HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-16I
•
•
•
TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 16, 1993
AGENDA: RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH ROAD
PEREGRINE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION (DEIS)
MEMBERS PRESENT: CHAIR: BARBARA CALDWELL; CLAUDIA BRENNER; JOHN,
DAVIS; MITCHELL LAVINE; AND JOSEPH LALLEY.
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Putnam; Henry Slater; Mario Giannella; Larry
Fabbroni; and Ralph Varn.
The Meeting was called to order by Chair. Barbara Caldwell.
Henry Slater
John
requested
moved
that
the
Planning
the
Board place on
record their
recommendation
RD
be
that
the
East
side
with
of
North
Road be
rezoned from
RC to
RD, and
be
a written
request
Site
be
submitted
to the
Dryden Town
Board.
Mr.
Slater
believes
this
was
done
previously
but cannot
substantiate
it
with
prior
minutes.
Second By Mitchell Lavine.
Discussion:
Vote YES
RUN
CARRIED
(4) C. Brenner; J. Davis; M. Lavine and J. Lalley.
(0) ABSTAINED (0)
(Secretary to highlight motion and send to Town Board Members )
a a. a a a a a a a a a. a a a a.. a a a a. a. a a a a a a a a.. a.... a
5�
John
Davis
moved
that
the
petitioned
area for rezoning from
RC to
RD
be
accomplished
with
the
contingency that all RD
projects
be
subject
to
Site
Plan
Review.
Second By Mitchell Lavine.
Discussion:
Vote YES
RUN
CARRIED
(4) C. Brenner; J. Davis; M. Lavine and J. Lalley.
(0) ABSTAINED (0)
(Secretary to highlight motion and send to Town Board Members )
a a. a a a a a a a a a. a a a a.. a a a a. a. a a a a a a a a.. a.... a
5�
e
PB 12 -16 -93 PG. 2
• PEREGRINE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION
Board Members reviewed SEQR time frames with Engineer Dave
Putnam,
Mr. Putnam: (1) you have enough information to make a finding
and not require a final. (2) There are sufficient comments to
address all concerns in a final environmental impact
statements. A DETERMINATION HAS TO BE MADE IF A FINAL IS
NECESSARY OR WHETHER THIS IS SATISFACTORY WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Joseph Lalley: On January 10 the Board can (1) make a finding
that the DEIS is accepted as a final EIS; (2) approve the
project% (3) we can accept the DEIS as a final EIS and put it
out again for public reviews (4) or we can not accept it and ask
for further revisions?
D. Putnam noted only two, you find
your declaration on the Draft and a
prepared; or you cause a final to b
prepared all agencies have a chance
time frame on that.
• J. Lalley: If we
decision on that
project is fine.
end of discussion
0
this
is sufficient
and
make
final
does
not
have to
be
e
prepared.
If
a final
is
to
comment
and
there is
no
accept the DEIS as the final and make a
and it happens to be for the project then the
If it is against the project then that is the
on the project with the developer.
D. Putnam also noted if the Board accepts the project as
adequate there isn't any way of knowing if someone may not agree
with your decision and proceed to Court.
DETERMINED THAT A DECISION HAS TO BE MAKE ON THE DEIS BY JAN. 10
LETTERS RECEIVED WERE NUMBERED 1 - 14
Dave P
advise
issues
relati
relati
There
the di
access
ut
t
a
ve
ve
is
st
nam has looked at all
he Board what he can g
re the Boards discreti
he noted that the onl
is to have all of the
no connection from th
ance involved does not
of the correspondence and can
ive technical advice on and which
on. As far as the comments being
y consistent comment that is not
traffic go to Slaterville Road.
e project to Slaterville Road and
appear applicable as the only
I
PB 12 -1E -93 PG. 3
D. Putnam
stated
that
it was
obvious from
the
comments received
that all
of
the available
information
which
is
on file at the
• Town had
not
been reviewed.
and
The best overall
should
site mapping was
the original
in
subdivision.
manor
rather
then
NYSE &G
L. Fabbroni:
The Town of Ithaca
and Tompkins
County has had a
set of the
original drawings and
engineers
report for over two
years.
noted three
major
themes
M. Lavine questioned if Mr. Putnam thought the Town /County would
have responded the same if they knew they had access to the
information.
