HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-27Dryden Planning Board
April 27, 2016
Dryden Planning Board
April 27, 2016
Varna Community Center
Members Present: Joe Laquatra, David Weinstein, Craig Anderson, Tom Hatfield, John Kiefer,
Martin Moseley, Joe Wilson (alternate)
Town Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director
Liaisons: Debra Cipolla-Denis and Greg Sloan, Town Board
Guests: Jason Leifer, Linda Lavine, Gary Sloan, Kim Michaels, Nate Brown, Buzz Dolph,
Nickolas Bellisario, Noah Demerest, Matthew Perry, Will Parker, Nancy Munkenbeck, Jim
Skaley, Janet Morgan, Eric and Cheryl Humerez, Simon St. Laurent, Carol Whitlow, Judy
Pierpont and other Varna residents.
J. Laquatra opened the meeting at 7 PM. Janet Morgan welcomed guests and the Planning
Board to the Varna Community Center.
Greg Sloan encouraged citizens to participate in the special election on May 3rd.
Review and approval of minutes from March 24, 2016:
J. Kiefer moved to accept the minutes with recommended changes and C. Anderson seconded
the motion which was unanimously approved. T. Hatfield abstained.
5 Freese Road: Buzz Dolph, Nickolas Bellisario and Noah Demerest
- Mr. Demerest presented a slide show depicting the Tiny Timbers housing project. He
then fielded questions from the audience.
- Varna resident Matt Perry questioned the aging infrastructure in the village and how the
Town intends to deal with increased use. R. Burger indicated that the infrastructure
between Forest Home Drive and the Town border is the priority since there have been
several breaks already. After that, the plan is to address infrastructure repairs and
replacement prior to the State TIP work scheduled for 2019.
- Another resident asked about the issue of traffic, particularly related to how the vehicles
are going to get onto Route 366, considering the challenge that already exists at the
intersection of Route 366, Freese road and Mt Pleasant road.
- R. Burger indicated that part of the Route 366 TIP will address that issue, potentially with
a flashing light.
- Jim Skaley reminded the Planning Board that the Varna Plan calls for a roundabout or
some other kind of traffic calming devices. He also indicated that some work could be
done to Freese Road to change the incline as a vehicle approaches the intersection.
1061 Dryden Road: Gary Sloan, Kim Michaels, and Nate Brown
- The developer is considering a potential of 36 two story town homes
- They are considering a PUD (Planned Unit Development) since the area is zoned for
single family homes (rural residential). The PUD can grant allowances in the code that
permit higher densities.
- This project will be considered by both the Planning Board and the Town Board with the
Town Board being the lead agency.
- The site is located within the Turkey Hill water/sewer district
- D. Weinstein commented on the distance from the center of Varna; this project does not
assist the core area of Varna which was the focus of the Varna Plan
- The town houses will be rental properties with 1800 sq ft and 3 bedrooms. The
developer assumes most renters will be young professionals/ graduate students.
Dryden Planning Board
April 27, 2016
- The developer has not yet made a determination on energy but the citizens present
indicated they don’t want to see fossil fuels in the hamlet
- Another citizen pointed out that there does not appear to be much green space. In a
PUD, the trade for a greater density is the higher amount of communal green space.
- traffic was a contentious issue. The ability to get onto Route 366 if making a left turn
during busy hours, is nearly impossible.
- There is a bus stop. The bus stops on both sides of the road in the same direction as
traffic.
Density Presentation: D. Weinstein
- The question is whether the density is what the Hamlet still wants
- J. Wilson questioned whether the population density is enough to support businesses in
Varna.
- J. Skaley believes that the development of sidewalks will encourage people to frequent
local businesses
- He pointed out that currently the Varna Community Center’s commercial kitchen is
encouraging/supporting the development of several small businesses
- J. Skaley also indicated that he hopes for a balance between the rental/transient properties
and home ownership; home ownership generally increases public participation which he
strongly favors.
Infrastructure in Varna: R. Burger
- next year, work will have to be done in the Varna district
- The Town Board is currently considering the consolidation of all the water/sewer districts to
increase the funds available for more extensive repairs.
- The State TIP for paving Route 366 from NYSEG to the Town Line is slated for construction
in 2019
- They hope to install sidewalks and a flashing light at the intersection of Freese Road, Route
366 and Mt. Pleasant Road
- D. Weinstein asked if the electric lines can go underground.
Zoning Law Amendment changes: R. Burger
- The March zoning law amendment left a gap. Areas that are zoned rural ag and rural
residential that are supported by sewer and water are not accounted for. He proposed a
maximum of 6 units per acre in those areas; without infrastructure the maximum is 2 units per
acre.
- The Planning Department will record the determination of density to the parcel and why so if
at some point that property gets public sewer and water then they can reevaluate
- W. Parker questioned why there seems to be a push to maximize the sewer and water (the
limit to the system only permits about 150 more hook ups)
- D. Weinstein expressed his displeasure that the Town Board has already considered the
amendment when the Planning Board has barely looked at it.
- D. Weinstein also pointed out that the density in Varna is 2.5 units acre, not 4 units per acre,
and he believes it is a huge change to go from 2.5 to 6 units per acre and he is worried that it
will lead to strip development from Varna to NYSEG.
- He is requesting that the amendment be withdrawn from the Town Board and the Planning
Board revisiting it to decide whether the potential negatives in terms of density outweighed
the positives
Dryden Planning Board
April 27, 2016
- R. Burger pointed out that before the zoning amendment we didn’t have guidance on the
number of units per acre. That was a hole that had to be filled rather than the Town Board
having to do an ad-hoc decision on any project presented to them.
- D. Weinstein pointed out that we have a limit now and didn’t have to change that.
- S. St Laurent stated that the 1061 Dryden Road proposal is offering a density of 5.5 units per
acre to visualize what 6 units per acre might look like
- M. Moseley indicated that he prefers the Planning Board have the opportunity to vet the
possible amendment
- J. Kiefer believes it will beneficial for the Planning Board to take another good look at
Dryden’s Comprehensive Plan.
D. Weinstein offered the following resolution:
Whereas, the Planning Board briefly considered proposed changes to the Zoning Amendment
at the last meeting; and
Whereas, the Planning Board believes such changes deserve their review and input; and
Whereas, the proposed changes were discussed at the Town Board meeting; and
Whereas, the Town Board has set a public hearing on the changes for May 19, 2016;
Therefore, be it resolved, that the Dryden Planning Board requests that the Town Board
postpone the public hearing and further
be it resolved, that the Planning Board requests the opportunity to further review the proposed
changes.
The resolution was seconded by M. Moseley and unanimous approved.
Green Building Codes Report: J. Laquatra
- J. Wilson questioned the reference to making the code voluntary. J. Laquatra and M. Moseley
determined, after reviewing New York State documents, that it would be better to make the
code voluntary to start with and then perhaps later it can be mandatory. They will offer
incentives to encourage green building
- Currently all State buildings have to meet the green building code
- California is leading the way
T. Hatfield moved to send the Green Building Codes recommendation to the Town Board for
review and approval. The motion was seconded by J. Kiefer and unanimously approved
Rails to Trails Task Force:
The Planning Board has been asked to appoint a member to the task force. John Kiefer agreed
to fill the position.
Renewable Energy Law: D. Weinstein
- No action was taken
- The Board agreed that they would like to take a tour of solar installations; TC3 has offered to
let the Planning Board visit their solar park.
- It was noted that the easements with NYSEG regarding the West Dryden road pipeline do not
include language regarding abandonment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:06pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dryden Planning Board
April 27, 2016
Erin A. Bieber
Deputy Town Clerk
Attachments:
Recommended changes to the Renewable Energy Law
Historic Bridges: Nathan Holth
Green Building Codes
Letter to Planning Board from J. Skaley
Draft Solar Energy Systems
1
Recommended Sections to add to the Dryden Renewable Energy Law (Local Law 5)
to Allow Large Solar Renewable Energy Conversion Systems
ARTICLE IV
Large Solar Renewable Energy Conversion Systems (LS RECS)
Intent.
This Article regulates and provides standards for Large Solar Renewable Energy Conversion
Systems (LS RECS). The intent of this article is to facilitate the development and operation of
large solar renewable energy systems based on sunlight, because it is in the public interest to
provide for and encourage renewable energy systems and a sustainable quality of life when
measures are taken, as identified here, to minimize adverse impacts on neighboring properties and
protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Definitions
Large solar collection system or major system
An area of land or other area used for a solar collection system principally used to capture solar
energy and convert it to electrical energy to transfer to the public electric grid in order to sell
electricity to or receive a credit from a public utility entity, but also may be for on-site use.
Facilities consist of one or more ground- or roof-mounted solar collector devices, solar-related
equipment and other accessory structures and buildings, including light reflectors, concentrators,
and heat exchangers, substations, electrical infrastructure, transmission lines and other appurtenant
structures and facilities. Includes ground- mounted accessory systems with a total surface area
greater than 2,000 square feet.
