Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-01Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 1 of 15 Dryden Planning Board Varna Community Center March 1, 2017 Members present: Marty Moseley (Chair), Joe Wilson, Craig Anderson, John Kiefer, David Weinstein, Marty Hatch Town Hall Staff: Ray Burger, Director of Planning Other Town Representatives: Linda Lavine and Dan Lamb, Town Board Project Team: Kim Michaels (Landscape Architect), Yossi Bronsnick (Taitem Engi- neering), Steve Hugo (HOLT Architects, Project Manager) and Gary Sloan (Property Owner) The meeting was called to order at 7PM. PUD 1061 Dryden Road: - Ms. Michaels presented some of the changes that have been made since they re- ceived approval of the concept plan for the Planned Unit Development (PUD). - They reconfigured the buildings to provide for a fifteen (15) foot setback with grass (no concrete, structure or patio) - A six (6) foot privacy fence is planned between the project and the Whitlow proper- ty to the north. - They added and increased the size of the “relaxation areas” and added benches to various locations. - The lighting plan has been turned in. They will have some pole lighting but most of it will be from the houses. - A draft SWPPP has been turned in. Most of the storm water on the site will be dealt with by bio-retention basins and the pond. - They have been in contact with DOT and have received technical recommenda- tions. - They do not intend to have a fence around the retention pond and they don't know how much water will be in the pond on a daily basis. She will find more infor- mation and get it to the Planning Board - Steve Hugo presented information on the buildings and changes they have deter- mined. - It will have sidewalks throughout the project to help create the walkable commu- nity (sort of a cul-de-sac) desired by our design guidelines. - Each unit will have a single car garage with space outside for a second vehicle. - Each building has 6 units with 2 floors. The end units in each building will have a bedroom on the ground floor rather than all three bedrooms on the second floor. - They have changed the roof line on the ends of the buildings to diminish the scale of the end façade. - Some of the buildings will have “stepping buildings” in that each townhouse is slightly higher than the neighbor townhouse to accommodate for grading differ- ences. - A small covered entry porch and about 5 foot deep deck off the back with railing and a place to sit. - The buildings will have double hung windows, vinyl siding, some architectural as- pects such as a stone base around the buildings to sill height. Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 2 of 15 - D. Weinstein expressed concern about the noise level from the patios off the back of the houses relative to the neighboring property. The developers acknowledged the concern. - Yossi Bronsnick - There is natural gas to the site and the heating and cooling systems are high effi- ciency condensing ducted furnaces. The water heaters and stoves will be natural gas. The rest of the appliances will be high efficiency electric. - Solar panels will be placed on the roofs facing the south. Each town house will have their own meter and will have their own solar panels; the array will be divid- ed among the six (6) town houses in the building. - The initial energy estimates indicate the solar arrays will offset about 50% of the anticipated energy usage. The expected use is about 8000 kwh/year/town house, therefore an average of 4000 kwh per year should be off-set. - J. Wilson pointed out that the Ithaca Times had an article that claims the off-set of the solar panels will be about 1/3 not 1/2. Mr. Wilson asked if Mr. Bronsnick knew where the Ithaca Times would have gotten their information. Mr. Bronsnick did not know. (Mr. Wilson’s comments and reference are attached) - The HVAC system, the dryer and cooking will be gas. The lighting, refrigerator, outlets, etc will be electric. Some of the units will have greater electric discounts because of the location and number of panels allotted to that unit. The usage was determined by using a program through NYSERDA called PV Watts in which you put in some of your information (such as orientation, location, module intended for use (in this case a 305 watt module), reduction factors based on dirt build up, shadings, etc, and the program will give you an estimated annual production. The rule of thumb for this area is to multiply the PV system size by 1100 which gives you the kwh per year. - J. Wilson noted that in the application, the developers are claiming the solar pan- els will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by “x” amount. He asked that Mr. Bronsnick provide all of the information regarding the total amount of green house emissions anticipated. - D. Weinstein noted that not all of the buildings face north and south. He inquired as to whether the panels will be tilted for optimal solar. No, the panels will be flush to the roofs, there isn’t enough benefit to make it worthwhile. - J. Kiefer asked about the other options the developers considered for heating. The comparison was between natural gas high efficiency furnaces and air source heat pumps. The cost analysis determined that they go with natural gas. - Gary Sloan stated that one of the things the Town Board wanted them to look at was the energy usage; the original plan did not have renewable energy. The cost of installing the panels will be about $300,000 and the project will receive a 30% credit from the federal government. The payback will be about 12 years. Heat pump installation was 50-75% more expensive. - J. Wilson indicated that the use of natural gas is the stickler for the community. - All the appliances and systems are high efficiency. - Anticipated installation cost for the heat pumps is $20 - 22,000 per unit for heat pumps and $13-15,000 for the furnaces. - M. Hatch said that there is a new initiative called HEATSMART2 which offers dis- counted prices through three firms – SnugPlanet, Halco and NP Environmental – which have agreed upon lower prices for heat pumps. There are also many options Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 3 of 15 available for dual energy systems. Mr. Bronsnick indicated that he will check with his contact at SnugPlanet and double check his numbers. - J. Kiefer asked if the buildings will be air conditioned and will there be a conden- ser. Mr. Bronsnick said they have not yet determined the location of the conden- sers. M. Hatch reminded the developers that heat pumps will deal with air cooling as well as heating eliminating the need for separate air conditioners. - D. Weinstein asked about the new building codes which have tightened up build- ings. Mr. Bronsnick stated that the code requires less than three (3) air changes per house maximum and each new building will have to pass the blower door test. The new code also calls for thicker insulation. - J. Wilson asked if the developer has considered LEED certification or Passive House which have requirements above the current code. The developer has con- sidered them but is not going to pursue any. - Gary Sloan asked M. Moseley to give the Board and the audience a quick lesson on the new building codes. M. Moseley indicated the building codes are getting so tight that they have recognized a need to bring in fresh air. New buildings are required to pass the blower door test as well as a visual inspection before the interior walls are installed. Lighting efficiency has to be 75% (raised from 50%) and use LED or CFL lighting. Attic insulation has increased and since we are in Tompkins County which is zoned six (6), whereas the neighboring counties are at a 5, we are held to a higher standard. - J. Wilson said the take away from that is that nothing above and beyond the current zoning was considered in terms of energy efficiency. Mr. Hugo indicated that was correct but they have added the solar panels. He further commented on the idea of Passive House. He attended a conference on affordable housing and he said they were begging someone to attempt a commercial application of Passive House; it is somewhat attainable on a single home and it is certainly achievable in the Carolinas but it is a very high standard and he doesn’t know of any in NYS. - M. Hatch recommended he visit EcoVillage which has green buildings. - J. Wilson mentioned Maple Wood, a development that is using air source pumps and that is LEED certified plus more. - Gary Sloan pointed out that Village Solar and Maple Wood are large projects (in the 600+ units range) and he cannot afford to compete with them. Large projects will get better prices. - Mr. Hugo pointed out that the developers working on this project have a lot of expe- rience and a good handle on the requirements and what is available. He asked that perhaps the Planning Board and the community could meet them halfway. - Mr. Bronsnick pointed out that the cost of a heat pump is more expensive than the furnace (which includes the cost of air conditioning) and thus an increase in cost. Based on their energy model of these buildings, the utility cost for an electric based system are higher than the combination they are offering. They cannot predict what the costs of those will be in ten years. - J. Wilson – methane gas emissions, when calculated the way the DEC requires for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), would include all upstream emissions – electricity and the commuter traffic. Mr. Wilson believes that calculation will be dif- ferent than what they have calculated currently. - D. Weinstein asked about stormwater run off. He has concerns about the pe rmeabil- ity of soil. Six (6) borings were evaluated for their infiltration rate and averages 1 to 2.8 inches per hour. The Soil Conservation Service has identified the soil at this site. Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 4 of 15 Darian silt loam soil have 1/5 the infiltration rate of the above numbers (.2 to .6 inches per hour). - K. Michaels responded that soil mapping is sometimes on and sometimes very off. Therefore , they did field infiltration tests and that full report was part of the initial application. They actually dug holes and took calculations. She is confident that they are working with real, accurate data. They have deliberately put the stormwater infiltration basins in the areas that have the greatest infiltration - D. Weinstein asked Ms. Michaels to walk him through the plan for the water run- off. The group reviewed a grading plan that demonstrates the slopes and direction of run-off. - R. Burger noted that TG Miller is reviewing the SWPPP for the Town. - M. Hatch asked what the expected time table and plan for the landscaping was. A planting plan, was included the packet the Board received last month, shows the size and where the plants will be installed. Ms. Michaels pointed out some of the plantings in the drawing; most of the plants/trees are several years old already and will mature quickly. - C. Anderson asked about the green, social areas; he thought they had a playground in a previous site plan. Ms. Michaels stated that they plan to have a small gazebo. He thanked the developers for listening to the concerns of the public and adjusting their plans to address those concerns. - C. Anderson also asked about the floor plans for the end units in each building. They each have a master suite on the ground floors and the ground floor is generally ADA compliant. C. Anderson told them that he has spent a lot of time converting bathrooms to ADA compliant lately and he suggested they check into that. - D. Weinstein reminded everyone that some residents of Varna and the developers are interested in creating a family friendly community. He doesn’t feel this is a fami- ly-friendly development. There isn’t much green space area to play. He was hoping that they might remove a building to provide more open space. - Ms. Edwards pointed out the green spaces around the development, the access to the trail, and the two (2) acres of trees as places for children to play. She further pointed out that this is a cluster development which equals tighter living; this is not a suburban option. - M. Moseley asked for a letter from the fire department indicating they are ok with the driveway and turn