Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
Public Comment:
Hickey
opened the Public Comment period. John
O”Neill, 53 Janivar Drive, asked that the placement of a traffic light at N.
Triphammer and Craft Road be considered for a future date when funds become
available. Hickey responded that
installing a light was not just a matter of funding. New York State has a
system of warrants which establishes specific criteria to determine when a
municipality is entitled to install a
traffic light and based on this criteria a light is not warranted at this
time. Hickey noted, however, that all
electrical connections will be installed when N. Triphammer Road is rebuilt,
and in the future, when installation of a traffic light is warranted, the connections
will be in place.
O’Neill
also spoke of concerns of residents that for particular projects a great deal
of discussion occurs and the die is cast prior to public hearings. O’Neill asked if it would be possible to
institute a mechanism or system where one representative from an affected
neighborhood could sit with the Planning Board during the discussion of the
issue to provide input. Hickey does not
think NYS allows for an ad hoc committee member on any one particular issue. Hickey is aware of the concerns of Lansing
Trails residents and is willing to discuss this further with those interested
There being no one else who wished to speak,
Klepack moved to close the Public Comment period. Seconded by Brown. All aye.
Preliminary Plat Approval of
Millcroft Subdivision:
Hickey stated the next item on the agenda was a continued
discussion of the Preliminary Plat approval for the Millcroft Subdivision. At the last meeting, several corrections were
required for Part I of the long environmental assessment form completed by the
developer. Board members received a
revised Part I of the assessment form for page by page review prior to moving
on to Section 2. Board members also
received a revised drainage plan. Dan
Bower of Hunt Engineers and the Millcroft Subdivision Project Manager, gave a
brief overview of the changes. Bower
indicated that he had taken previous comments by Board members and Engineer
Cross into consideration. Bower has
since met with Cross to discuss the modifications which were subsequently
made. One concern was that the radii of
the road curves shown on the plans were less than that required by the
regulations. Bower stated the 150 ft. radius curve they are proposing for the
roads is larger than most curves in other developments in the area. The curves
of the proposed road were compared to other roads in an overall map of Lansing
Trails I & II and the Millcroft Subdivision prepared by Curtis for this
meeting. The developers have discussed
putting in a controlled intersection where Croft Road meets Millcroft Road in
Phase 3 as a three-way stop to slow traffic and break up the straight stretch
of road.
Bower continued as follows: The second issue the
developers looked at was a reduction in size of the detention basins along
property lines near Craft Road and Leifs Way.
The water from Phases 3 and 4 was originally proposed to flow into these
detention basins. A proposed
modification allows the water to flow through the development and not enter
these detention ponds which reduces the
required size of the ponds substantially.
Contours were also changed by deepening and steepening the ponds so that
most of the ponds would fit on portions of Lots 9 & 10 which would then be
conveyed to the Village. Another concern
was the length of pipe from Lot 1 to the stream. Originally there was a larger drainage area
for this lot. The plan now is to take
part of the water in another direction to the swale on Craft Road and eliminate
the need for the long pipe.
For the third issue, Bower stated another change is to
have all roadway sewer pipes remain within the 60 ft. ROW, with the exception
of the one near Lot 13 where there will be an easement for maintenance. The developers also came to the conclusion
that the trail was inefficient and needed changes. The Phase 1 master plan was reviewed. The new design has the trail coming out of
the park in a northerly direction between Lots 6 and 7.
Bower stated the last change addressed the cul-de-sacs in
Phases 1 & 2. They have been
re-figured so that rather than the T configuration, there is a side T
configuration which is what the Town of Lansing desires for emergency vehicles
and plowing. This configuration will
necessitate temporary easements for the affected lots for this temporary turnaround
until connecting roads are built in a later phase.
Hickey asked where the water from the undeveloped parcels
on the east would go after Phases 1 & 2 were completed. Bower responded that the water would sheet
drain to a natural swale or into the 18 inch pipe under Leifs Way and there
would be no increased rate of
runoff.
Klepack asked about the trail location along Leifs
Way. Hickey stated it would necessitate
a paved shoulder for that part of the trail.
Klepack expressed her concerns about having a detention
pond in a property owner’s back yard and questioned that a property owner will
take better care of the detention area than the Village. If the system fails and the property owner is
negligent where does liability rest.
Bower responded that the Village would have complete control up to the
10-year line and to the bottom of the pond where sediment builds up. The Village would also have control of the
berm area as well as the outlet pipe structure.
