HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-25Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 1 of 26
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Members Present: Marty Moseley (Chair), David Weinstein, Joe Wilson, Tom Hatfield,
Marty Hatch, Craig Anderson, John Kiefer and Hilary Lambert.
Liaisons Present: Deborah Cipolla - Dennis
The meeting was called to order at 7:01PM.
Review and Approval of Minutes from May 3, 2017:
The approval of the minutes was delayed until next month so requested formatting
could be addressed.
Public Comment:
Joe Osmeloski, 2180 Dryden Road
I have two items I want to speak about. I will talk about later, the moratorium. What I
want to talk about now is in regard to the available site plan that we have on the
Distributed Sun solar project referring to 2150 Dryden Road. The latest version that I
have on the site plan shows a new array #5. We saw another version at Neptune but
we have never seen that in writing and I don’t think it was ever handed in. I am
talking about the April 12th version. The arrays that were in the flood plain were
moved to plot #5; for those who don’t know that is the plot of land directly adjacent to
my six acre farm. In the first couple of plans, we didn’t have any arrays in that field.
Now we have S5. There is a major issue with that plot. This is the plot without the
arrays. It clearly shows the stream that goes through that plot. According to site plan
and my information, there is no road access to that plot. You cannot get to that plot,
there is no access from Route 13, there is no access from the road that it shows
because of the stream. The stream physically blocks off that plot. There is no way an
emergency vehicle could get into that plot, there is no way police enforcement could
get into that plot, there is no way an ambulance can get into that plot. There is no way
a vehicle can get into that plot except and I will take you back to RPM, the tree farm.
They used to try to do work in that plot. RPM first wanted to get access to that plot off
Route 13. They wanted to build a driveway directly across from Scotty’s Auto Repair
and Scotty was even willing to move his driveway because DOT said no. This is way
too dangerous. It is at the bottom of that hill, people slid down that hill in the winter.
DOT said no, even if Scotty was willing to move his driveway, it is too dangerous to put
a driveway there. So there is no way to get to that field off of Route 13. Then RPM said
we want to use the road, cross the stream and go into that plot. There was no problem
with that except they had to apply to the DEC to put a culvert in the stream so they
could build a road to get into that plot. DEC said no. They will not allow a culvert to
that lot. The way that they got in was just cross the stream. That was it. Fine. They
wanted to do whatever they were doing in that plot. But if you allow this subdivision to
go through and you put solar panels on that plot, obviously there has to be a way to
get to that field. There has to be a way for emergency vehicles to get to that field, there
has to be a way for police to get to that field, there has got to be a way somehow and I
don’t see it on this. All I see is a stream on one side blocking the field. How you are
ever going to approve this subdivision is beyond me.
M. Hatch - Is this the field in which the cell towers were proposed?
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 2 of 26
J. Osmeloski - No. The field the cell tower is proposed on is on the other side of the
stream where the greenhouses were located. You can cross the stream but certainly a
fire truck, an ambulance or a police car are not crossing that stream or coming in off
Route 13. The only way they farmed it was with a Case 4-wheel drive tractor that sits
about this high would just drive off the road into the field to farm it. Emergency
vehicles can’t and I am not even sure how Distributed Sun plans on getting into the
field. But certainly to make it a legal subdivision is ridiculous and certainly illegal.
Sarah Osmeloski, 2180 Dryden Road
At the April 20th meeting the Town Board passed a resolution issuing a special use
permit to Verizon to construct the cell tower at 2150 Dryden Road which is right next
to where I live. Several times in this resolution they referred to the natural screening of
the cell tower. In addition to that they included a condition that Verizon meet the legal
requirements for a collapse zone for the tower, that is where if the tower should fail, it
has a place to fall. Part 3 of the EAF for this project, the “Impact on Aesthetic
Resources” refers to “much of the parcel is buffered by existing vegetation along Route
13”. This existing vegetation is the only mitigation of the visual impact that we will
have on this cell tower. The existing vegetation is along the stream that my husband
mentioned are several huge, very old willow trees. They are tall enough to probably
block about half of the cell tower. There are also a bunch of trees along Route 13 that
were planted by RPM and that will also shield the bottom half of the cell tower which
also includes there little building down low. However, Verizon only needs 100x100 feet
of property so they really don’t have control over this existing vegetation that is
supposed to be screening their cell tower. There is a distinct possibility that the other
projects that are going to be put into this location will cut down the trees along the
stream and along Route 13 thus removing the natural screening that is referred to in
the resolution and in the SEQR. I don’t see how the two projects are going to exist in
the same location because Verizon has the legal requirement to maintain the natural
screening that they don’t control. The natural screening will interfere with the use of
the solar farm. The only solution that I can come up with is that the Town requires
Verizon leases more of this parcel of land so they can maintain the natural screening
or some kind of legal wording is put in the resolution and the SEQR that prohibit any
future property owners or leasers from cutting down of trees that screen the cell tower
while the cell tower land is being leased. This also is part of the collapse zone. The cell
tower does not control the land in the collapse zone which on their map is a 170 foot
radius around the tower. Again, they only leased 100 by 100 square feet. Sometime in
the future the planning board is going to have to consider the subdivisions of this
property for the solar farm and I think it is important to consider the impacts of how
these two projects will affect each other when making your decision.
Public Hearing to consider preliminary plat for 430 Lake Road: Carl Snyder
The hearing was opened at 7:17pm.
Mahlon Perkins, 477 Lake Road
I am surprised you don’t have a map so people can see what we are talking about.
Every presentation I have seen, there has been at least a full size map that the public
could look at and ask questions about and so forth. Absent that I will give you my
observations. I am surprised the applicants are not here to present this.
M. Moseley - we have a gentleman, Carl Snyder, who is right behind you.
Mr. Perkins - Is he going to make a presentation or are my remarks premature?
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 3 of 26
M. Moseley - I did not anticipate he would make a presentation. He has been here
probably half a dozen times but we will be happy to have him make a presentation,
briefly.
Mr. Perkins - No, I was just curious. Now this is a preliminary plat? Yes. That has lot
line corners already staked in the ground? Yes. And that is on the preliminary plat? I
am a little surprised that on a preliminary plat the applicant has gone to the extent of
marking it out. Here are my questions:
I am glad to see this is approached the way it was with respect to the protection of
Dryden Lake and the viewshed along Lake Road. I commend you for that insight. As I
understand it these are going to be common driveways? Yes. For how far back from
the road?
C. Anderson - They will share a curb cut.
Mr. Perkins - At least where I have seen the stakes along Lake Road, the driveway
between lot one and two is right in the middle of a culvert and gully in a water course
that does flood. I don’t know what the reason for that might be. The other thing that I
noticed was that two of the lot lines go through existing ponds. This is extremely and
incredibly poor planning. All it does is set the neighbors up for a fight when they
disagree with what to do with the pond. Whether to put aqua shade in it or cut the
brush around it or take the turtles out or whatever they want to do. From a legal
perspective, and I believe I know of what I speak, it is just not done that way. You do
everything you can to avoid going through things that are going to set up a problem in
the future.
I hope the owners have kept enough property to encompass their existing large septic
system. I did not see it shown on here or located on here. I know it extends out away
from the barn and the house kind of along the line between the house and the barn. I
am not sure just how far out there. I remember when it was put in, it is a very large
sand filter and I don’t know if they have reserved enough space there for a
replacement system should that become necessary. Of course, these other parcels all
have plenty of area where you could engineer in a septic system should the existing
septic system fail. I don‘t know what their plans are for the house and the barn but I
think they would want to locate the septic system and make sure they have enough
extra space according to the Health Department regulations should they have to
replace it. Those are the only comments I have.
M. Hatch - Welcome and good to see you again. There are three ponds, I think, that
are split by lot lines. There is one to the farthest one. You are referring mainly to the
house and barn in regard to the septic.
Mr. Perkins - Yes, those others are no concern. The parcels are large enough that
there is plenty of room for the replacement systems there. Has the Health Department
looked at this yet?
M. Moseley - the Health Department will have to sign off on the final plat but I am not
sure they have seen the preliminary. I believe they require a half an acre minimum.
D. Weinstein - Mr. Perkins, it is a culvert running under Lake Road and you are
saying that these would come out right where the culvert is emptying onto the land.
Carl Snyder - The culvert, if you look closely, is between the two proposed driveways.
The surveyor noted when we originally laid it out as a plot that the line was hitting the
culvert, which it does. But you will see the driveways are left and right of the culvert. It
is hard to see if you don’t look really close. There are blue dotted lines that show that.
D. Weinstein - So that is not a shared driveway.
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 4 of 26
C. Snyder - It is not an issue. The surveyor took that into consideration as he did the
final layout. As far as enough acreage for Luberecki’s house and barn; they took that
into consideration and they went out with the surveyor and changed the lines that
were originally proposed. As far as I know and as far as they know, they have more
than enough land to accommodate any existing or future septic.