around. - M. Moseley noted that under storm water, a hydrodynamic unit was referenced. The hydrodynamic unit is not on the SWPPP. He asked for clarification about whether it would be used or not. - He further noted that a maintenance agreement for storm water will be required for the Town Board. - He suggested buffering along the neighbors’ property; even though a fence is pro- posed, vegetation would be beneficial since the grading plan shows them close to the boundary. - M. Moseley indicated that the lighting plan shows pole lights but not lights associat- ed with the buildings. He asked that they incorporate the fixtures and photometrics associated on the buildings. Public Comments: Linda Lavine, Town Board Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 5 of 15 - Stated that she wanted some clarification about the question D. Weinstein asked about families. Ms. Michael’s response was that they won’t choose to live here. There seems to be a contradiction between family friendly and people who have children and choose this situation so they have to suck it up. - Ms. Michaels responded that the people who choose this that have families are going to choose it because it has open space for their kids. She has heard all kinds of suggestions regarding adding a playground or large open field. Those kinds of developments are suburban rather than a cluster model. - L. Lavine responded that wasn’t what she thought D. Weinstein was asking about. She wants to know where people are supposed to gather and talk to each other. - M. Hatch asked how far the development is from the Varna Community Center. - K. Michaels responded that it was about ¼ of a mile down the trail which D. Weinstein disputed saying it was at least ½ mile. - M. Hatch then asked if there was direct access from the trail to the VCA. The answer is no. - M. Hatch asked about the age bracket that is being targeted; graduate students would probably have toddlers who can’t go far anyway. - M. Moseley asked what age group/who is the developer targeting. - K. Michaels responded that they were assuming older couples that want to downsize and folks interested in the community. They will not focus on under- graduates. - L. Lavine asked again where people are supposed to congregate. K. Michaels pointed out the nice sidewalks in front of all the homes, look-out point, along the trail, on the bump outs along the trail that have picnic tables, etc. - A resident asked about the size of the town houses and the number of bedrooms. - Mr. Hugo responded that all of the homes are three (3) bedrooms units. - The same resident indicated that if he had kids, he would like to have a space where his kids could play. - Mr. Hugo demonstrated that they have thought about families with features like the back porch with the kitchen sink located in front of the window that overlooks the back yard. Each unit will have a space behind the homes to gath- er as a family, to grill dinner outdoors or to hang out with the neighbors. - Buzz Lavine started with listing his past experience that qualify him to comment. He said that the developers have done a beautiful job developing this project, if this was 20 years ago. The neighbors have a lot of concerns regarding the family and open space for the families. He hears their comments but doesn’t feel that answers the community concerns. The concept of cluster housing has a significant amount of open space around it. This is also a PUD which allows the Town to say we want some of our priorities met in order to get PUD status. He feels the developer needs to meet some of those re- quirements even if it makes the project not feasible. They may need to take out one or more of the buildings. In today’s world, it is behind the times regarding greenhouse gases and climate change and the use of fossil fuels. Natural gas is the worst of the fossil fuels in terms of green house gas emissions; leaks in the system permit methane pollution. Our town is very concerned about the environment and we have a reputation to up- hold. The town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca and Town of Lansing are all putting in devel- opments with green building. If they can do it, why can’t we. We want to meet our Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 6 of 15 long term goals. He reminded the Board and the developer that the Town will soon have solar power located rather close by. - Carol Whitlow is also very concerned about the planet and this project seems like a dinosaur to her. She agrees with what B. Lavine said. She is not happy with the wall, it is something solid rather than a fence that air and animals can move through. She will have to listen to 36 air conditioners on summer nights when she loves to hear summer sounds. She also feels that she will not get to enjoy night with all of the lights. She is being inundated with industry. This is an industrial complex right next to my home. She used to have chickens running over by her pond and now she has air conditioners, a hundred cars if there are 3 bedrooms per unit and a maintenance building right outside of her living room and the over-look point isn’t where anyone will want to sit and have lunch since it looks down on route 366. 36 units are too many for that place. They have suggested 26. - Judy Pierpont: Comments attached below. To: Town of Dryden Planning Board, Marty Moseley, Chair From: Judy Pierpont, 111 Pleasant Hollow Road, Freeville Subject: Comments on 1061 Dryden Road PUD Request, “Evergreen Townhouses” and Site Plan Review Date: March 1, 2017 There are multiple ways to point out that new building in Dryden should adhere to a standard of “no new green-house-gas-emissions.” The County has mandated reduc- tions in green-house gas emissions. What kind of reasoning would allow us to say, “ok, maybe someday we will get around to cutting emissions, some other project”? We are seeing in the County now that it is understood that it means now. Other developers in Ithaca and Lansing are on board with heating and cooling with heat pumps. There is no reason why Dryden should not insist that this project adhere to current expectations for energy efficiency and non-fossil-fuel HVAC and hot water. There is every reason TO insist. Beyond the obvious fact that climate change is bear- ing down on us fast, Dryden has resolved to be an Energy Smart Community. 