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 Stycos. All aye.
Road Name Change – Millcroft
Subdivision:
Hickey stated he has received a letter from Robert Miller
regarding the Millcroft Subdivision requesting the change of name of
Public Hearing –
Special Permit No.1941, Lustick, 2nd Curb Cut,
The
next item on the agenda was a Public Hearing for Special Permit No. 1941, Susan
Lustick for a second curb cut to allow a circular driveway at her residence at
10 Pembroke Lane, in the Low Density Residential District, Tax Parcel No.
48.1-2-2.5.
Hickey
has visited the site and feels a second driveway is appropriate given the
constraints of the lot.
Klepack
stated she has not seen the site and asked why Hickey felt two driveways would
be better. Hickey responded that the
applicant desires to place many trees in the front yard. There is also not sufficient space in the
front yard to make a turnaround so vehicles can safely exit the residence
rather than backing out.
Hickey
opened the Public Hearing.
As
there was no one who wished to speak, Dankert moved to close the Public
Hearing. Seconded by Brown. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack, and
Stycos. Motion carried.
Stycos
questioned which direction the residence would be entered and exited. Stycos recommended entering from the bottom
driveway and exiting from the upper driveway due to the swing in the roadway. Hickey noted there are currently only two
residences on the road. The observation and suggestion have been made although
the Board can not dictate the direction of travel. Lowell Garner,
The
Board then reviewed the General Conditions for all Special Permits (Zoning Law
Section 304.05). For Item d, Hickey
noted that the circular driveway would allow the residents to take cars off
Pembroke Lane. Stycos moved that the
Board finds that the General Conditions a-j have been met by the
applicant. Seconded by Brown. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack, and
Stycos. Motion carried.
Curtis
noted this is an exempt action under SEQRA and he has received the proof of
mailing.
Dankert
Moved the following resolution, seconded by Klepack:
VILLAGE OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVAL ADOPTED ON JULY 27, 2004
WHEREAS:
A.
This
matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: Special Permit No.
1941, Susan Lustick for a second curb cut to allow a circular driveway at her
residence at 10 Pembroke, in the Low Density Residential District, Tax Parcel
No. 48.1-2-2.5.
B. The Village of
Lansing Planning Board, in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State
Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5, hereby determines that the approval of the
proposed special permit is a Type II action, and thus may be processed without
further regard to SEQR; and
C.
On
July 27, 2004, the Village of Lansing Planning Board held a public hearing
regarding this proposed action, and thereafter thoroughly reviewed and analyzed
(i) the materials and information presented by and on behalf of the
applicant(s) in support of this proposed action, (ii) all other information and
materials rightfully before the Board, and (iii) all issues raised during the
public hearing and/or otherwise raised in the course of the Board’s
deliberations; and
D.
On
July 27, 2004, in accordance with Section 725-b of the Village Law of the State
of New York and Sections 304, 305 and 306 of the Village of Lansing Zoning Law,
the Village of Lansing Planning Board, in the course of its further
deliberations, reviewed and took into consideration (i) the general conditions
required for all special permits (Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section
304.05), (ii) any applicable conditions required for certain special permit
uses (Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section 304.06), and (iii) any applicable
conditions required for uses within a Combining District (Village of Lansing
Zoning Law Section 305);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOW:
1. The Village of Lansing Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed action meets (i) all general conditions required for all special permits (Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section 304.05), (ii) any applicable conditions required for certain special permit uses (Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section 304.06), and (iii) any applicable conditions required for uses within a Combining District (Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section 305); and
2. It is hereby determined by the Village of Lansing Planning Board that Special Permit No. 1941 is granted and approved, subject to the following conditions and requirements:
None
The
vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
AYES: Phil
Dankert, Doris Brown, Edward Hickey, Carol Klepack, Maria Stycos
NAYS: none
The
motion carried.
10 Pembroke Lane – Landscape
Plan:
Hickey noted that the Pembroke Lane is located in a Unique
Natural Area (UNA) and there is concern about the trees which will be removed
for the construction of the house. There
are 9 trees which needed to be removed.
During the clearing of the land, 12 additional trees were removed. There are 23 trees in total which have been
removed and they must be replaced to maintain the forest cover in the UNA. Klepack felt the proposal (letter dated
7/23/04 from Trowbridge & Wolf) looks very effective although there are no
sizes indicated. Hickey stated he has
met with Garner about the trees to be planted and there is no final
determination as to exactly which location each tree will be planted. Hickey requested information be provided as
to what will planted and then the Board could set conditions as to the size of
each tree. After they are planted, the
Planning Board will confirm that they
are of the size and type required.
