear to be within 15-20 feet or less of the roadway where the roadway is sloped away from Rt 366 meaning that cars entering Rt 366 need to pull nearly into the intersection to view on-coming traffic. I do not see the height dimensions of the structures and the proposed landscaping in the corner area to suggest motorists are going to have sufficient line of site to safety exit onto the right-hand lane. Can you verify sufficient line of sight? Given the compactness of the finished design has the Varna Fire Co. commented to determine if their equipment can access the rear buildings? Where is the hydrant located to supply fire-fighting? Existing hydrants arc 200-500 feet distant. Have all the questions been addressed that were raised by the town engineer (T.G. Miller)? And has the County 239 L&M review revealed any need for changes in the site design? 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson said the applicants are working on the questions raised by TG Miller. The County (l) & (m) review generate one comment regarding the sidewalks The question of Segmentation--- 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson pointed out that there is no other proposal therefore no segmentation. Bellasario and Phillips are co-owners of the adjacent parcel. Recently they have removed most of the vegetation from the site and built a large catchment basin-for what purpose has this work been done? Did they have approved permits to do so? And is it connected in any way to the proposed site plan? Or is there likely to be some other plan proposed for this site that may have connections to the current plan? This includes hook-ups to sewer and water, and other possible mixed-uses for the site. If so, then there is a likelihood that this is segmentation. The SEQR handbook clearly indicates such that if there is affirmation of' “common geographic location" -parcels are adjacent, and Ownership is the same. 5/22/2014 J. Nicholson said that the only permits needed was a SWPPP. And No, this project is not connected to the work done on the adjacent parcel. Is there any likelihood that the board would have to approve a subsequent plan on the adjacent parcel pending approval of the current plan? If so, then both sites need to be reviewed together. Any further progress on this development should be delayed pending au overall review. Karasz v. Wallace, 134 Misc2d 1052 (4th Dept 1987) (Sup Ct, Saratoga County 1987) Page 16 of 17 The town board considered the construction of a single building on a large lot separately from other construction planned by the developer for the same site. The Court found that to allow piecemeal development of the site was impermissible segmentation. SEQR handbook: There are two types of situations where segmentat.ion typically occurs. One is where a project sponsor attempts to avoid a thorough environmental review (often an EIS) of a whole action by splitting a project into two or more smaller projects. The second is where activities that may be occurring at different times or places are excluded from the scope of the environmental review. By excluding subsequent phases or associated project components from the environmental review, the project may appear more acceptable to the reviewing agencies and the public. Given that the Varna Plan has clear statements as to the intentions of the community and the Town to promote mixed used development at this intersection area referenced as Gateway Plaza-and as referenced a mixed use zone-and that should this project for a single use rental project be allowed it has considerable impact on future applications for the remaining available spaces within the area defined. I would strongly encourage that the Planning board reconsider their tentative approval of this proposal in that it falls far short of the Varna plan and what the community desires as a mixed use commercial/residential development that would allow for both for amenities (e.g. coffee shop, and or professional offices) and services as described in the Plan. I further question that the proposed development meets the guidelines for structure or providing pedestrian traffic as stated above. With the proposal of single use "residential rental units" it threatens further development within the intersection area for other kinds of Mixed Uses and/or sets a precedent to ignore the guidelines and zoning as defined in the Plan for the Gateway Plaza site. Under character analysis as stated in the plan --"the physical character of the hamlet is easily threatened by either minimum investment in rental housing, or investment in development beyond the scale of the hamlet." While I support the applicants’ rights and desire to build on this site-the proposed site plan does not meet the intentions of the Plan or specific guidelines in the zoning. Therein, I would contend that the plan needs serious revision or needs to be rejected as non-conforming. M. Hatch said he is finding that planning is not what he expected. We are always talking about what we can’t ask people to do and that constitutes any of our decisions as being confrontational, that is we ask people to do things and we assume that they don’t want to do it because it either costs too much or because they don’t have any sense of integrating what they are doing into a general community vision. He feels that is a very bankrupt way to think about planning. He has gotten the feeling that if we slip into that any further it will be a worthless activity to sit here and say you can or cannot do that. As opposed to trying to develop the sense of the vibrance of the Page 17 of 17 community to assist people through the comprehensive plan, the Varna Plan and the design guidelines to assist people to think about community development in a positive way. J. Laquatra said we can do that in the site plan review. M. Hatch said we have to think beyond we can’t require this or that and instead encourage it. He suggested an ad hoc committee for each of the projects that will bring together residents with developers. In the case of Varna, it is a specific one. J. Laquatra said that is the purpose of the public hearing. M. Hatch feels there is some way to get developers to think about the community. C. Anderson said that if the Planning Board were to do that, it would almost require happening before the sketch plan. By the time they get to the Planning Board, they already have funds involved. J. Kiefer said the Varna Plan talked about a next step was to figure out what incentives could be created to encourage developers to develop along the lines of the Comprehensive Plan. That is a difficult thing to do but that is what needs to happen. J. Laquatra added that a Planner with an economic development perspective would be useful, someone like that could look at that corner and figure out a way to clean it up and bring something there. M. Hatch said that has been thought and talked about but if we are going to wait a year for a planner to get on board, I think we are losing an opportunity. This is an opportunity with Bellisario and Philips, the two of them being at the Public Hearing was great. We may not be able to encourage that to the point where they are agreeable to spending another $50,000 but we can encourage a better landscape plan and he doesn’t feel the steep slope is such a great idea. H. Maniscalco was disappointed that there were no green building initiatives in the plan; nothing in the plan that was encouraging of sustainability. J. Laquatra reminded that we can do incentive zoning to encourage developers to include green initiatives. M. Hatch feels strongly that the site in question and the lot across route 366 could be uplifting for the community. He would like to see the developers work with the community to create something better for the community. C. Anderson suggested that someone from the Planning Board contact the folks that come to the Public Hearing. Liaisons: There is an interest/inquiry into whether the Town and Village planning Boards want to have liaisons. No decision was reached on this issue In terms of the liaisons to the Agriculture Advisory Board, J. Kiefer will replace C. Anderson, and to the Conservation Board, M. Hatch will replace D. Weinstein. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:34 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk