Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
Hickey opened the Public Comment period.
As there was no one present who wished to speak, Dankert moved to close the Public Comment period. Seconded by Klepack. All aye.
Review of Subdivision and
Special Permit Procedures:
Hickey stated the Board would be reviewing policies and
procedures for various Board actions to better understand what steps they
should be following and where changes might be appropriate based on the Board's
actual experience. Hickey also
distributed the goals of the Board for review and updates.
First the Board reviewed the Subdivision approval
process. Hickey explained that he and
Curtis had spent a couple of hours reviewing this and Hickey subsequently made
a chart of the steps and time requirements.
The time requirements under the Village’s Subdivision Regulations are
generally for the Planning Board and require action within a specific time for
different steps in the approval process such as public hearing, final approval,
etc. Dubow stated there are also time
requirements for the developer such as that for Sketch Plans which states the
developer must have the Sketch Plan submitted to the Planning Board 12 days
prior to their regularly scheduled meeting.
The Planning Board has no time constraints, however, limiting how long
it has to review the Sketch Plan. For a
Minor Subdivision, the Board must hold a Public Hearing within 45 days of the
submission of the application including the plat. It must also act on the plat within 60 days
after the submission of the plat. Hickey
feels the submission date should be the date the application is complete. For a Major Subdivision preliminary plat,
within 45 days there must be a Public Hearing and action taken within 15 days
of the Public Hearing. Dubow noted there
are discrepancies as to the time requirements for submissions, Public Hearings,
and final approvals and these should be consistent. Curtis would like the Public Hearing to be
held early in the process to allow the Board to consider public input as early
as possible. The Board recommended that
the 60 day timeframe remain but the Public Hearing be held sooner than the
required 45 day timeframe. When the
Board determines how it would like to handle these matters, Dubow will draft
resolutions for amendments to the Subdivision Law for any proposed changes. For the Final Plat, the Board is allowed 45
days to hold a Public Hearing and 60 days after submission of the completed
application to make a decision. With the
proposed change already discussed, a Minor Subdivision, as well as Preliminary
and Final Plat approval for a Major Subdivision, will allow for 45 days for a
Public Hearing and 60 days for a decision after the application is
complete.
For
Special Permits, a decision must be made within 62 days of submission of a
completed application during which time the Public Hearing must also be
held. Hickey also noted that some
actions also require Board of Trustees approval. Klepack questioned if Special Permit
procedures should be amended to require the Public Hearing be held within 45
days to be consistent with the last discussion.
Dubow noted that the Board is allowed 62 days to have a Public Hearing
and another 62 days to make a decision.
Next, Hickey stated when he and Curtis met, they also
discussed Board procedures in regards to subdivisions and special permits. First, the applicant receives a checklist
from Curtis. Curtis then checks the
application for completion. Curtis and
Hickey will then hold an informal Developer’s Conference with the applicant. If the application appears to be complete,
the applicant then gets placed on the agenda and makes a presentation. The Board will review the application and may
hold a Public Hearing. Dubow stated the
first presentation could be a more formal developer’s conference to determine
if additional information is needed and then a Public Hearing could be
set. Discussion ensued as to when the
clock begins and when and how it is determined that an application is
complete. Curtis would like to see a
scoping step become a part of the process.
Hickey then reviewed what must be in an application. Article 500 of the Subdivision Law lists what
is required for each type of submittal. Additional information might be
required by the SEQRA process. A
complete application might also include information about the site related to
the Greenway Plan, a Recreation Land Plan, as well as an Open Space Plan. Hickey questioned whether an application is
complete when the requirements of Article 500 are met or is it at any point
further along the process. Dubow stated
the Public Hearing should be held after the application is totally
complete. Hickey suggested a public
information meeting in the process during the initial review rather than
relying only on the Public Hearing. The
application could then be determined to be complete after hearing concerns
raised by affected residents at the public information meeting and prior to the
Public Hearing phase. Klepack thought
she had learned in a workshop that the application can not be considered
complete until the initial SEQRA determination is made. Dubow stated that subsequent SEQRA
proceedings are normally completed along with the Public Hearing. After the Public Hearing, there would be
another scoping review, possibly due to information gathered at the Public Hearing. Discussion ensued as to whether a SEQRA is
performed after an application is submitted or after an application is
complete. Curtis stated sections could
be added under Article 500 of the Subdivision Law to add as information
required for a complete application “…such other information as may be
identified by the Planning Board in the course of their Sketch Plan
review”. Dubow stated some of the
required information is obtained in the Sketch Plan phase prior to the
submittal of an application. Dubow
stated the Sketch Plan for a subdivision is like a Developer’s Conference for a
Special Permit and the public may be allowed to participate at this stage of
the review via an informational meeting or a public hearing. This would all be done prior to the submission
of an application and start of the clock for SEQRA review. The applicant has 6 months to submit a plat
after the Sketch Plan approval. It was
determined that the Sketch Plan is only a part of the final completed
application. Curtis feels this process
will work but he would like to see it structured such that actions such as Home
Occupations, most Special Permits and simple Subdivisions could still be
handled in a timely manner. Hickey
recommended that the agenda include a public information meeting at Sketch Plan
review stage. Curtis also stated that for a major subdivision the adjoining
property owners should also be sent notice, but it would be needlessly
cumbersome to require supplementary notice for Minor Subdivision sketch plan
review. Minor Subdivisions are also
exempt under SEQRA. Dubow stated
separate documents are submitted for Sketch Plan, Minor Subdivision Plat, and
Major Subdivision Plat applications.
