HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-09•
•
TOWN OF DRYDEN
PLANNING BOARD
AUGUST 9, 1990
MEMBERS PRESENTS Acting Chairman, Mitchell Lavine; Claudia
Brenner; John Davis; and Michale Hattery.
ALSO PRESENT PUT NOT LIMITED T0: Henry Slater, Kenneth Gardner,
David Herrick, Steve White, Chuck Dollaway, Don and Carol
stauffeneker.
The August
Lavine
9,
1990
the
Planning Board was
called to order by
Acting Chairman
published April 30,
Mitchell
the
Ithaca
plat
Lavine. It was noted
that he was
filling in
for
Chairwoman
sketch conference,
proposed two lot
subdivision
Barbara Caldwell,
and Acting Chairman
designated
for
tonight,
Mineah
Joseph Lalley.
Road.
The pu
Stauffenek
permission
scheduled
hearing.
blic hearing was opened fo
er^ of 28 Mineah Road, Free
to create a (`) subdivisi
as a sketch conference, pr
r Donald and Carol
ville, New York requesting
on of property owned, being
eliminary plat public
M.
Lavine
read
the
Public Hearing
Notice
published April 30,
1990 in
preliminary
the
Ithaca
plat
subdivision
Journal
concerning
approval
the
for
sketch conference,
proposed two lot
subdivision
on
Mineah
Road.
Carol Stauffeneker clarified that on the a
division (9) Will there be any deed restri
understand the question and answered YES.
restrictions as to building and was consid
that went through there, the New York Stat
Ways
ppl
cti
Sh
eri
e P
ication for sub
ons, she didn't
e was thinking
ng the Power Line
owes Line Right of
They had no objection as long as they didn't change the
elevation of the land or build anything on the right of way.
NYSE &G would allow the right of way to be used as a drive way to
reach lands /property.
The board reviewed the maps supplied
marked one for the file. The Lot on the
original piece of property is occupied by
Stauffeneker. The Lot on the South end o
sold this March. They wished to subdivid
into two lots, one of which would be occu
to ea
North
Caro
f the
e the
pied
ch me
end
1 and
prop
midd
by th
mber and
of the
Donald
erty had been
le section
e i r daughter.
For clarification the two lots under discussion were marked
(1) Lot to the North, and (2) Lot on the South. There was
adequate frontage for lot (1). Health Department approval has
not been acquired as of the hearing. Mr. StaUffeneker^ stated it
would be a sand filter system.
PB 8 -9 -90 Pg. 2
The property is located approximately 1/2 mile from the
intersection of Route 13.
Wet
area was
discussed
and a
diversion
ditch
is
proposed
to
off set
any run off
and
diverted
around
to
the road ditch.
Drive
way
to be crusher
run
stone.
Sufficient.
MEETING OPEN FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC AT THIS TIME
THERE WERE NONE AND THE BOARD CONTINUED THE REVIEW PROCESS:
Mr.
like th
of run
there b
run off
an incr
and ask
effect.
Lavin
is, wi
off fr^
efore
may n
ease o
ed wha
e st
shes
om t
y o Lt
of c
f fl
t st
ated as a matter of policy
to resolve concerns about
he sit will be increased f
put in the houses and driv
reate problems at that sit
ow, affect other property
eps were being taken in to
on a st
whether
rom what
e ways.
e, it may
further f
minimize
ee
th
wo
Wh
i
ro
t
p hillside
e amount
uld be
ile extra
f there is
m the site
hat
Mr. Stauffeneker stated he didn't think that would change
much. Deeto the natural ditch already there they were only
talking a small percentage of the property that would be
affected. The storm run off is being diverted in a s
line instead of running to the back of his property. The house
being proposed is 24 by 36 with a 80 foot long, 12 feet wide
drive. Due to the Power Line right of way, no building will
ever be done there and it is grass. There is a natural ditch
between the two, the building lot and the right of way. It was
• doubted that any run off would ever get beyond the power line, a
distance of 200 feet. It was determined what was being proposed
would amount to less then 5% of the lot area.
r �
The
board
reviewed
the
soil
maps
and
determined the drainage
for and
around
the
area
seemed
Sufficient.
