Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
Hickey noted for the record that he was designating Alternate Planning Board Member Piscopo to serve as an Acting Member in place of Stycos who could not attend the meeting.
Hickey then 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 Brown. All aye.
Lansing Trails 2 – Traffic
Report & SEQRA:
Hickey stated that he and Cross met with Tom LoTurco and
Tim Falkner of Clough Harbor Associates to review the Traffic Study. The last report which the Planning Board has
will be replaced tonight with a revised report. First, the Board will review
the new Traffic Study, then Part 1 of SEQRA, and finally Part 2 of SEQRA.
LoTurco distributed the revised Traffic Study to the
Planning Board . LoTurco also provided a
cover letter as requested as well as another letter to guide the Board.
Page 2 of the Executive Summary for the Traffic Study was
changed to include a portion of the traffic from Phase 1 of Lansing Trails in
the traffic generated that will affect the Bomax/Warren intersection. This projects 50% of the traffic going to
Page 3 references the detailed analysis (15-minute) of the
Warren Road/Bomax Drive/Post Office Driveway intersection determining levels of
service for each approach to the intersection.
This 15 minute analysis shows there is a level of service F only at the Post Office Driveway approach and
then for only one 15 minute interval.
The report also states that although the existing volumes meet the
warrants for installation of a traffic signal, this does not require the
installation of one. When
Page 9 explains the assumed distribution of the traffic in
Lansing Trails 1 with 50% of the traffic going to
Page 20 re-emphasizes that only the Post Office Driveway
is at level of service F and only for one 15 minute time period.
Figure 6 has been modified to show Lansing Trails 1 and 2
trips after the project is developed.
Hickey noted that the two charts on the right side must be added to get
the total traffic. LoTurco stated
Figures 8 & 9 have been changed to reflect the volume for both Lansing
Trails 1 & 2.
Hickey stated the numbers of vehicles exiting
Hickey feels the information is all present but some of it
is difficult to find. Cross stated in
his face to face meetings all his questions were answered and the report would
be acceptable although some of it is difficult to understand. Hickey suggested the report have a cover
sheet showing revisions in both September and October. Also Figure 7 needs to be revised with the
new numbers from the computation sheets.
Hickey asked for a motion to accept the Traffic Study
submitted by
Curtis then asked for the revised long form of SEQRA. LoTurco provided it to Planning Board
members. It was noted that the form has
not yet been signed by Ivar and Janet Jonson.
Changes were as follows: A1
changed from Rural (non-farm) to Residential (suburban); B1b changed to 29.45
acres initially and 29.45 acres ultimately; B1e changed to 100% plus or minus;
B1g has been changed to 70; B1h a zero was inserted under one-family initially;
B4 changed to 4.30 acres after the meeting with Cross and Hickey; B7b revised
to May 2005; B7c revised to end of 2006; B25 the box “No” was checked next to
City, Town, Zoning Board and submittal date to be determined; C3 added phrase
“pursuant to clustering authorization” at request of Mr. Dubow; C12 revised to
include the level of service at the Post Office with the corrected date.
LoTurco will get the SEQRA form signed as required and
delivered to Curtis.
The Board then reviewed SEQRA Part 2 as to the proposed
project impacts and their magnitude. Each of the questions in Part 2 was
reviewed by the Board and the responses, including (in all appropriate
instances) the level of impact determined by the Board were noted where
required.
As to question 20, although there has been controversy on
the project, Hickey noted there does not
appear to be public controversy about adverse environmental impacts. Concerns have, however, been raised about the
traffic and parkland so the box was checked “yes”.
Upon completion of the Board’s review of Part 2, Dubow
noted there were not any “potential large impacts” identified and therefore
Part 3 of the LEAF need not be completed.
Hickey noted it was the traffic study which has delayed the Board. Although the project has been proposed to be
built in a year and a half, it is difficult to determine a definite buildout
time due to many economic factors such as interest rates, the market, etc. Hickey stated it will be important to find
out from the applicant which phases will be built first, second, etc. and get
additional information about staging.
