Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
Acting Chairman Dankert opened the meeting and appointed Alternate Member John Piscopo as an Acting Member to fill the Planning Board vacancy tonight created by the absence of member Carol Klepack.
Dankert opened the Public Comment period.
As there was no one present who wished to speak, Stycos moved to close the Public Comment period. Seconded by Piscopo. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Piscopo and Stycos. Motion carried.
Public
Hearing: Special Permit No. 1991,
Anderson Additional Building:
The first item on the agenda was a Public Hearing for
Special Permit No. 1991, Joan and Stuart Anderson to convert an existing dog
kennel building into an additional residential building on a single lot which
would result in a total of three dwelling units at 1 Pembroke Lane in the Low
Density Residential Tax Parcel No. 48.1-2-2.1.
Regarding the proof of mailing, the applicant stated she
inadvertently forgot to bring them but would go get them. Dubow stated the Board could condition its
determination on receipt of the proof of mailing.
Dankert opened the Public Hearing. Brad Olson, 2 Cedar Lane, spoke first stating
he owns the property adjacent to 1 Pembroke Lane. The Olsons purchased their property in 1999
and carefully reviewed the deed restrictions indicating there was to be one
residence per lot with an additional provision that there might be one
apartment unit per lot not to exceed 30% of the size of the residence. Olson does not want to see the deed
restrictions altered in his neighborhood.
Olson stated the McLains previously owned the property at 1 Pembroke
Lane as well as the others in the subdivision and they are the ones who set up
the deed restrictions and benefited from the proceeds of the lots. Olson does not see why the restrictions
should be altered at this time by a Special Permit so he would like to go on
record that he and his wife are opposed to the permit. Dubow asked if Olson had a copy of the deed
or covenants and Olson responded he had a copy of the deed restrictions and
provided them to Dubow. O’Neill made
copies for Curtis and Dubow.
Dubow suggested this matter be adjourned because there
might be a dispute over deed restrictions and this should be resolved prior to
further discussion by the Board. Dubow
stated the Board would not be bound by the restrictive covenants but there might
be a private property claim that could be brought and the Board would prefer
not to be placed in the middle of such a dispute. The applicant might want to
do additional research to see if this application would or would not violate
restrictive covenants for the property.
Joan Anderson stated she was not aware of the deed restrictions. Anderson stated they have not yet bought the
property as the purchase is contingent upon their getting a variance (sic) and
she doesn’t know the legal ramifications of waiting until the next meeting
(Feb. 15th). Dubow stated one
general condition for a Special Permit is that it will not be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity or neighborhood. The Board may have trouble with that condition
as this may violate covenants other property owners in the vicinity are relying
upon and the Board would struggle with that issue and might ultimately deny the
application. Dubow would recommend the
applicant clarify the issue of the covenants first. Olson stated he can not be present on Feb. 15th. Dubow stated his comments will be reflected
in the minutes and he can submit additional materials in writing. Olson asked Curtis for a copy of the Zoning
Law with the applicable sections as well as a copy of the application. Dubow stated there is a special provision in
the Zoning Law which establishes special requirements for an additional
residential building on a single parcel.
Dubow stated it is Local Law 3-1999 that created that section. Curtis provided the essence of that law to
Olson. Olson also requested a copy of
the application. Brown moved to table
the application and to adjourn the public hearing to be continued at the
February 15, 2005 Board meeting.
Seconded by Piscopo. Ayes by
Brown, Dankert, Piscopo and Stycos.
Motion carried.
Public
Hearing: Proposed Revisions and Updates
to Comprehensive Plan:
The next item on the agenda was a Public Hearing to
consider proposed revisions and updates to the Village of Lansing Comprehensive
Plan.
Dankert opened the Public Hearing. Sorel Gottfried, 1016 Cayuga Heights Road,
addressed the Board first. Gottfried
stated she did not understand the purpose of the review. Dubow stated that the Comprehensive Plan must
be reviewed on a periodic basis and the Board of Trustees delegated this
process to the Planning Board. The
Planning Board will make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees and the
Board of Trustees will then hold another Public Hearing and will then adopt or
reject the revisions. Dubow stated there
was discussion at the last Board of Trustees meeting of how to compare the new
draft Comprehensive Plan with the old version to reflect the changes. O’Neill
stated he has made the comparison and there are only minor changes based on
demographics from the 2000 Census.