C. Brenner stat
the map and see the
Members of the
particular site wou
amount, however wan
Stauffeneker.
ed she would like to have seen contours on
outlying areas, creek, etc..
board did not feel that run off from this
ld affect other areas in any substantial
ted to make the concern know to Mr. and Mrs.
CAROL STAUFFENEKER completed the form process and requested that
the board change the answer to #9 on the Application for
Subdivision to NO. This was accomplished. #9 Will there be any
deed restrictions? NO. The change was made by M. Lavine on the
file copy and the words NYSE &G Power Line Right of Way crossed
out.
•
r �
LJ
PB 8 -9 -90 Pg. 3
M. Lavine asked Mrs. Stauffeneker where she obtained the
information she used to complete the forms, such as soil
drainage, grade, and the like?
She stated she had conferred with her father, Bob Keech, he
had owned land and their own knowledge from living in the area.
John Davis acted as primary reviewer concerning the EAF.
#`. For the total acreage of project 4.52 acres were placed in
parenthesis, this totaled the acres in the two lots being
proposed, and 3.00 previous lots added in the answer.
#3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?
Langford, some bath valois were added.
b. If any agricultural
within
Name
of Stream
land
is involved,
how many acres of
soil are classified
within
NO
soil
group 1 through
4 of the NYS
Land Classification
system?
due to not
NA
placed
as answer.
#4. a. What is depth to bedrock? 10 -12 feet.
#5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with
slopes: (15% or greater ?) was determined to be between 5 and
10 %, and (10 to 15%) 90% - 95 %u
#80 What is the depth of the water table? Approximately two
feet. (C. Stauffeneker stated she had answered 100 feet
because, that was the depth of the well).
#15. Streams
a.
within
Name
of Stream
or contiguous to
and name of
project
River
area:
to which
YES
it is
tributarye
NO
NAME,
YES.
(Answered
SEASONAL
no,
due to not
understanding the
#17. an
If
yes,
does
sufficient
capacity
exist to allow
connection?
#4. How
ACRES.
YES.
(Answered
vegetation
no,
due to not
understanding the
question
site? .10
and
knowing
a
poll
was to
be set).
Be PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Number of off- street parking spaces existing on
proposed 4.
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare
project will occupy is? 410 feet.
#3. be
Will
topsoil
be stockpiled
for
reclamation?
YES.
#4. How
ACRES.
many
acres of
vegetation
will be
removed from
site? .10
#7. a. Total number of phases anticipated?
ONE
Ll
PP 8 -9 -90 Pg. 4
#1E+. Will the project generate solid waste? YES
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? TWO
HOUSEHOLDS.
YES
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used?
c. If yes, give name TOMPKINS COUNTY LANDFILL
#22.
If water, supply
is from wells,
indicate pumping
capacity
to
15
GALLONS
THE NEGATIVE
INFORMATION. A MATTER OF POLICY
WITH EACH
/MINUTE.
AND
EVERY
#E3. TOTAL ANTICIPATED WATER USAGE PER DAY 800 OR LESS
gallons /minute.
#25. APPROVALS REQUIRED: PLANNING BOARD not Zoning; COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION:
#E. What is the zoning Classification of the site? RB 1
5
#11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community
provided services: YES
as If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle
projected demand? YES
REVIEW OF EAF COMPLETED.
JOHN DAVIS moved that the Planning Board declare itself as lead
agency on the project for the Environmental Review under SEAR.
A second was made by MICHALE HATTERY.
No discussion.
