HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-20•
0
TOWN OF DRYDEN
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 20, 1991
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Caldwell, Michael Hattery,
Robert Fletcher, Claudia Brenner, John Davis, and Joseph Lalley.
ALSO PRESENT BUT NOT LIMITED T0: Ron Roberts, Dave Herrick, and
Bruce Barkley.
The Planning Board was called to order at 8:00 PM by
Chairwoman Barbara Caldwell on June 20, 19910
Additions and /or corrections were noted and made on the
minutes prepared for the May 16, 1991 meeting.
A motion
Caldwell
to
approve
the May
16, 1991 minutes as corrected
was made
by
J.
Davis,
second by
J. Lalley and approved by all
members
present.
at the
land
Local
Level, the
B.
Caldwell
inquired
would be a
on the status of
the West Dryden Church
if it
reported
had
he
been placed
hadn't
on
heard.
the National Register.
Mr. Roberts
It was noted
there
would be a
conference
language
held
in
Syracuse
next week on
Creating
Affordable
Housing
at the
land
Local
Level, the
Whys and How
sponsored
by the New
York
Planning
Federation.
discussions
Supervisor Schug, Councilmen Roberts and Corrigan attended
the satellite conference on housing held Tuesday June 18, 1991
at Tompkins Cortland Community College.
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PUBLIC HEARING FOR JARROW SUBDIVISION REOPENED
Mr. Herrick provided additional prints which had been
prepared for the subdivision,
Pe
site s
accept
depth
system
rmi
e pt
abl
of
ha
t
i
e
e
d
s ha
c sy
for
ight
wel
ve be
stems
a ti
feet
1 dra
e
9
1
i
n o
fo
e f
and
ned
btained from the Hea
ur lots with sand fi
ield (lot #3). Rock
the selected locati
soils with a thin c
lth De
lters
was 1
on f or
lay la
partment for
and one is
ocated at a
each septic
yer.
Mr. Herrick
noted the
suggested
language
for
notation of
Final.Subdivision
Plat,
preservation
of
land
for
future Town
Road accessing
adjoining
parcels, was
derived
from
discussions
between Attorney
Mahlon
Perkins and
Attorney
Henry
Theisen.
•
•
C
E
E
w O
n o In
Q W co
L Q Q
.i O Y
y. 4
v3 O r
.I 3
10 m W
U w 2
.•I
to •�
w W 4
q U
L v N
4 N t
ko
Ri H I-1
•
FIB E -20 -91 PG.
Barbara read the following letters from Attorney Perkins and
Supervisor Schl_(g
� P
C
t
U 3 w
v
>� o
w •n
4
W
u
C
E
m ,
C
•n w
Y W
w ,+
W m
a .+
w
O >t
ti w
L c
IO W
S, S
u
U
10N R_IIRIINI
MA1110N R. PIR.KINS, P. (_..
A 111•RNI 1't ANOI If rn Nll I I(IRS 11 1.1U'
•1 \IkI IIaN lIxn I
Iv m•r •,
IIRI'1•IN, NOW' 1t•RK I ID'.I
June 3, 1991
Barbara Caldwell, Chairperson
Town of Dryden Planning Board
1624 Ellis Hollow Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
re: Jarrow Subdivision
Dear Barbara:
1111111,'41
Jean Ryan dropped off at my office minutes of the Planning Board
meeting of May 16, 1991 and a photocopy of a portion of the
proposed subdivision plat for the Jarrow Subdivision. I note from
the minutes that two (2) questions are posed for my consideration.
Should a strip of land be deeded to the Town to preserve that strip
for future development as a Town road adjoining this subdivision
with other lands of Jarrow in the Town of Caroline?
Is is there another tool that could be considered to protect the
Town's interest other than deeding this strip to the Town?