Dankert stated community services such as water and sewer were also
changed to update the new plan.
Gottfried stated she has concerns with the whole document, but this
might not be the time to air those concerns.
Gottfried felt affordable housing and green space were stressed in the
document, but feels more residents are concerned about traffic and this should
also be stressed. Dubow stated this is
the sort of input the Board is interested in receiving and Gottfried stated she
will submit her comments in writing, along with some picky comments and
questions. Gottfried felt there is a
conflict on the question of open space and density. To gain open space, the Village considers
clustering and increased density. Curtis
stated that clustering can not increase density. Dubow stated the maximum density is
calculated using the district zoning regulations for standard lots; clustering can not be approved for more than
that allowable density. Gottfried asked
if there are incentives which the Village can offer to encourage
clustering. Dubow stated there are
advantages for clustering such as lower infrastructure costs, but the Village
cannot increase the density on a property as an incentive to encourage
clustering. Dankert reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing was to
receive comment rather than debate an issue and suggested that the clustering
issue be discussed at another time.
Gottfried felt the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need
for affordable housing, townhouses and condos and these will perpetuate the
high density of housing in the Village.
This density is higher than in any other municipality in the County1. With complete buildout, there will be even
more traffic. There are also
inconsistencies in sewer proposals and many residents would like to see the
sewer go down East Shore Drive.
Gottfried would like to know if East Shore Drive can be widened to allow
for this. Dankert again stopped the
discussion and asked for comments rather than questions.
Gottfried again expressed concerns about traffic and would
like to see additional paragraphs about this concern in the Comprehensive
Plan.
In the section on permitted uses in the Commercial Low
Traffic district, Gottfried stated that Construction Sales/Storage is still
listed. Gottfried did not feel this
should remain after the big discussion the Board had previously when Home Depot
was proposed under this use catagory.
Curtis stated Construction Sales/Storage was redefined to be more
specific so that it did not include large retail businesses such as Home
Depot. Gottfried also questioned
retaining Undertaking as a permitted use in the Commercial Low Traffic district
and felt it should be reviewed with traffic in mind. Piscopo stated the Board does review traffic. Gottfried stated there needs to be more of an
emphasis placed on traffic management in this document. Gottfried stated the section of affordable
housing notes there could be more affordable homes in more densely developed
neighborhoods, but does not propose an approach for managing the traffic that
will result. Stycos stated the Board has
addressed open space and feels that clustering is one way in which to preserve
to some extent the rural nature of the Village.
Stycos also stated that traffic has been a concern of the Board and
feels there is not much which can be done about it unless zoning is
changed. Stycos also stated that there
is much development occurring to the north of the Village which generates traffic
and the Village has little control over this.
Gottfried stated maybe the Village needs to be thinking of
a location for another secondary road system to accommodate the higher levels
of traffic when the Village is built out.
1While the percentage of
housing in buildings with 5 or more units fell from 71.2 percent of housing in
1980 to 55.8 percent of housing in 2000, the next highest such concentration in
2000 was the City of Ithaca with 38.1%; in Tompkins County as a whole it was
20.3%. – U.S. Census
Gottfried will provide Curtis with written comments,
typos, etc.
Susan Lustick, 10 Pembroke Lane, stated that for the long
term, a community needs to encourage the residents to walk and bike. While much of the traffic is from others
entering the Village for goods and services, internal traffic can be reduced by
accommodating pedestrians and bikers.
Lustick also stated that, based on her experience in the real estate business, many of the younger
generation buyers are looking for denser areas because they want neighbors.
Valerie Gyrisco, 36 Twin Glens Road, wanted to see public
transport encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan as there is not much in the
Cayuga Heights Road area. Dankert noted
the Village could only be an advocate for additional services as this is a
county-wide endeavor. Dubow stated one
of the challenges in working on a Comprehensive Plan is that, as an example,
for every resident who wants bus service in their neighborhood there is
probably another resident who does not want it in their neighborhood. There are also buyers who want greater
density and there are those who want lesser density. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to
help the Village review what has happened over the years and helps the Boards
by serving as a foundation for decision making in the Village. Lustick stated it might be time to determine
if is realistic to view the Village as rural in nature; many changes have
occurred since the Village was formed and it may no longer be practical to
treat the Village as a rural community.
There being no one else who wished to speak, Stycos moved
to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by
Piscopo. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Piscopo
and Stycos. Motion carried.
