Town of North Salem
Comprehensive Plan Committee
Meeting #6
May 30, 2008
8:30 a.m., Ruth M. Keeler Library
Martin Aronchick
Katherine
Daniels
Charlotte
Harris
Drew Outhouse
Peter
Wiederhorn
OTHERS PRESENT: Cynthia Curtis, Planning Board
Chairwoman
Robert
Kotch
Mark
Stellato, Ferrandino & Associates, Inc.
Janice Will, Recording Secretary
Chairman White opened the May 30, 2008 Comprehensive Plan Committee
meeting.
Peter Wiederhorn told the group that he received a traffic report from the Police Department’s mobile speed-monitoring machine. He said 74 cars within 15 minutes were recorded on Route 116 at peak commuting time just after 5 p.m., adding that the machine even lists the individual speeds recorded.
Cynthia Curtis suggested using the machine on Route 121 north of Starr Lea Road to get a number for people getting off 84, and Peter said he would do that. It was agreed tht June Road should be monitored also.
Peter said that the 74 cars in 15 minutes/3 cars per minute recorded on Titicus Road is not such a high number.
Bob Kotch asked what will be done with the reports, and Cynthia said they can be used to establish a baseline and then see if/how traffic changes in 5 to 10 years.
Bob said that if intersection data is available, it would be more useful re traffic delays.
Martin Aronchick asked what the average speed recorded was, and Peter replied that it was about 35 mph.
Cynthia commented that people slow down when they see they are approaching one of the machines.
John White said he wanted to finish the day’s meeting with potential dates for the planned public meeting and an idea of what to present to the public. He referred the group to a Power Point presentation he e-mailed to them and displayed it via projector.
John stated that he met with the Improvement Society on Starr Ridge Road, and one of the Members was delighted to see the radar-machine because the traffic slowed down. He commented that the machines may be useful for managing traffic in the future. He asked if there was anyone present who wouldn’t want one on their street.
Cynthia said it is better to move them around, as people become rather inured to them if they remain in the same place for a while.
Bob wondered if tickets could be issued based on the radar-machine data but John said the Supervisor stated that it is not legal in New York State to ticket by camera.
Katherine Daniels suggested sending warning letters, and John said the tickets might be legal in the future.
Drew Outhouse said cameras (kept well out of reach) are used in Europe are used for ticketing. Regarding the North Salem machine, he said he agreed that moving it around from place to place is a good idea.
Martin said that while it would be labor-intensive, cameras could be linked to register the way people speed up and the information used to assist police officers manning speed traps.
John commented that he would like to see cameras employed on 684. He added that the technology may improve/get less expensive, and they can plan for these things for the future of North Salem now.
Cynthia said there are more local police out on the roads now, because Supervisor Greenwood requested more speed-control at rush-hour.
Drew said the police presence works better than signs, and word gets around that the police are ticketing motorists.
Bob said that even parked police cruisers with no one inside work.
John suggested that a police car parked by the radar-machine could work also.
Peter said he will ask to have the machines placed on June Road and 121.
Regarding the town hall meeting, Bob suggested making their presentation and then inviting the public to attend individual meetings on traffic, water, etc.
Cynthia said the first CPU had a workshop with breakout rooms for people to rotate through.
John asked if they should do this in conjunction with the town hall meeting, but Bob commented that it would make the night too long.
Katherine Daniels said it would be better to do on a Saturday after announcing the workshop at the town hall meeting.
Bob commented that fewer people are available once school is out for the summer, but Cynthia said she thought it was worth trying.
John asked Peter to follow up on the rural roads with the radar machine.
Further on the subject of traffic, John said the group who went to the DOT on May 16 met with Rich Peters, the Regional Planner for the DOT, who he said was helpful. John said they got a clearer picture of what the DOT is not doing; they are aware of the 84 back-up on 684, but they will not be looking into putting in a ramp until there are more lanes on 684 in 2010/2011. John commented that rising oil prices are also affecting the price of asphalt, so less road work will likely be done.
John said the DOT is somewhat aware of the problem at the intersection of 35 and 684, but there are no improvement projects planned. He said perhaps North Salem needs to highlight the situation with other towns to get on the DOT’s agenda.
John said they also discussed buses, and Rich said the Department is willing and able to add buses and bus routes, but there is insufficient parking at origination locations. John commented that North Salem needs to press other towns to provide commuter parking in Dutchess County, Danbury, etc.
John stated that they talked about the Branchville line, but it is really an issue to take up with MetroNorth.
Bob said the only thing that might be done on 684 before 2010 is some re-surfacing.
Cynthia said they asked Rich about some specific intersections in North Salem like the proposed light at June Road and 116, but he said he didn’t know about it because it would be the purview of a different department, although he also considered it a minor problem. She said they should go back again to speak to other departments. She said even the proposed turnaround at Hardscrabble was unknown to Rich Peters.