As a general rule the Town does not like to acquire any property
that it does not presently need. The Town is not in the business
of building roads for developers. The obligation to preserve and
protect this strip for future development should rest upon the
developer. It is possible to impose restrictive covenants or make
notations on the subdivision plat that a specific delineated area
is reserved by the developer for future use as a town road. I have
seen situations where that area has actually been transferred to
another owner subject to the restriction that that new owner will
transfer title to the municipality at such time as the future road
construction has been completed. The developer reserves an
easement.for purposes of installation of a town road.
As I understand it, there is some concern about the common division
line between Lot 2 and Lot 1. The concern arises because if a
strip of land were reserved (by whatever means) for a future road,
it might create two (2) parts of Lot 2 on different sides of that
strip. Apparently, the objection to moving the lot line is concern
over a stand of trees which need to be protected. As a general
proposition the Town does not favor irregular or unusable lots.
Such a situation may exist if the proposed future road is ever
developed. Lot 2 would then be on both sides of the road and the
smaller portion would be unusable for any residential purposes
other than perhaps a garden. one possible solution is to move the
lot line so that it corresponds with one (1) edge of the strip to
be reserved for the future road. The stand of trees can be
protected by a restriction which provides that they shall not be
disturbed except for removal of dead, dying or diseased trees. I
have seen this restriction work well in other subdivisions and it
serves to protect significant wooded areas from encroachment.
I hope I have addressed the concerns of your board, and if not,
please feel free to contact me and we will attempt to answer your
questions.
Best Regards,
ver truly yours,
Mahlon R. Perkins
MRP /ab
i
pc: James F. Schug, Town Supervisor
W 011-1 C W :. m a+
cc 0 3
3 w O e
X Y I 1 O E
w 0 'O U 1-I • L W
U
W O w -., w o O L W
0W ^wawa0�u�
✓C
C W m tr u t W u
O w w W P 0 C W
.0 m dw
4
L W u w W O
�Iw033mN )a
�O7
9 0 0 1 3 u 0 7 0
w O W•n a 3 r
4.1 w W l C Ip a O
7t ua1 alt 7 U
w O L C N L W
W >, 01 m o ., •n W
a� W+ ." U W 7 L t
-u
10 O w >duu
WW11),
o
ooaWOamcm"
O W m w m L n
w >. C O •r �
O aC W'o o c'O
14
:14 0wmQto
a W 7 „ L U >1 A
O •n w 0 a, >. w 0
U •-I 7
a .0 A m
q uw. o 3t Iia
H O -n tl1 .•I O O t
L W^ t Y a
w C m 0
o
c
U
0
Wu O'wu3W 00Y
•^
ur+g7 7 0•n aUF 01w
m
aA amw
>
> ^+ >1 A O 3
W m U m m u
y
G
•O
w C 0 pWi �+• i C M 0
7
✓10~100 O 3O1
N
U
L w C
w
C u a'O L •n
o
a
,C
E 0o3 O Wr
rn
3 c a
w
w
n
w
IE
.0
E CIO OU you
w w> t C> 'O w C 7
h
w U= W N W ti 0
w
w w 7 tfi a
10
C w ••i
W
0 0 W C> C w y N
a
V 44 W 1•, m a w !4
� P
C
t
U 3 w
v
>� o
w •n
4
W
u
C
E
m ,
C
•n w
Y W
w ,+
W m
a .+
w
O >t
ti w
L c
IO W
S, S
u
U
10N R_IIRIINI
MA1110N R. PIR.KINS, P. (_..
A 111•RNI 1't ANOI If rn Nll I I(IRS 11 1.1U'
•1 \IkI IIaN lIxn I
Iv m•r •,
IIRI'1•IN, NOW' 1t•RK I ID'.I
June 3, 1991
Barbara Caldwell, Chairperson
Town of Dryden Planning Board
1624 Ellis Hollow Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
re: Jarrow Subdivision
Dear Barbara:
1111111,'41
Jean Ryan dropped off at my office minutes of the Planning Board
meeting of May 16, 1991 and a photocopy of a portion of the
proposed subdivision plat for the Jarrow Subdivision. I note from
the minutes that two (2) questions are posed for my consideration.
