Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
Proposed Changes to Zoning
Law Regarding Airport Combining District:
Hickey stated the first item to be discussed by the Board
was a carry-over from a previous meeting which was not on the agenda. Dubow stated that pursuant to the last
Planning Board meeting he had revised
Proposed Local Law B to incorporate the Board’s comments with regard to
deleting any references to the Airport Combining District in the Zoning
Law. He would like the Board to review
the revised proposed law and adopt a recommendation for the Trustees.
Dankert moved to forward to the Board of Trustees the
Planning Board’s recommendation for approval of the revised Local Law B. Seconded by Klepack. Ayes by Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and Stycos. Motion carried.
Hickey opened the Public Comment period.
As there was no one who wished to speak, Klepack moved to close the Public Comment period. Seconded by Stycos. Ayes by Klepack, Brown, Dankert, Hickey and Stycos. Motion carried.
Public
Hearing: Special Permit No. 2004, Rieger
Home Occupation:
The first item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on
Special Permit No. 2004, Robert Rieger,
to operate a home occupation consisting of an office for his landscaping
service in his home at 61 Highgate Circle in the Medium Density Residential
District, Tax Parcel No. 47.1-5-38.
Robert Rieger stated he is starting a business centered
around a large commercial landscaping truck which holds 60 cubic yards of
mulch. The truck will be parked
elsewhere but he would like to use his home as an office for the business.
Hickey then opened the Public Hearing.
Mary Sirois, 3 Highgate NE, asked the applicant if there
would be any other vehicles involved in the business. Reiger stated he would have his personal
vehicle which would be used for the business and occasionally there might be a
delivery truck for small business related items and he would estimate there
might be one or two people a week who might stop in. It is a seasonal business
operating 6-7 months a year.
As there was 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.
Klepack asked about signage and Rieger responded there
would be none.
Curtis stated he has received the Proof of Mailings.
The Board then reviewed the General Conditions for all
Special Permits in Section 304.05 of the Zoning Law to confirm that General
Conditions a through j have been met by the applicant. Moved by Dankert. Seconded by Stycos. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and
Stycos. Motion carried.
The Board then reviewed the Additional Conditions for
Special Permits in Section 304.06 of the Zoning Law for Home Occupations to
confirm that the conditions have been met.
Moved by Stycos. Seconded by
Brown. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and Stycos. Motion carried.
Dubow noted that this action is a Type II action and
exempt from SEQRA.
Stycos moved the following resolution; seconded by Brown:
VILLAGE OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 2004 ADOPTED ON MARCH 29, 2005
WHEREAS:
A. This matter involves consideration
of the following proposed action: Special
Permit No. 2004, Robert Rieger, to operate a home occupation consisting of an
office for his landscaping service in his home at 61 Highgate Circle in the
Medium Density Residential District, Tax Parcel Number 47.1-5-38; and
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), 6 NYCRR Section 617.5,
and Village of Lansing Local Law 3 of 2000, 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
March 29, 2005, 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
D.
On
March 29, 2005, 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) all applicable conditions required for certain special
permit uses (Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section 304.06), and (iii) all
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. 2004 is granted
and approved, subject to the following conditions and requirements:
None
The
vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
AYES: Maria
Stycos, Doris Brown, Ned Hickey, Phil Dankert, and Carol Klepack
NAYS: none
The
motion was declared to be carried.
Public
Hearing: Special Permit No. 2005, Clark
Home Occupation:
The next item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on
Special Permit No. 2005, Donna and Alton
Clark, to operate a home occupation consisting of a bed and breakfast in their
home at 17 Wedgewood Drive in the Shannon Park Residential District, tax parcel
No. 47.1-6-55.
Curtis stated he has received the Proof of Mailings.
Donna Clark stated she and her husband would like to
operate a small bed and breakfast in their home using one or two bedrooms and
bathrooms. These would be utilized
primarily on weekends in conjunction with college events in the area. There would be no signage or advertising on
the internet. Guests would for the most
part come by way of referrals. Should
the bed and breakfast become a problem for any of the neighbors, the Clarks
would discontinue the project. Upon the
sale of the property, the bed and breakfast would also be terminated.
Hickey stated the Clarks have circulated a petition in the
neighborhood and 8 of the neighbors have signed it in support of the
proposal.
Dankert asked about off-street parking and Clark responded
that there is adequate parking on site.
Hickey then opened the Public Hearing.
Larry Robinson, 20 Wedgewood Drive, stated he likes the
Clarks but feels he must speak against this proposal. He has concerns about additional traffic in
the small cul-de-sac neighborhood. He is
also concerned about there being other small bed and breakfasts in the area as
well as about the property assessments and resale value of the properties in
the area. Another concern for Robinson
is that there are middle school aged latch-key children in the area and none of
those parents have signed the petition.
Klepack moved to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Brown. Ayes by Brown, Klepack, Dankert, Hickey and
Stycos. Motion carried.
Brown stated she has listened to the concerns and feels
there are no problems with the project as others do the same thing in their
homes on a small scale but do not call it a bed and breakfast and do not
request approval for a home occupation.
The Clarks have been up front with their intentions. Brown feels the Clarks will need to deal with
the covenants which exist in Shannon Park, that is between the Clarks and their
neighbors. Dubow stated the covenants
are private property rights and will expire in 2010, and until they expire they
govern the relationship amongst the Shannon Park residents. Dubow stated they are enforceable by those
property owners and the Village can not require their compliance. As a condition for a Special Permit, however,
the Board must determine if this action would be injurious to others in the
neighborhood. Dubow stated there could be a condition placed upon the permit
that if a lawsuit results from this action or there is a specific number of
complaints, the permit could be returned to the Board for further action or
even revoked. First the Board must
determine if the General and Additional Conditions are met. Dubow stated the covenants cannot be amended
by the Board but they can be amended by the residents. The Board just needs to be aware of the
covenants when they make their determination.
Stycos asked about “word-of-mouth referrals”. Clark stated she knows many people who might
want to use the service or who might recommend it to others, and others in her
neighborhood who were supportive of her project have said they will spread the
word for her.
Stycos asked about when the residence would be used as a
bed and breakfast. Clark responded that
it would be used during the weekends for events such as college weekends,
sporting events, neighbors’ high school graduations, etc. Clark did not want to limit how often it
would be used but it would be mostly on Fridays and Saturdays.
Hickey stated this is difficult because of the covenants
and he feels protection of property
rights is important in the neighborhood.
Hickey stated some have shown support and others have not and this shows
a difference of opinion in the neighborhood.
One option might be to ask for an amendment to the covenants prior to
action by the Board. Hickey stated he
does not want to violate the covenants.
Dubow stated the Board has previously addressed the
concern about covenants with the McLain property on Cayuga Heights Road where
the covenants did not allow for three
dwelling units on a single parcel. The
application was subsequently withdrawn.
Dubow stated that currently he reviews covenants when they
are included in new subdivision proposals to make sure they are consistent with
the Village’s interests and obligations, but in the past covenants may have
been recorded without the knowledge of or review by the Village. Dubow stated the Board can acknowledge
covenants but can not enforce them.
Hickey stated the Board can approve the project with or
without conditions or deny it. There was
discussion on having the covenants changed or having Clark get the petition
signed by more residents. Brown asked
about the Shannon Park Homeowner’s Association and Dubow stated the residents
have had the right to form one but is unsure if they have actually done
so. Curtis stated there is a process
whereby 75% of the homeowners could approve a change in the covenants.
Clark stated she was not aware of the covenants when she
started this project, but requested a copy from a neighbor when she learned of
them. She subsequently gave Curtis a
copy of the covenants. Clark also stated
there is no active Homeowner’s Association.
Klepack stated she agreed with Hickey and felt that when
buying into a neighborhood the residents are also buying into the rights and
obligations of any covenants that have been recorded for that
neighborhood. Dankert also stated he was
in agreement with that.
Dubow noted that this action is exempt from SEQRA as it is
a Type II action.
The Board then reviewed the General Conditions for all
Special Permits in Section 304.05 of the Zoning Law a through j to ascertain
the conditions have been met by the applicant.
The Board determined that the action did not meet conditions b and c
because it was not “in harmony with the intended character of the neighborhood”
as described in the covenants, and could be considered “injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood” on the same basis.
Klepack moved the following resolution; seconded by
Dankert:
VILLAGE OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 2005 ADOPTED ON MARCH 29, 2005
WHEREAS:
A.
This
matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: Donna
and Alton Clark, to operate a home occupation consisting of a bed and breakfast
in their home at 17 Wedgewood Drive in the Shannon Park Residential District,
Tax Parcel Number 47.1-6-55. and
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), 6 NYCRR Section 617.5,
and Village of Lansing Local Law 3 of 2000, 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
March 29, 2005, 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
D.
On
March 29, 2005, 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 does not meet Requirements
( b ) and ( c ) of the General Conditions required for all special permits
(Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section 304.05); and
2. It is hereby determined by the Village of Lansing Planning Board that Special Permit No. 2005 is denied.
The
vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
AYES: Maria
Stycos, Doris Brown, Ned Hickey, Phil Dankert, and Carol Klepack
NAYS: none
The motion was declared to be carried.
Public
Hearing: Special Permit No. 2002,
Pyramid Theater Addition:
The next item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on
Special Permit No. 2002, Pyramid Company
of Ithaca to construct an approximate 10,600 sf addition to accommodate the
relocation and upgrade of the movie theaters in the existing enclosed shopping
mall at 40 Catherwood Road in the Commercial High Traffic District, Tax Parcel
No. 47.1-1-22. A special permit is
required because the addition constitutes a change in configuration of a
previously approved expansion.
Curtis stated he has received the Proof of Mailings.
Jim Tull, Pyramid Mall General Manager, spoke first. He stated Regal Cinemas would like to upgrade
the movie facility at the Mall. Regal is
willing to invest significant capital and resources to create a first class
facility. Regal would move to the area
where Ames used to be and there would be a 10,000 sf expansion. This would move the north face of the old
Ames space about 25-30 feet in to the alleyway between Ames and Target.
On the interior, the south end of the current retail space at Ames would
be used to extend the Mall concourse and provide a couple of tenant spaces; the
remainder would house the upgraded theater complex. This would result in a net reduction of about
590 sf. of previously approved gross leasable area. The old Hoyts cinema space would eventually
become retail space. This would result
in a shift of parking from the rear and southwest corner near the residents to
the rear and northwest corner of the Mall where there is currently much under
utilized parking capacity. Entrance to
the cinemas could be from either the parking area or the Mall interior.
Hickey asked about the seating capacity of the new theater
and Eric Goetzmann, one of the Mall partners, stated it would be from 2600-2800
divided into 14 auditoriums. Hickey
asked about attendance numbers because of parking concerns. Goetzmann stated the movies are staggered and
it is not anticipated that such complexes will ever be occupied to full
capacity, so it would be hard to determine.
Hickey opened the Public Hearing.
Sirois stated she welcomed the idea of less traffic moving
late into the night near the residential area at the south end.
There being no one else who wished to speak, Klepack moved
to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by
Stycos. Ayes by Brown, Klepack, Dankert,
Hickey and Stycos. Motion carried.
Leopold spoke about the movement of traffic around the
mall and felt it might be a good idea to have less traffic utilizing Pyramid
Drive.
Klepack asked about enlarging the footprint of the
mall. Goetzmann stated the shaded area
on the map showed the extent of the enlargement.
Curtis asked if there are islands defining the loop road
and the west and north boundary of the parking lot. Tull stated there is one island that runs the
length down the middle but there are no curbed end caps on the north side. Hickey noted a landscaping plan would be
required. Handicapped parking was
discussed as there are only 4 spaces and more will be required. Goetzmann stated this will be reviewed. Hickey also does not like painted islands as
they are not effective in channeling traffic flows. Another pedestrian sign will be required at
the north end of the sidewalk Hickey
would also like trees in the islands with curbing. Hickey noted a lighting plan will also be
required.
Cross has reviewed the plans and noted that the loss of
the alley will change the parking but should not have a significant impact on
stormwater. Cross felt the road from the
outer ring road to the front of the new cinema would be adequately wide with 15
foot lanes and is protected off the ring road on the northern end, but if you
follow it to the Sears area it seems to disappear and dump into the parking
lot. Cross felt this needs to be
addressed. Hickey feels the parking area
in the rear of the mall needs to be addressed as a whole. Cross would like to see drivers discouraged from
driving across lots. Cross then spoke
about the 60 ft. long drop off area in front of the new outside entrance and
wondered if it is long enough. Tull
stated it is comparable to the one for the existing theaters which has not been
a problem. Hickey recommended signage.
Cross also noted that the sanitary sewer notes indicate brick risers
which are not allowed. Also the front
side near Old Navy has a delineated inner road off the ring road and parking
spaces have been striped on the road side of the end caps and he would not like
to see them appear like that elsewhere in the Mall.
The Board then completed SEQRA. On Part I, Curtis stated for Item 9, “present
use of land in vicinity of the project”, “residential” should also be
checked. For Item 7, the acreage
affected should be listed as “existing”.
