Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-16TOWN OF DRYDEN Planning Board November 16, 2006 Members Present: Barbara Caldwell, Chair; Russell Beck; Tom Hatfield; Joseph Laquatra, Jr.; David Weinstein; Joseph Lalley. Others Present: Mary Ann Sumner, Town Board Liaison; Dan Kwasnowski, Town Environmental Planner; Henry Slater, Town Code Officer; Charles & Ann Leonard; Richard Patterson; Charles Guttman; Patty Millard, Recording Secretary. Agenda: Howser Meadows, Final Approval Leonard Subdivision, Sketch Plan Review Richard Patterson for i elay Elizabeth Campbell, Subdivision, Sketch Plan Review Meeting called to order at 7:15. Hower Meadows Subdivision Phase III, Final Approval — Charles C:uttman B Caldwell opened the public hearing by reading the notice into the record. Phase i was the first 21 lots. All have been sold and were 1 -2 acres in size. Phase 11 was 6 more lots, all fronting on Hollister Road. These were more or less 2 -3 acres in size. Some have been sold and some are still being marketed. Phase III is for the final 5 lots. All of the lots are at least 5 acres in size. They will not need O Health Department approval for water and sewer since they are all at least 5 acres. There have been two questions raised. One regarding a wet area on lot 31 and the question of flag lots. Flag lots are addressed in the letter from the County Planning Department, in the letter from Dan (Kwasnowski, Environmental Planner) and in the letter from Henry (Slater, Zoning Officer). With regards to the County Planning Department, C Guttman noted the comments regarding the flag lots were not part of the formal recommendations. This means a super majority approval will not be needed tonight in order to approve this subdivision. C Guttman commented that both Phase I & II included flag lots. Rolling Meadows was approved 10 years ago as well, and they had flag lots in their design. He submits that flag lots are legal and are necessary in this subdivision in order to meet the frontage requirements. They have been used since the beginning of this subdivision and the Planning Board was aware they were being used and planned for future phases. The prior comments regarding access to lots 28 & 30. The proposal was changed per the Planning Board by widening a driveway and making lot 23 smaller to provide for a potential road if that is determined to be necessary in the future. TG Miller commented on Lot 31 that the Southwest comer of it may be too damp. Wetland is the word used by TG Miller, but that is a Federal term and this is not a wetland. This is a wet area, but not a wetland. Gary Wood of Mike Regan went out there and they say they driveway works very well from the Southeast corner of Lot 31. TG Miller suggests that you require Lot 31 also have an easement. going to Hollister Road. C Guttman doesn't have that strong a feeling about it. it may be a good idea, and if the potential owners suggest it, it should be done, but lie doesn't think the plan for Phase 11 should undertake that. If the potential owner builds in the Northwest comer, the easement would Planning Board November 16, 2006 Draft Minutes Page 2 of 6 never be used. There is another access to this lot, so C Guttmans thinks creating an casement is unwarranted. The map says wet swampy area on Lot 31. That should be sufficient. Stating wetland is too strong a tenn since that implies building permit restrictions. C Guttman also stated further regarding the issue of flag lots that no buyer, attorney, or mortgage company for the first 20+ lots that have sold regarding the issue of flag lots. The Town Board is the body that has the authority to change the zoning ordinance. The flag lots were approved 10 years ago in this development for Phase i and in the case of Rolling Meadows. If the Town Board didn't want flag lots, they have had 10 years to update the zoning ordinance to not allow them. Fl Slater stated that Mr. Guttman is correct that a super majority is not warranted in this case. Also the Town Attorney sent a message today through the Town Supervisor stating that flag lots are perfectly acceptable. J Lalley mentioned discussions that were had in April about this topic. P Millard gave a copy of those minutes to J Lalley, which lie reviewed. D Kwasnowski stated that he got in to this discussion to find a loop hole that allowed flag lots. He couldn't find it. This Town has an inclusive Platuiing Board. As Mr. Guttman says, this is a common term. It's a planning term. in Phase I, the frontage is consistent with the driveway. It's in the front of the lot, so to speak. My point is that if we are going to allow flag lots, it needs to o be in our zoning ordinance. The right of interpretation is the Zoning Board of Appeals. There is no reason that I can see that they would not allow a variance for flag lots. The main reason I am pointing this out is that we are getting