Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-28PB 6-28-18 D R A F T Page 1 of 7 TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD June 28, 2018 Present: Martin Moseley, Craig Anderson, Tom Hatfield, Joseph Wilson, David Weinstein, John Kiefer, James Skaley Absent: Martin Hatch Town Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director Bambi Avery, Town Clerk Liaisons: Craig Schutt, Conservation Board, Alice Green, Town Board Chair Moseley called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and appointed James Skaley as a voting member due to the absence of Martin Hatch. PUBLIC COMMENT Shirley Lyon spoke about the constraints to development on Mineah Road (traffic issues, water supply and erosion) and said that being in a zoned conservation district would not offer the protection they seek. She inquired about a more restricted overlay zone on lots with access to Mineah Road so that any future construction would have to come before the Planning Board. It was explained that amending the zoning would require Town Board action and she was advised to go to the Town Board. There can also be a recommendation from Planning Board. J Kiefer said he understands that there is an incremental thing going on here headed in an alarming direction. The question will be how much is too much. It would be helpful to have traffic engineer and hydrological engineer input on the matter. S Lyon has information from NYSDOT and the Tompkins County Health Department letter. There was discussion about the segmentation question in SEQR. It was pointed out in this instance the owner has done what is permitted under the zoning law. If the intent is to keep putting houses there, the owner needs to say so. There is a significant environmental impact. Adding phases is not technically segmentation. It is not always necessary to come to the board for single family houses. Overlay description isn’t usually applicable just to one or two parcels of property and S Lyon said it would be on Mineah Road and properties that would have to exit on Mineah Road. M Mosely said the overlay should be steep slopes or something of that nature and it would be for steep slopes over a percentage and the density would be reduced. He asked her to look at all the aspects of what it would be and it would be a global area. The entire town would need to be examined to see what other areas might be affected in Dryden. Debbie Clemente Fortner, 22 Mineah Road, said her property is everything she owns in her life. She has no say, no extra money, and everything she has is riding on this board. When she bought the house it was residential, she had no idea it was changed to commercial. S Lyon has been her representative because she has been in New Jersey caring for her daughter and granddaughter. She doesn’t have a lot PB 6-28-18 D R A F T Page 2 of 7 of money. If someone takes her water away or caves her land in, she can’t fix anything and will be destroyed. Approval of Minutes – Approval of the minutes of May 24, 2018, was moved by J Wilson, seconded by J Kiefer – Aye: Moseley, Skaley, Weinstein, Keifer, Anderson Abstain: T Hatfield, J Wilson 231 Groton Road Sketch Plan Review Kevin Clark would like to place two 2 modular homes on his property for his two children. The property will not be subdivided. There is an existing home on the property. R Burger noted the owner can develop a single property with up to 10 dwellings. If it is 2-4 dwellings the Planning Board does site review. If it is 5-10 dwellings it is a special use permit before the town board. This is a sketch plan review tonight. The application is complete. • A simple SWPPP is required for basic sediment and erosion control. • It was noted there is a UNA near the property. • Wastewater permit will be approved to the Tompkins County Health Department. • Screening from neighbors can be accomplished with a curve in the proposed driveway. • It is not necessary to limit the property (14 acres) to one driveway because of the extensive road frontage. • An EAF is not a requirement for single family home projects (Type 2 action). • There is no DEC or Army Corps wetland on the subject property. • Applicant is not aware of the new 239 guidelines from the County. • Tompkins County Planning’s 239 review has no concerns. • Power sources for the new homes will be NYSEG and bottled propane. RESOLUTION #11 – SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL – 231 GROTON ROAD C Anderson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that the Town of Dryden Planning Board hereby waives site plan review and approves the sketch plan provided by Kevin Clark to place two modular homes on tax parcel #28.-1-7.2 subject to Tompkins County Health Department approval of the septic system and a basic stormwater pollution prevention plan approved by the Town of Dryden Planning Department. 2nd Cl T Hatfield Aye: Moseley, Hatfield, Weinstein, Anderson, Kiefer, Wilson, Skaley No: none Consideration of Proposed Zoning Amendments from the Ag Committee and Possible Recommendation to the Town Board The board discussed this last month and D Weinstein sent an email to members following that meeting. Board members reviewed that and a draft of definitions presented by C Anderson tonight (both attached). PB 6-28-18 D R A F T Page 3 of 7 Comments/discussion points: • Definition of agri-tourism and link with recreation is vague. • The recommendations came from the Ag Committee, Ag & Markets and George Frantz and are Ag & Markets definitions. • A site plan review process was outlined for ag-related enterprises; the Ag Committee would like to work on this. • The Planning Board should retain its ability to scrutinize specific activities that might occur under the proposed definition. • A farmer can ask NYS Ag & Markets to rule on any law that they believe interferes with operation of their business; that is a protection that says there’s not a lot of need for special definitions and provisions because they have a protector. • There is no danger in defining things if the board retains the right to scrutinize an activity. • Don’t want the farms to be misled that they can do whatever they want. • Some of this discussion is due to serious flaws in zoning. • The words “but not limited to” were added to the definition of ag-related enterprises to broaden it. • Should a definition for “farm to table” be added? • It would be