Small solar collection system or minor system
A solar photovoltaic cell, panel, or array, or solar hot air or water collector device, which relies
upon solar radiation as an energy source for collection, inversion, storage, and distribution of solar
energy for electricity generation or transfer of stored heat, accessory to the use of the premises for
other lawful purposes. Includes roof- or building-mounted solar collectors on any code-compliant
structure, and ground-mounted solar collectors with the total surface area not to exceed 2,000
square feet.
Permitted Areas.
Large Solar RECS may be permitted upon issuance of a Special Use Permit, following a Site Plan
Review, on any parcel meeting the standards of this local law in the Conservation, Rural
Agriculture, Mixed-Use Commercial, and Light Industrial zoning districts where the equipment
will be placed on slopes of less than 15 degrees.
1. It is discouraged to place these systems on prime agricultural soils.
2. No limitation on the size of the parcel or installation shall exist.
Draft Solar Energy Systems
2
3. It is encouraged that all new commercial buildings have Large Solar RECS covering
their roof where appropriate.
Incentives
Large Solar RECS shall be encouraged through tax incentives, community agreements, and any
other means that the Town Board deems appropriate.
Applications.
Applications for LS RECS Special Use Permits shall include:
1. Name, address, telephone number of the applicant. If the applicant will be represented by an
agent, the name, address and telephone number of the agent, as well as an original signature
of the applicant authorizing the agent to represent the applicant is required.
2. The names and mailing addresses of all owners of all property adjacent to the Site and/or
within 500 feet of the proposed Site.
3. Name, address, telephone number of the property owner. If the property owner is not the
applicant, the application shall include a letter or other written permission signed by the
property owner (i) confirming that the property owner is familiar with the proposed
applications and (ii) authorizing the submission of the application.
4. Address of the proposed LS RECS Site, including tax map parcel number.
5. If proposed structure will exceed the height of the roofline of the building being served,
application must be accompanied by an engineer’s drawing.
6. A completed Short EAF.
The Board may require submission of a Visual EAF Addendum, including computerized
photographic simulation, demonstrating the visual impacts from nearby strategic vantage
points. The visual analysis shall also indicate the color treatment of the system's
components and any visual screening incorporated into the project that is intended to lessen
the system's visual prominence.
Applicants must have a pre-application conference with the Town Code Enforcement Officer to
address the scope of the required visual assessment.
Standards for major solar collection systems.
1. Where applicable, and unless more restrictive regulations also apply, the requirements of
this chapter shall apply to solar collectors and installations for major systems.
2. A major system may be permitted in Conservation, Rural Agriculture, Mixed-Use
Commercial, and Light Industrial zoning districts where the equipment will be placed on
slopes of less than 15 degrees. Major systems that are part of a farm operation [as defined
by NYS Agriculture and Markets Law §301(11)] are exempt from site plan approval if the
solar collection system does not exceed 110% of the anticipated electrical needs of the on-
Draft Solar Energy Systems
3
farm equipment. All major systems require site plan approval from the Planning Board and
are subject to the terms and conditions listed below.
a. The total coverage of all collectors (excluding the space in between), buildings and
equipment on a lot shall not exceed 60%.
b. The solar collectors and any associated infrastructure shall be surrounded by a fence
of at least 6’ in height, including a buffer area between the equipment and the fence
of at least 20’. Efforts shall be made to made this fence as attractive as possible and
complementary with the surrounding residences.
c. Height and setback
i. The maximum height for ground-mounted solar panels located on the ground
or attached to a framework located on the ground shall not exceed 25 feet in
height above the ground.
ii. The minimum side yard, rear, and front yard setbacks from the equipment to
the property boundary shall be 50 feet.
iii. Based on site specific conditions, including topography, adjacent structures,
and roadways, a landscaped buffer may be required around all equipment
and solar collectors to provide screening from adjacent residential properties
and roads.
iv. No “Right to Solar Access” is assumed by either the installation’s owner or
the adjacent land owners. LS RECS operators cannot force the cutting of
trees on adjacent properties that existed at the time of the operation, and
should assume these trees will eventually grow to their maximum expected
height. However, trees that are planted or naturally become established after
the installation that become tall enough to shade the LS RECS collectors can
be required to be removed or topped.
v. Co-use of the property shall be permitted, including the co-location of other
equipment on the solar structures where feasible.
d. Design standards.
i. Removal of trees and other existing vegetation shall be minimized as much
as possible.
ii. Roadways within the site shall be constructed of materials appropriate to the
site and shall be designed to minimize the extent of roadways constructed
and soil compaction.
iii. All on-site utility and transmission lines shall, to the extent feasible, be
placed underground.
iv. Solar collectors and other facilities shall be designed and located in order to
minimize reflective glare toward any inhabited buildings on adjacent
properties and roads.
v. A major solar collection system to be connected to the utility grid shall
provide documentation from the utility company acknowledging the major
solar collection system will be connected to the utility grid in order to sell
electricity to the public utility.