ready to do a major rewrite of the zoning ordinance and this should be included in the rewrite. That's the only reason this was pointed out. With the previous phases of the subdivision, the flag lot portion ran in the same way as the access driveway. H Slater stated that any driveway over 200 feet in length is left to the Zoning Department to maintain so emergency vehicles can obtain access. J Lalley — After reviewing the minutes from April, the only item found that the Board specifically requested was the widening of the driveways for the potential building of a road if it is deemed necessary and desirable in the future. The treatment of the wetlands area here (on lot 31) was also discussed. Dan wanted to know if the Board wanted to do a field survey, and 1 don't know if we ever came to closure on that issue. There are 2 issues for me. One is the flag lots, and I think we went through this and left enough options open in April that I'm puzzled by the discussion here tonight. It is the only tool we have available, and it's a good tool. What is nev about the wetlands issue that we didn't cover in April'? Discussion of wetland area: resolved to add a note: "Limits of Federal Wetlands per Tompkins County Geographic Information System. National Wetland Inventory. Requires field delineation for full extent." For the lower one, "Probable Federally regulated wetland." ® B Caldwell — Yes. Are there any other questions from the Board? From the public? q p Planning Board November 16, 2006 There were none. Motion to close the public hearing: Joe Lallev. 2 "d — Tom Hatfield. All ayes. Motion passed. Public hearing closed at 8:00 pm. Draft Minutes Page 3 of 6 Howser Meadows Phase Iii - SEQR — Joe Lalley read through the SEAR_ and the Planning Board discussed each point. See Howser Meadows file for final SEQR form. Motion to accept the SEQR with a negative declaration: David Weinstein. 2"'t —Joe Laquatra. All ayes. Motion passed. Motion to approve subdivision with conditions: Joe Lalley. 2" d Tom Hatfield Conditions. 1. Add notes recommended for wet lots 29 & 31. Limits of Federal Wetlands require field delineation for full extent. This may affect lots 27, 29 and 31. 2. Adjustment to the plat for Lot 32 to show that it is 5 acres. All ayes. Motion passed. Charles & Ann Leonard — Sketch Plan A. Leonard — Proposing to take l 0 -acre lot that has been divided into 3 parcels with 3 duplex apartment buildings and break off an additional piece. This will make a fourth lot on which we propose to build a fourth duplex apartment building. Our sons will be available this coming spring to help with this construction and since this has been a family project from the start, we are looking forward to having them help with the final piece of this project. Question was raised regarding location of sewer systems on the properties in relation to wetland in the area. H Slater mentioned that this was studied with the Health Department when the original property was subdivided. The existing locations are far enough away. The new one appears to be also. C Leonard — Thev didn't want to see anything within 200' of a DEC wetland, and we're at least 600' away. D Weinstein — You must have a plat that has the wetland delineated on it. I don't see it here. C Leonard —'The DEC wetland is off the top of that map. A Leonard — All the wetland is included in the first property (we subdivided). isH Slater — and the property that is in this subdivision is totally free of any wetland. Planning Board Draft Minutes November 16, 2006 Page 4 of 6 0 T Hatfield — Asked about proposed well placement. A Leonard — It's open — there are a couple of places where the well can go. J Lalley — Is the proposed upgrade to the road going to cause any casement issues on any of the lots? A Leonard — No. B Caldwell — Are there any other questions at this point? I think we can schedule this for a preliminary and final approval together. This seerns pretty straightforward. Can we schedule for December 20 'h? If you can act the paperwork to Henry (Slater) that you need, we can schedule for December or .lanuary. Dick Patterson for Beth Campbell — 234 Lower Creek Road Subdivision Ms. Campbell owns 21.3 acres at 234 Lower Creek Road. She would like to divide the parcel which has frontage on Lower Creek Road and Pinckney Road. We're thinking about 3 lots on Pinckney Road between 2 and 3 acres, keeping about S acres with her home and barns and so forth, and also having another parcel on Lower Creek Road. Her home is on Lower Creek Road. B Caldwell — How is the water table there? D Patterson — I'm not certain. D Weinstein — I printed out the aquifer map and it's right in the aquifer. It's just a caution. These are big lots, so it shouldn't be a problem. It's just. something to be aware of You wouldn't want any uses going on here that could get stuff back in to Fall Creek because it can go