Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
Hickey opened the Public Comment period.
John O’Neill,
As there was no one else who wished to speak, Klepack moved to close the Public Comment period. Seconded by Brown. All aye.
Public Hearing, Special
Permit No. 1865, Adler Single Family Residence:
The first item on the agenda was a Public Hearing for
Special Permit No. 1865, Kraig and Dolores Adler to construct a single family
residence at 17 Cayuga Hills Road in the Low Density Residential District, Tax
Parcel No. 43.1-1-26.63. A Special
Permit is required because the lot is located in an environmentally sensitive
area with steep slopes and Unique Natural Areas and Special Permit approval for
construction on this lot is a condition of the final plat approval for the
subdivision in which it is located. A
Special Permit is also required because two curb cuts are proposed where
Section 104.17(a)(1) of the Village of Lansing Zoning Law requires a Special Permit
for any curb cut in excess of one for a residential lot.
Hickey stated the applicant is not expecting to gain final
approval tonight but needs to be given some direction. Kraig Adler spoke first about his plan. Adler currently lives on a wooded lot in
Ellis Hollow and values the beauty of the lot in Cayuga Hills and would like to
preserve it. Adler had a survey made a
month ago which depicts the eastern third of the 2+ acre lot. Two small streamlets are either on the lot or
nearby, but he has not seen them flow to date.
Adler stated there is also an old railroad bed on the property where the
Health Department determined that the septic system should be built. Adler would like approval for a “window” for
the building location based on the zoning setbacks, railroad bed, intermittent
stream, and Health Department location of the septic system. This would allow architect Ernie Bayles the
flexibility for optimum placement of the residence. Cross addressed Adler and stated the proposed
“window” is not entirely consistent with the drawing given to Board
members. Cross noted that as proposed on
the large drawing presented by Adler at the meeting, the septic system flows
uphill. Cross also stated the small
drawing previously submitted by Addler with his Special Permit application
shows the 20-25 ft. railroad bed being within about 3 ft. of the deck and a
septic system must be 20-25 ft. from the residence. Adler stated the larger drawing is more
accurate and the small drawing was more to address issues concerning the front
of the residence. Hickey stated the
Health Department must approve the placement of the septic system.
Hickey felt tonight the Board would give Adler some
direction with regard to the proposed “window”, the position of the proposed house,
garage and driveway, and landscaping.
Hickey and Board members were concerned about the number of trees with
blue tape around them and did not want to see all of them removed. Adler is uncertain why they were marked in
such a fashion but they are not all slated for removal. Bayles stated they were marked as such only
for cataloguing purposes.
Hickey then addressed the concerns he and Cross have
regarding the location of the garage.
Their recommendation is to place the garage on the south end of the
house so it will not encroach on the drainage easement and the driveway would
also not encroach on the easement. Cross
stated the driveway as shown would also require the removal of some of the
guard rail at the road. Bayles stated
that since the slope was over 23%, he determined the garage would be better on
the north side. Klepack questioned why
there needed to be a circular driveway.
Bayles stated a circular driveway was proposed to provide easier access
if the Village would allow it to be built in the drainage easement area, but if
this is not allowed, there would be a single driveway. Adler felt the proposal for a circular
driveway would be advantageous because those visiting the residence would not
have to park on the roadway.
Hickey asked if the residence were moved forward to the 40
ft. setback line so that the garage encroached into the setback area, would
that improve the slope calculations.
Adler confirmed that it would.
Hickey stated a variance would be required and the Board might be more
supportive if bringing the garage closer to the road reduced the impacts on the
steep slopes, the drainage way and the guard rail. Hickey stated this would also allow for more
distance between the residence and the septic fields and would protect the
slopes in this area better as well.
Board members were in agreement with this recommendation to move the
residence forward on the property.
Hickey reiterated that the Board would not allow the residence or
driveway to encroach on the drainage easement; that it prefers the garage on
the south end of the residence; that it does not support the second driveway;
and that it would support the garage portion of the residence being moved
forward into the 40 ft. front yard setback.
Hickey stated a Landscape Plan will be required and that
it must indicate trees being removed and what they are being replaced with, as
well as shrubs to hold soil, and the applicant’s intentions regarding clear
cutting on the west end of the lot to gain lake views. Adler stated about 8 large trees would be
removed. Stycos asked about the
possibility of having the garage under the residence. Bayles stated the height of the garage is
defined by the height of the road; the driveway would be too steep if the
garage were under the house.
Dubow drew the Board’s attention to the documentation distributed by Curtis prior
to the meeting regarding this lot and the subdivision. Dubow stated there was a lot of environmental
review when the subdivision was originally approved and conditions were
developed for construction such as that being proposed. Hickey stated it was a condition of the
subdivision approval that a Special Permit from the Planning Board would be
required for construction on this and similar lots.
