Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
Hickey opened the Public Comment.
There being no one present who wished to speak, Dankert moved to close the Public Comment period. Seconded by Stycos. All aye.
Public Hearing - Special
Permit No. 1788, Taughannock Aviation, addition:
The first item on the agenda was a Public Hearing for Special Permit No. 1788, Taughannock Aviation to construct a 9000 sf addition on its existing hangar/office building at 66 Brown Road, at the Tompkins County Airport, in the Business and Technology District, Tax Parcel No. 45.1-1-53.8
The applicant gave a brief overview and then a Public Hearing was held. John Plume of Taughannock Aviation gave the presentation. The addition will be 9000 sf for office space and client services adjacent to the hangar construction. It will be Phase 2 of a 3-phase project. Schematics were provided to Board members. In Phase 3, the old County terminal will be demolished and additional hangar space built. There are 50 employees at Taughannock Aviation.
Hickey opened the Public Hearing. Bob Nicholas, airport manager, spoke first. He stated this is all part of the original 1996 master plan for the airport which has changed little since that plan was adopted. The third phase after this 9000 sf addition will be Phase 3 which will cover the footprint of the old terminal. The old gray hangar building will then be removed as well. Although this is not a county operation, they fully support it and realize its importance to the airport for general aviation as time progresses. (Klepack arrives)
Since no one else wished to speak, Dankert moved to close the Public Hearing for Special Permit No. 1788. Seconded by Brown. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey and Stycos. Abstain by Klepack.
Hickey wanted clarification of the schedule for Phase 3. Robert Thomas, president for Taughannock Aviation, stated there is no specific time frame for Phase 3. It will be dependent on funding and need for additional space. Plume stated the old terminal and Bryan’s Landing is scheduled for demolition next year. Nichols stated bids are being requested now for the demolition. Thomas stated Phase 3 would be constructed on the site of these two buildings after the removal. Thomas stated Phase 2 is general aviation and reception area although it is labeled office space. Hickey stated that the old buildings were grandfathered but the Zoning Law provides that new buildings must comply with the Zoning Law which would require a 25 ft. setback from the parking lot to the front property line along the road edge whereas there is currently only10-15 ft. Plume stated that with the demolition of the old buildings, the parking spaces could be reconfigured to create the required space there. Curtis noted that the parking lot was also required to be screened. Hickey stated saving the dirt to create a berm in the setback area and finishing it with grass and shrubs would be consistent with what had been done elsewhere in the Park to meet this requirement. Thomas is sympathetic to the Village’s wishes but their first objective is to get out of the substandard building they currently occupy. Thomas stated they are committed to making this a more desirable and attractive site for the County, Village and themselves.
Hickey asked for clarification on the Phase 1 drawing. Plume stated Phase 1 is already completed (1997). Phase 2 indicates the proposed addition highlighted in blue. It is 30 ft. x 150 ft and will be a two-story office and reception area. Phase 3 will be completed at a later date. Parking was incorporated into Phase 1 will remain as is until Phase 3. Plume stated that 2/3 of the building will be inaccessible so parking would only remain on the Brown Road side.
Stycos asked about the siding. Plume stated the bottom 8-10 ft. is two-tone split beige brick and then there is a beige metal above that. It will match the hangar that is currently there from Phase 1. The roof line matches up with what is also there currently and is a beige or silver metal and can not be seen due to its slight pitch and height.
Stycos asked about the importance of this to the airport. Nicholas stated that those with private jets come into this site rather than the airport terminal and the trend toward private aircraft seems to be increasing. He would like their first impression be a good one rather than what currently exists. Hickey asked if the County received any monies from the facility. Nicholas stated Taughannock Aviation receives a fee, gas is purchased, and the County gets a percentage of that. Thomas stated Borg Warner and many other local companies maintain aircraft at this facility and also use office space here. Currently there are no helicopters based here although they could be serviced. In response to concern about noise adversely impacting nearby residences, Thomas stated the private aircraft follow the same flight paths and are quieter than commercial liners. The private planes normally operate during regular hours although they occasionally fly at other times. There are a few peak times when there are a larger number of aircraft, such as NasCar weekends, Cornell reunions, Homecomings, etc.
Klepack asked about landscaping. Thomas stated that in the long run they intend to make this a safer, warmer more attractive site. Hickey stated that Phase 3 will deal with the aesthetics of the site because there may be some shifting of the parking areas and they would prefer not to plant and then relocate the landscaping.
Klepack was concerned about the lack of green space and the distance from the building to the roadway. Thomas stated that once the old terminal is removed parking can be reconfigured. Hickey also noted that berming would be an option at that time.
