HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.10.2010 Planning Board Minutes1
Minutes
for
Village of Cayuga Heights
Planning Board Meeting #6
Held on
February 10, 2010
Chair Harms called the meeting of the Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board to order at 7:04 PM.
Board Members Present: Chair Martin Harms, Members: Henry Richardson, Graham Gillespie, Mark
Morris and Alternate Member, Sean Cunningham
Members Excused: Janet Shure
Board Secretary: Mary Jane Neff
Guests: See attached list
The Board voted to approve Sean Cunningham to vote in the absence of Board Member Janet Shure at
this evening’s meeting.
Chair Harms reviewed the proceedings for tonight’s meeting as follows:
• Approve the minutes of January 13, 2010 meeting.
• Open the floor under item # 3, "Public Comment," only to comments that are not about the
fencing issue and table those for item #5.
• Board Chair to introduce the topic under item # 5 by summarizing the purpose of this
discussion and the background leading to the recent Board of Trustees discussion about the
proposed Local Law No 1 (enforcement moratorium) and Local Law No. 2 (zoning permit
required for any fence or wall).
• Then to discuss possible changes to current law by asking the authors of the Grubb/Mount
proposal and Jack Young's proposal to briefly describe these.
• Have Board members discuss their views based on their understanding of the issues in general
and these two presentations in particular.
• Open the floor to public comment.
• If possible. bring the Board to resolution on a recommendation for the Board of Trustees
The Board approved tonight’s proceedings as recommended by Chair Harms.
The minutes were reviewed.
On a motion by Richardson, seconded by Morris the following was unanimously passed:
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2010
RESOLVED, that the minutes January 13, 2010 Planning Board’s
2
meeting is hereby approved.
No public comment was given at this time on topics other than fences.
Chair Harms requested Mr. Frantz to provide an overview for the guests of the presentation that the
students will be presenting.
Mr. Frantz stated that the workshop has been in progress for approximately two weeks and that they
have divided the class into 6 groups as follows:
1. Land Use
2. Demographics
3. Transportation
4. Ecology
5. Public Service
6. Parks
The students have been asked to make a snapshot of each category, review the trends, compile and
send a survey to residents, and quantify the survey information. Tonight’s presentation is to explain
what the students have done thus far and what they plan to do during the workshop and that the
students welcome any input and information that the Board and guests may want to share with them.
The students then explained, with the use of poster boards, the plans for each group.
Land Use – This group has prepared a map showing where commercial, community services, public
services, recreation, residential, and vacant land use. The plan is to use this information to inform land
uses in the future. The guests asked them to include the streams, wetlands, and Palmer Woods even if
they are not currently labeled; these are part of future land use since they will exist in the future and
should be preserved.
Demographics – This group has been compiling data on the population from the 2000 US Census and
analyzing the data to determine the number of family households, size of households, values of homes,
and income of households. They are hoping to have the 2010 Census data before the end of the session
so that they can incorporate that information into the plan.
Transportation – This group is compiling transportation data – commuters, walkers, cyclists, and
buses. They are attempting to not only gather the information, but to incorporate it with time of day,
average commute time, volumes, etc. The guests commented that they would be interested in numbers
of all types of commuters and the times of day when there is the most traffic including foot traffic.
Ecology – This group is compiling information on streams as well as ponds and wetlands located
within the Village. They have identified five to six streams of which two are named: Pleasant Grove
Brook and Renwick Brook. This group will also compile a list of the fauna and flora in the Village as
weather and growth permit. The guests shared their knowledge of ponds and wetlands that may not be
on any of the informational maps. The guests further stated that they would also like to know the
quality of the water in the streams, ponds, and wetlands.
Public Service - This group is compiling information on street construction and maintenance, sidewalk
construction and maintenance, drainage, wastewater treatment, snow removal, garbage pick-up, police
and fire services, the Village court, bus service, the elementary school, and child care programs. The
information will be compared to other areas in Tompkins County. The guests stated that the fire
3
department services more than the Village and recommended that the students interview the Village
and school staff regarding services. The guest further suggested that sidewalk information should be
included with the transportation data.
Parks and Recreation – One student is currently working on the information gathering for this area. As
of this time, the student had identified that part of the Cornell golf course that is in the Village, Sunset
Park, and the elementary school playground as park and recreation areas. The guests recommended
that the student also consider adding the playground at the First Congregational Church used for the
pre-school and the Pleasant Grove Cemetery.
Mr. Frantz thanked the Board and guests for their input and stated that the students will take their
suggestions and comments into consideration as they continue with their study.
The presentations and feedback were closed at 8:28 PM.
Chair Harms stated that he had considered recusing himself from commenting on the proposed fence
ordinances because his fence may not meet the current Village fence ordinance, but that the Village’s
Attorney did not feel that it was necessary for him to recuse himself.
On a motion by Member Morris, seconded by Member Gillespie the following was discussed
and unanimously passed with Chair Harms abstaining:
RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING CHAIR HARMS TO CONDUCT THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE
PROPOSED FENCE ORDINANCES
RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes Chair Harms to conduct the pubic comment on
the proposed fence ordinance.
Chair Harms thanked the Board. He next asked Trustee Riesman and Trustee Szekely for clarification
of what the Board of Trustees want the Planning Board to recommend on the fencing ordinance. The
Trustees stated the proposed local laws are ready for public comment and that the members are
welcome to come to the public hearings to make personal comments on the proposed local laws. The
Trustees are requesting the Planning Board to weigh-in on a possible new fence law or to recommend
no change in the existing law.
Chair Harms stated that the Board would like to hear presentations on the Grubb/Mount fence
recommendation and Jack Young’s fence recommendation. He also stated that Fred Cowett had asked
to speak to the fence ordinance. He also stated that the Board members had received copies of the
recommendations via e-mail.
Sally Grubb provided a short overview of the Grubb/Mount fence proposal. She stated that they had
talked with residents, Code Enforcement Officer Cross, and reviewed the new Town of Ithaca fence
law. Their proposal defined the various types of fences that would be allowed, require a permit, and
would allow certain types of 8-foot fences on the property lines.
Jack Young stated that his proposal was based on the current law with some clarifications that have
caused zoning variances. He recommends that the Village remain visually open, like a park, and
would prefer to keep the Village a non-gated community.
4
Fred Cowett stated that he was speaking as a resident, not as a Zoning Board member. His take on the
fence issue is that it is a deer problem, not a fence problem. He expressed concern that tall fences
could be constructed close to property owner sidewalks which would prevent public/private interaction
between property owners, neighbors, and residents. Allowing fences on property lines would change
the identity and character of the Village. He hopes that the Planning Board will weigh any change in
the fence ordinance between the character of the Village and the desire for privacy.
Member Cunningham asked the Trustees what kind of input they had received to date. Trustee
Riesman stated that the Trustees and DRAC had received many comments from the public on fencing
during their meetings and that the Trustees continue to receive public comments during their meetings
on deer and fencing.
Member Gillespie stated that weighing the pros and cons of whether it was a deer or fence issue
seemed a good way to proceed.
Member Morris commented that the proposals seemed to be logical, but when put into the mix of the
character of the Village may not be as practical as they seem.
Member Richardson commented that it would be hard to visualize the Village with 8-foot fences
around every property whether a see-through fence or not. He also commented that if the ordinance is
changed a snowball effect could happen and the reality of every property having an 8-foot fence
around it may become real. Such a snowball effect would change the character of the Village
substantially. He recommended that the Planning Board study the impact and implications of allowing
higher fences. He also stated that the lots in the Village vary considerably and that it may be very hard
to come up with a general fence ordinance that would fit all properties in the Village.
It was the consensus of the Board that this discussion should be continued at future meetings and that a
solution may be obtainable with the help of the students’ data collection.
Chair Harm requested the members to e-mail him any thoughts on the fence ordinance which he would
disseminate to the Board of Trustees.
Chairman Harm stated he would not be at the March 10th meeting and that a member would have to
create an agenda for the meeting and conduct the meeting. It was the consensus of the Board that they
would do so via e-mails prior to the next meeting.
On a motion by Member Cunningham, seconded by Member Richardson the following was
unanimously passed:
RESOLUTION NO.
ADJOURNING MEETING
RESOLVE, that this meeting was adjourned at 10:13 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Jane Neff
Planning Board Secretary
5
6