VOTE: YES (4) M. Hattery, J. Davis, C. Brenner and M. Lavine
NO (0) CARRIED
JOHN DAVIS moved to give a NEGATIVE DECLARATION on EAF. Second
by MICHALE HATTERY.
No discussion.
VOTE: YES (4) M. Hattery, J. Davis, C. Brenner and M. Lavine
NO (0) CARRIED
BY MATTER
OF POLICY
THE ZONING
OFFICER SHALL DO THE APPROPRIATE
PAPER WORK
TO
FILE
THE NEGATIVE
INFORMATION. A MATTER OF POLICY
WITH EACH
AND
EVERY
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION PASSED.
•
PB 8 -9 -90 Pg. 5
Acting Chairman M. Lavine CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9 :50 PM.
Motion was
subject to
HATTERY.
made by
Health
No discussion.
VOTE: YES (4)
NO (0)
JOHN DAVIS to approve the preliminary plat,
Department Approval. Second by MICHALE
M. Hattery, J. Davis, C. Brenner and M. Lavine
CARRIED
Discussion pursued as to whether to include ditch, stream
location for final approval and decided as long as it was not a
condition, in the preliminary plat approved, that it would not
be required for final approval next month.
C & S PRELIMINARY PLAT 10 :00 PM
The meeting was commenced by Acting Chairman M. Lavine and the
plat was presented by David Herrick, Steve White and Chuck
• Dollaway.
Dave Herrick, from T.G. Miller Eng., stated: For the Board
members that haven't seen this proposal before - they came to
the Planning Board back on the 18th. of August 1988 for the
sketch plat conference.
They had 13 lots then, came back to the Board on the 29th.
of September 1988 with the preliminary plat. At that time the
EAF long form for SEO►R was reviewed and were granted preliminary
plat approval on September 29, 19880
They submitted their drawin
construction for the septic and
They granted approval for all 1
1989. After receiving Health D
thought that it would be econom
project, and to move the lots w
Road and Handshaw Road.
gse
we
1
epa
ica
ith
En
lls
of s
rt m
11y
f
gineers repo
to the Heal
on the 16th
ent approval
responsible
ontage on th
rt and
th Department.
of February
the owners
to phase the
e existing Wood
They came in for final approval for lots 1 through 5 on
March 30, 1989 and were granted final plat approval for that
phase. As of today lots 1, 3 and 4 have either been built on or
are being built on, and lot 5 has been sold. Which leaves the
only remaining lot to be sold #`.
•
9
9
•
•
PB 8 -9 -90 pg. 6
Mr.
White
and Mr.
Dollaway
would
like
on
and
the
exit
to
request
approval
has been made. The
inch steel culvert to be
of their
final
plat
permission
Town,
Mr.
Gilbert
to night
through
13.
This
phase
involves
the
so It
construction
removed
Ridge
Lane
approximately
the
700
feet
long,
and has a
around
at
the end.
your review and
for lots 6
of Spruce
"T" turn
We had reviewed the road construction design with the Board and
also Mr. Gilbert back during the preliminary plat stage. As a
matter of completeness and courtesy we asked again recently if
he would review the drawings one more time and provide to the
Board some direction as to completeness of the drawings.
Unfortunately I wasn'
to find out what was
some additional locat
That they are not loc
that amendment to the
An amendment was made
toward the fire stati
more. The Town has r
Road and have removed
off to run down throU
down Wood Road undern
t
i
i
a
priv
n it
ons o
ted o
drawi
y to the letter or didn't
but, I realize that he is
f drive ways to lots 10,
ff the ends of the "T ", h
ngs,
concerning an e
on, which they d
edone the ditch
some loggage th
gh that culvert.
eath Lower Creek
xisting
on' t ant
along th
ere that
Now th
Road an
call today
requesting
11 and 1`.
e will make
culvert 1
icipate u
e West si
was caL►s
e run off
d into Fa
ocat ed up
se for any
de of Wood
ing run
continues
11 Creek.
A
statement,
revision
to a
entrance
note
on
and
the
exit
drawing
of 18
has been made. The
inch steel culvert to be
closed
by
Town,
Mr.
