Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-20I • TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 20, 1994 AGENDA: PEREGRINE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION DR A FT MEMBERS PRESENT: CHAIR. BARBARA CALDWELL; CLAUDIA BRENNER; JOHN DAVIS; MITCHELL LAVINE; JOSEPH LALLEY AND ROBERT FLETCHER. Also Present: Dave Putnam; Henry Slaters Larry Fabbroni; Ralph Varn; James Schug; Donald Gilbert; Mrs. C. Reed and Mr. & Mrs. DeBell. The Meeting was called to order by Chair. Barbara Caldwell. She stated that at the conclusion of the January 13, 1994 meeting the developer had agreed to prepare additional or mitigating factors to the Boards concerns. (1) Mitigating factors for the Shaw -Reed, DeBell and Huling Ash properties; (2) Park Land; (3) mapping a reserved piece for accessing Rt. 79. The Chair noted that the material received by the Board had 40 addressed two of the concerns and asked the developer if he wished to address the mitigating factors for the properties involved? Larry Fabbroni stated based on a map prepared on field surveys has located the eastern most end of the DeBell structure which is the ramp, and the western most edge of the two houses going down in the lane. A road has now been placed that exceeds the Town Highway specifications and meets what has been discussed from time to time over four years. All of the features, a paved road with mountable curbs, are possible within the right -of -way that exists. If a requirement to meet the 52 and 112 feet were imposed it would mean taking all of the trees out on the west side of the drive. If this issue is resolved we would probably shift five feet to the east and avoid taking the trees out. For mitigation we would offer through the subdivision process acceptable landscape features to the Reed side of the property. If we have to remove the trees then we would offer an acceptable plan for landscaping on both sides of the road. Mitigation would take place in the subdivision process. In the mean time apply for a variance from the Board of Appeals on the 52 and 112 feet, and if that is relaxed as a requirement, I would propose to leave that tree line. • f f PB 1 -20 -94 PG. 2 L. Fabbroni also noted the main LAVINE mitigation for the property across from the entrance is to move that driveway to the West and place some landscape feature opposite the road so the O headlights would not shine right onto the house. Mr. Varn stated he would work with the owner and provide the mitigating solution he described in his letter. Donald Gilbert the Dryden Highway Superintendent stated that accepting the layout was his discretion and what has been proposed was not a problem. Larry Fabbroni stated that the Park Land and the second access issue was addressed in the submitted map /material. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MITCHELL LAVINE THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED FROM THE JANUARY 13, 1994 MEETING. A SECOND WAS MADE BY JOHN DAVIS. Discussions VOTE CARRIED YES ( 5 ) NO (0) C. Brenner, J. Davis, M. Lavine, J. Lalley and R. Fletcher. ABSTAINED (0) a a a a a a a a a. a a a a a a a a a A MOTION WAS MADE BY JOSEPH LALLEY TO ACCEPT THE FINAL EIS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY AND THE TOWN BOARD OF THE FINAL LOCATION OF PROPOSED ROAD OFF SNYDER HILL ROAD INTO THE PROJECT ( "THE WEST ENTRANCE ") AND THAT THE ROAD WILL SATISFY REQUIREMENTS OF EXISTING TOWN HIGHWAY LAW. (2) REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE AND INCORPORATION OF THE DRAFT OF THE PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS TO ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED IN WRITING AND AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DURING THE EIS REVIEW PROCESS AND THE INCORPORATION OF THESE COMMENTS INTO THE FINAL EIS. (3) THE EXACT LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING OF REED, DEBELL, AND HULING /ASH PROPERTIES TO PROTECT THEM FROM IMPACT OF TRAFFIC ON THE NEW ROAD, OFF SNYDER HILL ROAD INTO • THE PROJECT WILL BE DETERMINED IN THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCESS. i OA El PB 1 -20 -94 PG. 3 A SECOND WAS MADE BY MITCHELL LAVINE. DISCUSSION: The first subject to: was reread by J. Lalley at J. Davis request. Mr. Davis stated that he understood a determination had been made that it didn't met the requirement of the Town Highway Law. The Chair. noted stated she was not not the Local Law but State Highway Law, "THE TOWN LAW BY NEW YORK STATE" J. Davis wished to know if the resolution from 1989 was in contradiction to State Law? The Chair. noted that was stated she was not in a position