As far as the lot lines going across the ponds, that is done every day. I have done
dozens of recreational properties and they have cut through lakes and ponds, people
share them. Worst case scenario we put into the deed that the owners of the lots share
the surface rights to the pond. I don’t see that as an issue what-so-ever.
T. Hatfield - How do you deal with the on-going maintenance of the perimeter of the
pond?
C. Snyder - Everybody would own their shore line of the pond. We can put in the deed
that they share rights to the surface of the pond. We are talking about small ponds
where they might swim or put a kayak in or fish it. It is done everyday and I can show
you a property I have on the market right now that has a pond about the size of these
and when the subdivider did it, three properties share the pond, they each have pie
shaped pieces. It is the way to get rid of the pond, otherwise it would be a separate tax
parcel.
D. Weinstein - Suppose lot 3 wanted to expand their part of the pond, would there be
restrictions on that to maintain the same boundary?
C. Snyder - As far as digging it or making it larger? We have in the covenants if they
are going to disturb more than an acre of land they have to do stormwater
management plan for their particular lot. Could they dig some more and enlarge it? I
suppose.
D. Weinstein - Would they have to go to their neighbors?
C. Snyder - They would have to dig on their lot.
M. Hatch - What is our purview when considering these questions?
M. Moseley - If you look in the subdivision law, it maps out for us what we are
supposed to have on there, which is the location of the structures, open space,
constrained land, parent parcels, open space management plans, private roads and
shared driveways, etc.
M. Hatch - What is our legal responsibility here in evaluating the comments and what
actions can we take, what conditions do we bring to bear on our action item with
regard to this application?
M. Moseley - We can ask the applicant to amend the subdivision to accommodate for a
pond on one parcel or another completely. As far as the Health Department, we will
add a note to it that the Health Department has to approve it prior to it being
submitted for final plat. They have to sign it in order for it to be recoded into the
county office for deeds so they will be looking at this for review.
M. Hatch - I should think the Health Department one is fairly straight forward. What
about the pond question? Is there anything in our legal guidelines that says we can
take a stand as far as that or make a recommendation?
D. Weinstein - If we think it is asking for trouble down the road, we can indicate that
the lines be drawn around so the ponds are on one property or alternatively, we can
agree with the developer that the two neighbors will have to work it out. I think that is
within our purview.
J. Wilson - If we chose the latter then we would be requiring the developer to put the
restrictions in the deeds that he outlined on his representation that this is a common
approach to splitting these ponds or lakes. We could either say draw a line so each lot
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 5 of 26
commands a pond or we can say we understand and support the developer’s
approach. I move to support the developer’s approach and so then recommend, since
this is preliminary plat approval, that when he comes for final plat approval he
demonstrates that he can or has put those restrictions in the deeds.
M. Hatch - I second that.
M. Moseley - We don’t need a motion officially at this time. I think that would be a plat
condition to have that restriction based on the plat so that it is clear to the individuals
buying the property that this would be required of them.
D. Weinstein - Is that the same thing as putting it in the deeds of the neighboring
properties.
M. Moseley - We would request both in that scenario.
T. Hatfield - Since this is a preliminary plat hearing, we can provide the developer with
feedback. It seems to me that at least two of the pond crossings can easily be fixed.
The small one between lot one and lot two could be converted so the line puts it in lot
one. Lot two has a pond. Lot three shares with lot four which shares a part of another
small one which could easily be moved into lot five.
The point Mahlon (Perkins) raised - a good fence creates good neighbors - why put
something in the middle that might create the potential of a dispute between future
land owners. I would like to see them take a look at those two minor alterations to the
lot lines. Fix those two. I don’t see a reason to change the lines between three and
four, the biggest body of water there. I recognize it is a selling point for the developer,
access to water, use of water; that is always an important issue. Maybe there is a
compromise there to get rid of 2 out of 3 problems. The other thing you need to
address is the restrictions on three and four which you will put in the two deeds and
the plat.
C. Snyder - I would be comfortable putting in the covenants, we can state, as per the
deeds, these lots are going to share the surface of the particular ponds we are talking
about. It will be in the covenants where everyone can read that on the survey map and
then it would also be put in the deed. As Tom (Hatfield) just commented, when you
look at a parcel of land, water adds value, if you have it stated that the line crosses the
pond - we are talking about small bodies of water here - and they can notate on the
deed and the covenants that the surface rights are shared.
T. Hatfield - I don’t disagree with you at all Carl; that is why I think the two small ones
are easy fixes. If you put that one all in lot one then that owner has control and you
don’t have to worry about what the neighbor wants. Keep in mind, these lots have
ponds but the overall view shed is Dryden Lake. So you have the view, this is more for
fishing or water access or the grandkids to play.
C. Snyder - For what it is worth, we already have someone planning on buying lots one
and two and combine them into one lot so that is not an issue there.
J. Wilson - The little pond down close to 4 and 5 goes to…?
T. Hatfield - It will go to one or the other. Both lots already have water included. Mr.
Perkins points are valid.
J. Wilson - I am going to withdraw my motion.
D. Weinstein - That might be acceptable to you? To put that small pond between four
and five to one lot or the other.
C. Snyder - We have a buyer for lots one and two so that pond is not an issue. We are
not going to change the lines but maybe going around the edge of the pond will do it.
M. Moseley - With lots one and two, are you eliminating that subdivision line?
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 6 of 26
C. Snyder - We wanted to leave it as you see it because talk everyone can afford but
they have not signed a contract.
T. Hatfield - A single buyer for lots one and two will eliminate the culvert and two
driveways issue.
D. Weinstein - What if lots one and two don’t get purchased by a single buyer?
T. Hatfield - The developer will have to draw the line around the pond if he is going to
keep that line in place.
C. Snyder - You are fine with the line crossing the pond between three and four?
T. Hatfield - Yes, it is a small body of water compared to the lake but it is the largest
body of water in the development. You have to deal with that with some kind of deed
structure between the two future owners.
M. Moseley - As far as your language associated with your Storm Water Management
Plan. From my understanding of the regulations for storm water, it doesn’t exactly
work with the DEC standards as far as each individual land owner would not get a
SWPPP independently if they exceed an acre. Your subdivision itself will have a five
acre maximum before you are required to put in storm water detention facilities and
items of that nature. I would suggest some more generic language. You are working on
a storm water management plan that you are going to implement for this, correct?
Something that would guarantee the individual would follow the Storm Water
Management Plan as approved by the Town of Dryden and if there are deviations from
the Storm Water Management Plan, that they will resubmit to the DEC and the Town
of Dryden storm water regulations. A very simple change but it gets away from your
specific one acre. I understand what you are trying to do but the once acre actually
lends itself more to segmentation which the DEC storm water individuals don’t like to
see.
C. Snyder - We are trying to address the gentleman’s comment from last month about
what if someone disturbed more than an acre on their individual lot. You are saying
the whole subdivision has a threshold of 5 acres.
M. Moseley - my understanding is, and I would double check with the building
department (I believe Dave Sprout is the Storm Water Management Officer), I believe
the DEC and the Town of Dryden have a 5 acre maximum development for the entire
subdivision. After the 5 acres, you would be required to implement post activities,
such as a pond or something of that nature.
C. Snyder- You are suggesting we tweak the language in the covenants.
M. Moseley - Correct, because they are going to be approving it in accordance with the
DEC and the Town of Dryden Storm Water regulations, they have to enforce that so
those would govern you in what you are or are not allowed to do.
D. Weinstein - I was just looking at the language for protective covenant and
easement. I think it looks pretty good. It was the last sentence that threw me off “a
DEC wetlands permit is required for any disturbance, ie. drainage, within the 100 foot
buffer of the DEC wetland.” That is absolutely correct but I would think that there is
no drainage allowed in the conservation zone near the lake. The idea was that people
shouldn’t do anything down there.
C. Snyder - This was a comment that someone made last month. What is going to
happen is people will build their house and you will have drainage going toward the
lake.
D. Weinstein - It is your understanding that no one would be able to build a drainage
culvert to get to the lake, to dry it out. The buffer area is 300 feet. I would hope that
no one would, even in the 200 feet between the DEC buffer and the buffer of the
conservation easement, do any major excavation in there at all.
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 7 of 26
C. Snyder - Correct.
T. Hatfield moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by J. Wilson
and unanimously approved. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:45.
Resolution #19: Preliminary plat approval
430 Lake Road
J. Kiefer offered the following resolution:
Whereas, the applicant has presented a preliminary plat design for a subdivision at
430 Lake Road; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined the proposed subdivision and site plan to
be consistent with the Town of Dryden zoning, design guidelines and the Town
comprehensive plan; and
Whereas, the Tompkins County Planning Department has provided a review pursuant
to General Municipal Law § 239-l and § 239-m; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has reviewed the application;
Therefore, be it resolved, the Dryden Planning Board approves the preliminary plat
design with standard conditions and with conditions as stated below:
- The lot lines will be adjusted between lots one and two and between lots four
and five to prevent the dissection of the ponds. The deeds to lots three and four
will identify the shared surface rights to the pond.