helpful to have the Ag Committee work on this. • Concern that a farm stand does not evolve to a restaurant; need a clear understanding of the difference. • If a farm stand expands and is enclosed does it require site plan review? • Ag & Markets definitions are New York State law and it may not be appropriate to modify them. • Adding site plan review gives the Planning Board the authority to say a proposal is not in the spirit of the definition and to deny it. • Restaurant definition doesn’t really fit for farm to table. Is there a need for something different? • The term “ag-related enterprise” is unique to Dryden zoning. • NYS Ag & Markets allows an expedited (30 days) simple site plan review process. • Differences in ag-related businesses are a matter of scale. • C Anderson will follow up on the size limit for the definition. Town Board Charge to Planning Board for review of Comp Plan and Areas to Revise - Some Planning Board members have submitted documents on this topic. There was discussion on how to proceed. The Town Board is trying to plan for next year’s budget season and could potentially hire a consultant Discussion/comments: • The Planning Board could proceed with review chapter by chapter. • Members could divide the sections work simultaneously rather than as a group by section. • The current format is dense and repetitive in many ways. • Reviewing by section may isolate certain things resulting in having to go back and cross-reference. • There is no climate/energy section. • D Weinstein and M Hatch did compose a section on that topic. • Is it time to look at the plan from the top down? • A process needs to be decided. • Last time a consultant was hired, a survey went out and there were public information sessions. PB 6-28-18 D R A F T Page 4 of 7 • There was a 25% response rate to the survey, which is very good. • What the community sees and wants needs to be determined. • Ask the Town Board to put enough money in the budget to retain a consultant and develop a process for communicating with the public first. • Overall scope of current plan was good; disappointed with implementation of zoning. • This will be a long process. • A lot of changes have taken place in the town and the region. • What do residents want to see the future look like; knowing that is the basis. • There’s a need to be careful to not get into the weeds at this point. • The Town Board has asked whether the plan needs to be updated. • The plan itself recommends that it be updated. • It is easy to say it is time to do that and to point out a few things that need to be updated. • Things to update include: new survey, traffic, development trends. • Climate control and sustainability are missing from the current plan. • The Planning Board should ask the Town Boards for funds to update the plan. • Details can be worked out later. • There is a heavy hand of a consultant in the current plan. • The climate and energy areas are urgently needed; updating that portion shouldn’t take years. • A town typically puts together a committee that can meet more frequently to work on a re-write, and typically a consultant listens to the committee they are working with. • The current plan is in pretty good shape, the basic overall themes seem to be right on and can be confirmed by a survey. • A consultant can help with the survey portion. • Planning Board can identify significant gaps in the comp plan and focus on those with a recommendation to the Town Board that those can be implemented more quickly. • A consultant is critical; there is a lot of work to do. • It can be a two-pronged approach. • The County and Town and City of Ithaca have done an extensive amount of work and research in terms of looking at energy and climate change and we should be coincident to them in those areas. • A consultant brings outside perspective, but the principles should be the board’s responsibility. • Ultimately the Town Board is allocating resources; this could happen over two or three budgets. • The Zoning Law is not reflective of the Comp Plan. • There is currently a list of 26 items that need to be examined/changed in the Zoning Law or other local laws. • Tiny homes on wheels can be a problem in the future; will tax septic systems. • That could reflect the need for affordable housing; people are looking for other options. • People are moving into sheds and calling them accessory facilities. • The Varna plan is not reflected in the zoning. • The ZBA had a list of items that are frequently requested and those should be considered. RESOLUTION #12 – RECOMMENDING THE TOWN UPDATE ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN J Kiefer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2018 meeting the Planning Board received a request from the Town Board to make a recommendation on whether or not the Town should update its Comprehensive Plan, herein PB 6-28-18 D R A F T Page 5 of 7 referred to as the Plan. The Town Board requested the recommendation within the next two months, in time for the Board to include funds in the FY 19 budget to update the Plan if needed, and WHEREAS, the current Plan was written in 2004 and 2005 and approved on December 8, 2005, and the Forward to the Plan recommends the Plan be updated every five years. Consequently, an update to the Plan is overdue, and WHEREAS, much of the Plan is focused on controlling the location and nature of residential development in the town and the inventory map (Map 2-5) in the Plan showing locations of such development is based on data that is over 25 years old and consequently is obsolete and should be updated, and WHEREAS, the Town’s inventory of Recreational Resources and Transportation issues, which have a large bearing livability in the Town, have changed significantly and should be updated to determine trends, and WHEREAS, the Goals and Recommendations section of the Plan states that comprehensive plans are based on the “values of the community at large”. The community values which form the basis of the Plan are based on survey data that is over 25 years old. A new survey should be conducted to validate and update the views and values of Dryden residents, and WHEREAS, significant issues have come before the Town related to climate change in which the Plan is largely silent, including development of solar energy facilities on active farmland and in locations close to population centers and whether/how the Town should play a role in reducing energy use and promoting the use of clean energy. The Plan should be updated to include an analysis and recommendations for Environmental Sustainability in the Town, and WHEREAS, an update to the Plan should include an analysis of the degree to which the goals of the Plan are still relevant and whether they are being realized by Dryden’s zoning law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that the Dryden Comprehensive Plan be updated and that the Board budget funds to hire a consultant to prepare the update. Further, that the Planning Board (in conjunction with other appointed boards) will work with the Town Board in implementing the process. 