The Village would not have title of the area from the 10-year to the
100-year contour line on Lots 9 &
10. This is a distance of about 10 or 11
ft. which the developers do not want to deed to the Village. Hickey questioned why the developers would
not simply convey the land to the Village rather than make it the property owner’s
responsibility to maintain it. There
were also concerns about detention areas located on Lots 11 and 12. Bower stated the reason the developers are
reluctant to give the Village the property on these lots is because moving the
property lines will make the lot sizes less than the required 20,000 sf.. Cross stated that since he has met with the
developers he has calculated that taking the total area of Lots 9 – 12 ,
reconfiguring the detention, subtracting the revised amount of land that would
then have to be deeded to the Village, and redrawing the lots would provide an
average lot size of 19,650 sf, which is
only 350 sf short of the aggregate lot size requirement for these four lots. Cross stated that then there could be
engineering of the pond which could gain the 350 sf if that is what the
developers wanted to do. Hickey stated
again that Cross must be comfortable
with the project before the Board would approve it.
Cross distributed his Engineering Report. Cross explained that his position on Village
ownership of detention facilities is based on first hand experience and his
goal is to avoid repeating problems such as those encountered in the Lansing
Trails subdivision. Cross noted there
has been progress in the drainage design for the project in addressing the
Board’s concerns although it does not yet comply with his requests. Cross stated the new storm water regulations
require developers to plan for storm events of 2 year, 10 year and 100 year. Cross noted that with the most recent proposal
the developers were still not able to accommodate the 100 year storm on the
property they proposed to deed to the Village.
Jim Finnegan, Project Engineer for Hunt Engineering, stated that a 10
year storm has a 10 percent chance of occurring in any given year, a 25 year
storm has a 4 percent chance of occurring in any given year and a 100 year
storm has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year. Bower stated these are small ponds and the
difference between water surface elevation of the ponds between a 10 year and
100 year storm is slightly more than 6 inches on the downstream side of the
ponds. Cross stated it does appear that
the developers could reconfigure the ponds to gain the 350 sf for
Lots 9-12. This
would make the ponds steeper. Cross
feels this might be a possible solution for the developers to consider. Robert Miller, developer, stated that slope
is an important issue because wet areas need to be maintained to remain
attractive and it is difficult for homeowners to do this maintenance on steep
slopes. Cross is recommending that the
slope of Lots 11 and 12 be made the same as Lots 9 & 10. Hickey stated the Board is still adamant
about the Village owning the drainage areas.
Bower asked about the possibility of waiving the lot size and Hickey
stated it cannot be changed as it is in the Zoning Law, although the developers
can request a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Cross noted that Lots 9 & 10 contours are
steeper and Lots 11 and 12 are less steep, and Cross would suggest the lowest
contour behind Lot 10 be pushed to Lot 11 which would gain enough volume to
cover the 100 year storm and the need for an easement on Lot 12 could be eliminated and enough would
be recovered to make the lots the required size. Finnegan stated it would need to be
reviewed. Cross clarified that he did
not subtract the 20 ft easement for the underground pipe.
Hickey recommended that the Board proceed with the SEQRA
review. One condition could require the approval of the Village Engineer for the
drainage plan, and this can be resolved between Cross and the developers.
Klepack indicated that the airport issue and the connection of roads during
phasing, both of which were raised by the County Planning Department, also need
to be resolved. Hickey would like to see the SEQRA completed at this meeting
and then the preliminary plat approval can be handled at the next meeting.
Miller expressed his desire to address the issue of
connecting the two roads at tonight’s meeting.
Miller commented that the developers have taken a standard approach of
proceeding with the development as a phased plan and have laid out a conceptual
plan for all phases. Upon completion of
Phases 1 and 2, Phase 3 will be built. Miller offered to make an agreement or
commitment with the Village that upon completion of Phases 1 and 2, the next
parcel for submission for approval must include the connection of Croft Place
and Millcroft Drive. Hickey asked for a
timeframe. Miller could not commit to
one at this time. Hickey stated that the
Village does not want to get in a situation where cul-de-sacs remain for a long
period of time. Hickey feels that once
the 24 lots of
Phase 1 and Phase 2are sold, that engineering should begin
within a year for the next phase. Miller
does not feel the cul-de-sacs create a hardship for the owners as only 12
residences are serviced on each one.
Hickey stated the Village wants to see the road completed. Miller would like to see Phase 3 with roads
presented at a later date. Cross feels
much of the engineering for Phase 3 is already completed. Miller stated the economic burden includes
both the design and the construction of
the road. Miller is willing to commit
the engineering be completed after Phases 1 and 2 are completed, but is
unwilling to commit to a timeframe for construction as the market will
determine his timeframe. Miller stated
Phase 2 will begin after Phase 1 is completed.
After the completion of both phases, Phase 3 will begin. Hickey reiterated the Board will need some
timeframe prior to approval of the project.