- Revise the deed covenants to reflect the approved SWPPP with any deviation
requiring the approval of the Town of Dryden and NYS DEC.
The motion was seconded by D. Weinstein and unanimously approved.
Worth Asset Brokerage Site Plan follow-up per Resolution #14, 2016.
Kimberly Gazzo: Business Manager of Worth Auctions.
David Hall was unable to make the meeting tonight but Ms. Gazzo is reporting in his
stead regarding their parking. Till now, we have not had more than, at most, 30
people. Parking has not been an issue, the customers’ park in the front and
employees’ park in the back. We do not anticipate any very large events. We recently
had an event with a food truck and parking was not an issue, there was plenty of
space. If we anticipate the growth or large events then we will add parking in the back.
We have not had any problems and love being in the building.
D. Weinstein - Our original concern was that people would park closer to Route 13
along the driveways.
Ms. Gazzo - That has not been an issue.
D. Weinstein - You haven’t had any conflicts with GreenScene?
Ms. Gazzo - Not at all. It has been great.
C. Anderson - When the furniture company applied for a variance for parking out
front, how does that apply to this applicant? Does it go with the use of the old
business or does it follow the new application for this use? It came up afterwards
(after the original site plan).
R. Burger - It is another retail business so the use is the same.
C. Anderson - Parking out front is not allowed in the new zoning so try not to park
commercial vehicles out front. I know it is great for advertising but no one else can do
it.
Ms. Gazzo - You would prefer we don’t have our trailer and van out front?
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 8 of 26
C. Anderson - I think it sets a precedent for other projects.
Ms. Gazzo - Honestly, it was just convenience. We had no idea that was a problem.
C. Anderson - We never talked about it. We just said try it and see what happens.
Ms. Gazzo - We certainly have plenty of space in the back and will put the van and the
trailer out there.
C. Anderson - How many cars have you had an event so far?
Ms. Gazzo - We filled every space in the lot and not overflowed. If we overflow we will
go to the back. When we have an event the employees park in the back.
C. Anderson - That would be 16-20 cars?
Ms. Gazzo - Yes. We have 14 employees parked there on a work day.
D. Weinstein - The parking spaces on the west side of the driveway and the east side
of the house, you are not using those.
Ms. Gazzo - The tenant of the house parks along the eastern driveway and sometimes
has two vehicles.
C. Anderson - We never talked about the access points. You have two entrances to the
property?
Ms. Gazzo - Yes, we do. One that we share with GreenScene and the dirt driveway (to
the east of the house).
C. Anderson - Should we minimize them to a single road cut?
T. Hatfield - They are existing road cuts.
M. Hatch - No, I don’t think we should.
Exhibit 5: Overflow Parking Areas.
Ms. Gazzo - 80% of our customers are on line. Business would have to be VERY good
to consider needing additional parking.
T. Hatfield offered the following resolution:
Whereas, Worth Asset Brokerage, located at 2085 Dryden road, was granted sketch
plan approval with conditions on June 23, 2016 via Planning Board Resolution #14; and
Whereas, the condition of reviewing the parking requirements with the Dryden Planning
Board has been met; and
Whereas, the applicant agrees to make the appropriate applications to the Town if their
parking requirement increases; and
Whereas, the applicant agrees to park commercial vehicles behind the building;
Therefore, be it resolved, the Town of Dryden Planning Board approves the modified
site plan for 2085 Dryden Road.
The motion was seconded by D. Weinstein and unanimously approved.
802 Dryden Road, Charlie O’Connor
Adam Fishel, Marathon Engineering and Wayne Woodward, current property owner of
The Townhome projects are located at 802 - 804 and 810 - 812 Dryden Road. The
parcel at 802-804 has two residential structures and a barn in the back. The 810-812
parcel also has two residential structures. The structures are pretty tired and beyond
their useful life so we are proposing to demolish all of the structures and build new.
The total land area is about 3 acres. C. O’Connor explained that the sites are located
between Game Farm Road and Forest Home Drive.
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 9 of 26
- We have submitted two schemes to the Planning Board both of which have six
buildings.
- The first one, referred to a scheme A, has six buildings that are two stories with a
total of 42 townhomes. Each will have a mix of two, three and four bedrooms with
a total occupancy of 108 and 70 parking spaces.
- Scheme C shows six buildings, all three stories tall with 42 town home units all of
which will be four bedrooms. It will have a total occupancy of 168 and 94 parking
spaces.
- Both schemes have the same driveway location. We are talking with Cornell to
discuss the potential for a cross access through their property to the four way
intersection that is produced by their driveway, Dryden Road and Game Farm Road.
DOT always asks the developers to look into that. That meeting is coming up with
Cornell soon. If we don’t come to an agreement with Cornell, we will have to have a
new residential driveway out to Dryden Road. If we go that way, we are looking at
three different locations for the driveway, one on the far east, one in the middle and
one on the west, depending on the line of sight distance measurements and trying to
maximize the distance between the Game Farm Road and Dryden Road intersection
and this driveway. We want to maintain a good separation but not jeopardize the
line of sight requirements.
M. Hatch - The driveway you are talking about sharing with Cornell goes into their
fleet garage. The driveway that this will be converted from is a long driveway with a
repair shop.
A. Fishel - Yes, if you go down the driveway, there is 802 which is a three bedroom
house and just past that there is a garage, a body shop. However, the drive way is
coming in north and then turning to the east so the existing driveway would be in the
back yard of two of the buildings.
M. Hatch - You own the garage and it would be going away. Yes.
A. Fishel - All of the other gravel driveways that are out there now would either be
eliminated or modified to fit whatever driveway configuration we do decide to go for.
C. O’Connor - I think it is going to be a benefit because currently there are four curb
cuts. We are trying to determine if Cornell Real Estate is willing to work with us. DOT
suggested reaching out to Cornell because at some point, whether it is five or ten years
from now, they are looking to put a light at that intersection. They saw it as a big
benefit, there is consideration of a traffic circle. I think there would be a benefit to
both but the question is whether Cornell will see it as a benefit. Looking at this today,
we are looking for some feedback from the Board and the community. My thought is
option A is working something out with Cornell and option B would be to put the
driveway at the most western point of the property line. As most of you are aware
there is a big drop as you are heading east right before you go down the hill to Forest
Home. My thought is, I have photos of the site line at the west side, east side and
middle, and I think that the closer you get to the east the less time you have to react
to cars coming up the hill so hopefully Cornell is willing to work with us. Otherwise, it
will probably be where you see it on the sketch plan.
D. Weinstein - The meeting you have next week, is it just with the botanical gardens
folks?
C. O’Connor - I think it is the week after but I am meeting with Cornell Real Estate,
Jeremy Thomas and his research team, Glen Evans, Todd Bittner and Rhonda
Warner, all directors of Farm Services, Natural Areas and Horticulture. I think those
three departments with Jeremy will have a meeting and will get to whether or not it
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 10 of 26
will work and also address the concerns that you had in your email regarding keeping
the natural vegetation between their sites and our site.
J. Wilson - Why is some kind of traffic control five years off?
C. O’Connor - That was the number I got when I met with some members DOT. I
wanted to let them know that a project was being proposed and was there anything
that they could suggest we start doing now? I was told that at some point, they will be
looking at first a traffic circle and eventually a light. If you can combine that
intersection to have all four entry points, that would be ideal from DOT’s standpoint.
J. Wilson - It is already a problematic intersection during rush hour and Cornell is
about to embark on a big expansion of the east hill plaza with most of it being devoted
to residences. Five years away… how many accidents do you have to have before the
five years?
C. O’Connor - I know what you are talking about and when we have this meeting, now
that this development is possibly coming to light, it is a good conversation to ask how
can we have this sooner?
A. Fishel - That is the access portion of the project. The utility infrastructure, both gas
and electric, telephone, municipal water, and sewer, are already available along
Dryden Road. We don’t see any issues there. Storm Water Management, we are
already anticipating having to do a full SWPPP because we will be exceeding the one
acre threshold. As far as SEQR, we acknowledge we are in a rare,
threatened/endangered species check zone and will hire a qualified specialist. We are
not in an archeological sensitive area according to SHPO so we should not have to do a
phase A or B as far as SEQR.
With the demolition of structures, as we talked about, Mr. O’Connor’s team will be
bearing a fair expense to first do a hazardous materials survey of the property and the
structures before demolition and having to run the risk of having to do any kind of
abatement for those structures before they come down in regard to asbestos, lead
based paint, etc.
Before we even put a shovel in the ground there is a lot of due diligence expenses that
Mr. O’Connor is going to be fronting before the project even gets off the ground.
