HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-20t
Town of Dryden
Planning Board
January 20th, 1983
The Planning Bd. met on Jan. 20th at 8:OOpm. There was a full.-board present.
Members present were Roger Lampila, Ken Gardner, John Hunt, Buzz Lavine,Chr. Bar-
bara Caldwell, Ed Dollaway,Ron Chase and Z.O.Sib7Stewart.
Chr. Caldwell- I call this meeting to order on this histoDic occassion. Our
business before us is the proposed sub - division of Bernard Cornelius. Mr. Larry
Fabrioni is here to discussiit with us.
Mr. Fabrioni presented maps. I might repeat some of this for the new members.
You are looking N. on this particular map. This is Wernnick's new warehouse. This
is route 366 going toward Freeville and toward Etna. This is Caswell Rd.and Upper
Creek Rd, Route 13 over here and Kirk Rd. This is where Bernie's septic tank con=
structon operation is within this form of barn buildings. The sub - division you
see in fron.t'.of you is a 10 lot sub- division just N. of those buildings and S, of
the creekiand the road genrally runs in from 366 parallel up to the barn building
and then N. parallel to the old railroad right of way which is the boundary limit.
We looked at several! schemes besides this one. Bernie was sensitive as to how this
mass of barn structure is going to fit into the picture. If we had a road parallel
to the creek with lots on the other side, you would have lots with their backyards
right at the barn buildipg. This fourth alternative which would put the rd. as far
back as possible and parallel to the barn building and to build a mound with ever-
greens to cut the view of the barn. Also, we were trying to avoid acutetype inter-
sections. He also had many restrit'orisx and minimum standards to abide by. One is
the Health dept. requires minimum acre lots within which you can circumscribe a 200
ft. circle. The zoning ordinance itself requires less- 135 ft. You also have to
abide by.the Health dept. in which you are not either on public water or sewer.
Bernie already had the health dept. come out and do some preliminary test holes.
In this area you are looking at 1 out of 8 holes which were slowly permiable while
the other holes were quick permiability in sandy type of soil that you could pour
water into all day and they would never fill up.There is a number of sand lenses
in here and without running tests were never sure which direction they're going
to run. The health.dept. as a rule asks for a 7 ft. :hole in every lot and finding
a location suitable for a the or fill system.as well as an area on the same lot
where `you could put a replacement system. I believe Mrs. Caldwell that you received
theletter form John Anderson where he gave the dates on these test holes as I
was describing them. Based on John's preliminary assessment it is generally able on
any one of these lots to find asuitable location as well as a location for a replace-
ment system. Normally if you gave preliminary approval'to':.the fill systems, then
they would do more extensive testing if they needed to and that would be_-a step
toward final approval. Besides that, we have to be concerned with wetlands and
flood plains, which would occur to you first with it being next to the creek.
I spoke tothe USGS office and the Town is at a disadvantage in that you've been
askedto pass flood plain planning, but, not beenriprovided with maps to tell you
the 100 yr. flood elevation. Based on observations by USGS of the flood in Oct.
which.in the Fall Creek area would fall into the 100 yr. category, they monitored
an elevation of about 12 ft. at a gauge in Freeville for flood height. Based on
hydraulic modeling at this topographiP6 elevation in this area,:.you expect a 100
yr. flood to be 8 ft. high. These topographic elevations are field verified by
an actual field survey. If you look at the 1018 which is right at the bank of the
creek and you added 8 ft. and look at where 1026 took you, you'1d have a good idea
of what the highest level the creek would reach in a 100 yr. event and what line
construction should stag completely out of. You can see that the creek can never
really rise to the point that it floods the.land your'e looking at. If t he water
ever rose any higher than that level it would go over 366 before it would ever
flood these lands. South., the land is 20 -30 ft. above the creek level. Generally,
the drainage would run down to the road along the�lot lines and would hit a little
high. spot and along the street of the drainage system. A culvert is proposed
under the entrance rd.
DEC no longer provides the service of declaring that this is not in a flood
plain or wetland. A wetland has to be at least 10 acres in order to be called a
i
wetland. Maybe a call to Al Colburn might verify this.
Be Caldwell- This body, if interested would also want !to-reviewed by the Co.
Planning.
L. Fabrioni- I think I have tried to give you as accurate an account as possi-
ble. Some of the reasoning for this curve right here •s to give a smooth transition.
This lot right now does not have 125 ft. of frontage. I ask you to look at it
at the end of a cul de sac. If that's not convincing., the right of way can
be moved like so. Why is the lot there and not here? The property in back of the
barn would leave room for one more lot. The business is expected to be there for
at least 20 yrs. If he did decide to tear down the barns, there would be room for
a lot, on this side for a lot, and two-lots that front on 366. Wer e asking you
in terms of approving the sub - division ordinance the particular 45 ft. here at the
rd. The lot meets the minimum sq. footage requirements even in terms of putting
width and depth within the area for a lot and meets Health dept. regulations. The
driveway is some 200 ft. back from the corner rather than-,at the corner. I did
submit on Nov. 18th this very map and because of the lack of a quorum, were not
able to meet in Nov. or Dec. We are asking if there is any way to expidite this
approval it would be appreciated. The envirnmental assessment form was submitted
along with.the map.