Klepack moved the following resolution, seconded by Brown:
WHEREAS:
A. This matter involves
consideration of the following proposed action: Preliminary plat approval of
the Lansing Trails 2 Subdivision, a major cluster subdivision dividing three
lots totaling 32.78 acres into 100 building lots for zero lot line townhouses
and single family homes. The lots to be
subdivided are east of the Lansing Trails 1 Subdivision and west of Borg Warner
and the Bomax Business Park, and are located in the Medium Density Residential
District, Tax Parcel Nos. 45.1-1-50, 51.2 and 113; and
B. This
proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the
C. The
Village of Lansing Planning Board and applicant have undertaken a lengthy and
extensive sketch plan review process involving this action with significant
public participation and input, followed by the grant of approval by the
Village Board of Trustees for the proposed cluster development, all of which
(i) involved significant review of environmental issues and considerations and
(ii) resulted in modifications to the proposed subdivision and the inclusion of
mitigating measures deemed necessary and appropriate; and
D. On
June 29, 2004 and September 28, 2004, the Village of Lansing Planning Board, 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”), (i)
pursued its thorough review of 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, and (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),
whereupon at each such time it identified certain revisions and corrections to
be made by the applicant and identified certain traffic and other issues to be
further addressed, evaluated and supplemented with additional information;
E. On
October 11, 2004, the Village of Lansing Planning Board, in continuing to
perform 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”), (i)
extended its thorough review of 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 (all as
revised, corrected and supplemented), (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, Part 1, 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, such Negative Declaration to be deemed final upon (i) the applicant providing the previously submitted traffic study in final form, redated as of October, 2004 and reflecting all of the corrections cited by the Village of Lansing Planning Board and agreed to on behalf of the applicant by its consulting engineers, and (ii)
the applicant providing the
previously submitted Full EAF in final form,
dated as of October 11,
2004, reflecting the determinations made by the
Village Planning Board in
Part 2 thereof, and executed by the applicant as
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.
The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
AYES: Phil
Dankert, Doris Brown, Ned Hickey, Carol Klepack, John Piscopo
NAYS: None
LoTurco will provide the revised and signed documents to
Curtis. Hickey stated a Public Hearing
will be required as part of the preliminary plat review . Dubow noted that the Board has 62 days to
hold a Public Hearing unless there is an extension requested by the applicant.
Urban Forestry Regulations:
Brown provided information to Board members regarding
urban forestry taken from the International Society of Horticulture. The material gave ideas of how to protect
large trees and private trees, planting of trees in ROWs, protection of public
trees, etc.
Brown
asked about a local law to protect trees on private property and then extending
it to include trees on public ROWs.
Dubow stated it is always possible to amend the Zoning Law as currently
adopted to include additional provisions or restrictions. Hickey stated he is encouraging
Superintendent of Public Works Dennis Reinhart to attend classes with the City
of
Hickey
stated this should not take priority over the Comprehensive Plan and reminded
members that changes to each of their sections should be given to Willard. Then, the Board could proceed with urban
forestry which may be a long term project.
Hickey recommended Board members review all materials and jot down ideas
as to what the Village should be doing to protect existing trees and/or
encourage planting additional trees.
Curtis was also requested to provide background on the problems he has
encountered regarding tree removal on private property. Curtis stated community support will be
needed to make this happen; Hickey recommended someone from the Community Party
be placed on the committee to maintain contact with concerned residents. Hickey noted the
Klepack
would like to get more information on the cutting of trees and the effect on
erosion control and slope stabilization.
Carl Leopold recommended an ecologist as a good resource.
Reports:
Board of Trustees: Leopold reported that Fisher Associates
have issued a notice to proceed for
Approval of Minutes – Sept.
28th:
The
minutes for the September 28 meeting were not yet ready for the Board’s review.
Other Business
as Time Permits:
Brown
expressed her concerns about the increase in the amount of traffic on
Adjournment:
Dankert moved to adjourn at 9:50 P.M. Seconded by Piscopo. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and Piscopo. Motion carried.