Draft Solar Energy Systems
4
3. Signs.
a. A sign not to exceed eight square feet shall be displayed on or near the main
access point and shall list the facility name, owner and phone number.
b. A clearly visible warning sign concerning voltage must be placed at the base of
all pad-mounted transformers and substations.
c. Solar collection systems shall not be used for displaying any advertising except
for reasonable identification of the manufacturer or operator of the system.
4. Areas of Potential Sensitivity shall be shown on site plans and shall be given special
consideration by the Planning Board at site plan review, those areas consist of the
following:
a. One-hundred-year flood hazard zones considered an A or AE Zone on the
FEMA Flood Maps.
b. Historic and/or culturally significant resources in an historic district or historic
district transition zone.
c. Within 100 feet landward of a freshwater wetland.
d. Adjacent to, or within, the control zone of any airport.
e. State owned lands.
f. Unique Natural Areas.
g. Properties with Conservation Easements or owned by a land conservation
organization.
h. Public trails, including the Black Diamond Trail.
i. Prime Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance, as defined by United States
Department of Agriculture.
5. Property Operation and Maintenance Plan.
a. A property operation and maintenance plan is required, describing continuing
solar collection system maintenance and property upkeep, such as mowing and
trimming.
b. This plan can be updated as more efficient techniques become available.
6. Abandonment.
a. All applications for a major solar collection system shall be accompanied by a
decommissioning plan to be implemented upon abandonment, or cessation of
activity, or in conjunction with removal of the facility, prior to issuance of a
Draft Solar Energy Systems
5
building permit.
b. In the event the facility is not completed and functioning within 18 months of
the issuance of the final site plan approval, the Town may notify the operator
and/or the owner to complete construction and installation of the facility within
180 days. If the owner and/or operator fail to perform, the Town may notify the
owner and/or operator to implement the decommissioning plan. The
decommissioning plan must be completed within 180 days of notification by the
Town.
c. The decommissioning plan must ensure the site will be restored to a useful,
nonhazardous condition without delay, including, but not limited to, the
following:
i. Removal of aboveground and below-ground equipment, structures and
foundations.
ii. Restoration of the surface grade and soil after removal of equipment.
iii. Re-vegetation of restored soil areas with native seed mixes, excluding any
invasive species.
iv. The plan shall include a time frame for the completion of site restoration
work.
v. Upon cessation of activity of a constructed facility for a period of one year,
the owner or operator shall implement the decommissioning plan.
vi. If the owner and/or operator fails to fully implement the decommissioning
plan within the 180-day after the cessation of activity, the Town may, at its
discretion, provide for the restoration of the site in accordance with the
decommissioning plan, following the procedure outlined in §212-4.
HistoricBridges.org Promoting the preservation of our transportation heritage.
April 21, 2016
Town of Dryden
61 East Main Street
Dryden, New York 13053
Subject: Red Mill Road Bridge (BIN 3209790), Town of Dryden, Tompkins County
Dear Supervisor Leifer:
I am the founder, author, and webmaster of www.historicbridges.org, and I have personally visited and
photo-documented over 4,000 old and historic bridges spread out over about thirty states and three
Canadian provinces. I have also participated as a consulting party for Section 106 review for a number of
projects involving historic bridges in numerous states across the county, and in that capacity provide input
and insight into preservation alternatives for historic bridges. Lastly, in my tireless advocacy for historic
bridges, particularly metal truss bridges, I have collaborated with engineers and fabricators who specialize
in the restoration of these bridges.
I wanted to express support for the preservation of this bridge. I strongly recommend that the Town
consider pursing a formal listing of this bridge in the National Register of Historic Places. Although
currently considered formally eligible for listing, the actual listing would go a long way to raise awareness
of the importance of this bridge both among the general public and among project stakeholders,
consultants, contractors, etc.
