Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
There was no one present who wished to speak. Waterman moved to close the Public Comment period, seconded by Halevy. All in favor.
Special Permit #1536, Donald
Greenberg:
A Public Hearing was held for Special Permit #1536, Donald
Greenberg to construct a 7000 SF house at 45 Twin Glens Road in the Low Density
Residential District. A Special permit
is required pursuant to Section 202.12 of the
Lynn
Leopold,
Don
Hartill, 896 Cayuga Heights Rd., spoke as an affected property owner, noting
that the current footprint of this residence is considerably closer to stream
than the previous residence and this is a concern for him. He is also concerned about the height of the
residence facing his property and would like additional time to review the
plans. Vince Mulcahey, the project
architect, responded that they tried to keep the residence as low as possible
which is why the footprint is larger.
Tracy
Craig, Twin Glens Rd., is an adjacent owner and has not received the materials
and would like time to review them.
Mulcahey provided Curtis with notification notices. Curtis stated she is an adjoining owner and
it was his oversight she was not notified.
Bob
Abrams felt he might be the one most closely affected by the residence. He has reviewed the plans and has no
particular problem with Greenberg’s proposal.
Leopold
also expressed concerns about the lack of a vegetative buffer zone between the
residence on the west side and along the creek on the south.
Klepack
moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded by Waterman. All aye.
Cross
reviewed the points which were raised.
He did not review anything relative to DEC and the oil spill and he was
unfamiliar with this concern. Hickey
asked if the site is clean. Greenberg responded that the spill was caused by
vandals when he and his wife were out of town.
He has a letter from DEC stating everything has been taken care of and
he will attempt to find it in his records and provide it to the Planning Board.
Cross
made some observations after visiting the site. (1) The remnants of the
previously developed site remain and the existing footprint is relatively the
same size as the previous building site so the quantity of storm water runoff
should not be greater than previously.
(2) With regard to he proximity of the structure to the ravine it is
important to note that bedrock protrudes through the ravine walls. (3) No dry well or piping system for drainage
is indicated on the plans. (4) Test
borings or excavation to determine bedrock level would be advised as less than
3 ft. require special engineering review for a septic system. An engineer’s comment on bedrock stability
would also be useful. Septic system has not yet been approved for site by
Health Dept. although test holes have been completed years ago. Hickey would like to see the location
indicated somewhere on the maps. It will
probably be a sand filter to north of the residence. (5) Trees to be removed within footprint of residence
have not been noted. (6) Silt fence is
appropriate as located and must be maintained by contractor during all phases
of construction. Varying plans show it
located in two different locations. It
was noted that the correct location is the one on the site plan which shows it
immediately south and east of the residence.
(7) Surface water needs to be directed away from ravine and into a
collection system to control runoff and not impact the stream.
Hickey
reiterated that additional information is needed regarding the location of the
septic field, the runoff collection system, size and number of trees to be
removed, the depth of bedrock, and the stability of bedrock.
Waterman
is concerned about runoff and precautions need to be taken. Cross stated quantity does not seem to be the
issue but how the water is handled is a more important issue. Cross recommended it be directed
perpendicularly away from the stream course. Mulcahey stated a lot of
consideration has been given to runoff and they are proposing no water be
drained from the building towards the gorge but all run off go to the east and north to a dry well or
whatever works. Hickey said a detailed
grading plan would be needed for the Village Engineer. Greenberg is committed to remedying the
situation from what currently exists there to ensure drainage and landscaping
is better than at present.
Cross
asked about an existing large hard paved
(100 x 100) surface. Mulcahey noted that
it is proposed to be removed. Also the
driveway will be crushed gravel as opposed to a hard paved surface.
Klepack
wanted clarification on Unique Natural Area.
Leopold stated that the Twin Glens area is a Unique Natural Area and
this would be within that area. Hartill
said the Twin Glens Natural Area is a non-profit owned area which has been
subdivided. Previously it was 60 acres
and it is now approx. 16 acres. Klepack
feels this is an important site and it might require careful
consideration. Hickey referenced the
special lots within the Beck Subdivision which required additional steps to see
they were looked at carefully prior to and during development.
The
Board requested to see a landscaping plan so when the silt fences come down,
the Board would have some knowledge as to what will remain.