That brings up to how we got to the unit count and town home density we show in the
plan. To determine what we were allowed to do, we looked at the current zoning map,
Dryden’s Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2005, the Hamlet of Varna community
development plan and local zoning law adopted in 2015. The zone we are in is the
Varna mixed use district (VHMUD). The purpose of the Varna Hamlet Mixed Use District
(VHMUD) is to foster new and redevelopment of existing properties while retaining the
traditional character of buildings, as well as the hamlet character found in Varna and
described in the Varna Community Development Plan. We feel this, minus the mixed use
component of it, still fits within the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and the Varna
Community Plan. The base density, we got from the zoning law which allows up to ten
town home units per acre, which give us the thirty. Also in the Zoning law there is a
green development or LEED bonus which permits 2 additional units per acre, if the
developer meets the LEED certification. Currently Mr. O’Connor’s team is evaluating
that, we are hoping to be able to do to get the unit count up but if they can’t make the
finances work, that portion will have to be dropped. In addition, we believe this project
meets the redevelopment criteria denoted in the current zoning law for the
redevelopment bonus for an additional two townhouses per acre - a total of six.
Potentially between the base density, the potential green credit and potential
redevelopment bonus, we could have 42 town homes which is what is shown on the
plan in front of you. The Zoning Law defines redevelopment as The planning,
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 11 of 26
development, design, clearance, construction, or rehabilitation of existing property
improvements, regardless of whether a change in the Principal or Accessory Use occurs.
We are not changing necessarily the principle use, it will still be residential, the
density will go up but we are scrapping and rebuilding the existing property, removing
the functionally obsolete structures that are out there now, getting rid of the possible
health issues and structural issues with the building and building a new town home
development that will hopefully be an asset to the community and address the
housing issue that is currently going on in the county.
J. Wilson - It appears you are reading right from the Town’s regulation. If so, because
notes are being taken and minutes being developed, if you could give the sections that
you are reading from. It will help when I go back to look at them.
A. Fishel - In the density table 703, c. 707.
J. Wilson - Do you anticipate you will know your answer on LEED certification when
you come back? Yes.
J. Wilson - looking both at our site plan check list and in anticipation of our
responsibilities under SEQR, I am interested in your source of energy. Can you share
that now?
C. O’Connor - We are still exploring those options. Regarding the energy, obviously we
have gas there. We are looking to see what other additional requirements might go into
this development. I know that here in the Town of Dryden, air heat source pumps have
been a very popular topic. Obviously they come at quite a cost, we are still exploring
that avenue to see what other requirements might have to go in to build this but we
are not taking that off the table.
J. Wilson - Just a quick observation, colleague developers, if you want to call them
that, at 1061 Dryden Road, relooked at the kinds of numbers that you are looking at
and found that now, Taitem Engineering found that the costs are very comparable now
between heat pumps versus the gas driven furnaces.
C. O’Connor - I know Gary (Sloan) very well and I have been talking to him pretty
consistently about his project. I also work with Taitem.
D. Weinstein - Have you seen their analysis? It is Taitem’s analysis of heat pumps
versus natural gas, they go through it and show the prices are fairly comparable.
C. O’Connor - Good, that will make my decision a lot easier.
J. Wilson - What David is referring to are literally case studies including if you are
building a town house of x size, here are the numbers here are the numbers for heat
pumps versus gas driven.
C. O’Connor - Good. Thank you.
J. Kiefer - I think you mentioned it and it is certainly true, when you read through the
Varna Plan there’s great emphasis on (the character of Varna) here is one: Identify
development scenarios, and designs that are in harmony with existing character of the hamlet.
That is single family dwellings with porches and they engage the street and big spaces
between the buildings and lots plantings out front. When I look at your plan, which I
realize is very preliminary, but I see a 200 foot long building that doesn’t engage the
street and I don’t see plantings out front. I think you have some work to do on making
the design of this harmonious with what exists now in the hamlet.
C. O’Connor - I couldn’t agree more. I wanted to come to this meeting with an open
mind and an open concept of how this development would transpire. I think meeting
with David, I wanted to take his advice. It was great, we got together with David and
some of the Town board members and had a meeting about this project and I figured
rather than getting ahead of myself and spending a lot of money on drawings,
engineering and stuff like that, that I would throw it on a piece of paper and come here
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 12 of 26
and have an open discussion with everybody here. I would also like to hear what the
community has to say to give us some direction on how we can make it work for
everybody.
C. O’Connor - I want to back up for a moment. I want to start off by saying we are
excited and pleased to be back here with another, hopefully successful, project. I
think most of the people in the room are familiar with our 902 Dryden Road project on
the corner of Forest Home Drive and Dryden Road. We were successful in getting
approved for 10 town homes. We kept an existing structure that was there and built
two new buildings and an addition on the existing structure. We are winding down on
the construction side and should have it completed by late June, early July. It has
been great working with the Planning Department staff.
I have some interesting data that I was able to share with David (Weinstein) and I
think it is important to share with you guys and the community. When we first came
in with the project, my company is Modern Living Rentals, we are not a really large
developer but a rather small developer. We have about 120 units around the city
(Ithaca). The majority of our property is student leased. We have decent pricing in
Collegetown, South Hill and down town and this was my first project outside my
comfort zone at 902. I remember when we first introduced it, because they are mostly
student based, there was a lot of push back from the community and the Board
members. They were concerned and didn’t want this to turn into another Collegetown
development. I was encouraged to hear this because when I came here to work on
that approval process and why I am back here again is because part of my longer term
goal with my properties is to diversify and get away from so much student housing; to
get into working professionals and possible seniors, not just undergrads.
All ten units are leased at 902 Dryden Road. And out of the ten units, three were
leased by families that live in the area and four by working professionals. Only three
groups are students. And I think the student that you get there is a much different
caliber student than the student you would get in Collegetown. They tend to mix
better with families and professionals. I think there are a few driving forces that go
behind that - one being that this isn’t college town, it is a rural area, which attracts a
different caliber student. These are ag students and vet students that will be here for
four to five years. When they were going through the leasing process they didn’t want
one year leases, many multiyear year leases. What we do in our development process
is helpful and I would like to invite the public and the board to visit the 902 Dryden
Road site because I think when you see the development that we do, it is not your
typical “student housing”. I know when I got into this, I had preconceived notions of
cabinets begin ripped off the walls and doors hanging off, holes all over the walls and
solo cups all over the yard. We build a different product that gears away from those
types of students. We build a product that has amenities like off street parking. My
goal in this development is going to be a 70% parking ratio to bedroom count. Our
units have simple things like a washer and dryer so it is not shared and they don’t
have to go to a laundromat. Our units have dishwashers, granite counter tops,
stainless steel appliances, custom tile work in the bathrooms, and a very modern and
fresh new look on all of the units. I already feel it has been helpful talking to David
(Weinstein) but I already feel the stigma that this will be student housing. My goal is in
sync with the board and is in sync with the community. I don’t want a full student
based housing development here, I am not looking to have all four bedroom units
occupied with four students. I would like to diversify this and end up with more
families and working professionals along with students. We can’t rule that out because
we are so close to the college.
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 13 of 26
J. Wilson - How is it you calculate the ratio of anticipated renters and the parking? I
ask primarily in the context of the discussion that took place about 1061 Dryden Road
where there was significant community concern about the parking places with doubt
expressed about having a three bedroom unit with two parking places.
C. O’Connor - I think a 2/3 ratio is a good ratio when doing a mixed use development.
Two parking spaces to every three bedrooms. Do you have data that supports less or
more?
J. Wilson - No, I was just interested because of the community reaction.
C. O’Connor - Obviously, depending on the bus services and the walkability, you need
less parking. We are building a building in college town with 74 beds and zero
parking. Here, the families are going to have cars, working professionals are going to
have cars, and a lot of students are going to have less cars. I feel that sort of number
puts me in a safe spot.
J. Wilson - Will the units be separately metered for utilities?
C. O’Connor - Yes, they will be separately metered other than the water.
J. Wilson - Any thought about electric charging units for electric vehicles?
C. O’Connor - No, is that something that you would like me to look into? Is anybody
doing that?
M. Moseley - Yes, in some areas depending on the development.
M. Hatch - What is the square footage of the 2 bedroom?
C. O’Connor - 1008 square feet.
M. Hatch - With two floors or three floors?
C. O’Connor - The two bedrooms are two stories with living room, dining room, and
kitchen on the first floor, a very open floor plan. The second floor has two bedrooms
and a full bathroom. The three bedrooms will be similar to 902 Dryden Road with
living room, dining room, kitchen and a full bath on the first floor and three bedrooms,
full bath and laundry on the second floor. The four bedrooms will have the same
pattern but with the laundry on the first floor and two additional linen closets on the
second floor.