Hickey stated shrubs are not required and the deciduous trees will all
be of 2-3 inch caliper and the conifers 6-8 feet in height. Hickey noted that the 23 trees are all canopy
trees to replace those which were removed.
Garner stated the proposal is for 23 trees to be replaced in the first
year but it does not state canopy trees or which species. Garner stated 2 of the 23 trees are pines
which are dead or dying. Discussion
ensued as to whether the 23 trees to be replaced had to be canopy trees or
could be any type of trees. Klepack
noted that some of the replacement trees are witch hazels, dogwood, or redbud
which are not very big trees. Garner stated
the proposed trees are fairly deer resistant, especially the juniper and
spruce. Klepack would like to know from
the landscape designer why there are so few canopy trees. Garner stated the back yard is all canopy
trees and the owner would like some more light around the house without having
to remove any additional trees on the lot.
Wild flowers and lower trees are proposed to allow light to get to the
house. Hickey noted the long-range plan
is for the planting of 55 trees and shrubs over time. Garner noted that the back has existing
natural screening and they are proposing additional screening for the road in
front and the sides for the neighbors .
Many of the replacement trees will also be evergreens. Hickey noted the Board would check in a year
to confirm the number and size of trees are correct.
Klepack moved the approval of the Landscape Plan with the
condition that the canopy trees be at least 2-3 inch in diameter and evergreen
trees be 6 feet in height. Seconded by
Dankert. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey,
Klepack, and Stycos. Motion
carried.
Special Permit No. 1915,
Arleo Eye Institute – continued discussion:
The
next item on the agenda was a continued discussion for Special Permit No. 1915,
Arleo Eye Institute to construct a 21,680sf medical office building on the lot
on the northwest corner of Warren Road and Uptown Road in the Human Health
Services District, Tax Parcel No. 46.1-6-6.21.
Hickey
noted that there are two items the Board must complete. First, they must review and approve the
variable buffer strip landscape plan.
Secondly, they must go through the General Conditions for all Special
Permits. Hickey also noted the SEQRA was
approved at the last meeting.
Henry
Cesari, architect for the project, presented the variable buffer strip
landscape plan. Cesari stated plantings
have been laid out to include evergreens, flowering plants and deciduous
trees. Species were chosen to be deer
resistant and of the size and count required by the Zoning Law. Black Pine, White Spruce and Douglas Fir were
chosen for conifers. For deciduous trees
Oleasters were selected. Shrubs chosen were burning bush and bayberry. The
spacing for boundary trees was 1 tree for every 6 feet but these would be
staggered to create a better screen and provide adequate space between
trees. Hickey would like to know the
recommended spacing to provide screening without choking out the trees. Cesari responded that the Landscape Designer
stated the trees should be 8-10 feet apart depending on soil conditions. The plans call for 8 feet between the
staggered trees but at the time of installation they could be spaced slightly
wider to allow for growth.
Klepack
asked about the landscape plans around the building. Hickey stated that would be addressed at a
later time and the Board was only considering the buffer strip tonight.
Hickey
then read Zoning Law Section 104.21 for the requirements for a variable buffer
strip. For Item 1, Klepack noted that
deer like Douglas Fir and what does not survive will require replacement. Hickey noted that if the Landscape Designer
knows of an evergreen that is more
resistant than Douglas Fir, it may be substituted. Hickey noted that the conifers are to be at
least 6 feet in height and are proposed to be staggered. For Item 2, Cesari
stated that to meet the requirement they are proposing 55 conifers. Hickey noted that in addition to the conifers
they must plant deciduous trees and shrubs equal in number to at least 50% of
the number of conifer and that at least 50% of the deciduous trees and shrubs
must be at least 2-3” caliper. Cesari
noted that there will be 15 Oleasters of the required 2-3” caliper and 20
shrubs. O’Neill asked if the buffer
would still provide adequate screening when the evergreens grow taller and thin
out at the bottom. Hickey noted the
screen must be maintained in perpetuity even as the trees grow taller or die
out. Audience member John Sherbon noted
that when trees are staggered and light gets to the lower branches, their lower
branches will remain green.