Mr. Putnam thought they seemed to be asking for more detail than
what is required for a DEIS. The rules in New York State have
changed regarding drainage /pollution plans disturbing five or
more acres and the developer will now have a more restrictive
process to follow. Mr. Putnam explained the new restrictions
and will provide the Board Members with a copy of the rules and
regulations. The only exemption to this process is
municipalities with a population under 100,000 and
farmers /agriculture. The new regulations supersede the current
Town of Dryden Law and therefore has to apply. Towns are being
encouraged to adopt Local Laws. Primarily approval can be
obtained contingent on obtaining the permit and filing the plan
with the Town. This should answer all the questions concerning
drainage and wet lands.
• B. Caldwell noted that the Town Board may be rethinking the
issue on park lands. (Dryden Lake is a Public Park and this
would be a localized /public Park)
J.
Lalley
after reviewing
site
and
the
14
letters
noted three
major
themes
that
or
areas of
concern
and
perhaps
should
address
the issues
in
this
manor
rather
then
NYSE &G
each
individual
road to
letter.
built
(1)
the
Traffic
(2)
Density,
Student
Housing,
character
of
neighborhood;
architectural
styles;
(3)
wetlands,
drainage,
and
open
space.
WETLANDS:
J. Lalley noted one of the concerns is the second access to the
site which may not be allowed due to the wetlands.
D. Putnam noted
that after visiting
the
site
and
looking
at the
location
for
the second access
saw
that
the
wetlands
were
greater
then
he had originally
thought.
May
also
have a
problem
unless
NYSE &G
agreed to allow the
road to
be
built
under
the
Power
Lines.
•
PB 12-16 -93 PG. 4
L.
Fabbroni:
response
If necessary
to this
would
the
developer
would obtain a Nation
• Wide
permit
it was adequate
to put
the
Power Lines.
second
entrance
in.
Dave Putnam did not
think
response
that
to this
would
be a problem
but that the
road would have to
be
built
it was adequate
under
the
Power Lines.
He has not
had a chance to calculate
Ithaca Park
Lands.
the
site
distance
at the
second
entrance and cannot
comment
on
that issue.
L. Fabbroni: That is a concern which has to be dealt with but
it is not a physical impossibility.
J. Lalley thought from what has been discussed that any drainage
plan would /will be well regulated.
D. Putnam noted that there was a concern that some of the
wetlands were approaching on some of the lots and how it would
be handled.
L. Fabbroni: Th
little drive way
The Board will s
the mitigation p
approves the pla
is still area en
in phase one aft
ere are wetlands
crossing at the
ee that in detai
Ian if it gets t
n then it will b
ough to put an i
er the entrance
alon
end
1 in
o tha
e bro
Bland
widen
g the lot lines and at one
of one of the cul -de -sacs.
the preliminary plat for
t point. If the Board
sight up to detail. There
in the road for branching
s into the subdivision.
Discussed storm water management, all concerns should be
•
addressed with the new regulations.
OPEN SPACE
J. Davis stated
his general
response
to this
issue is the Town
of Dryden should
provide
parks
and
did not think
it was adequate
or appropriate to
consider
sharing
the Town of
Ithaca Park
Lands.
M. Lavine noted that he has never seen the Town of Ithaca Park
in the area overused. Would like to know how the Town Board
stands on the issue.
L. Fabbroni & R. Varn stated that the area of open space is
approximately 30% of the project and a determination has not
been made how that will be deeded /used for the benefit of the
subdivision. In the Town of Ithaca Park there is 13 acres and
was called a regional facility and where it is located in this
area should be considered. The Town of Ithaca had originally
requested that 5 acres be set aside for the Eastern Heights
Park. THE DEVELOPERS HAVE OFFERED TO ADD TO THE PARK BY GIVING
THEM A STRIP ON THE SOUTH TO ADJOIN THE PARK, PROVIDING LAND TO
CONSTRUCT A ROAD ALONG THE PARK. A PARKING AREA COULD THEN BE
• MADE FOR ACCESS BY THE DEVELOPMENT /PUBLIC ON THE LOWER END.
i
PB 12 -16 -93 PG. 5
Mr.
Lavine
summarized
the
the issue
by
saying
that
he
thinks
what
the
is covered
developers
the
are
proposing
Cornell
in regard
to
open
land
up there
and
park land
and
• satisfies
point
what
he
and
the
Town
look
for.