Typically, the best case scenario would be to preserve this bridge in place. Maintaining the original location
is typically the preference among preservationists and an original location is preferred for bridges listed in
the National Register. That said, bridges of this type were relocated historically, due to their design
making them easy to relocate. As a result, National Register listing of relocated truss bridges is often
possible if this argument is made. This should be particularly true for this bridge, which is significant for its
unusual engineering/design. In a new location (assuming the design of the bridge is maintained and not
altered) the bridge would continue to convey this design effectively even in a new location, and would
therefore continue to have historical significance.
I am very excited to learn that the Town of Dryden desires to preserve this bridge. Restored and reused, it
will be a beautiful historic landmark for the Town. Bridges of this type are often suitable for parks and
trails where they see non-motorized use only. They can also be restored to provide for light one-lane
vehicular traffic if desired. The “best practices” that offer the best combination of like-new bridge
condition, retention of original bridge materials and design, and are also cost-effective are known as “in-
kind restoration” procedures, and I would be happy to offer any assistance I can to the Town if they would
like more information on these procedures.
Frequently, restoration of this type of bridge involves the non-destructive dismantling of the bridge and
restoration of the individual truss parts in a shop setting. This process can be done whether the bridge is
to be reused in its current location, or whether it might be moved to a new location after restoration. The
pin-connected design lends itself very well to being non-destructively dismantled, and in fact this was
done often in historic times when a bridge became inadequate for one location but still had some life left...
and the dismantling process continues to be done today in the name of preservation. This allows for parts
of the bridge (pieces of iron) that are squeezed together by design, to be pulled apart, cleaned, repaired,
and repainted.
Nathan Holth
2767 Eastway Drive
Okemos, MI 48864
269-290-2593
nathan@historicbridges.org
HistoricBridges.org Promoting the preservation of our transportation heritage.
All that said, if a contractor is hired to dismantle the bridge and they are either inexperienced or vague
contract language lets them get away with destructive methods, there is a high risk of the bridge either
being destroyed completely, or less severe, parts that might otherwise have been reusable might have to
be replaced at cost to the new bridge owner. The contractor who dismantles the bridge should be aware of
non-destructive procedures. For example, the simple procedure of heating the nuts on the pins to expand
them to enable the 100+ year old nuts to be easily removed non-destructively. Pins can then typically be
driven out pneumatically with hammers, avoiding the use of cutting torches. This nut-heating method can
be used to ensure non-destructive removal of other important bridge parts as well.
Other knowledge areas that are critical for both the Engineer and the Contractor is the overall function of
the truss, and what general procedures for dismantling the bridge are appropriate given the design. For
simple truss spans, there is typically two approaches, whether the truss as a whole (often with deck
removed) is “picked” with a crane, set on the ground, and then dismantled, or whether falsework is placed
in the river to enable dismantling the bridge over the waterway. This bridge’s unusual continuous design
(the two spans are connected over the pier) adds an engineering complexity that I presume will need to
be considered.
Had an invitation to participate as a consulting party been extended to me, I would have I would have
recommended that the MOA language for dismantling the bridge be labeled in far more specific and
restrictive language, to ensure the implementation of the MOA as intended. I would have stated that any
approved plan to dismantle the bridge would include match-marking the bridge, labeling each part,
producing a diagram key of bridge parts, and instead of "carefully dismantled" I would have included the
word "non-destructively" or "without damage to the truss members" in the language. In Pennsylvania I
was a Consulting Party on a bridge and we ended up with a similar MOA and the contractor got away with
taking a cutting torch to the bridge to "dismantle" the bridge and the bridge was therefore totally
destroyed and not possible to reuse as stipulated in the MOA. This not only led to the loss of the bridge, it
also required that a new MOA had to be drafted.
While I hope that the Town of Dryden is successful in its efforts to preserve the bridge, it might be worth
considering a stipulation that if the bridge is to be in storage for an extended period, that it be stored in a
way so as to limit continued deterioration of the truss members. If stored outside, the trusses members
should not lay on the ground where they are in contact with dirt and moisture. Even a simple act of
setting the members on wooden or concrete blocks to keep them off the ground can make a difference.
Lastly, in the unfortunate situation that the Town of Dryden is unable to complete the reuse/restoration of
the bridge as planned, I suggest a stipulation that if the Town of Dryden’s plans fall through, the trusses
be made available to another third party who submits a proposal to reuse the bridge in a way that
preserves the historic trusses.
I would be happy to discuss this further if there are further questions or interest.
Sincerely,
Nathan Holth
Author/Webmaster, HistoricBridges.org