Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-08-16Town of Dryden Planning Board August 16th, 1984 The Planning Board met on August 16th, 1984 at 8:00 P.M. with members R. Lampila, B. Lavine, Chr. B. Caldwell, R. Beck, E. Dollaway and Z.O. S. Stewart present. Chr. Caldwell called the meeting which was a continuation of the pub- lic hearing from July 16th, 1984 for Dryden Enterprise Corp. to order. Clyde Cotterill briefly reviewed the proposed subdivision. Chr. Caldwell said the map at tonights meeting was dated July 30th. She asked what changes if any have been made. R. Lampila said the only changes that have been made are lot lines moved for lots-7. 8, making them deeper and lot 6 will be narrower. A question was asked if the 3 acres purchased for Dryden Groton Insur- ance Co. was intended to be subdivided at a later point in time. Clint Cotterill said he thought they purchased land so in 20 yrs. from now if they needed to expand, they would have room, not to sell part of it off; No one can make a lot smaller without coming to the Planning Bd. for approval. Chr. Caldwell said after the last meeting this Bd. had questions on drainage, traffic, and the number of curb cuts onto Rt. 38. The drain- age has been resolved with DOT by coming from the Enterprise driveway at the end of Lewis St. and directed down the north side of 38 and emptying into the creek. The DOT is satisfied with this and a map showing drainage was in hand. Chr. Caldwell read a letter from Frederick Grout, NYS DOT dated Aug. 6th, 1984 to Clyde Cotterill regarding highway work permit ` #3 -83 -8436. The work permit is reinstated and extended to October 31st, 1984 ® and is informing you to construct a ditch the entire length of the prop- erty along Rt. 38 in accordance with attached sketch and place a'culvert under Enterprise Dr. in accordance with attached sketch and the Village will not allow drainage down Lewis St.. Also Dot asks that you furnish 110 ft. of 24 " pipe with bands for use of this drainage. Clint Cotterill said the Town has an agreement with the Village that no one can put anything into the sewage system without DEC and Village approv- al. The specifications are the same. Mayor Lane said Dryden Enterprise and they were asking for a certain amount of drainage to come down Lewis St. and that the permit had been revoked. The indication was that if the Village did not allow this, it' would require a much deeper ditch along Rt. 38. This raised some serious questions on safety and pedestrians. After contacting Frederick Grout on Aug. 10, he indicated the ditch would be the same depth'if or if not drainage went down Lewis St. The Village is very strongly opposed to any water coming down Lewis St. because of flooding conditions. He felt the Planning Bd. should consider culverts and sidewalks for the subdivision. The possibility of a serious traffic problem on Lewis St. was also a concern. A letter outlining these concerns was given to Chr. Caldwell. Letters from Supervisor Cotterill dated Aug. 6th and from Mayor Lane to Sup. Cotterill were read (copies attached). A letter from Tompkins Co. P1. Dept. for input on this project was also read. It con- tained questions in an advisory capacity only. 1. What affects will this proposal have on drainage at Dryden High School and 2. Will existing cul- verts along Rt.. 38 handle the runoff and 3. Will drainage reach•Virgil Creek without.causing problems for residents along Rt. 389 B. Lavine askedquestions on points about the questions from the P1. Bd. on the subdivision 1) contours included on the map and 2) regarding preliminary design on application if any culverts or bridges are required answered no. Clint Cotterill said if the State does require a culvert under Enterprise Enterprise Corp. will provide the Culver. The point was made that the ditch, which will be 2 112 feet deep and 22 feet fromithe edge of the road is in the state right of way. B. Lavine had a question on number 16 on proposed extension of Enter- prise Drive and the assurance that it will be extended. If Ron Goddard wants to develop,-.it will be a point of access. The 3.9 acres for Ton Goddard will be a contiguous parcel. B. Lavine had a concern about subdivision occuring on the 3.9 acres without an easement. Also if Goddard sold off land to someone else and they wanted!to subdivide. Chr. Caldwell asked if there had been a resolution on the number of curb cuts and where on lots 1,2,,3 and 4 on Rt. 38, Ellis Dr: and Enterprise Dr. One map showed six new curb cuts on 38, a definite concern. B. Lavine asked what would be acceptable for lots 1,2 and the number of curb cuts and possible restrictions on lot 1. The answer was they would hate to seeja restriction as it would make it less sellable. A questiIon was asked about restriciions on 16ts for driveways. There are general guidelines (5c driveway access) was read. A question was asked if Dryden Enterprise had ..thought about what kinds of businesses would be good for Dryden and if a business didn't make it, what would keep it from becoming a 'jghost" development. Paul Perkins said he felt like conpatible businesses and retail sales such as thejinsurance company and the grocery store. It was pointed out that the control is out of anyone's hands as to success or failure of a business. B. Lavine said this.is not within the framework of the meeting tonight. It was reinterated again how much thought has gone into the initial phase to meet the needs of Dryden. On access for lots 2,3,:and 4.to the road why have Enterprise Dr: You could have E11is Dr. end at lot 5 and you would have access to each lot The division of lot 2, 3, and 4 was made only on the Planning Bd's part as farlas flexibility for the subdivision to help out the subdividers and in so doing have made a new problem. The hope is that lots 2,3, and 4 will be sold as one with one access off Ellis Dr. onto 38, but, should lots 2,3, and 4 be developed individually, what restrictions if any would be appropriate? The possibility of 6 entrances within such a shortdistance would be a detrement! One suggestion was to have subdivision in lots 2,3, 4 & 5 is to have one lot on the .front and 3 on the back with a dirve down the mid- dle or have a drive down the center.and only ahve one driveway between 3 and 4 and 2�would access on Enterprise Dr. _. Paul Perkins said he will take concerns back to the Bd., but, would hate to seeltoo many restrictions on curb cuts on 38. B. Lavine asked for reaction to one access for lots 2,3, 4 to Rt. 38 and if all 'three lots were developed individually that there be a coopera- tive agreement that they would share one dirve and have one curb cut. No objections. No curbcuts from lot 1 onto:rEnterprise Drive was not favorable. Three curb 'cuts on 38 from the.grocery stor, lot 1 and lots 3 was a question. There was discussion on whether a requirement of putting a culvert all the way along the development and sidewalks by Dryden Enterprise or as an agreement between the parties involved contributing to the problems of ditches,'sildewalks and culverts. There was a feeling that if there was an enclosed culvert and 6 feet from the..rdo it would be safe for kids to walk along thus,i eliminating the need for sidewalks. There was discussion on where a sidewalk or gravel path would go. The hearing closed B. LaviiIne felt more information was needed on the safety and pedestrian question from DOT.