He
has
not
heard
any
compelling
arguments
it.
from
the
Town of
Ithaca
comments
or anyone
else
(has
not
read
all
of
the
comments
yet)
that
makes
him
think
otherwise.
C. Brenner stated that if the park land is now underutilized
just adding more land is not going to satisfy the problem.
Adding to the quality of what is already there may be more
feasible.
J. Davis
question
whether
the
the issue
of
open
lands
were adequate
in regard
to the
steeper
is covered
portion of
the
development?
There is
Cornell
requesting
bus
service
information
up there
on how
to
and
at some
point
there
R. Varn stated those were the best lots in the project. Nice
lots to build, where the most attractive homes could be built,
and thought the regulations imposed would be more than adequate
recording runoff, erosion, etc..
D. Putnam stated per rules and regulations storm water
management concerning retention and controls on flatter parts of
the site is easier. Erosion control is harder on the steeper
parts of the site but erosion control takes up less space to
solve the problem then does detention.
• PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER
•
D. Putnam said he could answer the que
Public Water and Sewer in the letter w
He stated that he would prepare a writ
developer cannot put in a sewer distri
parcels.
Mr. Varn stated he has proposed two di
Dryden. (1) a district just for the de
district which would allow residence t
to be included. There are issues and
dealt with concerning Bolton Point and
stions
ritten
ten re
ct if
strict
velopm
o part
proced
Town
and concerns on
by James Gutelius.
sponse. The
he allows outside
s to the Town of
ent and (2) a
icipate if they wish
ures which will be
of Ithaca issues.
J.
Lalley stated
the
the
public
transportation
and they
issue
to sell
homes they
is covered
in
the
draft.
There is
Cornell
requesting
bus
service
information
up there
on how
to
and
at some
point
there
may be
an
attraction
project
and
for
bus
service
in
in the
project.
R. Varn
stated
as
the
project
develops
and they
wish
to sell
homes they
are
going
to
be knocking
on doors
requesting
information
on how
to
obtain
public
transportation
for the
project
and
what will
be required
in
road development
to obtain
it.
PE 12 -16 -93 FAG. 6
TAX BASE ISSUE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
• Issues concerning affordable housing were discussed with Mr.
Varn noting that the the style of houses the neighbors wanted
led the developer to the lot configuration that is being
proposed and therefore the houses that are going to go on it.
Originally a planed development with some apartments buried in
the middle of the project, which would have been great planning
for affordable housing, have been eliminated.
Mr. Lavine: Everyone wants affordable housing but not in my
back yard. The market movement in the last 4 or 5 years for
that type of development is not wanted. A dwelling Under 960
square feet is undesirable.
•
•
In phase two there are 42 townhouses being planned with 28 more
in phase four.
J. Lalley thought the issue of density
Housing character dealing with the sty
character of the neighborhood and the
more houses to the area. Some of that
terms of relocation of the attached un
the project. It didn't come out in a
discussion with the neighbors in phone
seen as an appropriate mitigation.
D.
Putnam
Varn ought to
noted
consider
concerns
the
across
from
at
this
time
should
but
1
i
i
1
had
e o
m pa
has
is
of
cal
been
f hous
ct on
been
to the
of the
is rec
addressed.
ing and general
adding so many
addressed in
South side of
letters but in
eived that was
that
Mr.
Varn ought to
Ithaca letter
consider
Carolyn
the
neighbors
from
the
entrance.
It
should
not
hour
be addressed
he
should
be concerned
side.
and
thinking
one who
about it.
TRAFFIC ISSUES
In the
Town of
Ithaca letter
by
Carolyn
Town
Grigorov,
side
on pg. 3
Hill Road
concerning
not
peak
hour
volume:
Ithaca's
J.
Lalley
side.
noted
as
one who
lives
on Snyder
stated
Hill
Road
there
will
be
continued
and maybe
they would
pressure
as houses
are
built
concerning
to
traffic
on
Snyder
Ithaca's
side, however
Hill
Road,
whether
this
project
that
is built
or
not.
That
is
going
time.
to
be the
pressure
on
the
prospective
Towns
to improve
the
road,
and is
not necessary
conditional
for
the
project.