Nicholas noted that, as things stand now, when Phase 3 is completed the utility poles will remain and he wondered if anything could be done about them. Hickey stated the County or Cornell could make arrangements to have them buried. The Village is considering similar action as part of the Triphammer Road reconstruction.
Cross had some questions. Cross asked where the drainage currently goes from the footprint of the building. Thomas stated it goes to the storm sewer in the alleyway between the new hangar building and the old terminal building. Nicholas stated it then goes to the airport pond. Cross stated if it does go there, he then has no problem.
Cross asked about the sequencing of the demolition for the old terminal and how vehicle access would be maintained to the hanger. Thomas stated there is 52 ft. between the new hanger building and the old terminal. The proposed 30 ft. addition would leave a 22 ft. alleyway which will remain with an electric gate across it until the old terminal is subsequently demolished. Taughannock is also committed through their lease agreement with the County to contribute to the demolition of the old terminal.
Cross wanted to know upon the completion of Phase 3 and removal of the old hanger building, could some of that area be restored to a pervious surface? Nicholas stated it is hard to finalize these details at this point, but lighting will be required so islands will be necessary in the parking areas and these islands could large enough to accomodate landscaping. Thomas stated the flow of traffic and parking of aircraft is important and this will be reviewed. Hickey would like to see the plan after the old terminal is torn down and prior to Phase 3. Thomas is receptive to meeting with either the entire or part of the Board prior to Phase 3.
The Planning Board then completed SEQRA Part II. A – No B – No C1 – Dumpster is in back and will remain where it is currently. It must be screened if it is visible to the public. Noise levels will not be affected by this project. C2 – This is part of the airport development plan and is an improvement in appearances. If Phase 2 does not occur within 5 years, landscaping will be required around the addition. Thomas will provide a letter of intent. When the Plan is developed, the landscaping plan will be a condition for approval. C3 – None C4 – This is part of the master plan developed years ago. C5 – Hopefully, this will allow for Phase 3 to proceed. C6 – None C7 – No, energy consumption will be reduced. D – No.
Klepack moved that this proposed action will have no significant adverse environmental impact. Seconded by Brown. All aye.
The Planning Board then reviewed the General Conditions for all Special Permits in Section 304.05 of the Zoning Law. One condition imposed on this permit is the requirement for submission of a Landscaping Plan for around the building, as well as a letter of intent for landscaping and parking lot development which complies with the Village Zoning Law as part of Phase 3. Thomas agreed to landscape around the building if Phase 3 is not completed within five years. If Phase 3 occurs, Thomas agreed to meet the setback requirements of the Zoning Law.
Klepack moved that the applicant has met all the general conditions for a Special permit. Seconded by Dankert. All aye.
Klepack moved to approve Special Permit No. 1788 for Taughannock Aviation to construct a 9000 sf addition on its existing hangar/office building at 66 Brown Road, subject to the following conditions: 1) favorable approval of County Planning in its 239 Review; 2) Planning Board approval of a Landscaping Plan for around the addition, and 3) a Letter of Intent regarding landscaping as to what happens in 5 years if Phase 3 is not built subject to approval by the Planning Board Chairman. Seconded by Dankert. All aye.
Public Hearing –
Final Plat Approval of Tvaroha Subdivision:
The next item on the agenda was a Public Hearing for Final Plat Approval of the Tvaroha Subdivision, a minor subdivision dividing an approx. 4.12 acre lot into two parcels, one approximately 1.98 acres and the other approximately 2.14 acres. The lot to be subdivided is known as 1465 East Shore Drive in the Low Density Residential District, Tax Parcel No. 42.1-1-49
Jack Tvaroha provided Curtis with Proof of Mailing.
Since no one wished to speak, Klepack moved to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Brown. All aye.
Troy stated he is unfamiliar with the references on the latest map to agreements and easements reflecting rights of the property owners and would like to research them as he has seen the references for the first time tonight. Troy referenced liber 690 page200. Kimarie Humphries stated this is the driveway easement to the main house with prior owner Dumas and new owner Infante. Troy stated there is another easement which has been prepared for access across Humphries’ property to which Humphries has agreed. Troy stated a condition for approval would need to be agreed upon that there only be one curb cut on Route 34 to serve both the Humphries and Tvaroha properties and Humphries was in agreement. The easement in place states that there be permanent access onto the Tvaroha property and this has been recorded at the County office. Troy wold like the mylar to indicate that there can only be one curb cut onto Route 34 to serve both properties. Hickey stated the subdivision may receive approval tonight and then the mylar needs to be reviewed and approved by both attorneys and then Hickey would officially be given authorization to sign it.
