Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
Hickey opened the Public Comment period.
As no one wished to speak, Stycos moved to close the Public Comment period. Seconded by Brown. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hiceky, Klepack and Stycos. Motion carried.
Public Hearing, Special
Permit No. 1974, Remillard Addition, 1510 E. Shore Dr.:
Hickey
stated the next item on the agenda was a Public Hearing for Special Permit No.
1974, Fred Remillard to construct a 624 sf addition on his existing single
family home at 1510 East Shore Drive in the Low Density Residential District,
Tax Parcel No. 42.1-1-46.11. A Special
Permit is required pursuant to Section 202.12 of the Lansing Zoning Law because
the addition is proposed in a location designated as a Unique Natural Area by
the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (EMC) and because the lot
includes land with slopes of 15% or greater.
Fred
Remillard addressed the Board first stating he has been a resident of Ithaca
since 1980 and a Village resident since 1991.
Remillard has submitted an application for a small addition to his
residence. Both neighboring parcels are
undeveloped. Remillard owns 12 acres
which are primarily in natural vegetation with a maintained pond. There is also a 5-6 acre mowed area between
the road and the residence. He gave
pictures to Board members to show the area, the house and the proposed location
of the single story 26 x 24 addition.
The farthest point of the extension was staked in the photographs for
the Board to review. Remillard does not
feel his addition will cause a problem in any way.
Hickey
opened the Public Hearing.
Edmund
Cranch, Trustee of the property to the south of Remillards spoke next. Cranch wanted to find out the definition of a
Unique Natural Area. Hickey stated it is
a designation by the Tompkins County EMC which has identified the area as
having some special natural feature such as slope, soil, bird habitat,
biological corridor, etc.. The County
designated these areas as Unique Natural Areas (UNA) and they anticipated that
the municipalities in which these UNAs were located would pass legislation to
protect them as the Village has done.
Hickey stated the Village is concerned about steep slopes, trees and
ground cover, wildlife, etc. in this area.
Dubow stated the Village has created more specific and more restrictive
provisions regulating what can be done in these areas. If Remillard desired to construct an addition
in the area and it was not a UNA, he would just need to apply for a building
permit and meet the building code requirements.
Since it is in a UNA, a Special Permit is required and conditions must
be met where applicable. Dubow stated
this area is considered an overlay or combining district since it is regulated
both as a residential district as well as a UNA and steep slope district. The Board must review the project applying
the General Conditions applicable to all Special Permits as well as review the
special environmental issues applicable to steep slope and UNA areas. Dubow stated the review would be limited but
environmental issues would be addressed and the Board would review all
materials including the information submitted by architect Ernie Bayles and
would make a determination.
Cranch
wanted to know the environmental parameters of the UNA where Remillard’s
property is located. Leopold stated the
parameters are spelled out in a hefty document that was produced by the
Tompkins County EMC which is a county advisory board. There were several hundred areas designated
as UNAs when the report was completed about 20 years ago and an update has been
completed since then. Sites were
selected on many criteria and they vary from site to site. Leopold stated the lakewatch areas are unique
in that they have magnificent views, steep slopes, thin soils and rocky
outcrops as well as unique plant and animal habitats. They are often fragile and are not easily
developable and may have aesthetic value.
Leopold stated the areas are unique and natural and are thus
designated. Leopold stated each specific
area was evaluated on site and the document listing each site could be reviewed
by Cranch if he thought that would be helpful.
Cranch
wondered where the 15% slope would apply to Remillard’s property and what
environmental parameters would apply.
Dubow responded that for steep slopes, the Board needs to address slope
stability. Using information provided by
the architect and Village engineer, the Board will determine if there might be
an adverse impact on the slope if development were to occur. If so, measures would be required to protect
the slope. Hickey stated 15% slope is
the point where the Board needs to provide review. On a 25% slope, building can not occur. Klepack stated this addition does not appear
to be on the 15% slope but there are 15% slopes on the parcel.
Cranch
asked when the review of the 15% slope would occur. Hickey responded that the Village Engineer
visited the site earlier today and the Architect was previously informed of the
Village’s requirements and took the 15% slope into account when he designed the
addition. Hickey stated Curtis has also
visited the site. Hickey also
recommended that Cranch check with the Village Clerk and obtain a copy of the
Zoning Law. Curtis stated the map behind
him also depicts the UNAs.
There
being no one else who wished to speak, Klepack moved to close the Public
Hearing. Seconded by Dankert. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and
Stycos. Motion carried.
Board
members thanked Remillard for the photographs which were helpful.
Engineer
Cross noted the size of the addition is relatively small in relation to the
size of the lot and residence. The
actual footprint of the addition will not require trees or overgrowth to be
removed as it is currently a deck and lawn area and there would be a small
impact. The roof drains go underground
and the discharge should pose no additional problems. Cross stated prior to the issuance of a
building permit, as a generic condition, the site plan submittal should
indicate the actual location of the erosion control measures. Curtis stated he usually requires silt fences
to be in place and approved by the Village Engineer prior to excavation and
Cross was agreeable to this.