Should a strip of land be deeded to the Town to preserve that strip
for future development as a Town road adjoining this subdivision
with other lands of Jarrow in the Town of Caroline?
Is is there another tool that could be considered to protect the
Town's interest other than deeding this strip to the Town?
As a general rule the Town does not like to acquire any property
that it does not presently need. The Town is not in the business
of building roads for developers. The obligation to preserve and
protect this strip for future development should rest upon the
developer. It is possible to impose restrictive covenants or make
notations on the subdivision plat that a specific delineated area
is reserved by the developer for future use as a town road. I have
seen situations where that area has actually been transferred to
another owner subject to the restriction that that new owner will
transfer title to the municipality at such time as the future road
construction has been completed. The developer reserves an
easement.for purposes of installation of a town road.
As I understand it, there is some concern about the common division
line between Lot 2 and Lot 1. The concern arises because if a
strip of land were reserved (by whatever means) for a future road,
it might create two (2) parts of Lot 2 on different sides of that
strip. Apparently, the objection to moving the lot line is concern
over a stand of trees which need to be protected. As a general
proposition the Town does not favor irregular or unusable lots.
Such a situation may exist if the proposed future road is ever
developed. Lot 2 would then be on both sides of the road and the
smaller portion would be unusable for any residential purposes
other than perhaps a garden. one possible solution is to move the
lot line so that it corresponds with one (1) edge of the strip to
be reserved for the future road. The stand of trees can be
protected by a restriction which provides that they shall not be
disturbed except for removal of dead, dying or diseased trees. I
have seen this restriction work well in other subdivisions and it
serves to protect significant wooded areas from encroachment.
I hope I have addressed the concerns of your board, and if not,
please feel free to contact me and we will attempt to answer your
questions.
Best Regards,
ver truly yours,
Mahlon R. Perkins
MRP /ab
i
pc: James F. Schug, Town Supervisor
pB 6+ 20 -91 PG.
Discussion ensued if a road right -of -way toward the Dryden
portion was feasibly due to the grade. The board deliberated at
lenity on the right -of -way staying as proposed by Mr. and Mrs.
Jarrow or at the border of lot line.
The Covenants were discussed and Mr. Herrick noted the added
verbiage for enforcement. It was suggested by J. Lalley that #2
be worded assessed value of $175.000 rather then construction
cost of $175.000.
R.
Joseph
suggested
to leave the lots as
Lalley
read
the
letter
from
line were
the
Tompkins
County
Department
of planning
by
James
Hanson,
Jr..,
planning
Commissioner.
"The proposal,
as
submitted,
will
have
no
significant
deleterious
impact
on intercoUntry,
county,
or
State
interests.
Therefore,.no
recommendation
is indicated
by
the
Tompkins
County
planning
Department,
and
you
are
free
to
act
without
prejudice
".
It
is
noted
that there
has
been no
response
from the
Town of
Caroline.
The Covenants were discussed and Mr. Herrick noted the added
verbiage for enforcement. It was suggested by J. Lalley that #2
be worded assessed value of $175.000 rather then construction
cost of $175.000.
R.
Caldwell
suggested
to leave the lots as
that the wording in #20 include or
leoal
representative.
would make for a more
uniformed lot if the
line were
changed.
• po
Kn
co
li
•
T
rt i
owi
uld
kel
ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY DISCUSSION
he concern if
on of the purp
ng the Jarrow'
be done by Co
ihood or possi
Lot 1
osed
s are
venan
bilit
i
e
t
y
ne #1
aseme
inter
or d
that
sh
nt
est
eed
Lo
ould be
was ment
ed in pr
restric
t #2 wou
1ocat
ioned
esery
tion
ld be
ed
b
in
on
co
to the Southern
y J. Lalley.
g the trees
lot #1 and the
me a split lot.