M. Hatch - In relation to your comment about who may be interested in these. You will
be having a conversation with Jeremy Thomas and talk, probably, about the East
Village development which is supposed to be a major residential undertaking. It occurs
to me, since it is farther out, it may be more conducive to the professional family side
of things. Thinking along the lines of J. Kiefer’s point, I am looking at 168
people/beds, making it fewer and giving more space might attract a different type. You
have the economics in your head. What is the occupancy of the one you have just
completed?
C. O’Connor - 32 bedrooms, 10 units. The two bedroom units are 1008 square feet,
the three bedroom units are 1355 square feet (scheme A has the same units) and the
four bedroom units are 1585 square feet, with 9 foot ceilings and LED lighting. We are
going to have a ribbon cutting in late June or early July and I would like to invite
everyone here. I think it is important as we go through this process for you to have the
opportunity to see it. I think it would be great if David (Weinstein) you could have
some of your activists and the community could follow and meet us there. We are very
proud of the development and I think it was a nice addition and I think this will be
another nice addition to Varna as well. If possible I will get a date out to you (D.
Weinstein) and you can circulate that to everyone.
D. Weinstein - As you know I sent the announcement of what you are thinking of
doing to the Varna listserve - almost 500 people get that. One of the major things I
heard back is when people heard three stories, all of the buildings being three stories,
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 14 of 26
that brings to mind college town and the people were expressing a desire to have
different heights of buildings particularly when you go away have the higher buildings
in the back and smaller buildings in the front. That relates to your two scenarios here.
You have the four bedrooms are going to have to be large buildings. A lot can be
accomplished by going with Scheme A. there are more buildings but there will be more
diversity of height.
C. O’Connor - Just so you know Scheme A is all two stories. I think it is important for
people to understand the economics that go behind building a development of this
size. Land cost today is very high, property entry points come at a high price and the
problem is when you start reducing your units and bed count, the project cost less but
the land costs stay the same. The soft costs stay the same. To clear the site and do the
environmental remediation that is going to have to happen to the existing structure
will be the same whether I do 20 units or 42 units. The infrastructure that goes into
Storm Water stays the same. What I was trying to do was to make this viable and yet
make it receptive to the board and the community. Maybe that is by offsetting the unit
counts and reducing the bed count which will create more units but less beds which
shapes the project differently. That was one thing that as we talk tonight and at future
meetings, we should be mindful of because the cost of construction today is higher
than it has ever been and our goal in every project is to build the project and have it
be worth what we built it for. No one want to invest two years of their life and go
through all the time and energy to work on the project and have it, at the end of the
day, be worth less than what it cost to build it. I am at a number where I need to be at
and I am hoping we are going to be able to work through this project and get that
bedroom count.
D. Weinstein - Are you saying that between these two, C works financially for you but
A doesn’t work?
C. O’Connor - A works a lot worse. Again, the same amount of units so if you do a two
bedroom with one kitchen and one bath and then you do a four bedroom with one
kitchen and two baths, what are you really adding to your costs? You are not building
the most expensive room, the kitchen, again. From a cash flow point, four bedrooms
generates more than a two bedroom does. The two most expensive things in the
building end are the foundation and the roof so it is always easier to go up than out.
Obviously that is why I wanted to demonstrate the visual impact on a site with the
same amount of units but a different bedroom count. We don’t know which one we will
submit next time. I am hoping with your feedback I will be able to make an educated
decision on what I think will be acceptable to everybody.
M. Moseley - Can we go back to the parking for a second. Obviously you are familiar
with our zoning regulation, section 902 deals with subsection B2
For each Dwelling Unit—one parking space, except for Dwelling Units occupied by more than three
unrelated persons where one parking space per bedroom shall be required. Subsection G
G. No parking facilities shall provide more than 120% of the minimum number of parking spaces
required by this section unless expressly approved by the Board in approval.
K. Reduction of Required Number of Parking Spaces
- I assume you will review that before submitting it to us. If you are truly talking about
mixed development - since we are talking informally here - if you are talking about a
mixed development of age ranges, why wouldn’t you include bedrooms on the first
floor?
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 15 of 26
C. O’Connor - That is a good question.
D. Weinstein - You mean to make them accessible to older individuals.
M. Moseley - Not only for older individuals but handicap accessible. They don‘t have to
be handicap accessible obviously because they are town homes but they could be
adaptable in case you had an individual that was or they could be an older individual.
It gives the opportunity for all sorts of housing.
C. O’Connor - Yes, that is a great suggestion. I was more or less trying to duplicate
what I already had and people loved them. We leased the buildings when they were
only framed. I have been working on a couple of different projects that will be more
geared to senior housing. I attended a meeting two weeks ago that Warren Real Estate
held with their seniors and that was their biggest concern was finding houses for first
floor nesters and they are tired of the stairs and multi-levels. They want to be in
homes where they can age in place. I will look into it.
M. Hatch - Another thought for me is to push them farther back from the road.
C. O’Connor - So we have gone over Scheme A and Scheme C. Where we are sitting
right now, we have 3.03 developable acres. It is safe to say we will be introducing 10
units per acre = 30 units. We are going to explore the option of LEED ND. I met with
Taitem Engineering and we are going through the economics to see if we can make
this work. One of the problems, that I was not aware of until I got there, some of the
prerequisites that we have to have might not work. Things like a walkable
neighborhood, or a grocery store within a certain distance are not there. We are going
to continue to explore that and if we can meet the prerequisites then we will continue
down the path of LEED ND and research more on the hard costs and the soft costs. I
should be able to give the board and the community an answer to that at the next
meeting. Understand that we have six buildings with seven units in each building, if
we don’t meet LEED we are going to just take one unit out of each building.
To get back to the redevelopment bonus, we have talked about the definition but I am
asking for some clarity. The intent can get very subjective. When I read this, to qualify
it is through the planning (which we are doing), the development (which we are
working on), the design (which we are working on), we are going to be doing the
clearance, we are going to be doing construction, or rehabilitation of existing property
improvements. I don’t understand how it doesn’t meet a redevelopment bonus. It
meets every one of the criteria.
One of the things I want to do is make the board a little more familiar with the present
condition of the site (Mr. Connor shared pictures of the site with the Board). I am
looking at an asbestos survey, hiring an abatement company, hiring an air monitoring
company, demolition of the building, and disposal and tipping fees of about $250,000
just to clear the site. I am hoping that our understanding of the redevelopment bonus
definition and what it is going to entail to get this site ready for new housing, which we
desperately need, that the board will consider honoring the two unit per acre
redevelopment bonus. I know that is an answer you can’t give today but I am hoping
that as we work through other architectural things and other landscaping things that
can enhance this site, hopefully it can steer the direction to approving the additional
two units.
Returning to your question about shifting the building away, that was the first thing
after reading your email, I asked Adam (Fishel) if we could literally shift everything to
the north. What I am thinking is that if we took these structures and slid everything to
the north which would allow the buildings to get off the front of the road. We can
probably shift these over a hair to the east, whether or not that is even necessary
because we are not going to clear the natural vegetation that runs through here
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 16 of 26
already. There are honeysuckle trees and natural vegetation. Moving this back would
help alleviate the sight as you are coming through here because the buildings would
be off the road but also position the buildings to shield the parking area and the back
buildings so all you would see is the front façade. That would also allow a better
environment for the tenants because they would not be so close to the road and we
could do our stormwater right up front because the natural grading of the site all
pitches this way.
D. Weinstein - That comes back to John’s (Kiefer) point that the part of the building
facing the road, will it be more neighborhood friendly to people walking by? Some of
which you have down at 902, there is more of a welcoming feeling to that area instead
of seeing a big wall. Maybe you can have a porch or two or something like that.
C. O’Connor - I think that it would be important to enhance these buildings whether
that be upgraded windows or putting in sills or doing different architectural things
that we can do to enhance the curb appeal, at least on building A and B from the
streetscape. I want people to drive by and be proud of this development.
C. Anderson - Definitely read the Design guidelines for Varna. It is spelled out in there,
the part about the curb appeal.
If I can talk about LEED real quick. We had a discussion on the Board 2 years ago -
we knew there were some deficiencies in LEED. They give you points for sidewalks,
bus stops, etc. and we talked about trying to incentivize that to encourage energy
efficiency. I would say if you are missing some points, come back and let us look at it.
We are not opposed to that.
D. Weinstein - We want to be realistic. We have goals for making environmentally
friendly developments in Varna and if we can shift… it is our decision about what
really qualifies as LEED. The LEED qualifications are changing all of the time.
C. Anderson - you won’t get the LEED stamp.
D. Weinstein - You won’t get the LEED stamp but you might get a bonus from us. We
obviously don’t expect you to get any points for a close grocery store because it just
isn’t there. But there are other things that we might want enhanced and if we can
work with you to enhance those we get a more environmentally friendly building, it is
in our best interest to make the way so you can accomplish that.
