HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-21Town of Dryden..
Planning Board
April 21st, 1983
• The Planning.Board met at 8 :00 pm on April 21st, 1983 with the following
Board Members.present: R. Lampila, J. Ifunt, Chi. B. Caldwell, B. Lavine, K.
Dolloway, R. Chase, Rep. from the Town Bd. C. Evans, and Z.O. S. Stewart.
Committee reports- B. Caldwell attended the meeting for proposed changes
in the Sanitary Code and reported that two things came out.in general 1.) the
proposed changes will make the Health Sanitary'Code4 more flexible and 2.) many
areas in the county have depended on the Health Dept. to set up standards which
might come under zoning and if so, will they-'still meet the zoning needs. B.
Caldwell took the concerns about separation'distances to the meeting and came
back with a. scary-answer. They are concerned with separation distances if
they're permitting a new septic tank and where it-is from the existing well,
however, oncebthe'septic tank'is in4'they':don't care'where the well is put.
We are more concerne& about it.than they are. They have no authority and if
you want well control, you'would have to'request it. Their answer on the ease-
ment'question.as that the 'proposed changes"are no less'restrictive than the
existing'situation. The sanitary code meeting was'to'gain information and
then have a formal hearing and then go-ahead. J. Hunt said that this Board
would make'a report to present'at the public hearing.
B. Caldwell said the Co.' Pl. Bd. met and voted on the Paper Corporation
for the power situation.' Dr=:.,.Hirshfeld and Stewart Stein, Bd.. of Reps. were
there to talk on the hospital 'utilization. Most P1: Bd's. general feelings
were priority-one that the hospital's use be for-non County use (condos, hous-
ing, etc.) and'-priority,two, county offices that would not have direct con-
sumer accessibility (social-services). Mr. Stein stated that the State Dept.
of Social Services takes into account the human factor besides financial and
• physical.
J. Hunt attended an informal meeting on the moving'of the Dept. of Social
Services to the old hospital and reported that all discussion on the matter
was negative. . .
R. Lampila said he would rather have a private corporation in it or get
rid of it- tear.it down. He feels the Co. offices ought*to be where the
people can reach them.
R. Lampila reported on-,his committee Dryden Business Development'Committee
(DBDC) and they are meeting every two weeks. On May 3rd, NYSEG.is.meeting
with them to give resources and studies that have been done.
B. Lavine- Is the focus of the committee aimed at large type business'
or also small high tech and the like?
R. Lampila- We need to support companies within the Towri of Dryden as
much if not more -than-outside. 100 people or less probabley would work best.
The larger corp:.is going'to- take,a bigger selling job. Zoning laws will
be looked.,at as-they are 18 yrs. old and needs change.
New Business- B. Caldwell =. Taking a serious look'at regulations for
condos and co -ops and at-regulations-for multiple residences at the philoso-
phy as well_as'procedure. Right now we allow multiple residences in virtually
all residentual areas in the Town. All "large projects, more than'two acres
have,toocome' to, the Town'Bd.' for special permit procedure " -. Condos and co -ops
present , othe -same kinds of density questions that multiple-residences do, but,
also have an ownership possibility with them. Do you want to.keep this small
amount of density control-with no more control than'now or would you like to
• have the planning process either P1. Bd. or Town Bd, or both come in at an
earlier stage-. Do you feel the patterns,.low density residential are what we
want and need'" for the Town ?'
J. Hunt- The Town Bd. would like for the Pl. Bd. to handle regulation of
these in the'same fashion as for sub - divisions. My own personal feeling is
E
i
i
li
F r
we want to maintain present density from two points of view 1) aesthetically,
and 2) water and sewage standpoints. I recommend we maintain density controls
now on one or two family-dwellings.
B. Lavine- the concern where existing units are not maintained and keep
turning over in.ownership and just keep going down, is there anyway to up -date
them?
B. Caldwell- I think-when and if the proposed state -wide housing code goes
through,. this.would - bring it'up to date as it is retro - active. Right now in
the Town of Dryden the only codes in effect are electrical code and the
Mitchell Act (state law, quite restrf'tive such as fire exits, fire safety,
window size). Do you want condos in all allowed residential areas.
J. Hunt= As long as the density is not increased.
B..Caldwell- Once the original set of rules are set up, I don't know if
we have' to- be concerned about .changes .
B. Lavine- Perhaps there is some way to maintain control for drastic
changes that occur. A review of changes of a certain magnitude.' I know.that's
discriminatory.-..
C. Evans- That's really what it is. It's a subjective--argument and there
is,eno way in my mind of.turning it into a legal statement.
B.'Lavine -•- If that's the case, I'd opt for letting peoples' investments
govern what they.'re going to do, to catch a few situations that are unlikely
to occur.
B. Caldwell- The Attorney General's office has to approve it. They have
tomonitor sales.
If an application comes into Sib,.what form are we going to have it take?
K. Gaedner -. What would the standard procedure be right now ?f
J. Hunt A'preiiminary sketch plat under the sub - division rules or par-
allel to this.
B. Caldwell- We couldn't really ask for their offering package that they .
would go to the state with. It.wouldn't be ready.
The following procedure was established and discussed.
1) Preliminary plat
2) SEAR- State Envirnmental Quality Review Act. Short or long forms.
3) Decide if there is a negative or.'positive.declaration'under this
envirnmental assessment.form. If negative, there is no envirnmental effect.
If positive, then go into envirnmental impact statement, public comment
period, hearing.
4) Take it up at a regular of special meeting
5) Person submitting application will appear
At the first meeting, decide on SEQR situation, what type of action, de-
cide negative or positive, time limit- maximum of 35 days from meeting, origi-
nal information and additional information. If positive DEC- public hearing
is deferred 30 to 60 days.
B. Caldwell said she would go over and try to draw up and pull together
some of the other guidelines to present to the P1. Bd, at the May meeting.
There were some unclear views regarding the time limits. She also was looking
for problem areas in the procedure.
The minutes were approved as submitted for the April meeting.
Respectfully,.,,
Jane Koelsch
1
i
I