John said they should share this visit with the public, and tell them that the CPC is still pushing for things like the widening of 84.
Someone said the issue is what to do about development while waiting for the DOT to make improvements, and Cynthia replied that they don’t have the legal standing to stop all projects. She explained that developers will suggest “fixes” that may not be popular.
Martin asked if traffic information is always weighed in development project considerations.
Cynthia said all major development projects do an Environmental Impact Statement. Prior to that, the Planning Board scopes the idea of an EIS, and that is when they identify what the developer must provide in the way of material and information for discussion and consideration, and they also identify the six potential intersections that may be impacted by the proposed development. She commented that this is a critical time for the public to attend meetings. Cynthia added that developers must look at the cumulative impact of all the projects in the area, which includes going into Somers, Southeast, etc., and identify projects that may also be impacting the same intersections being looked at in terms of their proposals. She said Bob is analyzing the reports of the current major development applications (Salem Hunt, Marriott and Highgate Woodlands) to try and pull them together for an overlay of data on the entire Town. She said the data being collected by Peter would be another layer, put toward creation of a baseline map with traffic information, including car-counts/ years.
Mark Stellato asked how recent the EIS’s are, and Cynthia replied that they were all done since 2006.
Bob asked if it would be appropriate to say to the Planning Board that
when they are scoping, they need to direct developers to awareness of existing
problems, and that they must propose solutions to the problem before they add
any traffic at all, as a part of their application.
Cynthia said it would be appropriate from a CPC member or any member of the public to raise the subject. She explained that every question asked during the public hearings must be answered. The final EIS is the result, and then the Planning Board makes it findings. Cynthia stated that the public hearing for Salem Hunt will be on June 11.
Mark commented that most scoping documents don’t contain impact data in the traffic section, but it is very important to provide for that.
Bob reiterated that he feels any addition to an existing traffic problem is not acceptable.
John responded that the Comprehensive Plan is the place to set a foundation. If the plan is to keep dirt roads dirt and not widen other roads, the CP can establish a baseline.
Katherine suggested a plan for no further construction until existing problems are addressed, but John said that would be a moratorium which, could result in undesirable “fixes”.
Drew said he feels that if, for example, a developer wants to build at the top of a hill, it will impact drainage in the area, so the developer should be required to take care of drainage all the way through the system to handle the increase and not just in the vicinity of the construction site. He added that the same could hold true for traffic issues.
Martin asked to what extent the CPC may limit or control development.
Cynthia said that if a case is made, the Town may require developers to fix things with their own money. As an example, IBM had to go into another town and put traffic fixtures at State and County intersections.
Martin asked if the Planning Board would be able to say that a developer’s suggestions to fix something are not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and force them to scale the project back.
John said the CP is actually a foundation on which zoning is based, so zoning should be compatible with the CP. If a shopping center can be built in compliance with the zoning ordinance, zoning should keep it scaled down so that it fits in, but there will be minor things required re traffic, drainage, etc.
Cynthia said a CP should define goals and create a way to achieve them. She added that any project already before the Planning Board would usually have to be allowed to proceed. She stated that a moratorium between completion of the Comprehensive Plan and changes to the zoning ordinance would be appropriate. She said Salem Hunt is in a newly-designated multi-family zone, although the Planning Board has scaled them back somewhat.
John commented that some zoning changes have been called for by the County to satisfy the requirement for affordable housing.
Cynthia said the 40 acres near the nursing home on 22 was under review by the Planning Board in the past. It is now zoned for senior housing, assisted living and elder care facilities. The previous developer considering purchase of the land, wanted to put 95 units on a steep slope; as there is a sewage treatment plant in place, no septic will be needed, so only the building or buildings would need to be sited. Cynthia said that now the owner of the property is looking into developing it himself. He is talking to the County about financial assistance for construction of an affordable-unit development of 4 buildings of 40 units each. She said she would like to see this project scaled back, and she commented that a donation of recreation land would enable a connection to Joe Bohrdrum Park and maybe a playing field. Cynthia said the pre-application period for this project will be a good time for CPC members to attend Planning Board meetings.
Katherine said she will attend the Salem Hunt public hearing and suggest the suitability of donating recreation land. She asked if Planning Board work sessions are open to the public.
Cynthia said they are, and that is when developers pitch ideas to the Planning Board and try to get them to react to them, so it is a good time to get public ideas and input.
Regarding future dates, John mentioned that the next 2 CPC meetings are on June 20 and June 27. There is a Town Board meeting on June 10, which John will attend (along with any other CPC members who would like to go), hoping to get their input re the CP.
The Members discussed a date for the town hall meeting, and it was decided to have the meeting on June 12 at 7 p.m. before the Board of Appeals hearing at 8. They also agreed to hold the workshop on September 20 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and Cynthia will check on the availability of either the library or the firehouse.