C. Anderson - I encourage you to go through that checklist and then bring it to us.
C. O’Connor - Step one was getting through the prerequisites and after that we will go
through the yes, no, or maybe’s and see what actually works and see how high we can
get on the point system.
J. Wilson - I was not on the board when they discussed the LEED but the energy
efficiency and emission reduction is more important than some of the other things.
C. O’Connor - I would like to hear from the board and the community, any
suggestions. We have a starting point, shifting the buildings back, I know some of the
due diligence I need to do but is there anything else that anyone is thinking of or that
you want us to explore?
C. Anderson - you went through the process for 902 so you know what the community
is looking for now. From our point of view: safety fire issues, you don’t have garbage in
here, bicycle racks. Things like that are simple but they have to be worked out.
T. Hatfield - The quarter of a million dollars of infrastructure costs that you are going
to incur (I could not understand what you said!!!)
M. Hatch - Please remind us when you want us to come over for the open house at
902 Dryden Road.
J. Wilson - You have talked about community input a number of times, I now hear the
Varna Community list serve has seen this. I think it would be helpful to all of us if
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 17 of 26
there is some kind of systematic feedback from that circulation. We typically don’t
circulate to listserves but once it is out there it will be helpful for us all to see what
that particular community is saying.
D. Weinstein - I am gathering up the responses and will put that in a document to
send to everybody. Besides how many units you will have to build, the big uncertainty
for me is the question of two story versus three story buildings which has a very big
impact on people’s conception of what is here. Especially since I have heard a lot of
comments about the visibility from the plantations’ arboretum, they are freaking out
that there might be a three story building there that is just a monolith that will change
the view. How are we going to work through, are you going to run your numbers and
come back to us and say what you think is the best solution between these two
options?
C. O’Connor - Yes, that was my plan and I wanted to see where this meeting took and
it seems as though we are receptive to looking at the site for a redevelopment bonus
and if we are, then I can go back and figure out a way to make those two stories to try
to reduce the bedroom counts in some of the units to make this more of a mixed use
development.
M. hatch - isn’t this right next to a large parking lot? With a huge numbers of cars,
next to the botanical gardens? There is some improvement in the landscape by having
two or three possibly as well, for botanical garden folks. I walk that frequently and I
am quite conscious of the large amount of traffic. Maybe the houses are an
improvement.
D. Weinstein - I am not ruling it out. Maybe a hybrid of the two where the height is
graduated from the front to the back and it gets bigger as you go back might be a
winning solution.
C. O’Connor - I think the natural grading of the site will help that visional impact.
J. Wilson - I understand that visual simulations are very expensive; on the other hand
having been through what our community has been through on looking at things
visually, if there is any way to help us understand what the visuals are going to look
like from the vantage points of the public, that would probably be helpful. I can’t say
“do it” but on the other hand, I am hearing people have visualizations already and yet
that is their perspective and something more systematic would be helpful.
M. Moseley - It might also be helpful to have information sessions and I am sure David
(Weinstein) can help you with the Varna folks. It might be beneficial before you start
going through our process.
D. Weinstein - I have made it clear to the Varna community that C. O’Connor is
interested in working through the problems before we even get to a formal stage so
that doesn’t generate a knocking of heads. That’s the goal and I think people were
receptive to that and the problem we have run into in the past was when we haven’t
gone that route.
C. Anderson - If you did a third floor, between the building and the roof line, you could
do a façade in that roof line so it doesn’t have quite the visual impact that a three
story building with a flat roof would have.
D. Weinstein - Let me give you a little history on the redevelopment bonus. Up until
the last unofficial max connected with the Varna Plan, this redevelopment bonus was
conceptualized being the area from Freese Road to the west of there and not this
region. However, that said, that is not what made it in to the final zoning so it is hard
to hold you to that requirement because the zoning seems to say that redevelopment
of this areas is acceptable. It is up for debate because of the history and the original
intention but it is reasonable that you will have a strong argument.
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 18 of 26
Rezoning north of Freeville along Route 38
- This is a charge from the Town Board to analyze and advance recommendations.
R. Burger has forwarded several letters that have been received over the past year.
Several of them are from the Cricket Lane neighborhood after we had the one SUP
process go through where they didn’t want to see a business in the neighborhood. As a
result of that, they responded with letter writing. It is a form letter asking for a
rezoning of that to neighborhood residential. They think that is more appropriate
zoning for that neighborhood. Then there is property further up Route 38 that used to
be commercial district but then when the new zoning went through the entire corridor
between Freeville and Groton became rural residential. They felt like there was a lost
opportunity there. We have request from various property owners over the past year so
the Town Board wanted to pass on the charge to the Planning Board to look at this, do
an analysis for them and form some recommendation.
M. Moseley - I think the best way to deal with this would be to create a subcommittee
of two Planning Board members and a Town Board member if they are willing. That
group could analyze it and come back to the Planning Board after they have made a
determination.
J. Wilson - it would be helpful to know when they are going to come back so that if a
member is not in the group, they can still do due diligence so it is not a week ahead of
time that the committee has reported and is ready to go. That would be problematic
for me. If we could have some kind of rough agreement on a sequence of time for them
to report, it would be helpful.
C. Anderson - Have these people gone to the ZBA or anything like that?
R. Burger - No, we have those letters that were forwarded to you. That is the extent of
it.
C. Anderson - This sounds like they were caught in the zoning change in 2012; they
weren’t involved in the process. Do you know their time frame for moving forward?
R. Burger - The property on Route 38 is looking to do a development there as soon as
he is able. He is looking for more options than he has right now in rural residential so
he would appreciate to having some action this year, even by next fall or winter. As far
as Cricket Lane, there is no imperative there because there aren’t any more proposals
although they will feel more secure the sooner they can figure out that they are, what
they see, more appropriately zoned.
D. Weinstein - Am I correct in saying the Cricket Lane folks want to have it much more
difficult to site any business near there whereas the other gentleman wants a business
in an area surrounded by residential dwellings.
R. Burger - Correct, he is on a former site that was in a commercial status.
D. Weinstein - It is not fair to the other people that buy into that neighborhood to say
well, it previously was commercial, so it should go back. We have to determine what is
best for the whole neighborhood.
J. Wilson - Does the person who wants commercial have some kind of concrete idea of
what it is that he is going to do.
R. Burger - He has the idea of putting in a self storage business.
C. Anderson - At one time, there was talk of the Peruville Road/Route 38 as a node
and rezoning that area. Is that included in this charge?
R. Burger - No, but it could be extended. I don’t think it is restricted to these requests.
I think looking at the entire corridor would make sense.
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 19 of 26
C. Anderson - There was talk about maybe getting Groton involved with that node to
see if there was any interest in the other side of the street.
R. Burger - I have never made contact up there but that would probably be a good
thing.
T. Hatfield - We can do better planning if you looked at the entire district.
R. Burger - As I understand some of the history of that corridor was just kind of
broadly brushed into rural residential without much fine tuning.
C. Anderson - I only bring that up because you have some commercial already up in
that area already: a go-cart track, a church and some other things.
M. Moseley - Maybe by next meeting we can ask for volunteers and whether
individuals want to be on the subcommittee and talk to the Town Board members to
see if they would be interested in working on the process as well. We will put it on next
month’s agenda.
Resolution to rescind Resolution #17 2017: David Weinstein
D. Weinstein - I appreciate the motion for a moratorium was given in good faith and
we had a discussion about it. It is not criticizing that discussion and trying to move
forward with a new idea. The problem was that this was special meeting that was
specifically to evaluate the SEQR, to give our recommendations on the SEQR. I really
don’t feel it is good policy to entertain a resolution that has not been on the agenda so
that people could think about it before hand. I personally was not able to think fast
enough about all the arguments that I personally would have had against it. This is an
important issue and we need to, before hand, have the time to go through all of the
logic, individually, so we come to the table before we make a decision with some pre-
thought, pre-understand of what we are talking about. That is where I wanted to go
with this and I thought the best way of proceeding would be to rescind the resolution
that had been passed and start again and have a full discussion about this in a
context where it was advertised before-hand; the public knew and we knew that we
were actually going to go through it and evaluate it so everyone could be prepared for
that discussion. Again, I am not criticizing Tom (Hatfield) or anybody who voted in the
last round even though I disagree with the reasoning that was put forth. That is not
the issue here. The issue is that it is bad procedure.
J. Wilson - I have the same sense. Now I would not have been able to vote and I
acknowledge that. You were courteous enough Marty (Moseley) to read the comments
that I offered up understanding what I did about the agenda. I would have offered up,
whether you would be willing to read them or not as a courtesy, I would have offered
other comments had a moratorium been agendized. I agree with David (Weinstein) as a
matter of practice and procedure, the moratorium should not have been voted on so I
will support the notion of rescinding the moratorium and then we can move forward
again.