Dankert thanked the audience for their comments and stated
the Board would be appreciative of any additional written comments.
Lansing Trails 2
– Review Preliminary Plat Submittal:
Tom LoTurco, engineer for Clough, Harbour & Assoc.,
made a brief presentation and provided for the Board’s review revised plans
with the sixteen items addressed that the Subdivision Law requires to be on the
plans. Dankert stated after the Board
has reviewed the materials and feels comfortable with the items, then a Public
Hearing would be scheduled.
LoTurco stated there are sixteen items in Section 503.01 of
the Subdivision Law which must be on a preliminary plat and must be fulfilled
prior to approval by the Planning Board.
Item 1: Subdivision name, owner,
scale, engineer, date and seal are on C-4.
Curtis stated the name of the town should also be included. Item 2:
Name of adjacent subdivision and property owners is noted on C-4 as well
as C-3. Item 3: Zoning District is noted on C-4. Curtis stated the Airport Combining District
is not depicted. Dubow stated this may
change in the future but presently it is in existence and the line for it
should appear. Curtis also noted that
the Conservation Combining District for the stream also needs to be
indicated. Curtis stated the Zoning Map
indicates the streams which are included in the Conservation Combining District
and one of these is in this subdivision. Dubow stated it is good to have both
noted as the overlay districts each have specific conditions. On another matter, Cross stated the grid
lines on the plans are very confusing.
Curtis was in agreement. LoTurco
stated they could be removed. Item 4:
dedicated land for public use is depicted as park area as well as storm
water management in two spots. All open
space will be managed by the future Homeowner’s Assoc. Item 5: existing property lines are indicated
on C-4, as well as easement lines. Dubow
noted that Aylas Way should be changed to Ayla Way as that is the name the
Board of Trustees approved. Curtis noted
that the clouding used to denote the wooded areas was reversed and this should
be corrected as it makes the plans difficult to read. LoTurco stated single trees with diameters in
excess of 6 inches are not yet included on the plans but will be when someone
can inventory them. Dubow stated the
Board can waive this requirement for the preliminary plat, but make it a
condition for the final plat. Dankert stated the number of significant trees to
be removed establishes a basis for the number which must be replanted. Dubow also noted that the requirement can be
amended. After some discussion the Board agreed that only trees 8” in diameter
or greater need be shown and only where they are proposed to be removed or
where they are in hedgerows. Hedgerows must be specifically delineated as
well. LoTurco stated this information
will be provided. Item 6: the infrastructures (existing sewers, water
mains, and culverts) of the project which are to be depicted. LoTurco stated there is currently no
infrastructure existing on the property as shown on C-3. Item 7:
existing contours are shown on C-3 and C-4 and the proposed contours are
on C-16, C-17 and C-18. Item 8: width and location of proposed streets are
shown on C-4 and C-5 shows all the dimensions.
Curtis stated the Comprehensive Plan includes the Greenway Plan and that
section which is proposed in this subdivision should be incorporated on the
plan. Curtis will provide a copy of the
Greenway Plan to LoTurco so the Greenway Trail can be indicated. Item 9:
approximate location of all water lines, valves and hydrants as well as
sewer lines are shown on C-4. Profiles
are also shown on C-7 through C-11 and C-12.
Curtis stated a legend would be useful for referencing. One was located on C-2 for the entire
document. Item 10: storm water drainage is on C-12 and
C-13. A report was also submitted with
details. Curtis asked about foundation drain installations so runoff from
higher lots does not adversely impact lower lots. LoTurco stated the grading plan on C-16 and
C-17 should address this. Cross stated
C-26 shows the swales and is generic and does not address particular lots. LoTurco stated the contractor will see this
page and grading will be addressed.
Cross stated this might be a condition for approval. Curtis stated drainage from individual lots
must be channeled to the municipal storm
water management system and drainage easements may be required between
properties to ensure an unobstructed path for such drainage regardless of the
order in which the parcels are developed. LoTurco will review the plans and
provide easements where needed. Cross will monitor this issue as the project
progresses. Item 11: location of sidewalks, water mains, sanitary
sewers, and manholes are on C-4.
Character, width and depth of pavements and sub base are on C-23. Sewer and water pipe sizes are on C-7 through
C-11. Drainage culvert sizes are on C-12
and C-13. Street lighting and trees
are on C-21. LoTurco has also spoken
with Superintendent of Public Works Dennis Reinhart so lighting can be
compatible with Lansing Trails I.
