HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-30PB 8 -30 -2012 1 1 OF 3
0 V
Town of Dryden
Planning Board
August 30, 2012
Members present: Craig Anderson; Joseph Lalley, Chair; Joseph Laquatra, Jr.; David
Weinstein; Martin Hatch; Wendy Martin
Absent: Thomas Hatfield
Staff Present: Jane Nicholson, Senior Planner; Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner and Erin
Bieber, Deputy Town Clerk
Members of the Public: James Skaley and David Bravo- Cullen
Meeting called to order at 7:06 PM
M. Hatch moved to approve the minutes from June 28th, the motion was seconded by D. I
Weinstein. All in favor. J. Lalley abstained. (�
D. Weinstein presented the Planning Board with a packet of information delineating the
concerns he has about the Varna Plan.
- The draft zoning amendment was not presented in the public meeting
- Site plan review or special use permit? 1
- Special use permits allow more public input than the SPR
- "does it fit with the plan for the community ?"
- stated he did not think SUPs were a long or difficult process
J. Nicholson disagreed, pointing out the drawbacks to SUPS include: the increased amount of
time and work for the Planning Department as developers take advantage, failing to get plans
finished since the Town Board generally wants more or different information, and the difficulty
inherent in working with the Planning Board, `lawn Board and the developer to achieve a result
with which all are happy.
W. Martin questioned how many people actually show up at a town meeting to discuss the
Varna Plan?
D. Weinstein - 30 - 40 people out of about 800 in the community
W. Martin pointed out that the 30 -40 that attend the meetings are then making decisions for
the rest of the community
J. Skaley - Varna is the second largest congregation of people in the Town of Dryden but about
50% are mobile (college students, etc) and the people that attend the meetings tend to spread
the information to those who do not attend.
D. Weinstein referred back to the handout he provided and used the example of the Freese Rd.
and Mt Pleasant Rd intersection to demonstrate the difficulties. The zoning currently allows the
area to be used in a myriad of ways including for congregate care. Congregate care could
include a drug rehab facility which does not fit with the community.
C. Anderson expressed concern regarding a letter from the town of Varna stating that
suggestions were made but "never heard ".
J. Lalley - Brought the conversation back around to the original concern...., which is better to
use for community input, the SPR or SUP?
D. Weinstein - the SPR does not address the issue of "does it fit with the community ?"
PB 8 -30 -2012
® D. Bravo- Cullen feels the zoning requirements are too broad in the sense desirable and
undesirable outcomes are permitted under the same zoning ordinance. For example -
Congregate Care could be drug rehab or elderly care
J. Lalley - the SUP permits more overt opportunities for the public to comment or influence,
SPR puts more power on the business side.
J. Skaley - public process has been positive and Varna is concerned about making sure the
zoning department gets it right.
D. Kwasnowski has
made and
is working on
making changes to the zoning
ordinance and
forwarded a copy to
J. Skaley
who forwarded
it to the other Planning Board
members.
J. Lalley - changes made by Kwasnowski are good and needed but he needs to work with the
Planning Board more.
J. Nicholson indicated the numbers on the chart (in the handout) are incorrect
J. Lalley feels the Planning Board should be focused on making sure the Zoning Ordinance is
appropriately structured to last.
J. Skaley stated that the SPR doesn't get public notice
C. Anderson - the Planning Board might want to review the Zoning Board of Appeals since that
would help the Planning Board know the concerns of the public. He also noted the Planning
Board members are required to be residents of the town whereas the Planning Dept, employees'
residency is waived via the country.
D. Weinstein motioned that the Planning Board get a monthly report of the Zoning Board of
Appeals' requests and adjudications. M. Hatch second the motion, which was then
40 unanimously approved. J. Nicholson stated the representative from the Zoning Board of
Appeals will not be present at Planning Board meetings.
J. Lalley asked what the Planning Board next focus was going to be. D. Kwasnowski has
suggested the Planning Board begin reviewing the Comprehensive Plan,
J. Nicholson indicated she will lead the Planning Board with the Comprehensive Plan review.
C. Anderson wondered if the Liaison position between the boards might be "beefed up "? He is
concerned with the lack of interaction between the various boards, maybe the position could be
rotated to permit more interaction.
C. Anderson also mentioned changing the time of the board meetings, would it be easier to
meet earlier?
Nick Goldsmith (Sustainability Planner) introduced to the Planning Board
Provided his background
Handed out a chart that explained his role
Government and community sustain ability are his primary goals
Where are we and where do we want to go?
Action plans?
He is looking for specific measures that can be taken to reduce energy emissions
Solar Panels - fired rate, not variable based on usage
Bolton Point - performance contact feasibility
Creating plans to help shape and guide the towns toward the future
There being no further business, on motion by J. Lalley, seconded by W, Martin and
® unanimously carried, the meeting adjourned at 8:32PM
2OF3
PB 8 -30 -2012 1 3 OF 3
Respectfully Submitted,
C 1
Erin A. Bieber