Public comment:
J. Osmeloski
My first suggestion, Marty (Moseley) is until the solar thing is settled you might want
to change the hours for the meetings to seven to 10 or seven to 11 because they are all
going to go longer. Let’s face it; the only issue the town cares about right now is the
solar issue. I originally came to congratulate the board on passing the moratorium,
commending them on going out on a limb to recommend it to the Town Board.
Obviously a lot of people in town are proud of what you are did; signs are popping up
everywhere, people are writing articles about it, Janis (Graham) wrote a great editorial
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 20 of 26
in the Ithaca Journal, it is on the front page of the Dryden Courier today. So a lot of
people agree with what you did. I did come to congratulate you but to my dismay, I got
the agenda and already you want to rescind something that you passed last month.
My first thought was what does that do to the credibility of this board? They passed a
resolution and then someone doesn’t like that resolution, let’s rescind it. I don’t know
what kind of precedent that is going to set but that is your decision.
I want to take a little bit of issue with David (Weinstein). At the Town Board meeting
David indicated it was somehow illegal and that was one of the reasons he wanted to
rescind it. He was saying things like “since it wasn’t on the agenda, it wasn’t legal”. We
all know that any board, Town Board, Planning Board, Ag Committee, etc. that
anything can be added to the agenda at any time. Any resolutions can be offered and
passed at anytime. Obviously it was perfectly legal and you indicated at the Town
Board that possibly there was some kind of error.
The other issue I heard was something about another board member not being here so
the vote would have been 4-3 rather than 5-2. Actually the vote would have been 5-3
because Hilary’s (Lambert) vote counts and everyone has heard her vote. In reality, it
still passed. I think finally what I would like to say is when I saw it was going to be
voted to be rescinded, I thought to myself, well the vote will be 7-1 or 8-0 because you
have seen the town reaction. The town is favor of this moratorium. We have not seen
another board support the resolution, the Ag Committee voted to support the
resolution. Obviously, there is more support for the resolution but since a couple of
people don’t agree with the resolution all of a sudden they want to throw it out a
month after you passed it. That sets a terrible precedent for this town.
S. Osmeloski
I support having a moratorium because I have been to a lot of these meetings. I am
very concerned about the cell tower and the solar farms because they will have a
major impact on my property. I read almost all of the materials submitted on line
about everything and I have to admit I have a ton more questions and I am confused. I
think there are still things that we need to answer and understand before we can
make the correct decision on these properties. I am confused about why we are told
Tompkins County and the Town of Dryden need to become more solar and have more
of these solar arrays. I get that and think it is a good thing. Then they say there are
only two places in the Dryden that they can put them, one beside me and one in Ellis
Hollow. Is that it? Are those the only places in our town where they can be? Then what
happens with the other solar arrays we are supposed to have. I don’t understand the
placement of them and how we are going to put them correctly.
The other thing that is confusing me is, in January the Town Board passed a
moratorium on things like solar farms and development until July. Then in February,
they gave an exemption to the moratorium to Distributed Sun because Distributed
Sun might lose some money if they had to wait till July for their decision. Now this
board passed a moratorium last month and this month it wants to rescind it. We are
starting to chase our tails here, we need to step back, get a plan and move forward
deliberately instead of fumbling around.
Brad Perkins
Joe and Sarah stole my thunder so I will be brief. Dave, I respect that you like to think
about things but there were people who did think about it and the town attorney was
here and she thought about it. And people in good faith voted for it. If you are team
player, I’m going to ask you to go along with it now. It has not passed the Town Board
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 21 of 26
yet. I think that is an important point. I think you owe this to your audience and your
board members.
A couple of other things that are sort of ancillary to this. On behalf of the cemetery, I
proposed to Distributed Sun, a compromise but it was like they did not even hear it
but it was echoed in my office to Bharath one on one. He has not responded to it. I
asked our town supervisor and I asked Bharath if there was anybody who would
receive any remuneration as a siting fee. Neither have answered that question. There
is an answer somewhere to it and I intend to find it, either now or later. I don’t know
what the answer is but I will mention a name: Seneca Strategic Consulting, LLC.
Janice Graham
- Please see attached flyer from Renovus.
I am talking about the Ellis tract. One of the arguments made against the moratorium
by Sarah Z. of Cornell was that we wanted a moratorium for impending large projects
that were supposedly non-existent. Today, I was looking into this. I don’t know if it is
all through Dryden. Renovus is offering to allow us to buy into community solar. I was
trying to figure out that… there are two different models - one is pay up front and one
is subscription. And you go to a map (https://data.ny.gov/Energy-
Environment/Community-Solar-CDG-Solar-Electric-Projects-Comple/8kxr-npmk)
which says search community solar near you and I found that there is another large
project, supposedly, in the pipeline. It is the size of the Ellis Tract, it is by a company
Xzerta energy group. I called Ray (Burger) who had not heard of it but who said that
wouldn’t be unusual because you wouldn’t know. That is the same that happened
with Sun 8. I tried to call, forget about calling NYSERDA. This is, potentially, another
big project, you can’t find out where it is in Town. I will leave this and you can tell
which is the Ellis Tract and which is Willow Glen. There are three in Dryden and these
are the three that came up. That is the first thing, it is not theoretical that there might
be other big projects at our door but we don’t know where the third one is.
The other thing is, the Planning Board member David (Weinstein), we talked there are
these fields off the Turkey Hill side that if Cornell made them available would create,
shift the foot print around to take pressure off different areas. Cornell has been saying
there is 30 year research but you can’t talk to the researcher. Then two weeks ago,
Linda Lavine, after the Town Board meeting said to me that she met with Cornell and
pushed them on these fields and the 30 year research and they finally said “there is no
30 year research but we can’t change the footprint now at this late stage because it
will require all new state permits”. A neighbor on Turkey Hill knows there is no
research because the farmer that lives there says he has never seen anyone there. I
know that the SEQR says that the discussion of reasonableness is you can’t get a
developer to investigate a site that they don’t have control over. I would argue that
Cornell is sort of a co-developer, they have been at every meeting, they have met with
us, they have aggressively advocated. They have control of those, unlike Scott Pinney
who no one has ever seen, Cornell really has been. I just want to argue for the fact
that maybe a moratorium would allow these other fields to come into play, Sun 8
would still have its 28 or 29 megawatts but it could allow Dodge Road to be a little
further set back and we could save some trees. I will leave this with you, which is the
NYSERDA data, I couldn’t find that much about it but I do believe there might be
other stuff in the pipeline. Those of us in Dryden can take advantage of this.
Pat Dubin
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 22 of 26
I live in the Town of Caroline although my property borders Dryden. I have been
following the issue closely because I don’t think it is an issue that affects just one
town or another. I think whether we get this kind of solar in our community will affect
all of us and I want the solar. I also support what David said. I don’t know what the
Planning Board saw but I know when I looked on the website about the Planning
Board meeting where the moratorium was introduced, it said that it was a special
meeting to discuss view sheds. That was all I saw so when the moratorium topic was
raised, that was very surprising to me. I think that there wasn’t due process in the
sense that David (Weinstein) expressed which was the opportunity for people to know
what was going to be an issue a the meeting and I think everyone here agrees it is a
big issue and it shouldn’t have been something that folks didn’t have a chance think
about before-hand.
The other thing I wanted to say is, I have been following the website in terms of what
has been submitted by Distributed Sun on this project. A lot has been submitted, as I
know the Town Board members know. I think there is only one or two documents left
before the Board will have a complete package and can make a decision on the project.
I think that we need a decision on the merits; I don’t think, as this Planning Board has
said, any other developer is asked to consider alternative sites when they come before
the board asking for permission to do a development. We have heard from the
developers themselves at numerous community information meetings and other public
meetings about why these are the only sites possible for these projects. I think the
moratorium should be rescinded and I think we need to allow the Town Board to be in
a position to make a decision on the merits of the project as soon as they have
everything that they need.
Spring Buck, Sunny Slope Road
I am very much in support of the solar project. I am not the most eloquent person so I
am stealing words from a famous person. We as Americans make up 5% of the world’s
population and consume 24% of it. We have a responsibility to be leaders and
stewards in energy consumption and how we make it. We really don’t have time and I
think this is a very symbolic thing. We don’t have time to be dragging this out. We
genuinely are on the world stage. Say what you want about Cornell but people watch
what we do and watch this community. You know that from what you did fighting
fracking. To me, the moratorium slows things down and I am worried about where the
money is going to be coming from for support from the federal and state government.
For me it is very much about the symbolism, we don’t have time.
Craig Schutt
Last night, I was watching the 11 pm news on channel three out of Syracuse. There is
a proposal similar to these in Onondaga County and they are starting to go through
the same kind of “yes, we want it, no we don’t want it”. What really grabbed my
attention was who is supporting /backing this project. To my surprise it is Tetra Tech.