Gilbert
doesn't
want to close it at this
time,
so It
was
removed
from
the
drawing.
Driveways will be placed on the drawing and reviewed by Mr.
Gilbert.
Discussion followed on prior approval, whole, phase, etc.. C &
S expected final approval tonight. However the Board was unsure
why Chairwoman Caldwell placed this on the agenda as a
preliminary plat hearing.
ACTING CHAIRMAN MITCHELL LAVINE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
10:20 PM FOR C R S DEVELOPMENT OF ITHACA, NEW YORK, FOR A
SKETCH CONFERENCE /PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A
PROPOSED PHASE 2 OF THEIR SPRUCE RIDGE 13 LOT SUBDIVISION
AND READ THE OFFICIAL NOTICE PLACED IN THE ITHACA JOURNAL.
Mitchell Lavine asked for questions /comments from the public.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
Procedural discus
application and w
at this time.
• M. Lavine stated:
preliminary appro
almost two years
phase one. I bel
approval to phase
as advertised onl
PB 8 -9 -90 Pg. 7
sion followed to asc
hether or not final
It seems evident t
val of the WHOLE thi
ago. The Board has
ieve we have the opt
two, or we have the
y a preliminary subd
ertai
appro
hat w
ng be
given
ion o
opt i
lvlsl
n the stage of
val would be approved
e have given
fore, however it was
final approval on
f giving final
on of considering this
on approval stage.
It
is
my understanding
that
even
if we
were
to
stop at
that
stage
Board could
a final
tonight, and
we
are all
as
positive
time.
as
it sounds
like
people
have been
thus
far,
that you
would
still
have the
ability
to
go
ahead and
start
the road
before
another
meeting
takes
place.
We have no way of knowing why the ChairwomAn scheduled this only
as a sketch and preliminary decision. I am at a loss to make a
recommendation.
We wouldn't necessarily hold another public hearing before the
final.
Mr.
do it
Davis
conditionally
stated if
we
and
decide
they
asked
to
have
approve
to come
this,
back
the
for
Board could
a final
meeting
anyway
one
more
aspect
time.
of
the
proposal
as
M. Lavine: If we give a final approval with certain conditions,
it is approved. liming the conditions are meet, it's
• approved with out meeting again. That's the difference
we're talking about. Whether or not we will have to met on this
again before it could be considered finally approved.
If we choose to go toward final approval tonight, we should .just
to be safe, include in this sketch a preliminary and a final if
we want to go that far. I wouldn't skip anything for fear
Barbara (Caldwell) is aware of something that caused her to do
this.
Mr. Slater having talked with B. Caldwell about the agenda
stated that he thought it was due to the time lapse.
No further comments from the public the PUBLIC HEARING was
CLOSED at 10:27 PM.
Mitchell
Lavine
asked
for
further
discussion
from the board
on any
aspect
of
the
proposal
as
presented.
•
•
•
PB 8 -9 -90
J. Davis# O. Lot #7, the swale
the lot, where do
over the swale?
D. Herrick: A. If you look at it
find it. It's a
existing which s
doesn't seem to h
indicated areas w
reestablished the
road construction
7 and 8.
Pg. 8
going through the middle of
you put the houses? Located
in the field, you wouldn't
lower area on the lots,
eems to disappear. It really
ave much definition. We have
here we would like to
top soil that's left over for
and they happen to be on lot
0. The drainage easement, between 8 and 9 what
does that flow into?
A. There is a channel existing, an established and
defined swale, on the The Coleman and Hoag
property. Mr. White and Mr. Dollaway have
permission in writing from Pamela Coleman and
Gerald Hoag to utilize their lands to improve
drainage in that corner. (COPIES PLACED IN
FILE)
Further discussion pursued with the Board in regard to perk,
soils, and drainage.
