HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-21A
c
Planning Board
Town of Dryden
Present: Chairwoman B.
Zo. S. Stewart
May 21, 1981
Caldwell, C. Dann, J. Hunt, B. Lavine, T. Bonn,
The meeting opened with Chairwoman Caldwell stating that someone from
Wood Road was to be present, regarding mobile homes in that area. Mr.
Stewart explained the situation'''that, Mr. Hora` had sold off land, most
of it on land contract. Five years ago a nice home was built on one piece
of property. Later two lots of ten acres each were sold. Last fall a
corner lot was sold for a mobile home and another mobile home to go in.
Also two or three acres was sold for a church.
A letter was sent to Mr. Hora, informing him of the regulations. The
Planning Board will do nothing at this point. Mr. Stewart will keep the
board informed about this situation.
Mr. John Stevens, representing Mr. Clint Cotterill appeared before the
board concerning proposed road which has been referred to Planning Board
for review and comment by the Town Board.
A drawing of the road was presented, with the following things pointed out:
1) As far as private driveway which was mentioned last time, Mr.
Cotterill's house is another 250' from the end of the road andf,
has a regular driveway. If hadn't intended to divide this, it
wouldn't have been set up for connections for up to, twelve
phone underground cables.
2) Not a sub - division but if to be divided will be in ten acre lots.
Will sell nothing less than ten acres.
3) Mr. Stevens had a letter received from highway superintendent
specifying what is necessary to bring to town standards. Mr.
tCotterill will do what's necessary to make road to town standards.
Mr. Stevens is to give Planning Board copy of the letter. What
is required by highway superintendent is cleaning of ditches, re-
grading of road, oil and stone, compacting and adding materials
for any holes or depressions in the road.
Chairwoman Caldwell wanted to see grades of the road. Mr. Lavine wanted to
see property lines, which Mr. Hunt presented to the board via tax maps. Noted
that total length of the road would be approximately 18571. Mr. Hunt stated
that in talking with Mr. Cotterill, sometime plans to build a new home for
himself and sell present one he now owns.
Mr. Bonn wanted to know legal statis at present time, particular the letter
of April 16, 1981. He noted that Mr. Stevens does not recognize the juris-
diction of the board on the road. But the Town Board has referred to use
Mr. Stevens stated it has referred to Planning Board for comment. A time
of thirty days is given the Planning Board in order to make comments to the
Town Board. It was asked by Mr. Bonn if the Planning Board was just asked
then to make comment and not final ruling. Mr. Stevens answered yes.
E
a
B
Planning Board - -2 -- May 21, 1981
Mr. Hunt read town law which stated that before making any such additions
or changes, the Town Board shall refer the matter to the Planning Board for
report there on.. If Planning Board shall not make its report within thirty
days from such references, shall forfeit the right further to suspend action.
Chairwoman Caldwell stated that the town
it without our report if thirty days period
given, they may go ahead. It was stated by
understanding that after Mr. Stevens left,
Board was in a position to make a ruling on
advisory position?
could not go ahead and approve
still in affect. If no report
Mr. Bonn that it was the board's
at last meeting, the Planning
the situation. Now just in
Chairwoman Caldwell said the Attorney Perkins interpretation is that
the Town Board has to refer to Planning Board and there is a time period
and then Town Board must hold public hearing. Mr. Stevens said that a
public hearing will held at the Town Board's July meeting.
Mr. Lavine's interpretation is that it is saying a report must be made in
thirty days but there's nothing which says if Planning Board needs more in-
formation or whatever, will extend beyond thirty day period, that they can't
have that. Just report to be made, not final?
Mr. Stevens said the way he views it is after referring to Planning Board
from Town Board, brought in tonight, have thirty days to report on it. If
no report within the thirty days the Town Board may act on it. If a report
the Town Board will review report, of course public hearing in both cases,
act on it, taking in the Planning Board's report. O
The grades on sketch of the road range from 6.7% to steepest of 8.1 %.
This is a steep road and a contour map would be helpful. Also Enviromental
Assess Form for it is required by law, should be presented.
Mr. Bonn -stated that in reality only two lots exist, there is no commit-
ment because its more than ten acres, that anything will be built on here
at anytime. 'In essence we are building a driveway, regardless of terminology,
for him. That's the reality.
Asked by the board if a precedence for this type thing before. No one
could remember such a thing.