Dankert noted that this will be addressed at a later date with the
Lighting Commission. Item 12: Proposed culverts are on C-12 and C-13. Proposed lot line dimensions are on C-4 and
C-5. Item 14: Permanent easements are shown on Ayla Way and
Bomax Circle. Curtis mentioned there
might also be additional drainage easements and LoTurco stated he was aware of
this. Item 15: A field survey is on C-3. Curtis stated the corners must be marked with
“substantial monuments’ approved by the Village Engineer. LoTurco stated pins
have been found by surveyor Larry Fabbroni who will provide his stamp. Cross noted concrete markers will need to be
in place on all corners. Item 16: an erosion and sediment control plan is shown
on C-19 and C-20.
Dubow stated that Section 503.01 also has two Subsections
B and C which must be addressed.
Subsection C requires copies of covenants and deed restrictions and he
will be reviewing these carefully and the Board must also approve them. The Board can make this requirement a condition for Final Plat
approval.
In summary, Curtis stated the following items need to be
provided: The subdivision is also in the
Town of Lansing; an indication on the plat for the Conservation Combining
District (streams) as well as Airport Combining District; removal of grid lines
on plan; correction of name Aylas Way to Ayla Way; reverse clouding for wooded
areas to provide better legibility; hedgerows to be marked on C-3 and preserved
wherever possible; single trees greater than 8 inches diameter at breast height
to be noted on C-3; indication on plan of Greenway Trail as a public way;
provision for drainage from higher lots which will not adversely impact lower
lots possibly through drainage easements.
If an easement is required for drainage, it must be depicted on the
final plat.; drainage ways must be effective regardless of the order in which
lots are developed. Dubow stated the
drainage plan would need to be built as part of the grading plan rather than as
lots are built and this would be addressed by Cross and be a condition for the
overall project. Dubow stated there
might need to be a clause built in so the Village could do work on the drainage
ways if required. Cross will address this.
Curtis continued with his list - permanent easements must be shown if needed to
address drainage issues; substantial markers are needed for corners; covenants,
deed restrictions, Homeowner’s rules, etc. must be provided to the Board.
Dubow stated a Public Hearing must be held and there are
items which the applicant must address prior to the Public Hearing. Curtis stated the Public Hearing must be
advertised 5 days prior to the Hearing.
LoTurco stated many of the items could be addressed in a short time. Dubow noted that other items could be
conditions of approval. Curtis would
prefer to schedule the Public Hearing for Feb. 15 because he will not be in
attendance at the Feb. 22nd meeting.
LoTurco would like to see the Public Hearing in Feb. rather than wait to
March. Dubow asked when it would be
possible to have new plans with the items mentioned tonight. LoTurco responded that he could have
everything done tomorrow except for the tree inventory. LoTurco wondered if the trees could be a
condition for final approval. Dubow
stated that as he understood LoTurco all items could be done relatively quickly
except the deed and restrictive covenants, the corner monuments set, and the
tree inventory. Dubow reminded the Board
that this is a preliminary plat approval and there would be opportunities to
set conditions as the project progresses.
The Board could schedule the hearing subject to the condition that the
revised plat, with all the required additions and corrections, be submitted to
Curtis at least 12 days prior to the hearing, except that the covenants and
deed restrictions, homeowners association plan, substantial monuments, and
significant trees could be submitted with the Final Plat.
Stycos made the following motion. Subject to the submission to Curtis by
February 3rd of a new Preliminary Plat with all necessary changes except that
the covenants and deed restrictions, homeowners association plan, substantial
monuments, and significant trees, the Public Hearing will be set for February
15th . Seconded by Brown.
Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Piscopo and Stycos. Motion carried. Cross would like to see the
next set of plans dated Feb. 1st or 2nd . All subsequent
changes should be listed on the revisions list and the date of the plans would
not change.
Goals 2005:
Noting that it was late and that Ned was not at the meeting, Dankert suggested that the Board defer this item until the next meeting.
Approval of Minutes – Jan.
10th:
Stycos moved to approve the minutes of January 10th
as revised. Seconded by Piscopo. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Piscopo and
Stycos. Minutes approved.
Adjournment:
Stycos moved to adjourn at 10:02 P.M. Seconded by Piscopo. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Piscopo and Stycos. Motion carried.