Be Lavine stated -his concern about putting a lot on the creek in whoch there
was not frontage for.
R. Lampila- How far back from the road must a house be built?
Normally, 70 ft. back from the center of'the road. 175 ft. from this corner
to.the edge of the road.
Be Lavine- Building houses close to the stream increases run -off, puts extra
pollution into the creek and so-on.. I don't share John's concern about the length
of the driveway. Mine is the density concern.
Be Cornelius- We can juggle this lot. We don't need to give you all this
.Front here and here for this lot. Our concern is to give prople nice one acre
lots and a heart that is taken care of. The septic system will be well over 100
ft. from the creek. None of the vegetation on the hillside will be touched.
Be Lavine- My concern is run -off.
R. Lampila- I'm under the impress.ioni:sthat you will plan on maintaining control
of building each house and selling it.
Be Cornelius- Yes.
R. Lampila- Are you planning on building single family residences?
Be Cornelius- Yes. Three bedroom houses with one and a half garage in the
price range of 40- $50,000 and single story because of the nature of the land.
They will be built on a .concrete slab and will be solid basic homes.
Be Caldwell- Getting back to-the question on siols and drainage, I would like
to read this letter from John Anderson.to Be Cornelius for the record.
Regarding eight lot sub- division dated Dec. 10th, 19820
Dear Mr. Cornelius,
This letter is a follow -up to the letter of Nov. 18, 1982. It was
noticed by us on Dec. 7, 2982 that extensive topsoil stripping has been done in.*:
the area of land where you are planning a sub - division. Please be aware that the
topsoil is important in the treatment of sewage in individual systems. Removal
of topsoil could seriously affect your plans for this parcel. A re- evaluation of the
soil may be necessary before any final are made.
Be Cornelius- I wrote right back a letter which I didn't bring. There has
been topsoil stripped from the property right in the areas of the proposed foad-
ways which is a normal procedure. We also did some generally leveling.
L. Fabrioni- The original test holes covered lots 1 -8, more will be done on
lots 8 -.10.
Be Lavine- My concern is still density. What, if not this plan, would you do
in it's place?
L. Fabrioni- We could give you the 125 ft. get the access out onto the road,
but, It would be directly by the bridge.
K. Gardner- How do you have access from here onto the road? The state of N.Y.
�I
i
.;
could have acquired this land for other purposes and you wouldn't have access over
it. so, in other words,_the'highway boundary comes to your property.
B. Caldwell- In your envirnmental assessment form You talk about 5 one family
dwellings andff, ve two family units.
•L. Fabrioni- I filled out the forms.and did it that way just for some flexibil-
ity
J. Hunt- He's on record as going for 15 instead of 10. We should aim for minimum
density in the creek area.
B. Cornelius- I would hate to have that tacked onto my whole sub - division.
J. Hunt= What are we asked to approve?
This was discussed.
B. Lavine- The point is your'e not asking for any special situation whereby
your'e asking to build anly one family houses or two family houses, whatever the
zoning allows, that's that. 'At this time were asked to give preliminary approval
on .10 lots not 8. Correct?
Yes.
B. Lavine. Afe you just as happy if the right of way is squared off lot 6
which gives frontage here of more than 135 ft.
He again expressed his concernson lot 2- run off, frontage, affluance. He
asked if some other solution might arise.
J. Hunt- I think we should schedule a public hearing for the next meeting.,
B. Lavine - I second the notion.
Vote- all yes. Motion carr±6d.
There will be a public hearing for Bernie Cornelius' proposed sub - division
Feb. 17th at 8;00 pm.
B. Caldwell- In the material he has presented, what other - information would
you like to see at the hearing?
J. Hunt- Health dept. check on lots 9 and 10, Mr. Cornelius' reply to the
letter on record from Mr. Anderson-.
• B. Caldwell- Co. Planning review and comment. A letter from DEC saying that
they no longer give official wetlands, and a report from s6il conservation service.
The discussion ended at 9 :15.
J. Hunt- I would like to propose that the Bd. consider a rule on attendance.
B. Caldwell read from the Town Attorney that it it appropriate for the P1. Bd.
to have rules on attendance, upon approval from the Town Bd. A Pl. Bd. member can
be let go after a public hearing and approval from the Town Bd.
Basic tools for the P1, aBd. use were passed out, the General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, and sub- division ordinance. These were all discussed.
J. Hunt- Maybe we should defer the rule on attendance for a month so that we
can thihk about it some more.
R. Lampila -, Whare would you recommend we start.
B. Caldwell- The newspaper. The zoning ordinance and the Town Bd. minutes.
The function of the Planning Bd. was discussed in relation to the Town Board.
B. Caldwell said that the meetings are open to the public and would like to keep
them that way.
The meeting adjourned at 9:50pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Koelsch