J. Davis
stated
that he was inclined
to leave the lots as
designed noting
it
would make for a more
uniformed lot if the
line were
changed.
R. Fletcher suggest
the subdivision. Resul
redesigning the subdivi
Mr. Herrick noted that
the final approval that
land that is split off
piece in the Town of Ca
ed the land
is of this ,s
s i on and at
a possibilit
when a Town
has to be ma
roline /or Lo
in q
Ugge
this
Y wo
Roa
inter
t #1
_test
stio
tim
u1 d
d is
ined
.
ion be re
n would m
e was not
be to sta
built th
with the
moved from
can
desirable.
to /note on
e piece of
adjoining
The -Board was assured the new purposed road, (Sparrow
Crest), would be made according to Town standards. They have
not received a letter from the Town Superintendent but have had
discussions with him.
•
•
PB 6 —E0 -91 PG. 4
Fart
2
of
the
or greater,
(15 foot rise
EAF
was
reviewed
project
general slopes
in the
by
the board and completed by
Joseph
(YES)
La11ey
— CAN IMPACT
BE MITIGATED
services.
resulting
CHANGE YES).
ins
(SMALL
TO
MODERATE
IMPACT ON LAND
1.
construction
Will
the
or greater,
(15 foot rise
proposed
action result
in a physical change to the
project
general slopes
in the
site?
area
exceed 10%..
(YES)
LARGE IMPACT
— CAN IMPACT
Any
construction
on
slopes of 15%
or greater,
(15 foot rise
per 100
foot
of length),
or where the
general slopes
in the
project
area
exceed 10%..
(POTENTIAL
LARGE IMPACT
— CAN IMPACT
BE MITIGATED
services.
BY PROJECT
CHANGE YES).
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or
involve more than one phase or stage (SMALL TO MODERATE
IMPACT).
2. Will
there
Action
be an
effect to any unique or unusual land forms
found on
the
site?
MITIGATED
(NO).
residential
uses
in
areas without
water
and /or
PROJECT
sewer
services.
CHANGE —
IMPACT ON WATER
3. NO
4. NO
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality
or quantity? (YES)
Proposed
Action
Action
will
change
flood water flows
allow
MITIGATED
residential
uses
in
areas without
water
and /or
PROJECT
sewer
services.
CHANGE —
YES)
(SMALL
TO
MODERATE
IMPACT)
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns,or
surface water runoff? (YES)
Proposed
Action
would
change
flood water flows
BY
MITIGATED
BY
PROJECT
CHANGE —
YES)
7. NO
8a NO
9. NO
10. NO
IMPACT ON AIR
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
(CAN IMPACT
• 11. NO
12a NO
13. NO
0
0
14. NO
PB 6 -E0-91 PG. 5
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IMPACT ON OFTEN SPACE AND RECREATION
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15.
Will
will cause a
greater than 5% increase in the
proposed
form
action affect the community's sources of fuel
or
energy
supply?
(YES)
Proposed
Action
will cause a
greater than 5% increase in the
use of any
form
of energy in the
'municipality. (SMALL TO
MODERATE
IMPACT)
MODERATE
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
16. NO
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. NO
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing
community? (YES)
Development
will
create a
demand
for additional community
services. (SMALL
TO
MODERATE
IMPACT)
19. NO
PART 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Question 1. ANY IMPACT WILL BE MITIGATED BY DRAINAGE PLAN.
0
�J
•
PB 6 -20 -91 PG-. 6
No
further
Lalley
questions
moved
wording of
Michael
Hattery moved the hearing -
closed
and
second
on the
by
John
Davis.
proposed.