Hickey stated that meetings for Public Comment should be differentiated
from Public Hearings. Other methods for
informing the public would be through the Internet and Legal Notices in the
Ithaca Journal. Stycos would like to see
the notices placed in other locations.
Notices used to be posted at A & P, P & C, Pyramid Mall, and
other Triphammer mall locations but were often covered over or the bulletin
boards removed. A recommendation was
made to have notices posted at the Tops Markets and other locations in a glass
case maintained by the Village.
In Summary, Hickey stated that for a Minor Subdivision,
there be a Comment Period (without legal notice) for the Sketch Plan Review to
gather information followed by a Final Plat Public Hearing. For a Major Subdivision, notices will be
mailed to adjacent property owners for the Comment Period of a Sketch Plan
Review, as well as legal notices. Dubow
stated for a Major Subdivision, the
application will be considered complete for each stage of the process (sketch
plan, preliminary plat, final plat) when the requirements listed in Article 500
of the Subdivision Regulations are met.
Hickey stated that the suggested changes made after tonight’s discussion
include: Comment Periods to obtain
public input be included as part of Sketch Plan review, the phrase, “additional information as
required by the Planning Board” be inserted as a requirement for a complete
application under Article 500 for each stage of review, and the resolution to the time requirement
that an application be submitted 12 days prior to the meeting and the need for
Planning Board members to receive packets prior to the Friday of the scheduled
meeting. Klepack can see the necessity
of Curtis and the Engineer having info earlier in the process but feels the
Planning Board does not need the additional time. Dankert feels sometimes only a weekend is not
sufficient time to review the materials.
Brown and Stycos feels the 12 days should be adhered to. Board members agreed that packets should be
ready by the Wednesday prior to the meeting.
Curtis stated that in some cases additional time might be useful, but in
many others it would not be. If the Board feels it needs more time to consider
an application or needs more information it can adjourn its discussion to a
future meeting when it has what it needs to continue. In this way applications
can be handled on a case by case basis. If a County 239 Review is required, the
County Planning Department has 30 days in which to respond and in these cases
Curtis recommends that the applicant submit their applications well ahead of
time. Klepack noted she would like to
receive the review of the Village Engineer in the packet if possible rather
than at the meeting. Curtis stated that
materials must be in his office 7 days prior to the meeting in order for him to
advertise the Hearing in the newspaper.
Hickey recommended it be left to the discretion of Curtis, and Curtis
recommended language be included in the law to reflect this. Hickey stated the 12 days will remain in the
law and Curtis will determine the submission date. Dubow would encourage the Board members to
review this again. Hickey will contact
the Village Engineer to determine how much time he needs in order to complete a
review so his report may be included in the packets. Decisions can also be postponed if Board
members feel they have not had sufficient time to review a project or the
materials provided.
County Planning
Dept. 239 Agreement:
Hickey stated Board members have received the County Planning Dept. 239 Agreement information and he recalls a suggestion to add amendments to planned sign areas to the list of actions exempt from 239 review. Curtis wondered if the County would also include actions exempt under SEQRA as another category exempt from 239 review. Dubow suggested Curtis or Hickey call County Planning Commissioner Ed Marx and ask about this possibility.
Planning Board Goals Update:
Board members reviewed their goals. 1)
Complete the review of the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Still being worked on. Goal remains.
2) Develop a process for
assessing impacts on visual environment.
Working on open space plan. No
definition for visual environment.
Refers to valuable viewsheds, but there is no definition of a
viewshed. Includes SEQRA checklist. Goal remains.
3) Review Section 603 of Zoning
Law for permitted uses in CLT District.
Goal has been completed so it will be dropped. 4)
Investigate feasibility of enhancing architectural standards of CLT
Design Guidelines. Goal is difficult to
achieve. Continue to work on this. 5)
Prepare conceptual plans for redesigning intersection of Cayuga Heights,
Burdick Hill Rd. and Route 34. State has
ultimate control and has determined that no action is warranted so delete goal.
6) Evaluate need for traffic calming
measures on Dart Drive and future extension of Janivar Drive. Village has 3 traffic calming manuals from
conference. Wait until Board of Trustees
decides to act on Dart Drive. Planning
Board to provide input on traffic calming and sidewalks at that time. Delete goal for now. 8)
Develop guidelines for large parking areas in CHT District. Already completed. Might need to be adopted. Hickey to check. New goals:
1) Review and clarifying Planning
Board procedures. 2) Innovative ways to obtain open space.
Reports:
Open Space Strategies: Hickey & Stycos
Approval of
Minutes – December 8th:
Klepack
moved to accept the minutes of December 8th as revised. Seconded by Stycos. All aye.
Reports:
Trustees: Stycos
Stycos attended the Dec. meeting. First there was a Public Hearing regarding the Ithaca Wastewater Project. The Sewer Agreement was also discussed and all affected municipalities have signed it. Dubow stated there are additional agreements which are outstanding and must be signed by the Village and others. Stycos also stated that the Mayor reported that the auditors were satisfied with Village records.
Other Business as Time
Permits:
Stycos noted the new Zoning Map. Curtis stated it has been placed on the web by Trustee Fresinski and it has a zoom function and that enlarged maps of specific areas can be printed.
Adjournment:
Dankert moved to adjourn at 9:46 P.M. Seconded by Stycos. All aye.