M. Lavine believes the major concerns are that the developer is
willing
to
help
with
the
Town
of Dryden
side
of Snyder
Hill Road
and
not
the
Town
of
Ithaca's
side.
Mr.
Varn
stated
let
us use
the
parks
and maybe
they would
also
consider
improvements
to
the
Town of
Ithaca's
side, however
they
are
not
making
that
proposal
at this
time.
They
would
be
concerns and work with the Town
etc... and would be open to
two.
willing
to
look at some
of the
of
Ithaca
concerning
shoulders,
discussing
the
issues
in phase
concerns and work with the Town
etc... and would be open to
two.
PB 12 -16 -93 PG. 7
L.
Fabbroni:
stated
The
Cornell
greatest
study
the concerns
the one
which
has
been
released
shows
levels
drain
which
individual
are
compatible
or developments
way
with
there
all
build
out,
the
subdivision
increased
waiting
to
access
roads.
He
doesn't
fear
believe
The
there
with
is anywhere
on Snyder
continue
Hill
Road
plus
homes
no
being
than
build
in
the
%.
future,
winter
and
is
a much
more
coming
intensive
the
study
then was
done
when
this
project
was
first
undertaken.
The
study
confirms
that
the
road
and intersections
are
adequate.
D.
Putnam
stated
he thought
the
greatest
concern is
the concerns
the one
at the
bottom
of
the
hill.
Whether
drain
individual
build
homes
or developments
way
up
there
Drive
is going
to
be
increased
waiting
to
access
roads.
He
doesn't
fear
believe
The
there
with
is anywhere
on Snyder
continue
Hill
Road
with a
slope
no
greater
than
rail
on the
10
%.
in the
winter
time
J. Lalley
Lalley
stated
he thought
he
that
physiologically
the concerns
and
problems on Snyder
having
Road
could
the
storm
drain
but not by
extended
Town of Dryden, and
all the
way
up
to Dove
Drive
would
resolve
what
people's
hold
up
biggest
fear
is.
The
curve
with
the
ditch
continue
on one
side
and
no
guard
rail
on the
other
in the
winter
time
coming
down
the
hill.
Mr.
Lalley
stated
the
he
@f the two
though
the concerns
and
problems on Snyder
Hill
Road
could
be
mitigated,
but not by
the
Town of Dryden, and
should
not
hold
up
this
project. Those
problems
are there and
are
going
to
continue
to
increase.
NOTE OF CONCERN ..CONNECTING TO PARK LANE AND THEN TO ROUTE 79.
(Has not been formally requested .... is a concern of the Board
in order to access Eastern Heights Park and landlocked
situations.
Should this be mapped now ? ? ??
JOSEPH LALLEY SUGGESTED THAT MEMBERS WRITE UP ANY QUESTIONS AND
GET THEM TO DAVE PUTNAM BY DECEMBER 30 SO THAT HE COULD HAVE AN
ANSWER BY THE 13TH. OF JANUARY.
RALPH VARN AGREED THAT THE BOARD HAD UNTIL JANUARY 13, 1994 FOR
A DECISION.
ACCESS ROAD
Dave
Putnam noted
that the western access would always be
the
L ;%ttg{
@f the two
access roads once the hump is taken out
of the
road d id r@G�onstruct i on is completed.
•
i
A
PB 12 -16 -93 PG. 8
Mr. Lalley noted that the access road into the project is going
to have a serious effect on the two properties. He does not
O think there is enough space for the access. The Reid place and
the DeBells are going to be seriously affected. "Of all the
impacts this is probably, in my mind the most serious and
negative impact on the neighborhood, in that whole section of
housing, is that entrance proposed right there and that is the
one that I can't finally reconcile at the moment. We talked
about all the mitigations for entrance and mountable curve and
sidewalk and pedestrian ways and all of that. That is still
going to have a significant impact on the character of that
little cluster of housing in there on either side and given the
fact, at least in terms of time limit clock, that is going to be
the sole entrance for many, many years. I am real concern about
the effect it is going to have on the quality of that whole
little neighborhood that is right there. On top of that it is
still not a given, guarantee that you can put in the second
access up by the Gower Line."