1061 Dryden Road is a development that is asking for exceptions to zoning laws—namely density. I do not see that the Town would gain anything by allowing exceptions with- out using the opportunity to insist on the values that we have endorsed. Business as usual is no longer appropriate in these unusual times. We have put ourselves in the vanguard of communities that understand the responsi- bility to encourage and support development that minimizes adverse climate-warming technologies. The DEC requires that an environmental impact statement weigh the global warming implications of proposed projects, the alternatives analysis, and miti- gation measures. In the case of this project, the measures that could mitigate the use of climate-warming methane are quite straightforward: highly-insulated envelopes and heat pump heating, cooling and hot water. Heat pumps are an extremely efficient use of electricity, which can be chosen to be sourced from renewables. Dryden will soon be exporting solar energy, so there is plen- ty to be had locally. There may be extra upfront costs to install heat pumps, but these costs can be recouped from tenants, who may just be willing to pay more in rent for non-fossil-fuel living. I don’t think we can go on claiming that the cheapest option for the developer is the cheapest option for the community. Burning more gas externalizes the costs of climate Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 7 of 15 damage to all, even if it is not direct damage in our town. It externalizes the drilling and fracking we didn’t want to other places where we don’t live. We have to see the large picture. If we don’t lead now, who will? We are gaining some ground in our coun- ty with developers who get it and are willing to shift the paradigm. Let’s push forward, not undermine the winning efforts of others so far. - Marie McRae, 710 Irish Settlement Road, agrees with Mr. Lavine and Ms. Pierpont. She is concerned about natural gas. She feels that we are at a point that reasonable people have understood that we need to stop burning things to heat our houses and water. The technology exists. She is hearing that the buildings are being built to a standard of 3 air exchanges per hour (her old farm house probably has 30 air ex- changes per hour). With such a tight envelope the heating load should be small. With that kind of cluster housing, it should be more efficient because they don’t’ have as many exterior walls on all of the units. Ms. Whitlow spoke to the noise of the external compressors for air conditioners, if air to air heat pumps are used then you don’t have the noise pollution. She urged the members of the Planning Board to think very carefully before you allow new development in Dryden that uses natural gas. - John Burger, 1686 Hanshaw Road, wants to say the same thing as those before him but a little different. He read a book years ago that has stuck with him. He remem- bers a marketing theme that said something along the lines of “people don’t buy drills, they buy quarter inch holes or something to drive a screw”. When something better comes along, they are going to switch to the other technology. The book also talked about the difference between something that is considered a necessary com- modity and something that we associate with our identity, something that is im- portant to us. The issue has been about energy. NYSEG sent out a letter indicating that the people on the West Dryden Road want natural gas. He feels was insulting to those who live along West Dryden Road. He doesn’t know if they actually asked the people. He does want to have a way to light and heat his house and refrigerate his food but as to how it is done, that is becoming more of an issue these days. Twenty or thirty years ago, it was as long as the job got done. In terms of it being a commod- ity, some of the key elements are: is it cheap, convenient, reliable, and do you have confidence in it. Now, we are realizing that we can have confidence that solar and the heat pumps can do the job. It costs more down the line to convert to renewable energy. Emmanuel Kant said “the definition of exploitation is when something exists solely for the sake of something else”. Electricity seems to only exists so we can have lights, etc. Things are changing and people are starting to realize where the energy is coming from. The Maplewood project where they compared burning natural gas ver- sus solar because the gas was available on site but they didn’t consider where the gas was coming from, the leaks in the pipes, all of these things. This way of talking is almost arcane. Let’s admit to the reality of the situation that we are living on a planet that we cannot tolerate this kind of approach anymore and as everyone here has been saying, it is time for us to recognize and follow through on what we are saying. He encouraged the board and the developer to use heat pumps rather than natural gas. Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 8 of 15 - Brian Swindle, 68 Turkey Hill Road. His point of view on this development is that it is denser than it should be. He moved here because he liked the rural residential aspect. He thinks there are going to be a lot of cars there. - Laurie Snyder, 36 Freese Road. We don’t want to move Varna from a more rural area to an area with these pockets of high density so quickly. We did manage to reduce the size of 902 Dryden Road to fewer units. She thinks 36 units is too many. One of the buildings is incredibly close to the Whitlow property, unnecessarily close. There is a lot of land available in this part of the county, so why have so much density. She worries that 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms is a signal for multiple student hous- ing, that is standard. And if you have three adults, then you have three (3) vehicles per unit. She is also concerned about the access road and the intersection between the driveway and 366. She would like to see the speed limit on 366 