It
was established
that
the construction
from
the
fist phase of
the
project
has not increased
the
run off down
stream
into the
neighboring
properties,
especially
since the
Town
(highway) has
completed
improvements.
With no further questions for the development, the procedural
question was again discussed by the Board.
M. Lavine: Choic
until our next me
following the clo
it now, we can ch
scheduled and ad
as it appears we
ago. Because it'
to review and con
es are ame-we can put off our action on this
eting. We have 45 days to act on this
se of the Public Hearing. If we want to act on
oose to act as a sketch /preliminary as
vertised, or we can also add on final approval
gave preliminary approval close to two years
s more than six months ago we have the ability
sider it at a preliminary stage again.
The Board discussed in detail, thoughts /concerns /reasons for the
proposal being placed /advertised, for tonight agenda as a
sketch /preliminary hearing.
PB 8 -9 -90 Pg. 9
CLAUDIA
BRENNER MOVED
TO
APPROVE
the
about
THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUBJECT
APPROVAL
TO
CONDITIONS
was a
Does
C.
there
the
they
Board at this
SET
were not
a desire
BY
THE
to
consider
HIGHWAY
final
approval
THE HIGHWAY
SUPERINTENDENT.
tonight?
JOHN DAVIS SECOND.
•
Discussions J. Davis: The sewer, water have all been approved
by the Health Department. Was DEC involved with approval of the
preliminary? ( ?Dollaway ?): They weren't involved with the SEAR
process. Health Department endorsement 2/89.
Determined a Public Hearing was not needed for final approval.
There is no formal application (paper work) necessary for final
approval.
VOTE: YES (4) M. Hattery, J. Davis, C. Brenner and M. Lavine.
NO (0) CARRIED
QUESTION"
reviewed
and
Acting
the
about
letters
the
Chairman
APPROVAL
M.
Lavine:
was a
Does
C.
there
the
they
Board at this
time have
were not
a desire
to
consider
final
approval
THE HIGHWAY
SUPERINTENDENT.
tonight?
M. Hattery stated that he didn't think any of the members here
tonight had any substanc oncern.
C. Brenner: One possible compromise would be to see when we
could talk with B. Caldwell and schedule another meeting, so
that their hardship is not a month.
J. Davis
Hoag,
reviewed
and
asked
the
about
letters
the
FINAL
APPROVAL
submitted
Barkwell
by P. Coleman and G.
property and was told there
was a
Swale
C.
there
and
they
were not
affected.
JOHN
DAVIS
J. Davis,
MOVED
FOR
FINAL
APPROVAL
OF
THE PROPOSAL SUBJECT TO
THE
C.
Brenner
CONDITION
SET
BY
THE HIGHWAY
SUPERINTENDENT.
MICHALE HATTERY SECOND.
Discussion* None
VOTE YES
( `)
J. Davis,
M.
Hattery
NO
(0)
ABSTAIN
(1)
C.
Brenner
DENIED
•
PB 8 -9 -90 Pg. 10
It
was
determined
that a special hearing date be scheduled, for
final
approval
of
C R S Development, after contacting Chairwoman
B.
Caldwell.
pond,
they
11:10 PM
HEARING - KENNETH GARDNER - FINAL APPROVAL
(4) LOT SUBDIVISION AT THE CORNER OF HURD ROAD AND ELLIS HOLLOW
Discussion:
J. Davise Q. The pond is not being built, right?
K. Gardner: A. Right
Q. That's the basic modification?
A. That's correct. This is
parcel of land that front
Road, and Hurd Road. App
go I bought this property
subdivide it and received
in October 1989. I did n
approval for a number of
concern the Board brought
approxi
s on E1
roximat
and pr
prelim
of proc
reasons
up abo
mately a 7 acre
lis Hollow
ely 2 years a
oposed to
inary approval
eed with final
one being the
ut the pond.