In
summary, Hickey said copy of DEC letter is needed, drainage collection plan to
show dry well and where water will go,
landscape plan for along gorge, and Board of Health location of septic
fields. The Greenbergs would like to
begin ASAP so they can have the structure enclosed by Thanksgiving. Hickey asked to table the Special Permit to
allow two residents to review the site and plans and the Greenbergs were in
agreement. Greenbergs will also attempt
to have the letter from his civil engineer regarding the stability of the
bedrock before the next meeting.
Waterman
moved to table this Special Permit until June 12th. Seconded by Klepack. All aye.
Amendment to the Cornell
Business & Technology Park Planned Sign Area:
The
next agenda item was an amendment to Cornell B & T Park for Planned Sign
Area for the Marriott Hotel proposed by the E.J. Del Monte Corporation. Hickey was unclear as to what signs are
authorized without the amendment as he only knows what additional signs are
requested. Klepack stated Sign 1, the
free standing sign, Sign 2, the building
mounted sign, and the directional signs are what are allowed under Cornell B
& T Planned Sign Area. Sign C is
also building mounted. Hickey has a
problem with Sign A. Currently only the
concrete monument sign is allowed for the corner of Warren and Brown
Roads. Melissa Dietrich of Cornell Real
Estate stated it is needed there because of the unusual location of the hotel
for visibility and access. Hickey stated
the hotel is an integral part of the B& T Park and all the other park
businesses fit the same criteria. Hickey
feels it is superfluous to have a sign there.
Waterman also stated that maps are usually provided for conferences and
it is also visible from the road.
Hickey
questioned sign B as the need for a full mounted sign when a directory will
show how to get to all the buildings.
John Majeroni, from Cornell Real Estate, stated they prefer a directory
and this temporary sign would be removed.
Sign
1 in front of the Marriott is already permitted and Marriott is also requesting
Sign C to be building mounted on the front.
Hickey questioned if this a
duplication. Marriott is also requesting
a building mounted sign on the Rt. 13 side of the building. Hickey feels the additional signs are
superfluous because everyone quickly learns where the B & T Park is located.
Curtis
stated that Sign 1 & 2 would almost meet the current sign area as 100 sf
total sign area is allowed for both the freestanding and the building mounted
signs, and they are proposing 105 sf. Depending upon how one calculated the
area, they would actually comply with the requirements.
Hickey
stated if Sign C is permitted then Sign 1 would not be required. Hickey can not see the rationale for both
signs. Majeroni felt the developer would
prefer Sign 1 to Sign C. Curtis stated
Signs 1 and 2 would be consistent with the Sign Law, but Sign C and Sign 2
together would significantly exceed the sign area permitted under the Sign Law
as the total area would be 190 sf.
Hickey
feels uncomfortable with Signs A & C; Sign B is ok since it is temporary
and the Marriott will be placed on directory, but he has difficulty with
placing additional signage on Warren Road.
Hickey also stated Sign C puts the signage way over the allotted amount. In Summary, Sign A is out, Sign B is
temporary directory sign, Sign C is out, Signs 1 & 2 are satisfactory as
submitted. Entrance sign will not be
used and there will be no signage at Brown Road and Route 13. The Board was in agreement. Curtis asked the Board if it was agreement
with his calculation of the sign area which resulted in the signs meeting the
100 sf requirement. Hickey stated Signs
1 & 2 conform, allowance of temporary Sign B is ok on Brown Rd.
Waterman
moved to recommend to the Zoning Officer that Signs 1 & 2 are acceptable in
the Planned Sign Area and Sign B is acceptable as a temporary directory
sign. Seconded by Klepack. All aye.
Sutton Home Occupation:
Marcus
stated the Suttons have gone before the BZA and the Zoning Board had 4 rather
than 5 members present and the vote was 2 for granting the variance and 2
against granting the variance so no action was taken by the Board as there was
no majority in favor of granting the variance.
Those in opposition felt the Suttons should make further attempts to acquire
the property from the Hartshornes although Marcus explained the Suttons and
their attorney thought they had pursued this as far as would be
productive.