On Part II, A – No; B – No, but the County did provide a 239 determining
the project has no negative inter-community or county-wide impacts; C1 – No, because there is no change in impervious
surfaces or excavation that would result in exposed soil, and the traffic will be addressed with curbing and parking
lot design; C2 – No; C3 – No; C4 – No; C5 – None; C6 – None C7 – None; D –
None.
Klepack moved the following resolution; seconded by
Dankert:
VILLAGE OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION FOR SEQR REVIEW OF SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 2002 ADOPTED ON MARCH 29, 2005
WHEREAS:
A. This matter involves
consideration of the following proposed action:
Special Permit 2002, Pyramid Company of Ithaca to construct an approx.
10,600 sf. addition to accommodate the relocation and upgrade of the movie
theaters in the existing enclosed shopping mall at 40 Catherwood Road in the
Commercial High Traffic District, Tax Parcel No. 47.1-1-22. A special permit is
required because the addition constitutes a change in configuration of a
previously approved expansion; and
B. This
proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Village of Lansing Planning
Board is an involved agency for the purposes of environmental review; and
C. On March 29, 2005, 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) thoroughly reviewed
the Short Environmental Assessment Form (the “Short EAF”), Part I, 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), and (iii) completed the Short EAF, Part
II;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOW:
1. The Village of Lansing Planning Board, based
upon (i) its thorough review of the Short EAF, Part I, 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 Short
EAF, Part II, 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 neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an
Environmental Impact Statement will be 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 Short EAF, Part III, confirming the foregoing Negative
Declaration, which fully completed and signed Short EAF shall be
attached to and made a part of this Resolution.
The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
AYES: Maria Stycos, Carol Klepack, Phil Dankert,
Ned Hickey and Doris Brown
NAYS: none
The motion carried.
The Planning Board then reviewed the General Conditions
for all Special Permits in Section 304.05 of the Zoning Law. Klepack moved that
that General Conditions a through j have been met by the applicant: seconded by
Stycos. All aye.
The Board then discussed approval of the Special Permit
and conditions that should be attached. Klepack moved the following resolution;
seconded by Brown:
VILLAGE OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 2002 ADOPTED ON MARCH 29, 2005
WHEREAS:
A.
This
matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: Special Permit 2002, Pyramid Company
of Ithaca to construct an approx. 10,600 sf. addition to accommodate the
relocation and upgrade of the movie theaters in the existing enclosed shopping
mall at 40 Catherwood Road in the Commercial High Traffic District, Tax Parcel
No. 47.1-1-22. A special permit is required because the addition constitutes a
change in configuration of a previously approved expansion; and
B.
On
March 29, 2005, 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
C.
On
March 29, 2005, 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
D.
On
March 29, 2005, 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) all applicable conditions required for certain
special permit uses (Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section 304.06), and (iii)
all 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. 2002 is granted
and approved, subject to the following conditions and requirements:
1. Implementation of a lighting plan approved by the Lighting Commission.
2. Implementation of a landscape plan approved by the Planning Board.
3. Minimum 8 handicapped parking spaces.
4. Islands shall be curbed rather than painted.
5. Pedestrian sign at the north end of sidewalk.
6. Parking lot plan approved by the Village Engineer.
The
vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
AYES: Maria Stycos, Carol Klepack, Phil Dankert,
Ned Hickey and Doris Brown
NAYS: none
The motion was declared to be carried.
Public Hearing,
Special Permit No. 2006, Tompkins Trust Co. Drive Thru Lanes;
The next item on the agenda was a Public Hearing for
Special Permit No. 2006, Tompkins Trust Company to construct two additional
covered drive-thru lanes for their existing bank branch building at 2551 North
Triphammer Road in the Commercial High Traffic District, Tax Parcel No.
46.1-6-2.2.
Curtis stated he has received the Proof of Mailings.
Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape
Architects gave a brief overview of the project. The current existing parking on the north
side has been a problem as customers must transverse the driving lane to access
the bank. The new proposal would move
the parking so those parking in the most utilized spaces would not need to
cross traffic. Some curbed island area
would be removed and three drive-thru lanes installed. This would not result in a reduction of total
parking spaces. Signage would be
installed for turning lanes to assist drivers as they exit with right hand
turns only being permitted onto Substation Alley. Surface striping would also be utilized as
well as flexible bollards during business hours to maintain a free through
lane. Trowbridge stated there would be
two traffic lanes, one for cueing or stacking and one for exiting. Trowbridge stated there would be a relocation
of two light poles and a small canopy removed and a larger “open” canopy
erected. The proposal will include an
existing ATM machine and two teller windows.