VOTE
CARRIED
YES (5)
NO (0)
M. Hattery, R.
C. Brenner and
ABSTAINED
HEARING CLOSED
Fletcher,
J. Davis
(0)
J. Lalley
Joseph
the Board
Lalley
sub- division discussion on the
moved
wording of
the
Board make
a
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
on the
project
the
as
proposed.
of the
Lot
Second
by
Michael
Hattery,
VOTE YES ( 5) M. Hattery, R.
C. Brenner and
NO (0) ABSTAINED
CARRIED
Fletcher,
J. Davis
(0)
J. Lalley
Before
the Board
voted on.the
sub- division discussion on the
compromise
wording of
the road right
-of -way was discussed.,
the
project
subject
leave
to
the
relocation
of the
Discussion,
Joseph
see
Lalley
problem.
moved that
the
Board approve
the
project
subject
leave
to
the
relocation
of the
Lot
One line
with
or with out
deed
restrictions
pertaining
to the
tree
issue,
the
trees which
are
now
a
part
of
Lot Two.
Second
if the concern
is
by
John
the
trees,
Davis.
Attorney
Discussion,
own that
see
piece
problem.
J.
Lalley
VOTE
wouldn't
built.
Mr.
leave
Lalley
a stray
Claudia Brenner would
particular piece.
stated it is important because it
piece of land.
agree if Mr. Jarrow didn't own that
He may not
own that
see
piece
problem.
when
the
VOTE
road is
built.
Mr.
Lalley
Lalley
was concerned
with
the
future
when
he may
not own
that
lot
and
if the concern
is
with
the
trees,
Attorney
Perkins
has
suggested
that
can
be
handled
with
deed.restrictions
on Lot
One.
M. Hattery.did not see as a divided lot would create a problem.
R. Fletcher
didn't
see
a
problem.
VOTE
YES
(1)
J.
Lalley
DENIED
NO (4) M. Hattery,
C. Brenner
ABSTAINED (0)
R. Fletcher, J. Davis
•
•
•
PB 6 -20 -91 RG. 7
John Davis wished to know what other contingencies need
consideration for" approval.
B.
Caldwell
built
noted
first
they
would obviously need a
acceptance
plan
/bond
for
the
to
road.
Mr. Herrick stated they have planed to make all the
improvements and then present it to the Town.
Mr. Herrick again reviewed their plan for the pond which
would
Barbara
built
Caldwell
first
stated they
would probably
need a drainage
plan
and noted
There
due
to
the necessity
of a lot of
cutting and fill
there
would
the
be a need
is a necessity
for a plan
to contain the
loose soils
during
construction.
Mr. Herrick again reviewed their plan for the pond which
would
be
built
read
first
in order to contain much of
the sediment
and
runoff.
transfer the
There
would
be some -run off from the
North side road
surface
Lot one
down
into
the
Snyder Hill Road and there
is a necessity
for
sizing
culverts.
of Caroline.
Barbara
Caldwell
road be built
read
right -of -way the
the
following
two
shall
transfer the
South
statement
prepared
by
Claudia
Lot one
Brenner
and
asked
by Jarrow
for
discussions
Town
of Caroline.
Should
a
road be built
on the
right -of -way the
owner of lot
two
shall
transfer the
South
portion, that has.been
divided,
to
Lot one
or adjacent
property
currently owned
by Jarrow
in
the
Town
of Caroline.
This is pending the Town Attorney's approval of the
mechanism and wording.
The board discussed the legality of adding such wording and
decided if it were attached would be binding. There was no
determination on the word.transferred with regard to monetary
amount.
Robert
stipulation
Brenner.
VOTE
DENIED
Fletch0br'moved
to the final
YES (2)
NO (3)
ABSTAINED
to add the above wording as a
approval procedure. Second by Claudia
R. Fletcher and C. Brenner
J. Davis, J. La 1 1 e y and M. Hat t ery
(0)
i
•
•
0
PB 6 -20 -91 PG. 8
John Davis moved to approve the Sub - Division with the
stipulation that:
1.' The
right -of
way
easement
developer
satisfactory
to the Town
Attorney,
the
lineated
the
made
part
of the
approval
E. The
drainage
plan
made
satisfactory
to
the Town
Engineer
for
drainage
during
and
after
construction.