pretty easily and fast in to Fall Creek. D Patterson — She owns the parcel across the road, too, but I think she's going to donate that to the Land Trust. Henry mentioned that the town might be interested in it. D Kwasnowski — I did talk to the Land Trust just in passing and they said they were interested, 12 acres of flood plain? D Patterson — I think it's at least that. T Hatfield — And the Land Trust will continue to pay the taxes? D Kwasnowski — The public benefit of having an active flood plain would probably far outweigh the taxes lost. T Hatfield — if you don't mind your taxes going up, I guess I can live with it. ® D Patterson — I have a question — when the surveyor gets there, if these measurements differ, is that going to be a problem'? Planning Board November 16, 2006 Draft Minutes Page 5 of 6 B Caldwell — B the time we get to the final, there is always an adjustment. In terms of overall, I Y b Y J don't have any significant issues at this point. Anyone else? J Laquatra & D Weinstein — No. It looks good. D Patterson — I don't think there are driveways on Pinckney Road where she's looking to put these. D Weinstein — Is there a drainage ditch here? D Patterson — No. 1 think you'd have to cut a diagonal drive because it's on a slope right there. B Caldwell — So you have to be concerned with visibility — making sure the angle slopes up and so forth. Any other questions at this point? No? Ok. Please see Henry and the health Department and take the next steps and Henry will schedule you for the nest step with us. Can we do this in one or will we run into? Will schedule for preliminary, possibly final all at once. H Slater — It's going to be an exempt for the Health Department because it's less than 5 lots since one is the parent parcel, so they're only creating 4 lots, and only 3 are less than 5 acres. D Weinstein — To the East there's an apartment complex, right'? OD Patterson — Yes. Waterscape Apartments. D Weinstein — So there's going to be a lot of cars pulling in from there. This line of sight may be an issue for the driveway. D Patterson — It's pretty straight right there. That shouldn't be an issue. H Slater gave a copy of TG Miller's letter with their comments for D Patterson to consider when preparing the application. A Stormwater plan was listed Training November 29`1' Tompkins County Public Library, 101 East Green Street, 7 — 9 pm, This training meets the state requirements. Red Mill Bridge Town Board took action by resolution recommending your recommendation on treatment for Red Mill Bridge to the County. 'Thank you, David, for putting that together. I presented that to them and they took your recommendation by resolution recommended that's what the County do. Minutes Approval Since many of the Board members have not had a chance to review August, September, October +� minutes, please be prepared to approve August — November minutes at the next meeting. Plannino Board November 16, 2006 Draft Minutes Page 6 of 6 Ordinance Rewrite D Kwasnowski discussed the process for the upcoming ordinance rewrite. The proposal is to form a commission of 2 members from each board plus the Town Supenrisor as chair, making a 9 member commission to work on the ordinances that need to be worked on this year. They would work with the person hired from the REP to write a report for the Board to consider at the end of 12 months. Each of the Planning and Conservation Boards would work on the individual pieces and feeding it to the Commission for resolution and inclusion in the report that will be written by the consultant and then given to the Town Board at the end of 12 months. There isn't enough time to do it during regular Planning Board meetings. The Planning Board has so much on their agenda that it will never get done if you add it to what you already do on a regular basis. Each of the Board's needs to be involved in this process. J Lalley — So the Consultant will be doing the heavy lifting? D Kwasnowski - Yes. J Lalley — And the role of the commission is to review and correct the consultant's work? D Kwasnowski — Yes. Aid the Consultant will be meeting with you (the Planning Board) as well. The Consultant will be meeting with you and writing work and taking it to the Commission for review. If there are 3 Town Board members on the commission from the beginning, they understand the rationale behind the policy decisions being recommended, when it comes time to approve this thing, most of the Town Board will have the history under their belt and be able to answer questions and objections from the public and be much more comfortable doing so. B Caldwell — I'm still fuzzy on process here. M Sumner — And we'll try to clarify that in the nest month or so. The Administrative Process is really critical to keep things moving smoothly and quickly. It's a big_job. On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Patty Millard