Village of Lansing
Planning Board Meeting
April 10, 2000
The meeting of the
Village of Lansing Planning Board was called to order at 7:30 pm by Chairman
Hickey. Present at the meeting were
Planning Board Members Brown, Halevy, Klepack and Waterman, alternate member
Dankert, Village Attorney Marcus, Code Enforcement Officer Curtis and Trustee
Liaison Leopold.
Public Comment:
Evan Meltzer wanted to
discuss the issue of 24 Cedar Lane as it relates to the intent of the home
occupation law. For someone to take an
existing viable business from a commercial area and move it into a residential
area is probably not the intent of the law.
His sense is that the law is to provide for somebody who just wants to
do a little business in their home and not disrupting a residential area by
doing so. He feels that there's been
more traffic on the road as a result of this business. It's subjective and it's obviously their word
against somebody else's word. They don't
have a way of actually measuring traffic
but he just knows it is more hazardous now than it was when he first moved onto
Cedar Lane. There are more cars coming
down the road that don't know the road and it's a little scary for a
pedestrian.
The Chairman
interrupted these comments because the Sutton home occupation item is an item
on the agenda.
Meltzer wanted to go
on record saying he is opposed to the extension of the time limit. It just adds another three months to their
troubles on Cedar Lane.
A motion to close the
Public Comments moved by Waterman, seconded by Halevy. All in favor.
Sutton Home Occupation - Extension of Time Limit:
An April 7 letter from
Peter J. Walsh, the lawyer for Sutton, requests a three month extension of time
to resolve the issue of the deficient side yard set-back. He indicates that they have formally asked
the Hartshornes to give Sutton a deed for the small
strip of property which is at issue to bring the Sutton's property into
conformance with the set-back requirement.
Hickey received a letter from Mr. Hartshorne
stating that he will not grant any additional conveyance of property. Now the only course of action available
requires Mr. Sutton to apply to the BZA for a variance. The three months extension provides the time
to process this application. The
application has not been made yet.
Hickey clarified the
situation stating that it is necessary to clear up this violation of the
set-back requirement before considering the home occupation special
permit. The issue before the Board is to
vote on whether or not they are going to extend the time limit. Waterman moved to extend the time limit for
three months until the Board’s first meeting in July, on a one time only
basis. At the end of three months,
Sutton can pursue whatever legal recourse necessary to gain compliance. When he is in compliance, he can apply for
the special permit again. It will be
noted that the Planning Board may not look favorably upon any further
extensions of time. It puts Sutton on
notice that there are definite time constraints but it also frees the Board if
there are sufficient reasons to grant another extension. Waterman moved to accept that motion. Seconded by Halevy. All in favor.
Curtis will send Sutton a letter informing him of the extension and the
conditions.
Kensington Road Design - Discussion:
Hickey would like to
place the Kensington issue in the Green Space Plan category as it relates to
the establishment of walkways that connect high density developments to the
commercial area. It is a Green Space
project that would connect the Northwood apartments to the Graham Road sidewalk
so that people can walk to the Malls. This would be a five foot wide blacktop
trail from the beginning of the Northwood property all the way down to and over
the sewer easement at Churchill. Swartout and Ferris agreed to build a bridge over the
creek. Hickey will take this issue to
the Mayor to discuss funding of this project with road maintenance funds or the
Green Space Plan budget. There should be
money to do it under the Green Space Plan.
The discussion
expanded to the issue of sidewalks and safe access to the major commercial
areas from places such as Kendal, Savannah Park and the Cornell Business and
Industrial Park. The high traffic area
where the bridge spans over Route 13 is particularly difficult for pedestrians
due to the noise of traffic under the bridge and getting across the access
ramps. Furthermore, the pedestrian
crossing lights are not always in the best places or effective. In the winter snow often is cleared onto
the sidewalks making pedestrian travel even more difficult.
Hickey would like
permission of the Board to discuss the issue of Kensington with the Mayor prior
to the next meeting and then to report back to the Board. Waterman made the motion to permit Hickey to
do that, Halevy seconded. All in favor.
The Board returned to
the issue of the proposed 28' wide street which would be wide enough to
encourage higher speed traffic. Costs
could be lower with a switch from concrete to blacktop for the walkway. One suggestion would be to put a five foot
wide shoulder for a walkway on one side of the road. It should be striped for walking only, not
for traffic. In terms of funding for the sidewalks, there should be a way to
accumulate funds.
There is a road
maintenance plan that shows which roads are going to be rebuilt which year but
it doesn't include walkways. The next
step is to review the Dart Road Study to estimate the costs of that sidewalk
and then translate it to this project.
It could be submitted for ISTEA funding and see what happens. The funding cycle may mean that gets approved
for five years from now in the next round of funding.
The Board needs to ask
Audrey Edelman to redo her subdivision and submit it to the Board. She probably will not do this until they
know the that the sewer problem has been resolved.
Commercial Low Traffic Study Update:
The Planning Board will meet with EDR on April
12 to review the status of the contract.
On March 28, 2000, Environmental Design & Research requested that
their letter act as the basis of the
agreement for the Commercial Low Traffic Design Project. On April 6, 2000, the Planning Board
responded with a letter which included various modifications to correct errors
therein and to more accurately state the terms that should be agreed upon
between the Village and EDR. The product
of the April 12 meeting should be the final draft of the contract. The goals
and objectives and the time line from the final draft of the contract should be
sent to the Focus Group for the third meeting.