Affected trees would either be relocated or replaced with the total
number remaining the same; some shrubs would be added.
Hickey opened the Public Hearing.
Richard Thaler, Triphammer Mall owner, spoke first. Thaler stated that for safety reasons signs stating no left turn permitted would
need to be installed for all exiting traffic.
Thaler also felt the driveway into the shopping center needs to be
posted with signage indicating it as a private driveway so traffic does not
enter from the bank in order to exit at
the traffic light without utilizing the mall.
Daniel Homik, Clarion Inn owner, spoke next. Homik feels this proposal would significantly
impede the visibility of his hotel.
Homik provided Board members with pictures.
There being no one else who wished to speak, Dankert moved to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Klepack. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and Stycos. Motion carried.
Cross had shared his comments previously with Trowbridge
and his concerns have been addressed.
Cross still feels delineating the two lanes will be a challenge and temporary daytime posts sound okay, but
inquired about the winter months. Cross
is also concerned about the queuing and exiting of three lanes where there is
only one now. David Taube of HOLT
Architects stated that the temporary bollards would prevent traffic from
switching lanes and blocking the exit lane.
Hickey visited the site last week and noted there was a Sam Peter’s furniture
truck in one of the southern parking spaces and this special situation on this
tight site made exiting difficult and this situation must be addressed. Hickey would recommend “no trucks allowed”
signage so exits are not blocked. Cross
feels if there has been an underestimate of the number of cars that will use
the drive-thrus there might be problems.
Hickey is also concerned about the impact on the intersection of
Sheraton Drive and North Triphammer Road at peak times. Brown is concerned about the through traffic
on Uptown Road/Cinema Drive/Sheraton Drive meeting cars utilizing the
bank. Brown feels the unknown amount of
traffic may be a problem. Brown would
like to see the exiting traffic from the bank be able to use the light at
Triphammer Mall. Taube feels the amount
of traffic will not change as those who will now use the drive-thru are the
same customers who used to park and walk into the bank.
Hickey would like to see the following: Proposed Signage, Lighting Plan for the
entire site, some effort to address
Homik’s concern about visibility. Hickey
would recommend Homik approach the Board about additional signage for the
northwest corner of his hotel for better identification. Homik is still concerned that the overhead
canopy will block him out and he would prefer to see no canopy. Taube stated the canopy is relatively
open.
Curtis noted that the handicapped parking aisles are
required to be 8 feet wide and are 5 feet on the drawing..
Leopold asked about the landscaping. Trowbridge stated that none of the plantings
around the building would be changed.
Additional plantings will be added and some will be either moved or
replaced.
Hickey polled Board members. Klepack stated the intersection is
problematic but needs to be addressed with road construction rather than being
made the bank’s responsibility. Dankert
agreed with Klepack and feels traffic is an unknown and he is not overly
concerned. Brown has traffic concerns
but thinks they can be addressed by Cross.
Hickey would like to see a sketch of how bollards are to be placed. Cross feels the Sheraton intersection has
been addressed by Rich Brauer of Fisher Associates in a letter dated 3/11/05
and he does not feel it is a big concern.
Next, the Board completed SEQRA Part II. A – No; B- No; C1 – Not applicable; C2 – Not
applicable; C3 – None; C4 – No, not an increase in intensity of use but rather
an arrangement in use; C5 – None; C6 – None; C7 – None; D – No.
Klepack moved the following resolution; seconded by Stycos:
VILLAGE OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION FOR SEQR REVIEW OF SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 2006 ADOPTED ON MARCH 29, 2005
WHEREAS:
A. This matter involves
consideration of the following proposed action:
Special Permit 2006, Tompkins Trust Company to construct two additional
covered drive thru lanes for their existing bank branch building at 2251 North
Triphammer Road in the Commercial High Traffic District, Tax Parcel No.
46.1-6-2.2; and
B. This
proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Village of Lansing Planning
Board is an involved agency for the purposes of environmental review; and
C. On March 29, 2005, 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) thoroughly reviewed
the Short Environmental Assessment Form (the “Short EAF”), Part I, 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), and (iii) completed the Short EAF, Part
II;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOW:
1. The Village of Lansing Planning Board, based
upon (i) its thorough review of the Short EAF, Part I, 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 Short EAF, Part II, 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 neither a Full
Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
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 Short EAF, Part III, confirming the foregoing Negative
Declaration, which fully completed and signed Short EAF shall be
attached to and made a part of this Resolution.