reduced. It looks like a broad left hand turn from the driveway to route 366. It appears problematic to her; the closeness of the private property and the angle with which the driveway ap- proaches route 366. - L. Lavine asked about what a tenant would do with a 3rd car. The developer indicat- ed that the lease agreements will only permit two (2) cars. L. Lavine believes that if you have three bedrooms, then you will have three (3) vehicles and asked if it is pos- sible for a third car to block access to the driveways. Are they going to be able to back a third car behind the second car in the driveway? The first car would be parked in the garage. The developer stated again that the lease will only permit two (2) vehicles. Guests will have to park in the central area. - Jim Skaley, 940 Dryden Road. He stated that the developers have done a nice job demonstrating the cosmetics and the layout and design. But what he is hearing, that this is supposed to be family oriented, so much of this could be accommodated if this was stuck to the original zoning. He does not feel this is a PUD. A PUD re- quires a community part able participate within the site in some context. Using the PUD to increase the density is one of those situation where, for example, if this were in suburban Maryland, fine. But this isn’t Maryland and he urged the Planning Board to reconsider this from the point of view of is this really what we are talking about here. Should we be looking back and seeing what the original concept here is and why is it being superseded by a PUD. The Varna plan included a PUD at the corner of Freese Road and 366 where they could have commercial and residential. While this is outside of the boarders of the hamlet plan, he feels the hamlet plan should have extended farther out. The zoning for this area would permit 14 lots with duplexes which would mean 28 individual units. A discussion regarding what the zoning will permit if this is not a PUD followed. R. Burger indicated that this lot could be divided into 14 separate lots. The density could be just as high with the original zoning. - J. Wilson asked what the likely population and density of a fully built out parcel fol- lowing the original zoning. K. Michaels stated that information is in the packet. She also indicated that traditional zoning would permit 14 individual lots with a duplex on each lot and no limit to the number of bedrooms. Edge to edge all the trees would be cut and the site would be filled and graded level. Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 9 of 15 - J. Wilson said he understood that but wanted to know that the density could be as much if not more in a traditional zoning. K. Michaels responded that yes, the densi- ty could easily be as much if not more. - Kim Klein, 14 Freese Road, wanted to be on the record agreeing with the neighbors. This project is too dense and not appropriate for Varna based on the Varna Plan. - M. Hatch verified that under current regulations, one could subdivide the entire site into 14 separate lots, 28 dwellings with more people in them. - D. Weinstein responded that was assuming the Planning Board would approve that subdivision. He doesn’t think they would approve dividing this into 14 lots. - M. Moseley argued that without actually having a development plan before the Board, who can say we would not approve that subdivision. - C. Whitlow indicated that Richard Maxwell called her to let her know she wanted to be at the meeting but his wife is in the hospital. - M. Hatch returned to the previous discussion and asked what could be there with- out immense objections from folks. Is it a single family dwelling? David (Weinstein) has brought up the Varna Plan and whether this is inside or outside of the Hamlet and such. If we wouldn’t approve this and we wouldn’t approve a 14/28 unit subdi- vision, what would we approve? - J. Skaley responded that 14 single family units would be wonderful. - M. Hatch stated that a lot of hypotheticals have been put up like there will be kids there that won’t have places to play which has led to thinking that here is no possible entity that would fit there because every dimension seems to have a draw back to it. He is just curious. - C. Anderson asked what the footprint of each building is. 7,000 square feet. The green space around the trail is about ½ acre. K. Michaels pointed out that 60% of the site is covered and the site is six (6) acres. - J. Wilson indicated that one of the benefits to the current proposal is the $191,000 per year in real estate taxes. What is the comparison if 14 single family homes were installed? Discussion determined that it would be almost impossible to accurately estimate. - K. Michaels agreed that it is too speculative and hypothetical. She doesn’t think that someone who was looking for a single family home would be looking on route 366. - C. Whitlow disagreed. She would want a single family home in the space because it is surrounded by woods, not houses and separate from the road. It is a shame to use up a beautiful piece of property with that density instead of the way which her house uses it appropriately. - D. Weinstein doesn’t believe they should be making a decision about a development like this because of the revenue for the Town. Residential developments always cost the Town money. You do it because you think it is a benefit for the Town or because you want it. The money should not be a concern because it is going to cost you. - M. Hatch asked what the costs to the Town were to understand the higher cost of residential development. D. Weinstein indicated he was referring to the cost of the fire departments, police, roads, etc. Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 10 of 15 - D. Lamb stated that he would like to see more data regarding the cost of residen- tial development. D. Weinstein stated that he has sent a lot of data on this topic and L. Lavine stated it was talked about at a Town Board meeting. - J. Wilson referred to the Planning Initiative section of the information that was turned in by the developers. Within that section, no reference was made to the County’s Comprehensive Plan which calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emis- sions and a reduction in the use of natural gas. The same can be said of the Coun- ty’s energy road map. More by implication or what is underlining the resolution of the Town to be an energy smart community, the same thing. The state has set up the Energy Smart Community Initiative on the premise that it will result in the re- duction of energy and greenhouse gas emissions. His question is why were those documents not considered when the discussion of whether the plan conformed with the planning initiatives that are applicable. K. Michaels stated that they were look- ing at and concerned with the plan relative to Dryden but thanked him for the point. - L. Lavine is concerned about the noise from the air conditioners. She asked if they are the conventional units that will be outside each of the houses. She honestly doesn’t understand because it is so yesterday. What is the alternate universe in which someone uses these units? - M. Moseley stated that it is not antiquated and he has seen many for a variety of applications. - Mr. Bronsnick stated that the air source heat pump will have an indoor portion and an outdoor portion. The outdoor portion will have the compressor in it. The furnace system that has air-conditioning as part of it is also going to have an in- door part that will be the gas fired furnace and an outdoor portion which is the compressor. In both cases, there is an outdoor unit that has a compressor in it. To individually meter each home unit, each unit will have it’s own outdoor unit. - L. Lavine wanted to know how they will calculate the noise value of that to C. Whit- low’s house. - Mr. Bronsnick indicated a noise transmission study would have to be done. M. Moseley said they would have to do a decimal rating at the property line and then an algorithm associated with how often they turn on and is it continuous. - L. Lavine asked if they had done that for C. Whitlow’s house. C. Whitlow said you would have to add in all the noise from the cars and delivery trucks, etc. - M. Moseley doesn’t think that it would be possible to get an accurate rating. - K. Michaels pointed out that is not usually done for residential. It would be done if they were building a factory where continuous noise would be generated. There is a standard metric for the sound, a point at which the noise cuts in half. She will get that number. William Reed, 1065 Dryden Road. Comments attached below. - Introduction. I own the property adjacent to the proposed development site, at 1065 Dryden Road. My property will be more directly impacted by the proposal than any other nearby property, so please weigh this testimony accordingly. I want to be very clear that I am not categorically opposed to the idea of redevel- oping the property 1061 Dryden Road. However, before the Planning Commis- sion gives final approval to the proposed development, please consider the fol- lowing concerns I have with it. I apologize for not participating in this process Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 11 of 15 sooner, but I spent the last year in treatment and recovery from a serious ill- ness. I am just now able to give this important issue the attention that it de- serves. - Driveway access. As currently depicted, the driveway for the proposed devel- opment will be installed directly adjacent to mine. Along with the driveway coming in from ___[property directly across the street]____ - , the result will be a congested collection of driveways in the shape of a starfish. A far better, safer, and more attractive option would be to require the applicant to utilize a shared- access approach with my own driveway. The applicant and I were in initial ne- gotiations to transfer an easement that would allow the proposed development to use my existing access point onto Route 366, but that conversation fell apart. I remain open to this idea. Not only would it be safer to have cars entering the highway from one driveway instead of two, but it would prevent the applicant from needing to do as much excavation as would be required to develop the driveway in its currently proposed location, improving the overall aesthetics and “curb appeal” of the site. Vegetative screening o The applicant can’t make the assertion that the vegetation on its neigh- bor’s property is going to be retained. The applicant doesn’t control that vegetation. The applicant should be required to provide sufficient screening on its own development site. Some of the proposed housing units may need to be relocated a short distance to the west, in order to make room for adequate vegetation on the proposed development, as op- posed to having the applicant take credit for vegetation that already e x- ists on my property. . It’s absolutely critical that adequate vegetative screening exist to buffer the visual impacts between the adjoining properties. However, the vegetative screening that is currently depicted on map L-003 is almost en- tirely on my property. The map notations state: “Existing vegetative buffer to remain.” - Maintenance building - . As currently depicted, the maintenance building on the northeast portion of the proposed development site is immediately adjoining the 15’ minimum sideyard setback. The only vegetative screening between the property line and the maintenance building is currently depicted on my proper- ty. Again, that is vegetation that the applicant doesn’t control. Again, it is ap- propriate to require vegetative screening between the development and the property line. In order to mitigate the visual impact of the maintenance build- ing, the Planning Commission should impose a condition of approval that a vegetative buffer be developed between the maintenance building and the prop- erty line, or the maintenance building should be relocated, or both. Ideally, strictly from an aesthetic perspective, the maintenance building should not be placed in its current location, where it is the first structure encountered on the driveway, and is the most visible structure from the adjacent property. Water service. The maps currently show a 1” water service line serving the pro- posed development