Hickey noted that the Infante property has three driveways and the Tvaroha property has none. Tvaroha has lifetime use for the northernmost driveway on the Infante property. Curtis stated the BZA determined that there is insufficient road frontage for two curb cuts, one on the Humphries property and one on Tvaroha’s, but this could be resolved if Humphries and Tvaroha agreed to share one curb cut. The Dumas property was asked to grant the easement to the Tvaroha property in perpetuity instead of for Tvaroha’s lifetime, but they were not agreeable to this. (Dankert exits.)
The Planning Board then completed SEQRA Part II. A – No B – No C1 – No C2 – No C3 – No C4 – No C5 – No C6 – No C7 – No D – No.
Klepack moved that this proposed action will have no significant adverse environmental impact. Seconded by Brown. All aye.
Klepack moved to approve the final plat for the Tvaroha subdivision at 1465 East Shore Drive into two parcels, subject to the following conditions: 1) approval by the Village attorney for language on the final plat, and 2) favorable approval by the County on the 239 Review. Seconded by Brown. All aye.
CLT Uses Review:
Hickey reviewed the Design Guideline Recommendations by Katherine Wolfe which would require changes to the current Sign or Zoning Laws. B1 1.2 – Change the Sign Law (Article V, Section 3) to reflect that the top of ground mounted signs be no higher than 15 ft. B1 2.1 – Change the Zoning Law (Sec. 104.17c) to reflect that access drives between parcels should have a minimum of 30 ft. separation. B1 3.1 – Change Zoning Law 202.07e delete 4a and 7a to reflect all parking should not be located at the front of the building. B1 – 3.2 Add language stating where possible, share parking with adjacent parcels. Change Section 203 on off-street parking in Zoning Law to reflect shared parking (Hickey to work on this). B2 2.1 – Facades, at a minimum of 25 ft., shall be built parallel to the frontage line and shall be located 25 ft. from the frontage line has already been adopted. In the Zoning Law, delete 202.07 e3and 4. B2 2.3 Section 202.07 of the Zoning Law should reflect side yard setbacks to accommodate shared driveways and parking as an incentive (Hickey has proposed wording to this effect. Hickey and Troy to work on this). B2 2.4 Leave Zoning Law e4 and 7 as currently exists.
Hickey provided CLT District maps to Board members and identified the building on each lot. Vacant lots were also identified. The accuracy of traffic projections at buildout of the remaining lots were discussed as being very difficult to determine. Cross stated that when a project is proposed, the developers should be required to provide the impact of their specific development. Hickey stated this was done with Pyramid Mall and was useful to the Board. Hickey has asked the consultant working on the Triphammer Road reconstruction to provide traffic projections. Hickey stated there will be a presentation by the consultant on Jan 29th with a model of N. Triphammer Road with traffic projections.
Zoning Map
Replacement:
Hickey stated Carol Willard and Carol Klepack have provided corrections of the zoning map to Curtis. Any additional revisions should be given to Curtis this week.
Approval of Minutes – November 26:
Klepack moved to approve the November 26 minutes as revised. Seconded by Brown. All aye.
Reports:
Trustees: Hickey stated the first item on their agenda was a public hearing on the deletion of warehouse/storage in CLT District and two individuals spoke. One was a real estate individual and asked for information on why this is being changed. Hickey provided answers. The Board of Trustees approved the local law to remove warehouse/storage. Hickey and the Board also had a good discussion on the other changes the Planning Board has been discussing. Troy and Hickey will meet for revisions and will then present them to the Board of Trustees for further discussion. Hickey would like to see them all included in the codification before it is printed. Hickey stated the cable contract was also discussed and will likely be approved with few changes.
Other Business
as Time Permits:
Stycos had an email from the Lewistown individual regarding the Cooperstown GEIS and she will share the information with this Board.
Hickey met with the County Planning Department (Joan Jerkowitz and Edward Marx) on Open Space and they will provide information to this Board for review in January. Hickey will then present this to the Board of Trustees for their consideration.
Hickey stated he had information for the Village and Town of Lansing, as well as the county, from the Census Bureau if anyone needs this information when working on the Comprehensive Plan review. When chapters are completed, they can be brought in for review.
Stycos would like to discuss lot #7 in the Guild Commercial Park in the CLT District which remains vacant and the idea of the Village purchasing it. Hickey recommended she speak with Mayor Hartill as some money is available.
Adjournment: