Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
Hickey opened the meeting with a moment of silence in
observance of the passing of their colleague, Steven Halevy. Hickey has spoken with Halevy’s daughter
regarding his service with the CAC and Planning Board and she informed Hickey
of the memorial service being planned for July 14.
Public Comment:
As
there was no one present who wished to speak, Waterman moved to close the
Public Comment period. Seconded by
Brown. All aye.
Planning Goals 2001 – 2002:
Prior
to the meeting, Hickey had provided Planning Board members with a draft copy of
2001 – 2002 goals for their consideration.
Hickey reviewed them one by one.
Goal
1. Promote the implementation of the CLT
Guidelines for any developments within the CLT District along
Goal
2. Recommend to the Board of Trustees
the Village’s Lighting Ordinance. The
Planning Board will review the lighting plan as submitted by the Lighting
Commission and will then request Marcus to prepare the draft ordinance for
recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
Dankert will be replacing Halevy on the Lighting Commission effective
June 1st.
Goal
3. Recommend a Northeast Traffic
Study to the Mayor’s Special
Committee on Kensington and the Edelman property. Hickey noted the mayor will be appointing a
special committee this summer and Hickey would like to see the 1993 NE
Neighborhood Study Area be updated for population, traffic and residential
construction data. Brown would like to
see an origin and destination study done for Warren Rd. Curtis remembered a county survey he received
regarding mass transit origin and destination.
Hickey will contact T-CAT for origin and destination info.
Goal
4. Develop a Comprehensive Signage Plan
for N. Trip. Rd. Commercial District.
Hickey felt a couple of local sign companies could give their thoughts
or ideas. Consideration may be given to
hiring a signage consultant.
Representatives of affected commercial establishments may be asked to
participate in a focus group. Finally a
comprehensive signage plan will be drafted.
Goal
5. Explore, with the Lansing Fire Dept.,
the possibility of relocation of firehouse No. 5 to N. Trip. Rd. & Oakcrest
Rd. Dankert will be the liaison for this
long-term goal.
Goal
6. Propose a joint meeting with the Town
of Lansing Planning Board.
Copies
of these goals will be distributed in finalized form to Planning Board
members.
Proposed Local Law D(2001)
– CLT Front Yard Requirements:
The
proposed law is an amendment to Zoning Law Section 202.07 “Commercial Low
Traffic District”, Subsection (e)(4), to except from the “Front Yard Setback
Minimum” properties having front yards on N. Triphammer Rd., and establish a
“Front Yard Build-To Line”. This
proposed law was drafted at the Planning Board’s request by Marcus was based
upon the recommendation of Kathryn Wolf, CLT Guidelines Consultant, to provide for traffic calming and to create
a pedestrian friendly Village. The
setback of 75 ft. would be eliminated so buildings fronting along N. Triphammer
Rd. would be built with no less than 50% of the length of the front of the
building would be located a distance of 25 ft. from the front property
line. Curtis stated a built-to line is
exact and sometimes buildings are not built to exact dimensions. Leopold recommended one foot either side of
the build-to line be acceptable and there was general agreement. Marcus will incorporate this concept into the
proposed law.
Waterman
moved to recommend Proposed Local Law D (2001) as revised. Seconded by Brown. All aye.
Lighting Standards:
Reinhart has begun a proposed law for an outdoor lighting
code. Hickey recommended the Board look
at the concept and review it line by line at a later time.
Section
1. Purpose and Intent. Change A to insure the preservation of
neighborhood character and insure the compatibility of residential and
commercial uses, change B to establish standards that insure safety, security
and general welfare, leave C to conserve energy, change D to eliminate light
pollution and minimize light trespass and glare.
Section
2. Applicability. Marcus stated grandfathering language can
provide that anything which currently exists can remain if not enlarged or
expanded ,or can establish a sunset provision by which time all lighting must
conform as long as it is not unreasonable and allows sufficient time to
amortize investments. Curtis stated the
Sign Law had a 10 year sunset provision and in the mid 80’s a letter was mailed
requiring either compliance or a variance.
Hickey stated a sunset provision should be added to this section. The
recommendation was for 10 years. After 10 years, lighting will be reviewed to
see if properties meet the requirements as listed in this law. The appeals
process would then be through the BZA.
The Board determined that all new construction or changes
in exterior illumination on site would require compliance with this code. Hickey noted that common sense would
determine whether Curtis would require a lighting plan submission. Curtis felt a clause with lumen levels would
be useful later in the document (Section 7).
Curtis felt it should be so stated that over a certain amount of lumens
requires review by the Planning Board under
this law, but under that amount can just get the approval of the code
enforcement officer. Any change in
exterior illumination would be directed to either of two paths – major (needing
Commission review and Planning Board approval) and minor (needing only Code
Enforcement Officer review and approval).
Waterman
felt the proposed law was disjointed.
Hickey stated that when the draft is further along, it will go to Marcus
for refinement.
Section
3. Definitions. Will be reviewed and discussed at a later
date to see relevant words are included.
Section
4. Permits and Plan Review. Hickey would like to send the document to the
woman from NYSEG for their review. B3. “
[Photometric data if available] “ will have brackets removed and “if available”
removed. B4 change to Planning Board or
Code Enforcement Officer.
Section
5. Approved Materials and Methods of
Construction/Installation/Operation.
Change to “provisions of this law are intended …described by this law,
however the building official may approve …”
Section
6. Height of Luminaire. C.
Change to “maximum height …shall be 25 ft.” D. If
referencing areas lower in elevation than illuminated area, if major and over a
certain level, it would go to the Planning Board and if minor, the Code
Enforcement Officer would make a determination.
Willard to also check as this section does not make sense.
Section
7. Illuminance
Levels. No comments.
Section
8. General Requirements. A.
Sign Law deals with this. Check
with Sign Law. B. Delete completely.
Section
9. Special Uses. A.
Specifically reference FAA.
Change to read “lighting uses for illumination …although it must comply
to all other aspects of the lighting law such as poles, height of luminaires, submission of plan, etc”. B(3)
Change to read “by 10 PM or closing, whichever is later.” C. Reinhart
to check for reasonable.
Section
10. Nonconforming Lighting. D. Change
to “must be at Federally required …”
Section
11. Law Governing Conflicts. No comments.
Hickey
will contact Reinhart and thank him for his work on this project. Reinhart has stated there is more to
follow. Marcus will refine it but feels
it is a great document. The Board will
further review it after Reinhart has continued his draft. Willard will then fax it to Marcus, as well
as the NYSEG lady.
Fernandez Landscape
Guidelines:
The next item on the agenda was a brief discussion of the 2/27/01 Landscape Guidelines as proposed
by David Fernandez, Cayuga Landscape Co.
Hickey wanted to know how the Board would like to utilize the document –
whether to give it to developers or use it as an internal checklist. Klepack recommended after the CLT Guidelines
are completed, she would like to utilize this and other information acquired to
make a checklist for the use of the Planning Board as landscaping plans are
reviewed. Waterman also felt it would be
important for developers to see this early in the approval process. Hickey noted that a letter of thanks was sent
to Fernandez for all he has contributed.
Hickey felt it was then in the hands of the Board of Trustees to proceed
(further with a plaque). Leopold stated
this had not been acted upon yet. Hickey
recommended forms of recognition be placed on the agenda for the joint Planning
Board/Trustees meeting to establish a procedure to facilitate expressions of
appreciation. Hickey recommended Dake
devise a certificate on her computer for distribution. Curtis stated the Village has them and used
to distribute them. Waterman suggested
they be placed in frames. Curtis
provided a copy of those done previously.
Approval of Minutes – March 8, 12 & 27
The
Board reviewed the minutes for March 8th. Waterman moved to approve the minutes as
revised. Seconded by Dankert. Ayes by Brown, Dankert and Waterman. Abstain by Hickey.
The
Board reviewed the minutes for March 12th. Waterman moved to approve the minutes as
submitted. Seconded by Brown. Ayes by Brown, Dankert and Waterman.
Abstain
by Hickey.
The
Board reviewed the minutes for March 27th. Revisions were made. The minutes will be saved until the next
meeting as there was not a quorum of those present at that meeting to approve
them.
Reports:
Hickey stated he was impressed with the Greenway
discussion led by Trustee Frank Moore.
Moore pushed the Board into recognizing the Board’s responsibility for the Greenway and into
determining whether a council is needed.
The Mayor agreed to take the leadership role on this.
Hickey
reported a call from Bob Dean, Bomax Drive owner, indicating someone’s interest
in putting a cell tower in the Bomax development and asking whether the fall area
could be in the buffer zone to the south.
Dean wondered how the cell tower would be accessed and Hickey responded
through a driveway. Hickey also told
Dean he would like to see the road finished and a site plan for the entire
area. Hickey noted a public road would
be required to access the cell tower.
Marcus
stated the Trustees have discussed proposed Local Law C regarding reduced
parking spaces. Ultimately, they were
receptive but proposed minor amendments to the text.
Other Business as Time
Permits:
Hickey
reminded the Board of the reception on June 3rd for a final farewell
for Janet Waterman.
The
next meeting of the Planning Board will be a joint meeting with the Board of
Trustees on June 4th which will replace the meeting scheduled for
June 11th if there are no pressing agenda items.
Curtis
stated there would be a movie on PBS on June 7th regarding Walmart and Home Depot.
Adjournment:
Waterman moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 P.M. Seconded by Brown. All aye.