Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-25Dryden Planning Board August 25, 2016 Dryden Planning Board August 25, 2016 Members present: Joe Laquatra (Chair), Marty Hatch, Craig Anderson, Joseph Wilson, David Weinstein,,John Kiefer, Tom Hatfield, and Marty Moseley. Town Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director Liaisons: Deborah Cipolla- Dennis and Jason Leifer, Town Board Guests: Buzz Dolph, Craig Schutt and Mary Ann Sumner The meeting was called to order at 7PM D. Weinstein moved to approve the minutes from July 28, 2016 with clarification. C. Anderson seconded the motion and the minutes were unanimously approved. T. Hatfield moved to approve the minutes from the special meeting held on August 10, 2016. D. Weinstein seconded the motion and the minutes were approved by the members that were present. Quarry Road Tiny Timbers Cooperative: Buzz Dolph - Mr. Dolph wishes to put 4 tiny homes on a 2 acre parcel that adjoins his property. The problem is the zoning ties the number of dwellings on a parcel to the number of conforming lots that can be created out of the larger lot. In this case, with 2 acres, Mr. Dolph is limited to 2 dwellings. - Mr. Dolph asked what a dwelling unit comprises. Zoning defines a dwelling as a building but defines a dwelling unit as a residence for a single family. Therefore a dwelling could have 5-6 dwelling units within a single dwelling. - Mr. Dolph and R. Burger have agreed that if the houses are connected to the shared carport with a shared roof then it works as a duplex - In order for Mr. Dolph to get a "no action" letter from attorney general in regard to creating a cooperative in which the property is jointly owned, there has to be a wall between the two units (within the carport) that is jointly owned by the two houses. Everything else (the house, the covered walkway up to the jointly owned wall, personal effects, etc.) have to be owned separately. - He would like some architectural leeway to make the project fit with the environment. - The tiny homes will be offered as affordable housing - T. Hatfield asked if this is a PUD application. The Board agreed the PUD would be more work and would not necessarily give him additional capacity. - This is in a rural residential district. - A short discussion of a conservation subdivision was held — the Board agreed that subdivision would not help. - T. Hatfield pointed out that the zoning law came out of the Comprehensive Plan and as projects come forth, the Board gets to see where the law is working and where it might need adjustment. - The Town Board can look at the situation and permit a greater density. It might lead to a change in the zoning. D. Cipolla-Dennis indicated that Mr. Dolph is welcome to address the Board but she reminded everyone that part of the reason for limiting the density was the preservation of green space. - J. Leifer suggested the Board might consider changing zoning to acknowledge the total square footage of the buildings on the site. Page 1 of 4 Dryden Planning Board August 25, 2016 - The Board agreed that connecting two structures with a covered breezeway and carport will qualify the project as two two-family dwellings on two acres which is acceptable. - Mr. Dolph will return next month for a site plan review. Infrastructure guidelines: C. Anderson - D. Cipolla-Dennis sent out a copy of Local Law #2, 1016 which created a moratorium on certain public utility installations for 180 days. She asked C. Anderson what exactly he had in mind to include in the guidelines. Where does he think the Planning Board should start? - C. Anderson indicated he would start with road permits. He would like to see what is required to get a permit and then what town and state law backs that up. When putting power lines in along a town road, what are the guidelines/requirements for permitting? - T. Hatfield added that another concern is the eventual removal of the infrastructure. A utility can be put in with permits but what about when it is time to remove that infrastructure, will that cost have to be absorbed by the Town or are there guidelines in place to require the utility cover the cost of removal? - J. Wilson suggested starting with the pipeline since it is the current issue in the Town. - There are lots of specifics that can be invoked for the pipeline: Ag and Markets has guidelines on pipelines though agricultural land and the DEC has guidelines on what energy use/green house gas emissions. - D. Weinstein said that the Planning Board did not want to create the guidelines in isolation — we want all the laws dealing with utilities to be parallel. - T. Hatfield said Joe's point is well taken but as stated, the State has existing guidelines. The Town of Dryden wants to have some guidelines in place on all infrastructures to hold the Town residents harmless. - M. Moseley added that other entities have guidelines in place that will hold the Town harmless. He provided an example from Lansing where a road section needed to be replaced due to a drilling situation and due to the guidelines in place, the contractor had to fix the road. - J. Laquatra asked the Board if they want to recommend to the Town Board that the Town lawyers review the guidelines other entities have and create guidelines for Dryden. - J. Wilson stated NYSEG has designed the pipeline such that it will not meet the threshold that will trigger a State review. - M. Hatch offered the following resolution: The Planning Board requests the Town Board charge the Town lawyers with the task of reviewing local (Town of Ithaca, Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York State, etc) infrastructure regulations and create guidelines for the Town of Dryden that meet the high standards as discussed by the Planning Board. D. Weinstein seconded