Curtis
stated this is an exempt action under SEQRA and that he has received the Proof
of Mailing. Curtis stated the Village
has also received the County 239 Review which determined that the project would
have no negative impacts from the County’s perspective.
Dubow
stated this is exempt under SEQRA because it is a Type II action and does not
require a review. However, since it is
in a UNA and steep-slope area, Village regulations require an environmental
review.. The Board then completed an
environmental review using Part II of the short EAF as a guideline. All answers were “no” but a note will be
added to C1 to indicate an erosion control plan approved by the Village
Engineer will be required.
The
Board then reviewed the General Conditions for all Special Permits to confirm
that General Conditions a – j have been met by the applicant. Moved by
Stycos. Second by Klepack. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and
Stycos. Motion carried.
Dankert
moved the following resolution, seconded by Brown:
VILLAGE OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVAL ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 26, 2004
WHEREAS:
A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: Special Permit 1974, Fred Remillard to construct a 624sf addition on his existing single family home at 1510 East Shore Drive in the Low Density Residential District, Tax Parcel No. 42.1-1-46.11. A Special Permit is required pursuant to Section 202.12 of the Village of Lansing Zoning Law because the addition is proposed in a location designated as a Unique Natural Area by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council and because the lot includes land with slopes of 15% or greater.
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.
The
Village Zoning Officer has determined that the proposed action is not
large-scale and therefore is not subject to a full and extensive environmental
review under the Village of Lansing Zoning Law;
D.
On
October 26, 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
in support of this proposed action, including information and materials related
to the environmental issues, if any, which the Board deemed necessary or
appropriate for its review, (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
E.
On
October 26,, 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), (iii) any applicable
conditions required for uses within a Combining District (Village of Lansing
Zoning Law Section 305), and (iv) any environmental issues deemed necessary
and/or appropriate;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOW:
1. The Village of Lansing Planning Board hereby
(i) determines that the environmental information and materials submitted by
the applicant and the detail thereof are reasonably related to the scope of the
proposed project, (ii) waives the necessity for any additional environmental
information otherwise required, and (iii) finds that the proposed project will
not have a significant adverse impact on the environment;
2 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
3. It is hereby determined by the Village of
Lansing Planning Board that Special Permit No. 1974 is granted and approved,
subject to the following conditions and requirements:
Approval by the Village Engineer of the implementation of erosion and sedimentation plan prior to excavation.
The
vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
AYES: Phil
Dankert, Doris Brown, Ned Hickey, Carol Klepack, and Maria Stycos
NAYS: none
The
motion was declared to be carried.
Spitsberg Subdivision:
Hickey
stated the next agenda item was an update on the Spitsberg Subdivision. Curtis stated a DEC representative and one
from the Army Corps came down and visited the property. It is their preference that the stream not be
moved. Spitsberg is working with Engineer Gary Wood to modify the plan. Curtis does not see this as a major
problem. The detention pond will also
move from the SW corner of the property to the SE corner which will require a
DEC waiver. The stream has stabilized
where it is now and it would be less of a disruption if the stream were not
moved. When a revised plan is developed,
Spitsberg will return to the Board.
Cross stated he has spoken with Gary Wood in the past and encouraged him to consider
this option. Cross stated there is
little Spitsberg can do to improve the situation as it currently exists but it
is important not to make it worse. Dubow
stated the Board will need to determine later if this is a major or minor
amendment to the previously granted conditional final plat approval.
Bomax Subdivision:
Hickey
stated he and Curtis met with Bob Dean about the Bomax Road. Legally, it appears that Dean is not required
to finish the road until the Bomax Subdivision is completed. Hickey has a gentleman’s agreement with Dean,
however, that Dean will finish the road and install the sidewalk when they are
needed for Phase 2 of Jonson’s subdivision.
Dubow stated if and when the Board approves the Lansing Trails
Subdivision in final form, one of the conditions will be that the connection to
Warren Road be provided. Dubow stated
the Village might need to condition the issuance of building permits and final
Certificates of Occupancies on achievement of specific levels of completion of
the road. Hickey stated the roads for
Jonson’s subdivision should be done in conjunction with Bomax Drive. Binder coats could be done early in the
project and the final coat and sidewalks completed later after most of the
heavy construction traffic was done.
Dubow stated it made sense then to have Dean make a formal Offer of
Dedication for the entire road. Klepack
noted another condition for approval might be to have construction vehicles
enter and exit from Bomax Drive and not Lansing Trails I.
Regulation of Political
Signs:
The next item on the agenda was requested by Curtis who
had recently received a call regarding political signs in the Village. A resident called because of a political sign
which was installed in front of her rental unit. It was determined that the owner of the
complex had not approved the installation of the sign and when informed of the
problem the owner had the sign removed and a policy set that there would be no
political signs erected on the property.