Mr. Stevens said there is room for up to twelve phones, road, if intended
to be a driveway would not be laid out in this manner. The utilities buried.
He is attempting to avade sub- division law. Does he want convenience of
taxpayers to provide snowplow service and driveway maintanence?
To be fair to Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bonn said this being first time before
board, unusual thing that's occurred on the board for three years now. Plan-
ning Board constantly justified taking roads over because of density. If
enough houses there would be a payback because of tax space increased. There
is no increase of tax space. Why worked up is it looks clearly like a way
to create out of a driveway what have you, a private road, a town road for the
convenience of two people. One is in an apparante situation of a conflict of
interest.
This was brought up before the board, first t me in 1976. Again a refusal
J
ti
Planning Board - -3 -- Mau 21, 1981
to designate a development and Planning Board refused to approve. Six or eight
months later brought before board again and board wanted to know what direction
he was taking. Last momths meeting when it was stated Planning Board had no
jurisdiction.
It was noted by Mr. Lavine that there has been no change of intent or
what development will take place on it.
Mr. Hunt had written a letter to Mr. Cotterill and went
to see
him. He
said that he hoped
to build a new house for himself at some
point.
In order
form.
what we requested Mr.
Stevens present
us. Pending,
to do that he will
have to get a variance because has only
230' of
frontage.
Can sympathize but
other people must file plans and tell direction
would apply for
they plan to
make. Mr. Lavine
thought maybe he should go before zoning
Board
and ask for
a variance instead
of having a arod deeded to the town.
The board would Nike
Mr.
Stevens to provide copy
of letter from highway
superintendent, contour
map
and enviromental assess
form.
The board felt couldn't make final decision because more information asked
for. Mr. Tarr, from Town Board, stated as long as report is in, which would
state more information needed, should be alright.
Mr. Hunt said not interested in delaying this thing but reach an answer
which is fair to town and Mr. Cotterill. Unfortunately he is denying in-
formation the board needs to make a decision. His answer would be no can't
recommend this on this basis. Should move on it.
Mr. Bonn suggested
that Planning Board reaffirm decision
of 1976, pending
additional information
what we requested Mr.
Stevens present
us. Pending,
should one reason why
want road be more road
frontage needed
to build second
or third house, that a
appropriate procedure
would apply for
zoning variance in-
stead of building new
public road. Second by
Mr. Hunt.
Discussion involved holding off on zoning variance addition to suggestion.
Also should include previous board's decision and outside of this case no
precedence request for town road. -
Mr. Bonn withdreR his suggestion and suggested Chairwoman Caldwell of
Planning Board write report to Town Board pointing out following things:
1) Third occasion been before the Planning Board. No apparant changes
since it was first before us in 1976.
2) Certainly no precedence for this type of request in our memory.
3) Asked for additional information of an enviromental assess form,
which is required by law, copy of letter from Mr. Humphrey, and
contour map.
There fore it is our recommendation at this point, we reaffirm our earlier
decisions and recomment to the Town Board that the request be denied. The
motion was second ty Mr. Lavine. All members present, voted yes.
v
!Y
40 :
Planning Board
Old Business:
- -4 --
May 21, 1981
Approval
of last months
minutes. Noted that in last months
meeting the
decision or
motion did not
appear due to some clarification that
was to be
done. Chairwoman
which seems
Caldwell
to, clarify the
noted this particular provision in
board's position in this situation.
the town law
If situation
clarified without
sending
the letter to each Town Board member,
it might
be better to
delay. The recommendation
was as follows:
The town Planning Board wishes to express its concern to the Town
Board over the proposal of Clint Cotterill to deed over to the town of
Dryden the driveway which currently provided access to his home off the
Dryden - Virgil Road. The plans that were described at the Planning Board
meeting, April 16, 1981, were not substantially different than those
presented at earlier Planning Board meetings. After each previous pre-
sentation the Planning Board recommended that Mr. Cotterill follow the
same procedures required of other land developers when approaching the
town for approval. If was the general opinion of the board, after each
presentation, that the proposal presented was not in the best interest
of the town. We believe that the proposal as presented, April 16, 1981,
is in violation of Section Five, Two - Street Layout, of the sub - division
rules and regulations. Further Mr. Cotterill's decision to take his pro-
posal directly to the Town Board seems in violation of a previous town
attorney's ruling, that all new town roads proposed must be reviewed by
the Planning Board. Further its acceptance would appear to be an un-
warranted additional expense to the town of Dryden for maintanence and
snowplowing. We recomment that the Town Board reject the proposal.