3. The road to be build and accepted by-the Town.
4. Any other necessary permits by obtained.
The motion was second by Michael Hattery.
No discussion
VOTE YES (4)
CARRIED
NO (2)
ABSTAINED
Claudia Brenner, Michael Hattery
John Davis and Barbara Caldwell
Joseph Lalley and Robert Fletcher
(0)
,SKETCH FLAN CONFERENCE FOR PRECISION BUILDERS
Location: Ellis Hollow Road
CHAIRED BY JOSEPH LALLEY
Bruce
Barkley
developer
spoke for Precision Builders and
presented
the
following%
Develope (9) new with
property. Total (10)
(1) existing residence on the
Lots 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 will all be two plus acres.
Lots 4,5,6 and 7 will be closer to three plus acres.
This 26 acre parcel was originally part of a larger 50 acre
parcel which was given to Cornell which includes the
designated wet lands.
Proposed deed restrictions.
PB 6 -20 -9 PG. 9
Both their engineer and the Health Department have looked at
the site and are awaiting the official written documentation
from the Health Department.
Their
engineers
preliminary
determination
Environmental
ise The deep hale
test and the
perk
holes
Concern
that they did
indicate
that the Health
Department
will
be
able
to design some
type of
septic .system for
each
of the
lots.
Department
of
Environmental
Concern
April
1991
erosion
and
sediment
control
guidelines:
"The
following
are
examples
of projects
which
soil
erosion
and sedimentation
are
a
common
relevant
areas
of
environmental
concern.
Residential
development
consisting
of (5)
or more
dwelling
units
'unless
each
dwelling
unit
is
on a
lot
of
two
or
more
acres.
The proposed road is.less than the maximum slope allowed.
Sight distance on Ellis Hollow Road is satisfactory,
In the process of obtaining information pertaining to water
systems and quality of existing water.
Would like to eliminate the right -of -way to existing
• properties. All except for one is not developable and that
lot is shaped like this one and would have to be developed
the same. A right -of -way would not serve any purpose.
Mr. La 11
Cornell
Mr. Bark
would be
6% grade
with a s
ey
Wet
ley
de
uff
not
La
st
vel
If
ici
ed the change i
nds would remai
ated the propos
oped by the Fein
there was any t
ent area being
• the
• alon
ed roa
e tree
ype of
flat,
turn
g th
d of
l,i n
dro
aro
e to
f E1
e wh
p it
U
t
1
i
nd
1
is
ch
wo
and.access to the
ine.
Hollow Roadway
has approximately
uld be spread out
Concern was mentioned for contours compatible with lot parcels
so there would not be a steep drop from the road to the existing
proposed parcel of land due to the necessary fill for the road.
Health Department would require the well and septic be placed
200 feet away from the designated wet land.
To discuss with the highway department the grading of the road
and the sight distance from that particular placement of the
road.
LJ
•
PB 6 -20 -91 PG. 10
To.investigate
Brenner
at
the
practical
a
proposed
aspect
of
right
-of -way
similar to what was
discussed
Why
it
during
go
the
lots 9 and 10 and not
Jarrow
6
Sub- Division.
7
To look
Brenner
at
the
practical
were
aspect
of
that and present it at the
next
hearing.
Why
it
should
go
between
lots 9 and 10 and not
lots
6
and
7
for
example,
or not
at
all.
C.
Brenner
concerned about the road cut
if the other property
were
sub- divided.
Mention was made4that the parcel developed now would
as part of the development and the drive would exit
proposed road.
Hearing for the Sketch Flan closed.
J. Lalley moved and second by M. Hattery to adjourn.
t
Respectfully
be placed
onto the
Carried.
s mitted,