2nd J Wilson Aye: Moseley, Hatfield, Weinstein, Anderson, Kiefer, Wilson, Skaley No: none Planning Department Update – 802 Dryden Road project – Developer has moved a bathroom downstairs and that will move all front doors about two feet. With respect to the water main connection, the town attorney is working with the developer on an agreement. The developer will turn the infrastructure over to the town and be obligated to pay for any maintenance and repairs on the connection point. Discussions continue with the Town of Ithaca over the apple orchard PRV. There will then be a guaranteed supply from the PRV. PB 6-28-18 D R A F T Page 6 of 7 The Varna water main and sewer main are both being worked on, and that work will be done regardless of this issue, hopefully before winter. Trinitas Project – R Burger expects a full EAF and a reworked sketch plan for the project in the next few weeks. He said he hopes the Town Board will refer the application to the Planning Board for recommendations, but that would be at the discretion of the Town Board. D Weinstein said that this is biggest project ever seen in this town and the Planning Board should debate it and give the Town Board the information. It would be a dereliction of duty if the Planning Board doesn’t talk about how this fits into the town plan. Any Planning Board member is free to give their opinion individually, but should present it as the Planning Board’s position. The Planning Board could ask the Town Board to ask them to review the project and make recommendations. J Skaley said the purpose of the moratorium would have given them the opportunity to look at this project to see how it fit, and does the zoning reflect what is in the comp plan. He was part of the committee that advised on the varna plan. When it the plan was completed the committee dissipated and there was no input from the committee on the zoning portion of that piece. How that plan is reflected in the zoning is like two different worlds. He thinks people look at the bulk density table in the zoning and nothing else. The Varna plan isn’t even mentioned in the zoning law. D Weinstein said there is nothing in the zoning law that says the board can look at a multi-parcel project. Throughout the zoning law each parcel is regulated separately. The Trinitas plan collects a bunch of parcels and so it is inappropriate for the Town Board to do a site plan review. RESOLUTION #12 – REQUEST INPUT ON THE PROPOSED TRINITAS PROJECT D Weinstein offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED the Town of Dryden Planning Board hereby requests that the Town Board request that the Planning Board provide a set of recommendations on the Trinitas project before they move forward in any way, and further that the Planning Board will call a special meeting, if necessary, to do that. 2nd J Wilson Aye: Moseley, Hatfield, Weinstein, Anderson, Kiefer, Wilson, Skaley No: none J Wilson said it was his impression that the Town Board intended to give the project a neg dec. Next month the Planning Board will have a site plan review for Grass Masters who are relocating their business to the old Ithaca Produce building near the intersection of Route 13 and Yellow Barn Road. The Town Board will be hearing special use permit matters for a veterinary office on Hanshaw Road next to the SPCA and for a veterinary office in the old Phoenix Book Store building. 239 reviews for Town of Groton – The Planning Board has no comments with the two projects forwarded by the Town of Groton and M Mosely will respond accordingly. D Weinstein said because the Town Board decided not to go along with the moratorium and because many people feel there is a considerable crisis going on with not having the zoning reflect what the Varna plan said it should reflect, he has put together a possible solution in the form of a resolution to be PB 6-28-18 D R A F T Page 7 of 7 considered at the next meeting. This is a resolution to re-do some of the aspects of the zoning in Varna to accomplish the encouragement of single family, owner occupied housing and senior housing to make sure we have the levels of additional units that were put as the goal in the Varna Plan of 450 new bedrooms in Varna. It is important to get something on the table and start to talk about how to move forward quickly. There isn’t the opportunity to spend six months thinking about it. What is an appropriate change to the zoning that brings it in line with the Comp Plan and the Varna Community Development Plan? He asked that members review the resolution and direct any comments to him. C Anderson asked him to broaden the scope of the resolution to reflect some of the issues discussed tonight such as the definitions and the list of items already compiled. RESOLUTION #13 – IN APPRECIATION OF ERIN BIEBER T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: Whereas Town of Dryden Deputy Clerk Erin Bieber has served the Town of Dryden Planning Board faithfully for many years as the Planning Board’s recording secretary, and Whereas her efforts and inputs often provided much needed and always friendly reminders that we all were on the same team as debate often carried on around us, and Whereas her services, her smile, her presence and occasional treats are greatly missed as we continue to meet each month, We therefore wish to publicly acknowledge her efforts and recognize her for all she has done in the service of the citizens of Dryden and for this board, Erin – THANK YOU FRIEND – we miss you. 2nd D Weinstein Aye: Moseley, Hatfield, Weinstein, Anderson, Kiefer, Wilson, Skaley No: none There being no further business, on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bambi L. Avery