Klepack moved to approve the Landscape Plan for the buffer
strip. Seconded by Brown. Ayes by Brown,
Dankert, Hickey, Klepack, and Stycos.
Motion carried.
Hickey asked about the dumpster area. Urda responded that the dumpster enclosure is
a 2-dumpster enclosure of a color to compliment the building with a 24x12 ft.
layout to provide room for 2 dumpsters with a center corridor between
them. The location will still be on the
northeast corner of the site and will not interfere with the easement. Curtis asked if Superior or anyone else had
reviewed the layout. Urda stated it will
be accessible to trucks to turn around as needed. The dumpster area will also be screened with
plantings.
Hickey
asked about the brush line which currently exists between the Arleo property
and Warren Road. Urda stated that
between the parking and road, there is a natural swale. The brush will be cleaned up and plantings
placed in that area similar to other landscaped berms in the area.
John Majeroni, Cornell Real Estate, spoke about the
right-of-way. He has met with a
representative of the applicant and the plan as drawn does not coincide exactly
with the easement granted Cornell University for access to Parcel B. The applicant was resistant to changing the
plan based on feedback from the Planning Board.
Specifically, the current plan has parking within Cornell’s
right-of-way. The easement includes
provisions to adjust the exact location of the right-of-way and Cornell would
be happy to adjust it, but it takes both parties to agree to such a change Hickey noted that he was incorrect at the
last meeting when he suggested that language on the plat rendered the easement
to be without effect. Hickey has since
learned from Curtis and Majeroni that the easement is still in force. Hickey has also received a copy of the
easement and feels the agreement must be worked out between the two
parties. Majeroni wants to know if the
Planning Board can legally approve a site plan that violates the terms of their
recorded easement. Architect Cesari had
additional plans showing the right-of-way.
Majeroni stated Cornell would be agreeable to amending the right-of-way
agreement to accommodate the proposed site plan. Dubow stated that if both parties are
agreeable, the Board can proceed and the two parties will work out the agreement
consistent with the application for the project. Hickey stated this can be a condition of
approval that the parties work out the agreement and a copy be sent to the
Village for their records.
The Board set the following conditions: Approval of Village Engineer of storm water
management plan, erosion control, parking and site work.; approval of a
lighting plan by the Lighting Commission; approval of a landscaping plan by the
Planning Board; approval by the Village Attorney of an agreement modifying the
easement for Parcel B and submission of letter of agreement and a site plan
showing the modified easement.
The Board then reviewed the General Conditions for all
Special Permits (Zoning Law Section 304.05).
Klepack moved that the Board finds that the General Conditions a-j have
been met by the applicant. Seconded by
Brown. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey,
Klepack, and Stycos. Motion carried.
Dankert moved the following resolution, seconded by
Klepack:
VILLAGE OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVAL ADOPTED ON JULY 27, 2004
WHEREAS:
B.
This
matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: Special Permit No.
1915, Arleo Eye Institute to construct a medical office building (originally
proposed at 24,150 sf, and subsequently modified to a reduced size of 21, 680
sf) on the lot on the northwest corner of Warren Road and Uptown Road in the
Human Health Services District, Tax Parcel No. 46.1-6-6.21.
C.
On April 27, 2004, the Village of Lansing
Planning Board initially reviewed the proposed action and the plans and
materials submitted by the applicant, after which it determined that the
proposed plans required modification and that further information and materials
were necessary;
D.
On
July 12, 2004, the Village of Lansing Planning Board held a public hearing regarding
the proposed action, and thereafter thoroughly reviewed and analyzed (i) the
modified plans (reduced to a 21,680 sf medical office building) and
supplemental materials and information presented by and on behalf of the
applicant in support of this proposed action, (ii) all other information and
materials rightfully before the Board, and (iii) all issues raised during the
public hearing and/or otherwise raised in the course of the Board’s
deliberations, after which it directed that final plans and materials be
submitted for approval;
E.
Also
on July 12, 2004, the Village of Lansing Planning Board determined that the
proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Board is an involved
agency, and in performing the lead agency function for its independent and
uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of the New York
State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review
Act (“SEQR”), the Board (i) thoroughly reviewed the Short Environmental
Assessment Form (the “Short 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), (iii) completed the Short EAF, Part 2;
and (iv) made a negative determination of environmental
significance (“Negative Declaration”) in accordance with SEQR for the above
referenced proposed action and determined that an Environmental Impact
Statement would not be required; and
F.