Hickey stated the Board must work on the issue of the
airport and needs to discuss this with the Village attorney.
Cross mentioned that there is a Village regulation which
provides for an easement along a stream course for maintenance purposes. He is unsure if this regulation applies to
the project. Cross feels the Village
does not want the easement to be across private properties. Hickey stated the owners of the private
property must maintain the stream course.
By law, the Village can maintain the stream course without an easement
if the owners do not. Cross would
recommend the Board waive the requirements so the developers do not write the
easements in. Curtis stated that the drainage ways must be protected by the
developer. Finnegan felt the 25 ft.
proposed easement was from the Subdivision Law.
Curtis read Subdivision Law
Section 402.7 which states where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse,
drainage way, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement
for a drainage right of way as required by the Engineer, and in no case less
than 20 ft. in width. Hickey stated this
requirement can be waived if the Engineer does not require it.
The Board then discussed recreational land. Cross noted that the public lands shown on
the plans for Phases 1 & 2 makeup the 6% recreational land for the whole
subdivision including Phases 3 and 4.
Hickey stated a calculation summary is needed. Bower responded that the entire parcel is 50+
acres. The proposed development provides
for more than the 6% (which equates to 3.02 acres) required for recreation
land. This is made up of 2.3 acres for
park as well as a trails system of 2.2 acres for a total of 4.5 acres.
The Board then reviewed the SEQRA Part I as corrected by
the developer. Bower reviewed the
changes: Page 3, Item 2 – now includes
“after completion of development” numbers; Page 4, Item 11 – refers to
identified plant species & animal list of which there are none on DEC list;
Page 5, Section B4 – 9.5 acres of vegetation removed; Page 6, Item 5 – no trees
over 100 years old; Page 7 – hours of construction have been addressed; Page 8
– approvals of town, county and other local agencies removed. Cross stated the County handles reviews and
approvals for the NYS Department of Health for water and the NYS DEC reviews
for sewer. Cross stated the DEC could be
listed for storm water management approval.
Bower noted applicant must notify the DEC with a letter of intent but
that no actual approval is issued. State
agencies will be changed to no.; Page 9 – added Craft Road in commercial
traffic area in Box 7.
The Board then reviewed Part II. All questions were answered No except the
following: Page 11, Item 1, Yes. The project will last longer than one year or
involve more than one phase or stage (small to moderate impact). Page 12, other impacts: construction of 4
drainage ways and approx. 2000 ft of roadway (small to moderate impact). Page 14, Item 6, Yes. The drainage plan alters distribution of
water within the site (small to moderate impact). Page 19, Item 19, Yes. Proposed action will cause a change in the
density of land use (small to moderate impact).
Development will create a demand for additional community services
(small to moderate impact).
Klepack moved the following resolution:
WHEREAS:
A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: Preliminary Plat Approval of the Millcroft Subdivision, a major subdivision dividing a 50.329 acre lot into twenty-five building lots and two residual parcels which may be subdivided into additional building lots at some time in the future. The lot to be subdivided fronts on Bush Lane on the North and Janivar Drive/Leifs Way on the South and is located in the Medium Density Residential District, Tax Parcel No. 45.1-1-47.2.
; and
B. This proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Village of Lansing Planning Board is designated as the Lead Agency for environmental review; and
C. On July 29, 2003, the Village of Lansing Planning Board, as Lead Agency, and in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQR”), (i) thoroughly reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (the “Full EAF”), Part 1, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR Section 617.7(c), and (iii) completed the Full EAF, Part 2 (and, if applicable, Part 3);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOW:
1. The Village of Lansing Planning Board, based upon (i) its thorough review of the Full EAF, Part1, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review of the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR Section 617.7(c), and (iii) its completion of the Full EAF, Part 2 (and, if applicable, Part 3), including the findings noted thereon (which findings are incorporated herein as if set forth at length), hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance (“Negative Declaration”) in accordance with SEQR for the above referenced proposed action, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required; and
2. The Responsible Officer of the Village of Lansing Planning Board is hereby authorized and directed to complete and sign as required the Full EAF Determination of Significance confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed Full EAF shall be attached to and made a part of this Resolution.
Seconded by
Brown. All aye.
The Board asked the applicants to grant an extension for
approval of the Preliminary Plat until the next Planning Board meeting on
August 11th. There will be a quorum
present on that date although Cross will be unable to attend. Hickey felt
Cross’ report would suffice.