Discussion
ensued about the Home Occupation Special Permit which has been extended until
July 10. Marcus stated the applicant can
reappear before the Board of Zoning Appeals with additional information to try
for the third vote. At present, the
Suttons have no variance and have not indicated they will return. Presently, there is an illegal structure on
the property which is not approved and the Village could opt to take action to
have the deficiency remedied. The
Village is aware of this violation and it is up to the Village to determine if
they want to take action or not and, if so, when. First, the Code Officer would notify the owners
of the violation and would set a reasonable time to remedy the situation. If the deficiency was not remedied in the
prescribed time, legal action could be taken to have the building removed. Marcus stated that additional information
from the Suttons may prove it is not feasible to purchase the property that
would be necessary to correct the deficiency in that way.
Waterman
wants to see this issue pursued as the Suttons are not in conformance with the
Zoning Law and this will set a precedent.
Hickey felt that if there were no progress by July 10, then Curtis will
issue an order to conform. There may not
be another extension granted. The
Planning Board could deny the Special Permit for Home Occupation and then
Curtis would then follow-up with the paperwork.
Commercial Low Traffic
Study:
The Board reviewed the May 9 letter from Klepack to EDR
stating that by May 25, EDR should have submitted a draft report and on May 30
the Board was to review it and EDR would attend and discuss it. Curtis has been
attempting to get the requested information and has been unsuccessful and
today’s response is all that has been received.
It was also noted that EDR was to mail information to Waterman in
Florida and this never happened.
The
contract was signed at the last meeting.
Marcus stated legally the Village can take any steps they desire. No monies have been paid thus far as Stage 1
($5,000) is still incomplete.
Hickey
stated David Crandall is the principal in this and he signed the contract. Hickey does not know if he is aware of the
situation and feels it should be discussed with him. Also, the Board must determine how to proceed
from here. Halevy and Waterman
recommended taking the information that has been developed and giving it to a
local planner, perhaps Sieverding or Neiderkorn, to complete project on a
consultant basis. All Board members were
in agreement with this. Brown made a
motion to discontinue with EDR. Seconded
by Waterman. No statement will be made
regarding payment. Marcus will write a basic
letter discontinuing their services and Hickey will sign the letter. All aye.
Planning Board Goals:
Hickey
distributed a draft form of goals for discussion.
No.
1 Complete CLT Guidelines Project.
No. 2 Complete Road Shoulder Specifications for the Subdivision Regulations (Presently in Reinhart’s hands).
No. 3 Develop a Walkway Feeder Plan for N. Trip. Rd. Reconstruction
(refer to Reis 1997 Sidewalk Study)
No. 4 Hold a joint meeting with the Town of Lansing Planning Board.
No. 5 Identify areas in village suitable for open space (bird sanctuary)
(Shannon Park)
The need for a fill site has been discussed with Reinhart
by Cross. Cayuga Heights is also out of
space so a joint site may be desirable.
Reports:
Trustees - Hickey has been attending
the Trustee’s meetings for May. There
will be a Public Hearing on May 15 for eminent domain proceedings to acquire a
parcel for the North Triphammer Road Reconstruction. Also two long meetings have been held on a
Patch N Seal problem in which someone has tires which were ruined as a result
of some road repairs undertaken by the Village.
Approval of Minutes:
Regarding
the minutes of March 13, Hickey, Waterman and Klepack were absent. Klepack moved to approve the March 13 minutes
with revisions. Seconded by
Waterman. All aye.
Klepack
moved to approve the March 28 minutes with revisions. Seconded by Waterman. All aye.
McDonalds Update:
Hickey reported that the Special Permit for the old
McDonalds allowed the Village a method of closing the drive-thru if a traffic
problem existed. The Planning Board
desired to transfer this stipulation to the new McDonalds. McDonalds was not receptive to this so they
are proposing an alternate process and remedy.
Hickey, Curtis and Marcus have again responded to McDonald’s proposal
and McDonald’s is drafting a version incorporating those comments. This appears to be the last hold up.
Regarding
their sewer units of which 7 have been reserved, 5 will be transferred across
to the new McDonalds and either 1 or 2 will remain with the old site.
Arrowwood Walkway:
Hickey will be checking with Cornell to see what is
happening with the proposed walkway.
Adjournment:
Waterman moved to adjourn at 9:45. Seconded by Klepack. All aye.