Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-12TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD, JULY 129 1990 MEMBERS PRESENT: John Davis, Michael Hattery, Joseph Lalley 111, and Chairwoman Barbara Caldwell. • ABSENT: Richard Heidt, Mitchell Lavine, and Claudia Brenner, • • Also Present: Town Board Member Ron. Roberts. The Planning Board meeting was call to order by Chairwoman Barbara Caldwell at 8 :30 P.M.. Additions and corrections to the June 14th, 1990 meeting were made directly on the original copy. Motion made and second by M. Hattery that the minuets be approved as amended. June minuets were Approved. During the approval session with regard to the CINxCOTTA DEVELOPMENT John Davis stated that he had contact Town Attorney Mahlon Perkins and that under Section 281 the planning board have the authority to eliminate the requirement to have a ten inch strip at the base of a flag lot. Section 281 allows modification to subdivision regulations as long as it doesn't effect the density. Ms. Caldwell asked if this wasn't the Section that required specific approval on a subdivision by subdivision proposal from the Town Board? Mr. Davis said his understanding from Tom Niederkorn and the Town Attorney's office is that Section 281 allows the Planning Board to do it without a public hearing. It was also noted that the Planning Board was opposed to TWO CURB CUTS (one for lot one - even though Mr. McNamara had stated it would be a hard ship - and one for the purposed street). As proposed Lot one has access off Route 13, the Board suggested that Lot One access be provided by the proposed street. Joseph Lalley agreed to chair the August 9, 1990 meeting as Chairwoman Barbara Caldwell will not be present. At this time the only item which may be on the August agenda is Steve White's phase il. B. Caldwell reported on the Mark Stevens development that Town Attorney Mahlon Perkins had written letters to him and at least one is on file at the County Clerks office. As long as the lots for sale are ten or more acres in size he doesn't need approval. Contacting the real estate broker who has the listing she was told that the principal who would be Mark had told her that it is perfectly all right to offer as is, and if there are any questions then Mahlon should talk to Mark. i hd-a letter that was written to Mr. Stevens on June 8th. from Mahlon that states he can't sell it at less than ® ten acres. Our understanding is there isoover twenty acres total, so he does have the possibility of two lots. The rel*tors understanding was that he could well this but, he couldn't sell any more. B. Caldwell stated that apparently there still was some confusion. There was a sub - division proposal with a new road, had some problem areas. The Board approved part of it, not as lengthy as orig. proposed. The understanding is that the lot is a part of the parent proposal and since there was potential frontage on the new road, and since this lot was larger than ten acres he did not have to come back for approval. However, he is offering it at 1.6 acres. Penalty possibilities were discussed if an illegal lot is sold. Registering the deed with the County, Town Board potion. B. Caldwell reported on Housing Affordability (County' Level). The committee is looking at input from a wide variety of people and perspectives. What does it add to the cost for different types of regulation or time elements in processing ?' There have been some studies done. Where'e the balance between a reasonable time period to process for a municipalities needs vs. a reasonable cost to be added? • M. Hattery reported on a %v&amr workshop he had attended. A video presentation of a planning boards interaction with a developer was shown. It gave evidence that the planning board had considered each proposal before they had the actual formal interaction with the developer. He concluded this wasn't a private session, however they had discussed the proposal which was the case in question. The chairman presented basically the boards conclusion, and then the board members were free to add any thing at that point. For example there were some dissenting opinions on one or two issue4 and a couple of people made it clear that there was some dissention about that. Mr. Hattery stated he would be in favor of that type of process but, wasn't.sure what reorganization might be needed. New members on the board would learn more and do a better job for the Town if that type of format was implemented. He thought it awkward and time consuming to learn the process while interacting with a developer. It was the consensus of the board that if they enforced the rule where all material for the agenda was submitted no later than ten days /two weeks before Board Meeting to Henry Slater and he in turn supplied the material to each Board Member, or notify 40 each the material was in the office, directly after the dead line it would give each member time to review independently and as a whole before the applicant interacted with the board. • • PB 7 -12 -90 Pg. 3 B. Caldwell suggested as the Town doesn't have a Town Planner it might be necessary to have Mr. Slater present. He handles the paper work and is aware of processes going on with other divisions /boards in the town. Mr. Hattery suggest meeting at 7:00. Knock out what the major issues are that we see with a given thing on the agenda and then have our agenda with the people start at 8:00. Our Public Meeting starts at 7:00. Our published agenda of interaction with people who have projects is at 8:00 or 8:30. This was only a suggested time period however, it would eliminate the necessity when presented with a plan to have discussions among themselves on issue acceptance, in order that a developer might leave a meeting knowing what is acceptable and how to make their development conform before reappearing. This may help eliminate the discouragement and despair a developer may feel, and have a