This issue caused Curtis to reread Article V, Section 4 of the Sign Law
which states signs may be erected for no more than 30 days and must be signed
and dated. Curtis said other
municipalities have been reviewing their legislation on such signage, and that
there had been controversy and threatened litigation. In the Village, ROWs are owned by the Village
and signage is often placed there. Superintendent of Public Works Reinhart has
the authority to remove signs in the Village’s ROW if they are a problem. Realtors have also been notified in the past
to remove their signs. There was
discussion about what other municipalities in the County were doing about such
signs. Dubow stated this is a concern
throughout the country, especially this year.
Hickey felt that possibly the signs could be allowed for a 60 day limit. Cross stated that Cayuga Heights ordinance
states signs are allowed for 30 days and then must be removed and may be
re-installed only after 11 months. Another option is to regulate signs only
within the Village ROWs. At present the
consensus is to do nothing until after elections and place it on a future to-do
list. Dubow stated some ordinances are
difficult to enforce..
Tompkins County
Comprehensive Plan – Future Development Scenarios
Hickey stated there is a paragraph on page one which was
troublesome to both Curtis and himself.
The County has designated both an urban center and a suburban center for
the County. The report stated the
suburban center consists of the core areas of the Villages of Lansing and
Cayuga Heights. Hickey feels the B &
T Park should be included as a part of the core of the suburban center. Curtis does not feel the Village should be
depicted as “large-scale retail development, apartment complexes, and
moderate-density single-family residential development” as there are also major
employment centers such as the B & T Park, Borg-Warner as well as low
density residential development. Hickey
feels the Village should include the urban area from Craft Road to the Village
of Cayuga Heights line. Curtis stated
there is no acknowledgement that the Village is a place where residents both
live and work. Hickey feels the Village
should be included in the urban
core. Dankert felt
this is a draft and changes could be proposed.
Hickey stated there is a meeting on the Comprehensive Plan tomorrow
night, but doubted the Village would have much impact on getting it
changed. Dubow stated the Village might
want to go on record as having concerns about the language in the report. Dubow
stated that the report might mean that there are portions of the Villages of
Lansing and Cayuga Heights which would be urban in nature and would be suburban
cores to the urban center which is the City of Ithaca. Curtis stated there is no indication as to
where people go to work in the Village of Lansing. Dubow stated the report does not really
address where people go to work and this could be addressed or clarified with
the County if desired. After much
discussion, the Board concluded that this paragraph could be improved, but that
it was not that important in the County Comprehensive Plan and can be
interpreted in different ways.
Approval of Minutes – Sept. 28
Klepack had questions about the Millcroft Subdivision map
that appeared in the paper and if Hickey contacted Viola Miller. Hickey responded that he did not contact her
as Dubow has contacted her lawyer Michael May and the map has subsequently been
revised indicating that Phase I is now for sale and the master plan is subject
to “refinement”. The current map shows
only Phase I and the connection road is indicated. Dubow stated this is a move in the right
direction and addresses the Board’s concern that the other phases have not been
finalized.
Klepack
also has spoken to someone about Urban Forestry and was given the name of Tom
Whitlow as someone who is knowledgeable
about trees, slopes and soil erosion.
Klepack offered to contact Whitlow to see if he would speak to the
Board. Hickey thought this would be a
good idea and recommended the second meeting in November.
Klepack
asked Dubow if he had gathered background information on the requirements for lots
in the Cayuga Hills subdivision where special permits are required. Dubow stated he gathered the documents with
conditions for the development of these sites in the Beck Subdivision and
forwarded them to Curtis. Dubow stated
the Board’s recent review of the Adler
site was consistent with the original conditions. Hickey has visited the Adler site and was
satisfied with what he saw. Trees have
been removed and care has been taken to protect the site.
Leopold
noted that the minutes reflect topping of trees and she feels it is not an
option that is acceptable.
Klepack
moved to approve the minutes of September 28th as revised. Seconded by Stycos. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack, and
Stycos. Minutes approved.
Wood Thrush Hollow Road:
The Board discussed the road which connects Northwood
Apartments to Coventry Walk. There was
discussion as to whether the road name was ever adopted. Hickey moved to recommend the Board of
Trustees name the unnamed road from Northwood Apartments to Coventry Walk Wood
Thrush Hollow Road. Seconded by
Dankert. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey,
Klepack and Stycos. Motion carried.
Other Business
as Time Permits:
Hickey
provided Board members with a letter and report from the Community Foundation
of Tompkins County about the downtown Ithaca Business Improvement
District. Hickey feels the report
contains a lot of useful information and an extensive set of goals for the 24
block area.
Adjournment:
Klepack moved to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. Seconded by Stycos. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and Stycos. Motion carried.