to make a legal determination the Zoning Board of Appeals would come into C. Brenner wished noted that was to know when the Zoning Board of Appeals would come into the Law issue. process. allowed ? they B. Caldwell noted that was a zoning issue rather than a Highway State Law issue. If allowed I they could make that distance less, that would come the later. to that the impact subject to FEIS. It is J. to Davis... the environmental "I don't to know see that the impact statement. it Highway I issue is relevant see that it is relevant, statement. because I but I believe not would the relevant that to suggest that it isn't the environmental we delete relevant to that the impact subject to FEIS. It is a relevant issue, it is a point of law, it certainly should be considered in the subdivision process, but it is not one of the impact issues we considered in the scoping process." M. Lavine did not a States Town Highway that are given here that we are concern properties and the complying with the allow one of our mi certainly it's rele process. gree. If it is not able to meet the Law within the realm of possibilities as mitigating proposals for the impacts ed about, regarding the adjacent emergency egress and access etc., and state law requires something that doesn't tigating proposals to go through, then want to the environmental impact C. Brenner wished to know how it will effect the time process for the FEIS if we have conditions on the motion? D. Putnam read determined tha is necessary t with the propo • consideration from th t additi o prepar sed act i of modif e SEAR onal t e the on req icatio rules "may be ext ime is needed, add statement adequate airing material an n has been identif ended itiona ly or d i ed. if it is 1 time problems PB 1 -20 -94 PG. 4 M. Lavine would like to be sure that the wording makes it O clear that our concern with regard to the EIS is that any change that might be required for approval from the State under The Town Highway Law would not wipe out or get rid of the mitigations, that the Board is trying to deal with, regarding the adjacent properties, the mountable sidewalk, and the egress and access issues. That is the only reason it belongs in this decision. J. Lalley: Lavine stated that He used the words "PROPOSED ROAD ". It doesn't have to be this exact location, adjacent but it does have to met the specifications egress and access ". and features as outlined in the EIS. M. Lavine stated that "Subject to review sustains the mitigating concerning the issues. A features with respect to the adjacent properties and the emergency egress and access ". JOSEPH LALLEY OFFERED THIS REWORDING: (1) REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY TOWN ATTORNEY AND TOWN BOARD THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY CONTAINING THE PROPOSED ROAD OFF SNYDER HILL ROAD INTO THE PROJECT (THE WEST ENTRANCE) WILL CONFORM TO TOWN LAW AND THAT ANY RELOCATION OF ROAD WILL NOT ALTER MITIGATING FEATURES CONTAINED IN FINAL EIS. M. LAVINE APPROVED THE REWORDING FOR SUBJECT TO: (1)a VOTE YES (5) C. Brenner, J. Davis, M. Lavine, J. Lalley and R. Fletcher. CARRIED NO (0) ABSTAINED (0) 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 Notation: The developer will file with the Board wording concerning the issues. A Board Meeting for final approval. • final is necessary El r1 L_.I PB 1 -20 -94 PG. 5 THE MOTION AS APPROVED READS AS FOLLOWS" A MOTION WAS MADE BY JOSEPH LALLEY TO ACCEPT THE FINAL EIS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY TOWN ATTORNEY AND TOWN BOARD THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY CONTAINING THE PROPOSED ROAD OFF SNYDER HILL ROAD INTO THE PROJECT (THE WEST ENTRANCE) WILL CONFORM TO TOWN LAW AND THAT ANY RELOCATION OF ROAD WILL NOT ALTER MITIGATING FEATURES CONTAINED IN FINAL EIS. (2) REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE AND INCORPORATION OF THE DRAFT OF THE PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS TO ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED IN WRITING AND AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DURING THE EIS REVIEW PROCESS AND THE INCORPORATION OF THESE COMMENTS INTO THE FINAL EIS. (3) THE EXACT LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING OF REED, DEBELL, AND HULING /ASH PROPERTIES TO PROTECT THEM FROM IMPACT OF TRAFFIC ON THE NEW ROAD, OFF SNYDER HILL ROAD INTO THE PROJECT WILL BE DETERMINED IN THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCESS. A SECOND WAS MADE BY MITCHELL LAVINE. DISCUSSION" (AS NOTED) VOTE YES (5) C. Brenner, J. Davis, M. Lavine, J. Lalley and R. Fletcher. CARRIED NO (0) ABSTAINED (0)