•
Mr. Lavi
a pro j ec
entrance
issue is
project
ne stated
t if the
develop
to find
is killed
that he could not imagine that there would be
East entrance had to be developed as the only
ing the whole road to get to phase one. The
a way to satisfy the access concern, or the
J. Lalley said at least in his mind that is true.
Mr. Lavine stat
houses he would
living next to
development. I
issue, but beca
because it wasn
ed i
be
some
f it
use
It w
f he
upset
thing
were
of th
ide e
were 1
howe
with
a ful
e dist
nough
iving in either of those two
ver would recognize that he was
a possibility for future
1 60 feet wide there may not be an
ance may not consider it a concern
for a Town Road. One way to look
at it is to consider and look at other intersections along
Snyder Hill Road. How close are homes and how would that
traffic count at peak hours compare with the proposed project
access road.
Mr. Fabbroni
noted
this
is
the worse
case
because
the
others
front on the
road
and
are set
back
with
the
side
yard
in
mind.
When the lots
were
subdivided
off of
this
parcel
someone
recreated
this
dilemma
and
there was
a
substantial
piece
of land
and as long
as
Dutch
Prince
owned the
land
would
have
anticipated
that he had nothing more in mind then to further
subdivide.
Mr. Lavine suggested that perhaps the landowners may be
interested in selling to the developer.
•
•
PB 12 -16 -93 PG. 9
Ralph Varn said they had not approached it that way. He wished
it known for the record that in the beginning of this process
the biggest concern was the main entrance to the property being
only 47 feet, and if the Town would take this as access to the
property. This was our first question to the Town and we have a
letter from the Town Board of old discussing that entrance.
They were accepting these two subdivisions, of these two houses,
and using that road as an access. When and if the road would
access the property for future lots, would have to come before
the Board. We went through this approval process and we have
gotten approval for the 47 foot right -of -way. The mitigating
measure to make that happen was to make that road wider, to put
in the bump up side walk, to put the vegetation on there, and we
have approvals for that. This should not be an issue at this
time.
Mr. Lavine agreed that at the time, his recoll
proposal was being considered had to deal with
movement and the safety of that movement, as o
impact to the adjacent parcels which I think i
also have a concern.
ection is when the
the traffic
pposed to the
s Joe's point. I
Mr. Varn stated at this late date /stage to be turned down for
that particular item would be very frustrating. We had a Public
Hearing and that was not an issue.
Mr.
Fabbroni
stated
the
road
the
he can't
individuals
set
backs are
bought
those
they don't
have
homes
knowing
that
there
was
a
right
hours
-of
-way
there
between
the
all along
homes.
J.
Davis
observed
the
road
that
he can't
believe
set
backs are
we would
that
they don't
have
within
spend
the required
set
hours
of the
and
hours
on
this
project
knowing
all along
that
this
was
an
issue,
this
47
feet.
To
be
stumped
on this
issue
of
47
feet
vs.
60
is
beyond
imagination.
The
second
concern
is
the
amount
of
paved
surface
of
37
feet,
compared
to
what
Snyder
Hill
is
today,
seems
to be
an
improvement
and
does
not
seen
sufficient
to
prevent
the
project.
Mr. Lavine suggested a mitigation might be a screening and
moving the drive over.
R.
Varn
felt that if
the
road
is between
the two houses and
their
set
backs are
such
that
they don't
need a variance and are
within
the required
set
backs
of the
Town there is not that much
of
an issue.
John Davis noted there was comment on the lack of turn arounds.
Note: the road is being built to Town specs.
pB 12 -1E -93 PG. 10
Ralph Varn wished it noted for the record that the Public
Hearing was closed ......however the Chair. did grant Mario
Giannella an opportunity to make an informal comment.
Mario
Ginella
Putnam
.....
may
I thought
the
Board
the
Reids
brought
up the comment
that there
of
way
was
not
the
matter
required
will
setback...
back
Conclusion:
(1)
D.
Putnam
also
may
have
the
Board
original water district maps
showing
the
right
write
of
way
going
Reed
back in and will look into the
matter
and
will
get
back
to
the
board.
(`)
Will answer
He
also
water and sewer questions
noted
to the
Board
he
will
to which letter it is
write
also
a
summary
Reed
setback.
on
the storm water
regulations
and
how
they
impact
all
the
comments.
(3)
Will answer
the
water and sewer questions
on any letters
to the
Board
by referring
to which letter it is
and comment and
also
check on
the
Reed
setback.
jr
r�
u
MEETING ADJOURNED