Miller agreed upon the extension in order to resolve the two issues
where input from the developer is required: a proposal for the connection of
roads upon completion of Phases 1 & 2 and resolution of the drainage
issues. Dubow stated there were also additional issues which might need to be
addressed and conditions imposed, such as the County’s concerns regarding the
airport combining district, and Miller acknowledged such additional concerns as
issues to be addressed during the agreed upon extension of time for approval of
the Preliminary Plat.
Lansing Trails Phase 2:
Hickey
stated the next item on the agenda was a continued discussion of Lansing Trails
Phase 2. The Board is looking at the
road design suggested at the last meeting.
To provide a better overview of the entire project, Curtis has provided
Fabbroni and the Board with a map of Phase 1 which matches up with Phase 2 and
the proposed Millcroft subdivision.
Fabbroni stated that working on suggestions from the last meeting as
well as providing for the 6% recreation area and the 20% open space, he
developed the revised plan the Board received in their packets. Fabbroni stated there is more greenway as
well as preservation of existing hedgerows and the stream corridor to
constitute the 6% and 20%. South of the
current park, there is an area shown as open space which will be part of the
open space and part of the recreation space.
The traffic circle at the intersection with Bomax Drive was also
implemented. Hickey was glad to see the
town houses moved to the northeast corner as recommended. Frabboni stated that the wood line is
depicted on the map and not much had to be removed to place the townhouses in
that location.
Hickey
stated there were lots on Ayla Way which did not have access to a public
roadway. Fabbroni stated that one of the
lots would be a large flag lot with an entrance onto the Ayla Way turnaround
and the other lots would have access to Janivar Drive. There would also be a second lot which
accessed the turnaround on Ayla Way.
Hickey questioned if the turnaround also serving as a driveway
connection would cause problems.
Fabbroni stated it would be possible to extend Ayla Way another 50 feet and have the driveway connect to that
and thereby eliminate the flag lot. This
sounded better to Hickey. Fabbroni
stated turning radii needed to be reviewed and the plan tweaked as this is a
conceptual plan. Fabbroni stated there
is also a proposed walkway along the northern and eastern border along the
hedgerow to split this property from the Miller property. Hickey asked about the total density for
Lansing Trails for Phases 1 and 2.
Fabbroni responded 75 plus 102 for a total of 177. When clustering was first discussed, Fabbroni
figured the proposed density was for 194 units.
Klepack asked for clarification of the hedge row shown on the lots on
Ayla Way near the hammerhead turnaround.
Fabbroni responded that lots 96 and 87 in Phase 1 are larger lots to
accommodate the hedge row. Klepack would like to see all hedgerows as part of
open space. Klepack also stated that she
does not like the roundabout and would rather see four stop signs. Hickey would like to see the roundabout
remain an option, as well as a 4-way stop.
Cross would like to make a presentation to the Board on traffic calming
and traffic circles. Cross is concerned about
the three right hand 90 degree intersections and asked about the radii. Fabronni stated the curves would be softened
to be closer to a 150’ radius. Brown
likes the fact that hedgerows are incorporated into open space rather than
removed.
Hickey
likes the fact that Ayla Way ends and there is not a direct shot through to
Bomax Drive which would dump all traffic onto Leifs Way. Hickey stated that feedback is now needed
from the residents. Hickey would like to
speak with Cliff Buck regarding resident’s input. John Wisor, Vice-president of the Lansing
Trails Homeowners Association, stated there is a meeting in August for the
Lansing Trails residents. Wisor will try to move the meeting to an earlier date
and Hickey stated he would attend if agreeable to the Lansing Trails Homeowners
Association. Fabronni is amenable to
having this resident input so the project can proceed. Hickey will bring comment back to the
Planning Board on August 11th.
Klepack asked for and received a quick review of how the ownership of
the property associated with the townhouses would work. Hickey stated the Board needs to approve a
workable road design for recommendation to the Board of Trustees in conjunction
with the Trustees granting approval for proceeding with this subdivision under
the cluster regulations. As this is only pre-sketch plan review it need not
contain all trails, etc. Cross noted
that the Airport Conservation District concerns must also be addressed with
this project.
Shannon Park – Site Plan
Review:
Approval of Minutes – June 9
& 24, July 14:
Klepack moved to approve the minutes of June 9th as
revised. Seconded by Stycos. All aye.
Klepack
moved to approve the minutes of June 24th as revised. Seconded by Piscopo. All aye.
Klepack
moved to approve the minutes of July 14th as revised. Seconded by Piscopo. All aye.
Other Business as Time
Allows:
Hickey appraised Planning Board members of the New York
Planning Federation Conference scheduled for Lake Placid in September. This will be discussed at the August 11th
meeting.
Adjournment:
Klepack moved to adjourn at 10:06 P.M. Seconded by
Stycos. All aye.