Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.23.2015 Planning Board Minutes.pdf1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #58 Monday, November 23, 2015 Marcham Hall – 7:00 pm Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, S. Cunningham, R. Segelken, and Alternate M. McMurry Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus Members of the Public Item 1 – Meeting called to order • Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:02 pm. • Chair F. Cowett appointed Alternate M. McMurry as a voting member for the meeting. Item 2- October 26, 2015 Minutes Motion: S. Cunningham Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 170 APPROVING MINUTES OF October 26, 2015 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the October 26, 2015 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, S. Cunningham, and R. Segelken Abstaining – G. Gillespie and M. McMurry Opposed- None Item 3- Public Comment • No members of the public wished to comment. Item 4- Continuation of Site Plan Review – 105 Berkshire Road • Chair F. Cowett opened the public hearing for the proposed minor subdivision at 105 Berkshire Rd. 2 • Stephen Komor of 104 Berkshire Rd. stated his opposition to the proposed subdivision and the variance approved with conditions by the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals which the ZBA will decided at its next meeting whether or not to rehear. • The Board confirmed that, prior to the meeting, it had received his document entitled “The Zoning Variance for 105 Berkshire Rd. Is Wrong.” 3 4 5 6 7 8 • S. Komor reviewed his document with the Board. He stated that he has lived across the street from the proposed subdivision for seventeen years; that the proposed subdivision contains a pocket forest comprised of mixed soft- and hardwoods; that soil erosion is active on site; that the pocket forest absorbs sound and provides quiet; that the pocket forest is a lovely gateway to that portion of the Village and informs residents and visitors that the Village values open space and the splendor of nature; that the subdivision will result in the loss of trees and an increase in impermeable surface which in turn will negatively impact hydrology by diverting surface water from ground water infiltration, increase downslope soil erosion, and possibly undermine Berkshire Rd. • S. Komor further stated he does not want to see nature shouldered aside for houses and referenced portions of the Village’s comprehensive plan which recommend protection of undeveloped open space and the Village’s natural resources. • In response to questions from the Board, S. Komor stated that the existing vegetation stabilizes the existing erosion on site, that soil texture is clayey and heavy, and that underlying the soil horizons is a layer of shale with which subsurface water flow interacts to create unstable soil conditions. • S. Komor exited the meeting and shortly thereafter the applicant K. Durrant joined the meeting. • No additional members of the public wished to speak. Motion: R. Segelken Second: S. Cunningham RESOLUTION No. 171 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING RESOLVE, that the public hearing regarding the site plan review for the proposed minor subdivision at 105 Berkshire Road is hereby closed. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, S. Cunningham, R. Segelken, and M. McMurry Opposed- None 9 • The applicant provided Part 1 of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form. 10 11 12 13 • The Board reviewed the applicant’s responses to the questions in Part 1. • Chair F. Cowett noted the following changes made to the applicant’s initial responses with the applicant’s approval: o Question #1 is a “no” and not a “yes;” o Additional text has been added after Question #12b: EAF Mapper responds “yes” to this question, but NYS OPRFP has provided a letter stating it has “no concerns regarding cultural resources regarding this project.” o Additional text has been added after Question #13a; EAF Mapper responds “yes” to this question, but neither a federal wetland nor NYS DEC freshwater wetland has been mapped on site and, to the applicant’s best knowledge, no wetland is present on site. • The Board discussed the applicant’s “yes” response to Question #6, Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape: o S. Cunningham stated his concern that the proposed action is not consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape; o Attorney R. Marcus advised the Board that SEQRA gives municipal boards considerable latitude in interpretation, but was generally intended to focus on larger scale environmental concerns than those pertaining to an individual lot; o The Board decided that the proposed action is consistent with residential use in a residential neighborhood. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross asked Attorney R. Marcus whether 0 acres should be the correct response for Question #3b; Attorney R. Marcus replied this response is correct. • The Board answered the questions on Parts II and III of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form. 14 15 16 Motion: G. Gillespie Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 172 TO DETERMINE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN AN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RESOLVE, that the Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board has determined that the proposed minor subdivision at 105 Berkshire Road will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, S. Cunningham, R. Segelken, and M. McMurry Opposed- None • The Board reviewed Article IX Section 24, III, 2, factors to be considered by the Board in Site Plan Review for minor subdivisions in the Village’s Residence Zoning District, and found the following: o a. Effect of the proposed subdivision on traffic and so traffic safety: Additional car trip generation is likely to be minor due to the Zoning Board of Appeal’s variance condition that the subdivided lot can only be used by at most two (2) unrelated occupants or a single family with no unrelated occupants; any potential safety concerns with the addition of a driveway have been addressed by the Zoning Board of Appeal’s variance condition that the initial and subdivided lots shall share the existing driveway and curb cut and therefore only one vehicle can exit the driveway at any one time. o b. Effect of the proposed subdivision on the environment: There will likely be a loss of trees and vegetation due to future construction, and an increase in impervious surface and stormwater runoff; the Planning Board believes that, if the subdivision were to be approved, most of this impact can be mitigated through conditions imposed by the Board. o c. Any other factors reasonably related to the health, safety and general welfare of the community: There will be a small increase in the residential density of the immediate neighborhood and a small loss of open space; the Planning Board determines these impacts to be relatively minor and that they will not negatively impact the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. • The Board discussed imposing as a condition of subdivision approval a restriction protecting existing healthy trees in the front yard setback on Berkshire Rd. • The applicant K. Durrant questioned the Board’s ability to impose such a condition and stated that she currently can remove these trees without restriction. 17 • Chair F. Cowett stated that the Village’s current zoning law gives the Board the ability to reasonably require such a restriction as a condition of subdivision approval. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that, if the Board required such a restriction as a condition of subdivision approval, and trees were subsequently removed in violation of this condition, then Board approval of the subdivision would become null and void. Motion: G. Gillespie Second: M. McMurry RESOLUTION No. 173 TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THE PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 105 BERKSHIRE ROAD RESOLVE, that the proposed minor subdivision at 105 Berkshire Road is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: (1) Post-construction stormwater runoff must equal or be less than pre-construction stormwater runoff, subject to approval of a stormwater management plan by the Village’s Stormwater Management Officer prior to any construction as a condition of issuing a building permit; (2) Existing healthy trees with a DBH (diameter at breast height) of six (6) inches or more whose trunks are located within the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback shall not be removed without the approval of the Village Forester, subject to the procedures and penalties pertaining to street tree protection described in Local Law 2 of 2013, Street Tree and Shrub Protection and Planting; (3) These conditions, intended in part to satisfy the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals request that “any buildings, structures, or impervious surfaces built on Parcel A must obtain site plan approval from the Planning Board,” must be noted on the subdivision plat. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, R. Segelken, and M. McMurry Opposed- S. Cunningham • S. Cunningham stated the reasons for his opposition to the resolution: that the proposed subdivision requires creation of a flag lot, his concern about the precedent set by approval of a flag lot and its impact on future subdivisions, and his belief that a majority of Village residents does not wish to see creation of additional flag lots. 18 Item 5- Other Business • No other business was discussed. Item 6 – Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 9:58 pm.