However the information concerning the compensation of EDR should be omitted.
The Board proceeded to
review EDR’s letter:
Task 1 Data
Collection, Base Map Development and Focus Group Meeting.
There have been two
meetings of Focus Groups. The second
meeting occurred over sixty days ago. A
proposed date for the third Focus Group Meeting should be set on April 12. The results of the meeting on Wednesday will
be presented for the third meeting of the
Focus Group. The public needs something
that is closer to a final product to react to.
In reviewing the letter of April 6, it was agreed that the
third bullet "Attend focus group workshop (initial focus group meeting has
been conducted; additional meeting yet to be scheduled)" should be under
Task 3. With that change accomplished,
Task 1 is complete.
Task 2 Site
Analysis and Concept Development, is
complete.
Task 3 Development of Preliminary Design Guidelines
will include the Task 1, third bullet.
To clarify Task 3, bullet 2, "Develop preliminary CLT design
guidelines" it should state "and deliver to the Planning Board for
distribution to the Focus Group."
Thus, there is clearly a step before it is presented to the Focus Group.
Task 4 Further Development of Design Guidelines. Add to the third bullet, "Deliver
written report to the Planning Board…” and
review the report at a joint
meeting of the Planning Board and the Board of
Task 5 Development
and Presentation of Final Report of Design Guidelines Add language to bullet 2 to require that the
report also be provided in electronic format and stipulating that the Village
owns the final product.
Marcus suggested that
unless there were additional changes to the third page, he will make the
changes on the first and second page and fax it with his signature on the third
page to the Board tomorrow. Referrals to
compensation should be eliminated. The
focus of the letter is the progress on the project.
Klepack offered to
draft a cover letter to go with the minutes stating that this is the schedule
of tasks and that this is an interim progress report. In the cover letter it can state that the
minutes were edited to pertain only to items directly relating to the project.
The Planning Board's
attention turned to EDR compensation.
The contract was for $15,000, there are no approved add-ons. Specifically, EDR has clearly spent time on
items that were beyond the description of the work that the Planning Board
asked them to do and the Second Focus Group meeting included a lot of material
that ignored the constraints specifically stipulated by the Planning Board –
that the permitted uses in the District would not change and that the North
Triphammer Road Reconstruction Project would be built as exactly as planned. This may cause EDR to find that they have
less time than they had originally planned to accomplish the project which the
Village hired them to do.
At the Wednesday
meeting the Board and EDR can discuss the budget of $15,000. The Board can state how it would like the
project structured. In turn, EDR may say
that they can't do all this for $15,000.
The current proposal does not show how EDR will use the $15,000. on an
itemized basis. If EDR says it can't complete the project with
this funding, the Planning Board must ask them prioritize what there is that
they can do. Then the Board will decide
whether that is acceptable or not. This
provides a negotiating position for the Board.
If there's something really substantial to be completed and they refuse
to do or say they can't do then that must be discussed. The Board's bottom line is $15,000 and EDR
has known that from day one. The lost
time from both Focus Group meetings and preliminary design work is their
responsibility.
Some members of the Board felt the EDR contract lacked
definition and contained more jargon than was necessary. Hickey suggested EDR should provide the Board
with a design for the empty properties in the CLT and how these can be
connected to each other. It should
indicate how this relates to the connectivity and traffic circulation of the
area given the existence of the reconstructed North Triphammer Road. They haven't yet focused down to the nitty gritty of what their special zones, A,B & C are
and how they relate to the Planning Board’s goals. Marcus will fax the revised contract to them
with a cover note saying that this is for review at the Wednesday meeting.
Reports:
Trustee Meeting: Klepack reported that it was directed to the
budget. She will bring her notes to the
next Planning Board meeting.
Approval of the Minutes:
Lansing Planning Board
meeting for February 29. Hickey
complimented the Board for the marvelous
job with the Greenspace Advisory Committee.
Line 23 is GAC and not
GAS.
Page 2, Line 6,
"The Board decided to try placing
two trash cans as a pilot program."
They were intended for the Cayuga Mall and Triphammer Mall.
Page 2, Line 7. It should read Soil Conservation Service
seedling: the Board felt....
Page 2, Line 15. "Waterman suggested that Warren Road is
more in need of striping than Janivar and that will
be suggested to Reinhart." Halevy
reported that he discussed this with Mr. Reinhart. He said that Reinhart already has an item in
his budget to stripe Warren Road.
Waterman made the
motion to accept the minutes as amended, seconded by Halevy. All in favor except Hickey who abstained
because he was not there.
Other Business:
Curtis recommended
that Connie Kindig, transcriptionist,
should be recognized for her work for the Board. Discussion centered on the appropriate
certificate that could be prepared.
Curtis will explore the details of this recognition. The new transcriptionist for the Board is Ann Marcham.
Hickey opened
discussion on how Planning Board members attended other Village meetings. Were they satisfied with the current
arrangements? Should there be changes in
the assignments? The members will consider this for a future meeting.
Leopold reported that
the Mayor received two inquiries in the past week on use of the Village water
tower as a communication tower. The
water tower is located near the airport.
The Mayor was approached by Sprint and Bell Atlantic. It is possible that the water tower could be
razed and a communications tower erected in its place. Another location suggested for the
communication tower was in the area of the Public Safety buildings. Any tower
that is constructed should be available for other companies as required in the
Village’s law.
Adjourn:
Motion to adjourn by
Waterman, seconded by Klepack. All in
favor.