The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
AYES: Maria Stycos, Carol Klepack, Phil Dankert,
Ned Hickey and Doris Brown
NAYS: none
The motion was declared to be carried.
The Board then reviewed the General Conditions for all
Special Permits in Section 304.05 of the Zoning Law to confirm that General
Conditions a through j have been met by the applicant. With regard to Item b, Hickey suggested Homik
request additional signage. Dankert moved that the applicant has met all the
General Conditions for Special Permits.
Seconded by Seconded by Klepack.
Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and Stycos. Motion carried.
Klepack moved the following resolution: seconded by
Dankert:
VILLAGE OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 2006 ADOPTED ON MARCH 29, 2005
WHEREAS:
A. This matter involves consideration
of the following proposed action: Special Permit 2006, Tompkins Trust
Company to construct two additional covered drive thru lanes for their existing
bank branch building at 2251 North Triphammer Road in the Commercial High
Traffic District, Tax Parcel No. 46.1-6-2.2; and
B.
On
March 29, 2005, 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
C.
On
March 29, 2005, 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
D.
On
March 29, 2005, 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) all applicable conditions required for certain
special permit uses (Village of Lansing Zoning Law Section 304.06), and (iii)
all 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. 2006 is granted
and approved, subject to the following conditions and requirements:
1. Implementation of a lighting plan approved by the Lighting Commission.
2. Implementation of a sign plan approved by the Planning Board.
3. No left turn signs as required by the Village Engineer.
4. Approval by Board of Zoning Appeals of all required variances
5. Interior traffic circulation plan approved by the Village Engineer.
The
vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
AYES: Maria Stycos, Carol Klepack, Phil Dankert,
Ned Hickey and Doris Brown
NAYS: none
The motion was declared to be carried.
Human Health
Service District – Proposed Zoning Change:
Herman Sieverding of Integrated Acquisition &
Development spoke first. The request is
for a zoning change to extend the boundaries of the Human Health Services
District approximately 80 feet to the north with land taken from the B & T
District which equates to about 2 acres.
This proposal would clean up the boundary line which divides the two
adjoining districts and would extend across Warren Road. This expansion would permit 36 additional
parking spaces to be constructed for the Parkview Health Care Campus. Hickey stated the Board must decide whether
to recommend this change to the Board of Trustees. Dubow has prepared a draft of Proposed Local
Law C to address this request.
Curtis noted there was a County 239 review and they
determined there is no negative inter-community or county-wide impact. Curtis also stated the Cayuga Medical Center
at Ithaca sent a letter in support of the proposal.
Cross asked if the northerly property lines of the
Convenient Care, 22 Arrowwood Drive and 10 Brentwood Drive parcels would be
pushed up to coincide with the new district line. In the 80 foot area, there is a significant
drainage feature for the property of 22 Arrowwood as well as a utility easement
for NYSEG. Sieverding responded that
there is a 80 foot drainage easement for the detention pond for buildings 1
& 2. Dubow stated when the special
permit for the extension of the parking comes before the Board that will
trigger the issues of drainage issues.
Cross does not want to see land-locked parcels created. Dubow stated it is all Cornell property.
Klepack asked about the parking. Sieverding stated the buildings were built in
phases and the practices have become so successful that the number of employees
has increased from 118 to 162 and only leaves 77 parking spaces available for
the patients rather than the 112 spaces previously available. This has subsequently created a shortage of
patient parking. Sieverding stated there
was originally enough parking according to the Zoning Law requirements and in
fact Cornell originally went beyond the required number of parking spaces, but
this has not kept pace with the evolution of the businesses in the park.
Klepack moved to recommend approval of the zoning change
proposed in Local Law C to the Board of Trustees. Seconded by Brown. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and
Stycos. Motion carried.
Approval of Minutes – March
14:
Stycos moved to approve the minutes of March 14th as
revised. Seconded by Dankert. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and
Stycos. Minutes approved.
Other Business
as Time Permits:
Hickey stated that Alternate Planning Board member John Piscopo would be leaving the Board as he will be moving to Albany. Piscopo distributed his resignation to the Board members. Sorel Gottfried, on behalf of the Community Party, thanked Piscopo for his service.
Hickey stated the Board has a book entitled Dictionary of Terms for their library.
Adjournment:
Stycos moved to adjourn at 10:00 P.M. Seconded by Dankert. Ayes by Brown, Dankert, Hickey, Klepack and Stycos. Motion carried.