The same company that did all of our analysis, that we are all supposed to believe was
done perfectly, and it may be perfect and fine but to me it is another little thread
sticking out there that needs to be answered. That is the problem with these projects;
there are so many different threads that if you pull one you find more. This Town
needs time to find out, to get the answers so I definitely support the moratorium.
Then tonight there was a developer here. Well, “don’t put those buildings too high
because it might hurt the view shed”. Wait a minute, we have been talking view sheds
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 23 of 26
on these things but we are crazy if we think about that. Let’s be real here and treat
everybody the same. If you are concerned about the view shed down in Varna, some of
us are concerned about the view shed, some are worried about the view shed from
Dodge Road and some are concerned about it at Willow Glen. But you set right there
David (Weinstein) and said Cornell might not like those tall buildings, you better think
about the viewshed. It makes no sense to me what is going on here. Let’s keep the
recommendation for the moratorium in place. We all have to realize it is just a
recommendation from you guys. There is nothing binding. Rescinding it? Why? The
Town Board can do whatever they want to do with it. You just stepped forward and
made a recommendation and I support that.
M. Moseley - I have something to say that deals with agendas. There have been quite
a few statements. I have communicated with the Committee on Open Government in
New York State and I have looked into our own regulations and from my
understanding an agenda is something that is fluid. I am not saying or saying that
what you felt is appropriate but there is no legal binding associated with the agenda.
Even Roberts Rules of Orders, there is indication that the agenda can be amended
even if it was adopted, two-thirds of the vote can change the agenda.
D. Weinstein - I appreciate that you looked into that and your comments. I can’t
image that anybody in this room thinks it is a good idea to move forward with major
issues that no one was alert to before a meeting, not the public, not the board. I just
think it is bad policy to do that. It is not in keeping of the idea of open meetings/open
government. It is not letting people know that there is a major issue that is going to be
on the table for discussion and I think you are cutting people out of the equation.
M. Moseley - I am not cutting people out of the equation although it is not on the
agenda, the agenda is fluid. Members propose things during the meetings, it has
happened in the past while I was part of this board but not chair. It has not been
brought up before against anybody else. It also has not been an issue previously.
M. Hatch - Did we have a vote of two-thirds to amend the agenda?
M. Moseley - That is in Robert’s Rules and this board did not adopt those regulations.
M. Hatch - we don’t follow Robert’s rules?
M. Moseley - No and if we did, the Board would have to approve the agenda,
specifically.
J. Wilson - I don’t want to make this personal. I appreciate you doing the research
and I think the research has some substantial weight; that is we have no given
procedures apparently on this board. I think that it - the reason I chose the word
practice as opposed to policy is because I think in this instance and the amount of
interest and sentiment that has been express around the moratorium issue makes
clear that the moratorium was a major thing to propose and pass I think to the extent
that people could have foreseen that then the matter should have been labeled as such
on the agenda. That would have been the best practice for us to follow. In order to get
this resolved, I am going to move that we rescind the moratorium recommendation so
we can vote on it and come to a conclusion.
D. Weinstein seconded the motion.
T. Hatfield -Since I am the one that made the motion in the first place, it is time for
me to speak. I think the emphasis of the moratorium recommendation is not the
emphasis of the point. The point is we have had before us for many meetings in a row
now, folks from this community that expressed concern about the location and site. I
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 24 of 26
have heard no one come out and tell us they are opposed to solar. I have yet to hear
that. I don’t think I have heard anyone say they are opposed to industrialized solar.
The fact of the matter is that this board discussed solar at that level, some time ago
and made a recommendation to the Town Board to include it in the solar law. That
recommendation didn’t get taken up on. It may have helped us in this situation if it
had. We have a major issue in this community. Joe (Wilson), you said earlier today
that with respect to parking, you were concerned about community reaction. My
moratorium proposal, the resolution I offered, was exactly that issue, the reaction and
concern of the community. The concept that we don’t have time to properly plan the
location, the siting of industrial solar, is clearly bogus. On Dodge Road, at Willow
Glen, they have grave concerns. We can bulldoze our way ahead and not take time out
to properly plan. The moratorium only suggested. The recommendation we made was
only for six month time out. Let’s gather up as a community and figure out a better
siting process. Sometime there is no good answer. Like the cell tower legislation, while
we were making the legislation it became very apparent, everyone wants to dial 911
but the tower has to be in someone’s their back yard. That’s the type of thing that not
only needs to be discussed amongst ourselves as the body responsible for good
planning. Should the Town decide to implement the moratorium for six months,
charge us, agree to join us and jointly charge ourselves and the folks on the other
boards. There is a tremendous amount of interest in getting this thing right. There is
no time rush, the only thing we can do now is rush forward and make a mistake. It is
very clear that there is going to be tremendous discord and upheaval in this
community. The very least is we should take some time to give it thought. I am not
willing to see us fail to encourage the town board to call a time out and do this right.
D. Weinstein - You are opening up the discussion of whether the moratorium itself is
a good thing. I didn’t think you wanted to go there. That wasn’t what the topic, I don’t
know if you want that discussion. We can get back into a whole debate about whether
a moratorium is a good thing or not but I didn’t think that was what this was about.
M. Hatch - I want to raise the question, it would be helpful to me after these eight or
nine years that I have been on the board to get clarification. Very often I have been
admonished for bringing up issues that were somehow responsive to particular
opinions held in the community. The admonishment was that this board has legal
responsibilities to do things according to the laws, the zoning and to an extent the
comp plan and have to follow those things. It should not be put in a position of having
to be swayed and in fact, Tom has periodically stated that we don’t do that kind of
thing because it is the Town Board that gets elected by the public, we don’t. If we are
going to get into the area of advising the Town Board based upon our perception of
public opinions, and by the way, I have done a survey of public opinion based on the
communication passed on to us by the Town. There is much more support, I have not
quantified it but I think it is about 60% for solar installations as opposed to against. I
am not acting on that basis. I am simply asking the question of what are our
guidelines with respect to public opinions being voiced about particular issues or
projects.
M. Moseley - That is a question, correct?
M. Hatch- That is a question that I think we should answer in a general sense about
all of our action but it particularly has to do with this issue because we have decided
we want to take action based upon the public response that we have had as opposed
to based upon our legal responsibilities which are outlined in zoning and the
description of our role. Particularly takes notice of what Tom has said many times
through the seven to eight years we have shared membership which is that we are not
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 25 of 26
a body that is elected and therefore we have to be very careful that we don’t take, do
these things in response to public opinion.
M. Moseley - The public is involved in the process. Not specifically this process, I am
talking the generalized process. Just like tonight when we had a public hearing, the
public hearing is to integrate public comments associated with those proposed
actions. This, although it was a suggestion to the Town Board but not a specific action
per se, it was a suggestion to the Town Board. We have, throughout the last several
meetings talked about solar and we have involved the public to a large extent. We have
heard a lot of people throughout the time. It is our job to take their public concerns
and determine if they are factual. And then base our decisions off the factual basis as
Joe (Wilson) said in his email, at one point.
M. Hatch - I agree with you there and we had a solar law that we passed and there
was public comment on it. That law now governs our actions, doesn’t it? That is why
every time we brought this up, I asked what action are we taking tonight and when it
was clear we were not taking any action, it was clear to me to suggest that our
opinions, which they might be worth something to us personally, should not be part of
the process, the deliberation of the board if there isn’t going to be any action taken.
The last meeting, not last month but the 3rd, we took action on a SEQR and you made
clear to me when I mentioned to you that we might put off that meeting that you
wanted to have our opinion before the board by a certain time as part of our legal
responsibilities. And yet at this point we introduced and had on the table something
that we had no legal standing to engage in. In the sense that it was not a legal opinion
that we were, there wasn’t even anything on the agenda that we had any responsibility
to deal with.
M. Moseley - Again the agenda is fluid, we have covered that. We didn’t take any
actions, like I said before. We made a recommendation on the SEQR to the Town
Board. There were no actions that we took. Yes the solar law governs the town and
the entities that approve that. It governs the Town Board and it involves us as a
process. We were providing a superfluous recommendation to the Town Board in
hopes it would help them with the SEQR process when they actually got to that
determination itself.
J. Wilson - I know Robert’s Rules don’t govern but I am going to call the question. The
question, what I tried to do was make a motion to rescind the recommendation for a
moratorium so I am going to offer to all of us that we vote on that motion as opposed
to going back into the merits of the moratorium itself. That wasn’t the motion that I
made and I am asking that we vote on that motion.
H. Lambert - Before you vote, can you read the words that you are actually going to
vote on.
E. Bieber read Resolution #17, 2017 into the record.
The vote was 4-3 against rescinding the resolution.
There being no further discussion the meeting was adjourned at 9:46PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Erin A. Bieber
Dryden Planning Board
May 25, 2017
Page 26 of 26