At this point the pond is not going to be
build. A couple of months ago I appeared and
asked about a three lot subdivision. At that
time I had an interested party that wish to buy
part of lot 1 and part of lot 2. That interest
has faded though because, of some of the delays
that occurred. I am back before the Board in
hopes of receiving final approval for a four
lot subdivision tonight.
J. Davis: Q. You received preliminary approval as it is here
(indicating the plans)?
A. Right.
Q, I thought you said the Board asked for deletion
of the proposed pond?
A. No,
they
didn't
ask
for deletion
of
the
proposed
pond,
they
asked
for
clarification
for
maintenance
of
the
pond.
(the
pond
is
shared on
two
parcels)
In
part
because
of
that
I don't
plan
on
building
a
pond.
I may
build
it some
day
if I
continue
to
own
these
lots.
•
•
•
FHB 8 -9 -90 pg. 11
It was determined
Gardner:
stated
that:
The
Board
could not
grant final
my
approval
of
the subdivision
would
can
if the
pond were
removed.
The
preliminary
Board
approval
was
given
on the
subdivision
with
the pond
in place
for
drainage
purposes.
if
I
decide
K.
Gardner:
stated
to
So
one
of
my
options
was
before
would
can
be
to
request
what's
the
Board
to
approve
suppose
be done,
to
and
have
has
this
as
is,
and
then
if
I
decide
to be
not
to
build
put
the
building
pond,
there,
he
I
would
have
to
come
back
it
to
the
have
this
modified
and
resolve
drainage
issues.
If I
take
the
pond
out,
you're
going
to
at
raise
this
questions
point.
This
on
has
drainage
already
issues,
been
and
engineered
I
can't
to
answer
handle
those
some
of
the
drainage
concerns.
My best option is to request final approval for the plan as
it is drawn.
Mr. Gardner asked the time frame in which the pond would have to
be build?
M.
Lavine
stated
to
he thought
Board
the
technically
which
that issue.
was
before
you
can
put
things
which
on the
shows
what's
market,
going
you're
to
suppose
be done,
to
and
have
has
a
to
filed
be
plat,
done
before
occupancy
It
may
have
to be
done
before
you
put
a
building
there,
he
wasn't
certain.
You can
put
it
on
the
market.
The final plat has to be filed within 30 days of approval.
If in the future, YOU want to come in for a change, deleting the
pond or combine lot 3 and 4, you can do that.
If one buyer acquires lot 3 and 4 and wishes to modify, the pond
significantly or lot lines, then the buyer should be made aware
that this board has to approve a change.
J. Davis: 0. Is this area subject to flooding?
A There are some Cattails growing, We did have it
checked out by DEC.
�?. Is there a record of that? (Could not locate
minutes for the month which preliminary
approval was given)
A. Could
provide
to
the
Board
the
same document
which
that issue.
was
previously
(DEC
and
presented,
ARMY
CORE
that resolved
OF ENG.)
•
•
P'B 8 -9 -90 Pg. 12
MICHALE HATTERY MOVED THAT FINAL AP'P'ROVAL BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO
ANY AP'P'ROVALS NECESSARY FROM THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
APPROVAL FROM THE STATE DEC, AND ARMY CORE OF ENG. REGARDING THE
CONCERNS ABOUT WET LANDS, REVIEW OF APPROVED AGREEMENT FROM THE
TOWN ATTORNEY ON A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED POND,
AND FULFILLMENT OF ANY OTHER CONTINGENCIES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN
THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
CLAUDIA BRENNER SECOND.
Discussion: None
VOTE YES (4)
NO (0)
CARRIED
C. Brenner, J. Davis, M. Hattery, M. Lavine
M.
Hattery
moved
the
minutes
from
last
month
be
approved next
meeting
and
due
to
the
time
meeting
be
adjourned.
J. Davis second.
Meeting Adjourned 12:10
I)
Respectfully Submitted,