that originates from the 6” pressure main near the hydrant. See, e.g., the Boundary and Topography map in the applicant’s submittals from Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 12 of 15 _______. The proposed route of the water service crosses my driveway. The ap- plicant would need a utility easement to place its water line in this location, which he currently doesn’t have. Rather than running the water line across my driveway, the Planning Commission should require that the water line be kept inside the public right-of-way in Route 336, until it is able to enter directly into the development site, rather than cutting any corners across the neighbor’s property. A water line failure in the location that is currently depicted would be catastrophic for my driveway and my tenant’s access to my property. - Shared sewer line . The proposed development would tie into an existing sani- tary sewer pipe that runs along the property line between my property and the development site. I paid for the construction of the sewer line (including the portion of it that currently crosses the southern portion of the proposed devel- opment site) to serve the apartment building that I built on my property in the early 80’s. At extra cost to myself, the sewer line was built with extra capacity, beyond what was strictly needed to serve my own development. If there cur- rently is capacity in the line to accommodate the 36 units now being proposed, I have no problem with the applicant using that facility. However, I do believe that the applicant should be required to contribute its share of the cost of de- veloping this capital improvement. Without such contribution, the applicant would be piggy-backing for free on facilities that I originally paid for. In addi- tion, the applicant’s proposal to serve 36 dwelling units with this sewer line de- pletes the capacity, limiting the potential for future redevelopment on my own property. It would be a shame if I paid for this oversized sewer line and ended up giving all of the extra capacity away before my own property benefited from it. - R. Burger stated that the Planning Board has 60 days from the receipt of the devel- opment plan to forward comments to the Town Board. - M. Moseley asked the Board members to put together a list of the information that they are asking for, the questions will be sent to the developer for response and at the next Planning Board meeting (March 23rd) recommendations can be made. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:26PM Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk To: Dryden Town Planning Board, Marty Mosely, Chair From: Member Joe Wilson Subject: Comments on 1061 Dryden Road PUD Request, “Evergreen Townhouses” Development and Site Plan Review Date: March 1, 2017 Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 13 of 15 The requested PUD zoning requested by the Sponsor is discretionary with the Town Board. A PUD unlike a Special Use Permit is not presumed? Given that a PUD should provide for “utility efficiency” (Article X, Sec. 1000) and conform to applicable planning initiatives, I believe that the proper response to this Plan is either to (1) continue the Public Hearing until additional pertinent information is provided by the Sponsor, and/or (2) resolve to recommend to the Town Board that it condition approval of the PUD on the Townhouses being built to LEED (or higher) efficiency standards, with heating and cooling being done by heat pumps, driven by renewables. Water should be heated using air source water heaters. Based on recent local experience, the approach under (2) will promote utility efficiency and greater conformance with the Town's Energy Smart Resolution and the County's plans for energy and emissions reduction. (See “Sources Bottom line reasons for continuing the Hearing (1) is to gain more information regarding utility efficiency, conformance with planning initiatives, and benefits to Town residents. What information is missing includes: ” below.) 1. Planning Initiatives 2. : Why does the Plan ignore the County's Comprehensive Plan and Energy Road Map both of which call for reductions in GHG emissions and natural gas use? Why does it seem to ignore the Town's Resolution to become an Energy Smart Community with its goal of energy/emission reduction? How could the Plan be modified to reduce energy use and GHG emissions? (See “Conformance with Other Planning Initiatives” in the Plan.) Emissions 3. : If the Sponsor knows that the Solar system is going save 110,448 lbs of CO2 equivalent emissions each year, it should tell us what the total annual emissions of the Project will be (using gas for HVAC and electricity for everything else). What would the effect on energy and emissions be if the Sponsor took steps like those taken by Village Solars, Maplewood, and City Centre to use above code building efficiencies (LEED or above), heat pumps, and air source water heaters? Are there other viable alternatives which would reduce energy and emissions? (See for example in Sources below: the list of alternatives in the DEC's Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Environmental Impact Statement at pages 11- 13.)? Utility Bill Savings 4. : If the Sponsor can estimates that between $360 and $476 per Year will be saved on the electric bill for each Townhouse, it should tell us what the entire energy bill—gas and electric—will be for each Townhouse, and it should estimate what would be saved building by building using the Solars-Maplewood-City Centre approach. Tax Benefit 5. : The Development Plans says an estimated $191,000 will be paid each year. If 28 two-family dwelling units were built as allowed under the current zoning, what would the taxes be? Are there other taxes which apply and should be compared? Additional Population and Density: The Plan says that its 36-townhouse plan benefits the Town by creating a greater population with greater density than could be gained under current zoning which allows a maximum of 28 two-family homes. What are the actual numbers? Will the 36 3- bedroom Townhouses produce a significant difference in total population and population density? Shouldn't