Cross spoke of the specific requirements for the drainage
plan. Cross stated the sheet flow from
east to west would be intercepted at the east side of the railroad bed and
would then go south into an existing drainage way. Cross would like to see this drainage plan
drawn and analyzed in detail. The septic system must be designed so as not to
block the natural flow of the water across the site or to cause pooling on the
site.
Hickey opened the Public Hearing. As there was no one present wishing to speak,
Dankert moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded by Klepack. All aye.
Leopold asked if the intermunicipal sewer agreement is
settled. In the DEIS the old railroad bed has been proposed for the most likely
route for a sewer main in this area.
Hickey stated if the main line goes through that area, the private
septic systems and sand filters would be removed and residents would be
required to hook up to the sewer system.
Dubow read the condition previously established which required the
developer to grant an easement for sewer and water lines which would be placed
in the railroad bed and homeowners would be required to hook up.
Curtis asked for clarification as to the location of the
house and garage should the applicants decide to pursue a variance from the BZA
at the BZA’s November or December meeting.
Hickey responded that it would, at a minimum, be based upon the distance
determined by the Health Department for the septic system to meet their
standards. Adler stated the distance is
nine feet. Curtis stated the variance
could be for a distance not to exceed ten feet but the final figure would be
determined when a final plan is submitted.
Dubow stated when the application is deemed to be
complete, then a 62 day deadline would begin for Planning Board review unless
an extension is granted by the applicants in written form. Dubow stated that in light of the preliminary
nature of the proposal and the nature of the comments and suggestions made,
tonight might be considered to be a Public Hearing prior to another Public
Hearing if the Planning Board determined that another Public Hearing would be
useful.
Cross felt the septic system being installed first might
be wise in order to minimize disturbance of the site. This will be discussed at a later date
between Cross and the applicants. It was agreed that the applicants will use
the input received at the meeting and proceed further with a more detailed site
plan to be presented to the Board at a subsequent meeting.
Public Hearing,
Final Plat Approval, Dart Subdivision:
The second item on the agenda was a Public Hearing for
Final Plat Approval of the Dart Subdivision, a minor subdivision dividing the
37.73 acre lot known as 89 Graham Road into a 5.278 acre building lot and the
residual parcel. The lot is located in
the Medium Density Residential District, Tax Parcel No. 46.1-1-6.
Jim
Ross who will own the 5.278 acre lot gave the presentation showing the large
parcel and the smaller parcel. The barn
and trees would remain as is and a residence added.
Hickey
opened the Public Hearing. As there was
no one present who wished to speak, Klepack moved to close the Public
Hearing. Seconded by Dankert. All aye.
Curtis
stated that to meet the requirements of the Subdivision Law a plat will be
required which shows the full parcel with all the boundaries. Curtis stated the final plat must show all
the dimensions of the entire parcel rather than just the smaller 5+ acre
parcel. Curtis has notified Jim &
Nancy Ross of this requirement. Dubow
stated this information is needed on the final plat before the final plat can
be signed by the Planning Board Chairman.
Dubow also stated that the Village passed a law in 2000 listing
additional Type II actions which do not require a SEQRA Review and a minor
subdivision such as this one was included as an exempt action. Hickey also noted that the Planning Board has
received a 239 Review dated 10/10/03 from the County and there are no negative
comments. Curtis stated the applicants
will be back at the next meeting as the residence they are proposing to build
on the smaller lot will be within 200 ft of the stream. Dubow reiterated that
the survey would need to be of the entire parcel including the portion in the
Lansing School District in addition to the portion in the Ithaca School District,
if the deed confirms that the land has been conveyed as one parcel,. Dubow would recommend the entire survey be
done at the same time as the survey on the 5+ acre parcel.
Dankert
moved to approve the Dart Subdivision as a minor subdivision contingent on
submittal of a plat with all the necessary metes and bounds subject to the
approval of the Village Attorney.
Seconded by Stycos. All aye.
Open Space Report Plan,
Initial Discussion – Leopold, Stycos & Wolf:
Hickey
stated the remainder of the meeting would be a presentation by Kathryn Wolf of
Trowbridge and Wolf on the Open Space Plan .
Wolf
described the project briefly, reviewed what the committee of Leopold, Stycos
and herself has done, and noted the steps to be taken in the future. The purpose of the Open Space Protection Plan
is to serve as a guide for open space protection and preservation in the
Village of Lansing. Four aspects of the
plan provide 1) a document that
illustrates and inventories open space; 2)
identifies lands of high open space value; 3) identifies priorities for open space
protection; and 4) identifies strategies
for open space protection. The plan will
serve as a guide for municipal officials.
Wolf
showed maps of inventoried space in the Village which has since been categorized
or prioritized and mapped. The committee
feels it is now up to the Board to determine how to proceed.