On
July 27, 2004, in accordance with Section 725-b of the Village Law of the State
of New York and Sections 304, 305 and 306 of the Village of Lansing Zoning Law,
the Village of Lansing Planning Board, in the course of its further
deliberations, again reviewed the plans and materials submitted and took into
consideration (i) the general conditions required for all special permits
(Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section 304.05), (ii) any applicable conditions
required for certain special permit uses (Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section
304.06), and (iii) any applicable conditions required for uses within a Combining
District (Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section 305);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOW:
1. The Village of Lansing Planning Board hereby
finds that the proposed action meets (i) all general
conditions required for all special permits (Village of Lansing Zoning Law
Section 304.05), (ii) any applicable conditions required for certain special
permit uses (Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section 304.06), and (iii) any
applicable conditions required for uses within a Combining District (Village of
Lansing Zoning Law Section 305); and
2. It is hereby determined by the Village of Lansing Planning Board that Special Permit No. 1915 is hereby granted and approved, subject to the following additional conditions and requirements:
1. Approval by the Village Engineer of storm
water management plan, erosion control, parking and site work.
2. Approval of exterior lighting plan by the
Village of Lansing Lighting Commission.
3. Approval of a landscape plan by the Village
of Lansing Planning Board.
4. Delivery to and approval by the Village Attorney of a written
instrument executed and duly acknowledged by the applicant and Cornell
University confirming their respective agreement to the relocation of the 24’
wide right-of-way reserved by Cornell University over the applicant’s property
and in favor of Cornell University’s adjoining parcel to the north, such agreed
upon right-of-way relocation to be depicted as required on all final site plans
and documents submitted by the applicant in conjunction with this special
permit approval. Such written instrument shall be in recordable form, and proof
of recording at the Tompkins County Clerk’s Office shall be delivered to the
Village Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permit(s) for
improvements on the applicant’s property.
The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
AYES:
Edward Hickey, Doris Brown, Carol
Klepack, Phil Dankert, Maria Stycos
NAYS:
none
The motion carried.
The Hamlet – Landscape Plan:
Next,
the Board needed to review and approve the Landscaping Plan for the
Hamlet. Hickey stated the previous plan
showed the pines used for screening spaced 20 ft. on center and the Board
required 15 ft. centers. The revised plan showed the pines spaced at 15 ft. on
center
Klepack had questions about the symbols on the plan and the numbers
of each type of tree to be planted, but there was no one present representing
the applicant to respond. Hickey asked Curtis to call the applicant to say the
numbers could not be resolved and a new copy with corrected information would
be required for the Board to proceed.
Approval of Minutes – June 29:
Klepack
moved to approve the minutes of June 29th as revised. Seconded by Brown. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack, and
Piscopo. Minutes approved.
Reports:
Trustees: Dankert stated there was
nothing important to relay to Board members as not much was done because there
were only three Trustees present.
Other Business as Time
Permits:
Hickey informed the Board that the County Transportation
Facilities Committee was meeting tonight and will hopefully discuss a light at
Bomax Drive. Hickey made a presentation
two weeks ago.
Hickey
noted the NYS Planning Federation is scheduled for September 19th at
Lake Placid. Last year, Curtis and
Piscopo attended. Interested members are
to notify Hickey by August 20th.
Hickey
has requested Clerk part-time Willard to compile the updates to the
Comprehensive Plan. Hickey is requesting
Board members to review all sections of the draft plan. This will be placed on the agenda for
September 13th. Curtis noted
he has spoken with County Planning regarding housing and there are some
suggestions which should be discussed by the Board as they relate to the basic
vision for the Village. Curtis will pull together the information on the
housing suggestions from the County and this will also be placed on the agenda
for August. Hickey stated the summary and implications should be supported by
the previous data so they should be reviewed carefully. Regarding the
transportation section of the document, O’Neill wondered if there was any more
current numbers for traffic counts.
Stycos stated the County was working on their computer system so she got
her information from Albany although she could try again to get more recent
information from the County prior to the next meeting. Hickey stated some of the figures could be
obtained from the Clough Harbour Report which would be more recent for Warren
Road. O’Neill also mentioned that Fisher Associates would have more current
numbers for N. Triphammer Road.
Adjournment:
Klepack moved to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. Seconded by Dankert. All aye.