the motion. The resolution was never called to a vote and the Board moved on with discussion. - C. Anderson asked why the Planning Board would not do the research. - M. Hatch pointed out that one of the Town's lawyers is also employed by the Town of Ithaca so she might have more experience and knowledge of the guidelines. - Discussion revolved around who should do the review. - J. Wilson asked if a SUP has a time limit on it? Using the pipeline as an example, the easements that are signed are for perpetuity. If there is a way to limit the time for the permit, then they will have to come back for further permitting. It would give the Town more control. - There is a provision that if a SUP is granted by not implemented, the SUP expires after 18 months. Page 2 of 4 Dryden Planning Board August 25, 2016 - However, if the Town only issued the permit for 10 years, what recourse is there at the end of 10 years? We can't make them dig up the pipeline. J. Leifer pointed out that even after the pipeline is decommissioned, the issue could be like when they plug up the gas wells but don't remove the feeder lines — those lines are the ones that tend to leak eventually. Having a bond to cover the cost of that kind of situation would be helpful. M. Moseley asked R. Burger if he can check with the Association of Towns to see what other towns are doing in regard to the bonds. Route 366 Traffic Issues: M. Hatch In the interest of moving forward with the Varna plan, when presented with this kind of proposal (1061 Dryden Road, Evergreen Townhouses) which includes a traffic study, instead of just discussing the traffic issue, the Board should be discussing a method of remediation to the problem. The major problem with the 1061 Dryden Road project is the traffic situation. - there have been lots of talks (a traffic circle, sidewalks, etc) but if the change is so far ahead, then we are potentially losing development and the advancement of the Varna plan. - can we be pushier in regard to getting the State transportation department moving quicker? - Does the Board believe this is a big enough issue, do we have time to address this, how should we approach this? - T. Hatfield believes the high traffic issue is being driven by the growth of the local educational institutions. There is a lack of affordable housing in the Town which leads to people traveling from out of town to work. He agrees that this is an issue that we can push. - M. Hatch said we need to also look for ways to remediate the traffic issue because otherwise the implementation of ideas like the Varna Plan won't happen. He recommended looking at ideas like more park -n -rides. We can look for solutions from other locations. - T. Hatfield believes a coalition is needed to push the changes. The roads like Route 13 and 38 are State highways and thus they are the ones that need to be encouraged. - C. Anderson reminded everyone that it has already been noted that transportation is a big hole in the Comprehensive Plan. - T. Hatfield pointed out that there is a county coalition already in place, the ITCTC (Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Counsel) - Mary Ann Sumner suggested talking to Fernando de Arag6n of the ITCTC and the Cornell transportation person. - M. Hatch pointed out that Varna could be a revenue generating area if we can get the transportation issue worked out. - T. Hatfield indicated that he would like Mr. de Aragon to attend a Planning Board meeting so he understands that there are a number of people concerned about this issue. - R. Burger said the ITCTC has allocated $12 million from the State over a 5 year stretch. The Varna sidewalk project has been allocated more than the original $400,000 (it is up to $700,000) and has been included in the $2.8 million repaving project that will cover from the NYSEG/route 13/366 intersection all the way to the town line. Now it is a state project which means we have lost some control but NYSDOT will now provide the 20% match. He believes dropping asphalt costs might free more funds to get the amenities that the Town wants. - M. Hatch asked how we get the amenities. Who do we pressure to get what we need? - Elected officials need to be convinced that by fixing the road a particular way will generate more income. People don't want to live next to a "highway" with speeding traffic. Page 3 of 4 Dryden Planning Board August 25, 2016 Pocket parks: C. Anderson - The Varna plan calls for pocket parks and sidewalks for residents to enjoy and to encourage a walk -able community. - Tiny Timbers has not committed to a pocket park or permitting citizens access to amenities. - 902 Dryden Road was not required to include a pocket park despite the Plan requirements. - How does the Planning Board "encourage" developers to include amenities — pocket parks? - 1061 Dryden Road has agreed to provide a section of the property for the rail trail as an amenity. C. Anderson has brought this up because when he brought the topic up during previous meetings, other board members expressed their belief that the pocket parks were not necessary at the sites under discussion. - The "pocket park" can be a bench along the sidewalk for folks to stop and rest. + Rail Trail Task Force: J. Kiefer Things are moving quickly - They are contacting property owners to get easements - They are submitting a proposal for a state grant. He is hoping that the Planning Board will submit a resolution in support of the Rail Trail. - There is also another group called Friends of the Rail Trail which J. Kiefer strongly encouraged the Planning Board members to join. J. Laquatra thanked the Board for their support and passed the gavel onto M. Moseley. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30PM. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk Page 4 of 4