definite knowledge of what is acceptable. The packet sent to each board member should include the minutes of previous month. For each proposal: (1) drawings; (2) a clear statement of the process stage of the proposals (3) what they hope to accomplish at the meeting; (4) what the intent of the meeting (preliminary, sketch, public hearing etc.); (5) depending on the process, completed part one of the EAF, long or short form; (6) copies of any relevant correspondence from agencies (SEAR, Health, Highway, Town Attorney, Etc.) when available and if applicable. Michale Hattery moved to continue meeting and use the first half hour for general board age a i ems and other general Planning Board by at eight o'clock discussion of business. Second VOTE YES ( 4 ) B. Caldwell; M. Hattery,* J. Lalley; J. Davis. NO (0) Discussion The boards conclusion was that Mr. agenda and be confirmed by Chairwoman dead line. If any board members have confirmed at that time. Ms. Caldwell decision. CARRIED Slater would set the Caldwell at the TEN day agenda items they would be to notify Mr. Slater of J. Davis felt as part of any subdivision review it would be a good idea to have soil types, to consult the soil maps, as to permeability; drainage and so on. It appears we are concentrating more on drainage then we have in the past, and it should be a standard part of any subdivision application. Mr. Lalley said it was required information on the EAF. Having all material supplied on time and being able to walk the property with documents in hand should help in the determination process. 0 • • • PB 7 -12 -90 Pg. 4 John Davis reported on soil types as they relate to the R -A Zone. ARTICLE V1: DISTRICT REGULATION R -A ZONES Section 600: The intent and purpose of the R -A Zone is to preserve the quality and supply of groundwater and surface water, and wisely manage the processes of erosion, flooding and stream siltation. The R -A Zone shall be an overlay zone to protect those areas associated with steep slopes and /or poor soil. So it's clear at least from the intent that the R -A Zone is not designed to protect open space or to address densities with any kind of ascetic values in mind. It's clearly for environmental quality and that's where I've begun to address this. I haven't completed this as fully as I might with respect to erosion, stream siltation and flooding. With respect to the quality of ground water and surface water at least I think, I've addressed that. I want to start out with some general statements. I think everybody would agree that densities in poor soil areas should be kept low. That is where drainage and permeability is poor development should be discouraged. The flip side of this is that this is an agriculture community so where the soils are good naturally those are areas that are often agricultural and in some ways competition. Poorly drained areas absorptive capacity is depth of soil to be well drained, the you're going to have as if it weren't wel wet ground conditions lead to low for sewage effluence Of equal concern bedrock. While the soil may appear to soil itself, if the bedrock is high up the same effect in terms of drainage 1 drained soil. It becomes a real confusing affair to look at, especially when you take a look at the actual soil map for Dryden, the variation of soil types and qualities it's pretty enormous. If a certain type of soil perks well, it doesn't mean that it is well drained. So it is difficult to come to some real conclusions but the basic position I'm coming from is this R -A overlay zone really too broad or where are the real problems where do they really lay. I contacted Health Department officials to ask them about well water contamination in particular. This is an informal assessment, it's not an official statement by the Health Department, but there have been no more then THREE cases in the entire County in the past five years of well water contamination by septic. Of those three that did have contamination , they were all on the same lot. Contamination was by the septic in that same lot, not between lots. Three cases in the last five years across the entire County seems like a low incidence. • • • PB 7 -12 -90 Pg. 5 According to New York State and Tompkins County Health Department the three leading causes of well water contamination are having no grouting around the well casings, no pitless adaptors, and inadequate disinfection after,construction or repair. If these three conditions are meyyou have a safe and well maintained septic system, problems with contamination are unlikely. Given the existing one acre requirement, and the existing Health Department regulations for the construction and maintenance of a septic system, well water contamination is unlikely to be a problem. Three cases of contamination in the past five years where that contamination has occurred in that well from its own septic. Is that the kind of historical evidence that we need to justify such a large area? Where are the slowly permeable soils? Do they predominate? The entire southern half of the Town of Dryden is characterized by a strong fragipan, which isn't conducive to good filtration of a septic system. When you add that to soils that are slowly permeable you may have real problems. The slowly permeable soils predominate in Ellis Hollow area with large exceptions along the Ellis Hollow Creek Road. Slowly permeable soils are also in the Fall Creek Valley from Varna to Etna. Other then in the Ellis Hollow Area slow permeability is not a big factor in the proposed R -A Zone if you look at an over all map. The Master Plan (1968 Dryden General Plan) has some nice summaries of permeability. A good chunk of the proposed R -A Zone is State Land. Referring to General Plan Map on page 17 - There is a high correlation in my visual inspection of these areas with slops of greater than 15 per cent, I only use 15 per cent because that is also summarized here. We have a requirement of 