Mr. Bonn noted there were couple of discrepancies:
1) second time Mr. Lampilia presented it not Mr. Cotterill
2) violation of sub- division law, which it is not.
Noted motion was inadvertantly omitted and is being inserted as an
amendment, with no copies of recommendation to be sent to each Town Board
member as previously suggested. The following is Mr. Stevens opening
statement of April 16, 1981:
John Stevens, representing Mr. Cotterill, presented a proposal for a pri-
vate road to be deeded to the town as a public road and a right of way. The
road runs northerly from the Dryden - Virgil Road,
Mr. Stevens explained why, they would go directly to the Town Board in-
stead of the Planning Board. The proposed lot lying to the west of the
intersection of the proposed road and north of the Dryden - Virgil Road with
frontage on both of the proposed road and the Dryden - Virgil Road, would not
bring Mr. Cotterill within the definition of the Planning Board sub- division
ordinance. A lot previously, on the other side of the proposed road, was
sold to Mr. Lampila.
The balance of the lots will all be over ten acres in size and accordingly
are exempt from the sub - division regulations. These lots include a _lot on
each side of the proposed road, one to the east, on to the west and on the
north of the proposed road and its terminus. Each would exceed ten acres.
He stated that Mr. Cotterill's proposals do not fit definition of sub-
2
Y
1\!
Planning Board - -5 -- May 21, 1981
• division. The lots would remain ten acres and if any changes, he would come
before Planning Board. Mr. Stevens felt the above explanation should -'show
why Mr. Cotterill would be coming before the Town Board instead of Planning Board.
Two additional corrections:
At the Planning Board meeting, Chairwoman Caldwell noted at the County
Planning meeting, they voted to encourage a bottle return law.
As far as Town liability, if we can say we have considered solar access in
making our decisions.
Mr. Bonn made motion that minutes stand approved at corrected. Mr. Dann
second. All members voted yes.
New Business:
Mr. Dann wanted to discuss the bottle return law. Stated in spring he picks
up bottles along roadside where he rents a piece of land. Ninety percent of
bottles are glass. Worries about cutting tires and getting in chopper for
sileage and ingested by cattle.
The County Board of Representatives voted on it and is before legislature
now. Mr. Sam McNeil is in favor of it and comments can be passed along to him.
Planning Board is in favor of a bottle return law.
Condominium Legislation:
Proposal in Ellis Hollow where a developer wants to make condominums instead
of rental units. The town attorney noted there is no provision thus far in
Town of Dryden, and if Planning Board wants to draw up something, he will re-
view it. Chairwoman Caldwell has some information and has askdd for more.
Several alternatives how to handle:
1) separate ordinance
2) suggested amendment to zoning ordinance where allowed but referred
to Planning Board
Chairwoman :olCaldwell will keep board postdd on information she will gather
on this.
Chairwoman Caldwell presented a copy of letter from Daniel Blumkin to
Town Board expressing concern, that Ellis Hollow Community Center with un-
animous decision, board directors and concensus of people of Ellis Hollow
that new residences of more than two familes not be permitted.
This came about because of proposea of Cor Drost to put additional units
near Turkey Hill intersection. First time people realized in hollow, that
they were allowed in certain circumstances. The Town Board did not act on it
because of changes Mr. Drost made. He will have to reaplly. Can build six
units but wants to build nine and needs special permit.
Mr. Tarr would like to see change in law. Anything over two acres or
more than six apartments should be before Planning Board because of our ex-
pertise.
I
Planning Board
- -6 --
Mau 21, 1981
Chairwoman Caldwell maybe should defer to later meeting when more time can
be spent on it. Mr. Lavine thought maybe zoning could be changed in that
area and maybe someothers.
Concerning Informational Meeting on sewer needs in Yellow Barn
Yellow Barn meeting, they said didn't want sewer and why don't people
who have problems be pushed to bring place up to standards. A copy of
letter from John Anderson where a house to house study was done, was givem
to Mr. Bonn for his review.
Noted Mr. Bonn is against northeast connector road because it goes through
plantation apple orchard.
Mr. Dann wanted to know what electrical code is about. It is in affect now.
Mr. Tarr stated that any new units, buildings or additions will be approved by
an underwriter, before certificate of occupancy. Just pass inspection, does
not need license electrician.
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Bray - Secretary
I�
M
i