John said that at the Rec Committee meeting, there was a comment that there will be an exit survey after the election.
Working with the Power Point presentation, John explained that it shows the CPC’s first thoughts, what they have done so far and outlines next steps.
With regard to goals and visions, Bob asked if it isn’t incumbent upon the CPC to draft a framework for the Town Board to react to.
John said he agreed, but the CPC is not there yet. He said his aim for now is to quickly point out how things started out and what has been covered so far.
It was agreed to list focus points individually even though there is a lot of over-lapping.
Cynthia said a chart was suggested that has all the Town committees on it, with arrows indicating how they are meeting and working together, and she thought it was a good idea because it will show that there is input from many more people than just the CPC (40+ people). She offered to create the chart on Quark and forward it to John.
Re the mobility chart, Bob pointed out to John that the date for NYS plans for 84 is 2016 and not 2011. Regarding NYS plans for 684, they can now add that it is to be re-paved in 2010, but there is no improvement to 84 planned before 2016.
Cynthia said they should add that the Town is contemplating taking over the County roads as part of the capital improvement plan.
John commented that he would like to have data charts and photographs to go with the portion of the presentation covering roads and signs.
Cynthia said the official Town map can be done digitally so that it may be incorporated into the presentation.
Martin suggested including in the mobility section the problem of the possible addition of more traffic lights.
Katherine commented that if the Town owned Hardscrabble, June and Bloomer Roads, there would be an opportunity to create a big bike path loop.
The group discussed rumored water shortages and water-supply problems at Salem Chase, and Cynthia said it should be included in the aquifer study. She stated that a draw-down test was done at the time the sub-division was under review, adding that the issue should be revisited.
John mentioned that if the property next to the nursing home on 22 is developed, they will need water.
Charlotte said she has looked at well-tests back to 1998 at the Department of Health, and she has a few more to look over. She explained that she was looking for problem areas, but she hasn’t come across anything really bad. She said that tests for different substances measure them differently.
John said the DOH does not provide reliable protection.
Cynthia asked if the County’s idea of acceptable levels of pollutants is adequate protection or if the numbers should be lowered.
John said he asked the DOH what they do when someone has a well tested and finds a problem, and the response was that the DOH has no jurisdiction over private wells, doesn’t make any recommendation and offers no assistance. Regarding public water systems, the responsible entity must hire someone to devise a solution. When John asked about the uranium in his own water, he was told not to use a reverse-osmosis system because it would overwhelm the septic system. He questioned the safety of showering in this water and was told that it is a problem but nothing was offered in the way of help.
Cynthia said they do refer you to the EPA.
John commented that he found people helpful at NSF International, and they have a well-care hotline.
Further on the subject of water, the group talked about the use of road-salt versus brine and types of sand used.
Drew said he prefers to use a mix of sand and salt for traction, and sand can be swept up whereas salt cannot. He admitted that the sand he uses now cannot be reused, but he said there are new products that can be.
John said the presentation should have a section about highway salt/water issues and new paving materials. He asked the DOT about road design and was informed that a product called super-paver that employs less oil-emulsion is used now. He wondered how that impacts road salt.
John stated that the CP should look at roads long-term. With the rising cost of asphalt and the need to handle storm water, do they want roads to absorb or run-off, and should curbs and gutters be employed. He asked if they should include design standards for the Town’s roads in the CP.
Bob thought the idea of setting design standards for roads was a good one, but he added his opinion that competent consultants would be needed to formulate a proper standard and not just raise questions.
John said the CP would not provide the standards; it would merely state that there should be standards and list the things that should be considered when setting standards.
Bob asked if the Comprehensive Plan will direct funding, and John answered that it can recommend to the Town Board that they fund certain projects.
On the subject of water, Drew pointed out that the high iron content in the local rock creates naturally-occurring sodium in water, and it is hard for a test to differentiate between naturally-occurring and other salts.
John commented that one reason the DOH chooses not to get involved in wells is because people will then expect the DOH to have solutions to their problems. He went on to say that uranium and radiologicals are more dangerous than sodium in water. John read the list of preliminary recommendations regarding water.
Turning to the recreation section of the presentation, John read the objectives.
Bob asked that there be emphasis on sharing between the schools and the public.
John displayed the rec ideas chart, saying it is very specific, which he is comfortable with but others may not consider desirable.
Martin commented that signaling their intentions too early may cause property owners to react negatively.
Bob suggested putting question marks next to each point to indicate that it is just an idea/not something that has been done, and Martin said it is important not to turn people off.
John suggested that he see what Paul Greenwood thinks before the CPC approaches anyone about acquiring their property.
There was no further business to discuss, and the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Janice Will, Recording Secretary