10 per cent for Town roads anyway. So I would imagine that the correlation might even be greater between slowly permeability and 10 per cent slops. There is a significant problem in the Ellis Hollow area. Public septic /sewers are needed in that area if they could be done, to the extent that system systems fail, I'm going to be getting data this week or next, about the number of replacement systems that have been installed in the Town of Dryden. Replacement systems being those that have failed. Part of the reason for failure is poor maintenance, people don't pump them very often. Some kind of system that would require more frequent pumping might be advisable if we think there is a serious hazard here as opposed to a five acre requirement. PB 0 The five acre requirement as it is structured, I also have some difficulties with it because, with a 200 foot frontage you theoretically are able to locate your 100 foot septic • circle just as close as you were before. The five acre requirement really wouldn't change the character of a neighborhood. To have a 200 foot frontage opposed to 125 foot frontage is not a significant difference, it is per centage wise if you think of it, but it really doesn't change the character of a neighborhood as you drive along the road that much. IN RESPONSE TO MR. LALLEY NOT AGREEING WITH THAT STATEMENT MR. DAVIS STATED: The crucial point is that you can locate a septic field just as close to your neighbors well under that kind of frontage requirement as you could before. In some parts of this County ifyouu have an engineered sub - division, you can have well,' �syG�'em on a half acre lot and the County finds that to be perfectly acceptable in terms of health hazards, etc. But it has to be an engineered sub- division. I mention the frontage point, for those who want to see the R -A Zone go into effect I think that that should be expanded, that frontage area so it's less likely you're going to have that contiguity, septic and well zones that you might have now. The Health Department has convinced me that it's not that necessary in terms of protecting well • water quality, maybe for other reasons it is. In terms of drainage. Drainage being a problem with erosion as well as well water contamination, poorly drained soils predominate in areas of West Dryden, North and East of Etna, and along Cassadilla Creek in the Ellis Hollow area. The poorly drained soils are predominately in the West Dryden Area. (General Plan map page 21) - Very Poorly, as opposed to poorly drained soils, are all in West Dryden and North and East of Etna not even in the R -A Zone. There is some along the Cassadilla Creek in the Ellis Hollow area. �s�- aasTa� t�,1po�or'lymdrained �"' a,q¢Q t aw Ynrk State 1 made, and there G� 4 the R -A Zone. I think there is a fairly good o correlation of the some what poorly drained soils with 15 per cent slope, certainly with 10 per cent slope. I don't disagree with the R -A Zone on the slops at all for erosion and drainage, septic and so forth. A higher acreage on the excessive slope make sense. I think the R -A Zone goes beyond the excessive slope, it takes in a large part of less then excessive slope. There is also a high correlation between the excessive slops, soil permeability, and poorly drained. CJ PB 7 -12 -90 Pg. 7 The Health Department regulations tend to comfort one, if you believe what you hear from them, over a series of one acre lots in an area of slow permeability and poor drainage, the way they talk, with requirements for their sand filter systems, or whatever system they approve, they'll live there themselves. As long as the well is properly installed, which it isn't always done, very rarely is a well grouted. Often wells don't have pitless adapters. After map review with members and Mr. Lalleys question to the point being made? lot of Mr. areas. Davis continued: flat I was just correlating the R -A Zone, just to see how closely correlated it was to the steep areas as opposed to a lot of the flat top areas. What is the argument for putting flat top areas in the R -A Zone? Especially if they have reasonably good soils. What's the argument from the point of view of erosion? What's the argument from well water quality? What's the argument? Mr. Lalley: The suggestion you're making is that perhaps the R -A Zone should be redrawn to take in to account these concerns or the points you've made? To the extent that the Planning Board as a whole wants to recommend an R -A Zone I think it should be scaled back to take into account the significant problems of permeability in just the Ellis Hollow Area, and also scaled back to • address the excessive slops, as opposed to the tops and so forth. BUT there may be arguments from the point of view of erosion, which I haven't investigated the problem of erosion and how the R -A Zone is going to help that or not. B. Caldwell: Basically you do feel comfortable with the idea that there may be a need to institute grater controls where there are steep slops or poor soils, or a combination thereof? J. Davis: From the point of view of well water quality, I don't see why there should be any change, given what our Health Department says. Now I may change that statement after a little more research into the number of replacement systems and where they AP-6 Akame +located. J. Lalley: The issue is ground water contamination in general. An example is the sub - division off Ellis Hollow Road and goes in to Hungerford Heightsslt's all built on rock and to put a '�d system in there you literally have to bring in dirt and it isn't the fact that the one septic system is next to the other guys house is going to contaminate • PB 7 -12 -90 Pg. 8 his well but it's the accumulative effect on a whole bunch of septic systems in a high density . development, perhaps contaminating the well of someone a half mile down the road. In good drained soil, you not only have your septic system but the affluent coming out