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