that information be provided before the Town approves the Plan? Sources : Village Solars Construction Update, 2/2017 https://ithacating.com/?s=village+solars+natural+gas27022017 [illustrations omitted] The Village Solars have made progress on their latest pair of apartment buildings. Building “I” has made Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 14 of 15 more progress on its exterior finishes, while “J” is fully framed, roofed and shingled. Both of these will likely open this spring. It’s starting to get that point where the second stage of the Village Solars may be getting ready for review by the Lansing municipal boards. The last big phase, Phase 4 with Building “K”, “L” and “M”,is likely to get underway this year for a completion in 2018, and phase 2A, the mixed-use Building “F”, has been something of a question mark for exact timing. That will finish out the initial 206 market-rate units, which range from studios to three bedrooms. There’s an early site plan floating around showing a potential build out second stage expansion, and although it’s outdated, it gives an idea of the general layout of later phases. Most of the later buildings would be built to the east of the initial phases, as infill between existing apartments. The total number of units in the second expansion was initially about 136 units, but given the recent trend of breaking up larger units into smaller studio units to satisfy market demand, the number is likely to be higher when formal plans are submitted. Right now, they seem to be about the only large-scale solution to Lansing’s development quandary – the first phase uses natural gas, but with the assistance of green advocacy group Sustainable Tompkins, the later phases have been built to utilize all-electric services with air-sourced heat pumps. This led to new utilities layouts, and the merging of “G” and “H” into one building. According to an Ithaca Times article from last March, for a 12-unit building at the site (construction cost $2 million), the upfront cost increase was $50,000-$60,000, an increase of 2.5-3%. This is balanced out by the 30-year savings on energy costs for the building ($40,000-$80,000), and a premium on the monthly rents of about $50. Units go for $1050-$1650/month, depending on size and location. Six of the Daikin heat pump units can be seen in the third photo from top. “Building and Heating with the Climate in Mind” pdf of presentation to Dryden residents on the economic gains from constructing efficient buildings and using heat pumps at: http://www.nysaccny.org/wp-uploads/Building-and-Heating-with-the-Climate-in-Mind-Brice- Smith.pdf ITHACA, N.Y. -- A 36 -unit market-rate townhouse project just outside Varna has been submitted to the town of Dryden planning board for its consideration. [Illustrations omitted.] From Ithaca Times, February 27-March 5,2017: https://ithacavoice.com/2017/02/varna-townhouses-plan-ready-for-review/ The $4.5 million dollar project, dubbed the "Evergreen Townhouses", is proposed for a 6.54 acre property at 1061 Dryden Road, just east of the hamlet near the F. H. Fox rail bridge. The Voice first broke news of the project last May, but detailed drawings and specifics of the building plans had not been available until now. At about 5.5 housing units per acre, the project exceeded the existing zoning (~4.5 units per acre), and the zoning didn't allow for the clustering of housing units. As a result, the Evergreen Townhouses were required to apply for Dryden's "Planned Unit Development" (PUD) zoning, a specialized form of zoning that allows for clustered housing and more flexibility in site planning, and would permit the project to continue with the review process. The Dryden planning board and the Dryden town board have to agree to and sign off on PUD zones. Neighbors and other Varna residents have spoken in opposition to the townhouses, saying that their size and density are inappropriate for the 900-person hamlet, and they have expressed disappointment that the townhomes will be rentals instead of owner-occupied units. After some debate and discussion, the planning board gave its consent to the PUD, and the town board approved the PUD zoning last October, with a couple of minor project adjustments. According to the 235-page site plan review (SPR) submission from TWMLA landscape architect Kim Michaels on behalf of developer Gary Sloan, each of the 36 units will be two stories and have a garage, Dryden Planning Board March 1, 2017 Page 15 of 15 1.5 bathrooms, 3 bedrooms. The units are clustered in six groups of six units on 2.11 acres - the rest of the land would be green space, with undeveloped natural areas, a lawn with a picnic space, gazebo and fire pit. A 740-foot long asphalt path to be built and deeded to Dryden as part of the town's Dryden-Freeville Rail Trail. The SPR notes that the units, designed by Ithaca's HOLT Architects, are designed with broad porches and chamfered corners to minimize their bulk. Exterior materials include stone veneer, wood trim, vinyl lap siding, and vinyl shake siding to simulate shingles. In a nod towards the town's increasing push towards renewable energies, each row of townhouses will be outfitted with an array of solar panels designed by Ithaca's Taitem Engineering, which will supply a total of about 124 kilowatts of energy, or a little over one-third of the typical energy consumption of 36 housing units. At this point, with the town's planning department (hired staff) having had their first look at the plans, the town planning board (appointed citizens) will be reviewing and critiquing the proposal at their meeting at the town hall on Thursday the 22nd. A special meeting is planned at the Varna Community Center on March 1st at 7 PM so that residents of the hamlet will have ample opportunity to review and comment as well. After that, assuming everything is acceptable, a public hearing will be arranged and the Dryden town board will vote on whether or not to award final approval at a later date. Policy and Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Environmental Impact Statement DEC 2009 at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/eisghgpolicy.pdf