of the septic system is further treated by the surrounding soils if you have good soil types. The problem on Hungerford is there is no good soil types, not only right in that immediate area but throughout. There's eight, inches of soil and then hardpan that you were talking about, and there's more water on that hill then there is down in Ellis Hollow. It isn't my septic system contaminating my neighbors but it's the accumulative effect of a whole bunch of septic systems may overtax the environment and pass the problem off down the road somewhere else. Mr. Davis: Some of that problem, I think, can be addressed in the subdivision review process if we were to take a look at soil types and the depth of soil to bedrock and that sort of thing. Mr. Lalley: What we're really talking about is the density issue, how densely do we want something developed? Some of the thrust of the R -A Zone particularly on the peak areas have to do with _ ground water contamination in an agS4�&� Gkq reqP't amount. I don't think the issue is, and I don't think the Health Department will tell you, that my neighbors well is going to be contaminated necesarily by my septic system. If you put enough septic systems in an area poorly drained conditions, they've proven it out West, eventually you're going to get this accumulative effect and it will matter. The question is how densely do we let something get populated, especially without municipal services. The other issues of green space are ancillary to this. Mr. Hattery: And they aren't a purpose of the R -A Zone. I wasn't involved with this at all, my feeling after going to the information meeting was any new proposal is going ae —gave to have to have a fair amount of documentation behind it. Existing -and /or &mmerging problems that need a solution. If that documentation exist it wasn't well articulated at that meeting. The other thing is that once you document that we have a problem, are there other ways to solve or address that problem without an R -A Zone? If there are other solutions, but an R -A type Zone is the best • solution then we should be able to make that case. P-.� • C: PB 7 -12 -90 Pg. 9 Mr. Davis* If I understand Joe's comments correctly, It's not so much present prebJ;ex*v-or past problems tbatw'. 1k -- •. 111::'1 lentedl as it is - . ..__ -.._ _ t _ _ Mr. Lalley: The other thing is that particularly about the Health Department coming out with a statement like they told you, the Health Department, one minute it's sand filters, the next minute it's another design. There specification changes, it's changed two or three times in the last three years. The board discussed these issues in depth, soil quality, frontage, ordinance, Health Department issues, documentation, etc. Mr. Lalley: I think we need to consider constraining the R -A Zone or take another look at constraining it, maybe that will make it more palatable to people. Maybe it can be constrained, maybe it can't. I wasn't involved with drawing the lines I can only presume that someone took some care in doing it. B. Caldwell: The County Planning Department had professional staff doing it on the bases of slops and soils and or quote "Adjacent to ,*". Mr. Lalley: Maybe before the next information meeting, maybe at that time that was their 'pie in the sky, lets go do this' and perhaps they may have another opinion if said "There's an incredible amount of resistance, what would be a minimal configuration ?" that would do something. Mr. Hattery: I think we need to enumerate what we think the problems are that need to be addressed. Are there other strategies for addressing those problems? Mr. Lalley: There are really two concerns and especially out West and one by controlling the density you're restricting the amount of water with drawn from the water table, and they have a supply problem out there, and the other thing in the case of septic systems is you restrict or minimize the concentration of septic systems and then minimize the impact of any poorly functioning or failed systems on the ground water. Now I operate on the assumption here that in general we don't have a water table problem here. We have lots of water, down in Ellis Hollow there approaching a problem, especially along the creek where their going 3,4,5 hundred feet for water and not finding any. I • • • PB 7 -12 -90 Pg. 10 Be Caldwell: Their getting salt or natural gas. J. Lalley: Because the development along there is depleting the water table in that particularly localized area. Wells are a problem along the creek road. M. Hattery: If you can't make an argument that the R -A Zone is going to help address those problems, then we're not going to go anywhere publicly. Nor do I think we want it if that is the source of what the concern is, it may not address the problem either as well as the fact that it won't be publicly accepted. Be Caldwell suggested to Mr. Davis that he check with the County supposedly they have new maps on aquifer. M. Hattery: I'd like to back up and say is there another way to solve what the underlying problems are without an R -A Zone. Mr. Lalley: Are we in somewhat of an agreement the underlying problems are water supply and contamination of water supply. Mr. Hattery: I think it would be worth trying to outline what those are and then say what's the evidence that we have? That theft are problems and /or iQumerging problems. If you're justification is going to be water problems then when you go to a public hearing or just public information meeting you've got to be able to articulate that in a way people are going to buy in, otherwise we're going to be in the same position we were in before. I'm not dictativ*• what the evidence has to be but we have to be able to make a reasonable argument. Chairwomen Caldwell asked if there was any other official business? Motion made by Michale Hattery to adjourn, Second by John Davis. Meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM 1?// v 47 , 0