Wolf
showed the open space inventory on a map based on the County GIS. Wolf stated that existing zoning districts
were also mapped, as well as subdivisions in progress and DEC wetlands. Forested areas, brush, and agricultural lands
were also depicted. Public water and
sewer systems are depicted on the map with existing as well as potential sewer
mains.
Another
color-coded map showed an analysis of the open space with wetlands and
agricultural soils. Wolf indicated that
the best agricultural soils in the Village already have development on
them. She also advised the Board that
areas like Pittsford NY have used the purchase of development rights to protect
valuable agricultural soil areas.
It
was explained that the committee looked at all existing open space in the
Village based on aerial photography.
Lands already protected were identified.
Maps were further refined to show parks, bike lanes, greenway paths, and
historic registry sites (Greystone Inn, Colonial Veterinary and 86 Oakcrest
Road). Hickey recommended cemeteries be
added.
The
committee then reviewed criteria for prioritizing land for preservation. Land preservation can be broken into four
categories of land: 1) agricultural
resources, 2) scenic resources (vistas), 3) ecological resources (wetlands,
steep slopes, streams, ponds and wooded areas), and 4) historic and cultural
resources. Hickey felt the Henslow
Sparrows on Sun Downs Farm should also remain protected and wondered if the
presence of unusual species should be a criteria. Wolf stated wildlife habitat could be an
added criteria. Stycos stated the
committee also discussed overlapping criteria.
Wolf
showed a map depicting agricultural resources.
The committee noted the farmland along E. Shore Drive extends into the
Town of Lansing and it will be difficult to protect that land at this time and
agricultural land may not be a useful criteria for the Village to include. Next, the committee reviewed scenic resources
primarily on the major roadways of North Triphammer Road and East Shore
Drive. The third criteria was ecological
resources to include Unique Natural Areas (UNAs), wooded areas, national and
DEC wetlands, slopes over 15%. Land that
met more than one of these criteria was then color-coded.
Wolf
then identified the principal tools for land protection: changes in zoning to be more restrictive,
conservation easements, purchase of development rights, transfer of development
rights, and land acquisition. Hickey
stated transfer of development rights would likely not be applicable to the
Village because there is very little developable property remaining to be
transferred in exchange for open space.
Wolf stated some of the things the Village could do would be to require
wetlands be mapped by developers; to increase protection of stream corridors;
to further restrict development on steep slopes; to adopt urban forestry
guidelines or regulations; etc. Wolf
will provide copies of sample restrictions used in other municipalities for
Board review.
The
committee is planning to have a public meeting to review the information
gathered thus far. Hickey would like to
see input from the public. Hickey stated
there are two or three major landowners in the Village who would be affected by
an open space policy and he will notify them.
The Board would like to see if residents are interested in this topic. Hickey would like to see the inventory
presented and then see what response there is.
Leopold would like to see a short presentation and then a question and
answer period. Leopold and Wolf will
coordinate a date for the public meeting.
Upcoming Events:
Oct. 14 Fingerlakes Land Trust Workshop at the
Library
Oct 14: Reception and tour of the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology
Oct. 30: Randall Arendt Open Space
Presentation in Canadaigua
Vision Statement &
Goals:
Hickey will put a notice in the Newsletter and the Vision and Goals will be on the Internet from Nov. 1-21 and residents will be asked to provide feedback. Paper copies will also be available in the Village Office.
Approval of
Minutes – Sept. 30:
Dankert
moved to accept the minutes of September 30th as revised. Seconded by Brown. All aye.
Reports:
Trustees: Brown stated there was no Board of
Trustees’ meeting.
Other Business as Time
Permits:
The Board discussed certain procedural matters related to
the Adler Special Permit. Since the
application was not complete, the Board could have waited and held the Public
Hearing after it was deemed to be complete.
This Public Hearing was held because the applicant desired feedback and
the Public Hearing was already publicized.
Hickey stated the Board might need to require materials to be submitted
ten days prior to a meeting or continue the discussion to a future meeting for
a final vote. Hickey and Curtis will review this. Dubow would recommend the Board be more
conservative with scheduling a Public Hearing until after the Board has
reviewed the materials. Hickey likes the
Public Hearing up front to hear the resident’s concerns but would feel
comfortable voting at the next meeting.
Curtis asked if it would be possible to adjourn a Public Hearing to the
next meeting and Dubow responded that it could be adjourned but should not be
done on a regular basis. Curtis stated
if anyone would like notification of meetings, he would gladly add them to his
e-mail/fax list of those requesting to receive the agenda when it is ready the
Friday before the meeting. All they have to do is contact him and give him
either an email address or a fax number.
Adjournment:
Klepack moved to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. Seconded by Stycos. All aye.