Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-04-PB TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD 05/04/11 Approved 6/10/2011 Present : Acting Chairperson John Wertis , Members- Sarah Adams , Stan Beames , Peter Fry, Rebecca Schneider IExcused : Chairperson Ken Zeserson, Rod Hawkes Applicant : Richard Gleason Mr. Wertis called the meeting to order at 7 : 01 pm . He stated they have a subdivision received from Richard Gleason, it is a legal and conforming use, and they will be reviewing this due to the lot being on Perry City Road . He asked if the applicant had any additional information to offer. Mr. Gleason stated he has a purchase offer for the house and lot but the buyer does not want the additional 18 acres , he has broken this off as a flag lot to make the house lot legal and conforming . He has consulted with Mr. Rachun on how to do this and be within the zoning regulation . Ms Schneider asked for clarification, if this lot is divided one more time it would be a minor subdivision after that would it be a major subdivision. Mr. Wertis stated that is correct . Mr. Fry stated he had read the flag lot provision and noted the Comprehensive Plan in that they are asking agricultural areas be treated differently . He noted Section 17 . 12 (Page 97) and asked the members to review this as well . Mr. Wertis stated that was in referring to building lots , 18 acres would not be a building lot . Mr. Fry stated as defined this is a flag lot. As a flag lot if they leave it as it currently is there could be two building lots from this lot. Mr. Gleason stated he has no intention of building on this lot . It was his understanding ne needed 200 feet of road frontage . Mr. Fry stated a flag lot only requires 50 feet on frontage . If this is left as is it could be divided into two pole lots each with allowed 50 feet of frontage . In addition, he noted that after reviewing Page 118 of the Design Standards it states the Board shall conform to the Town' s Comprehensive Plan, the Comp Plan states protecting the Ag lands is a priority . A 2 acre lot is not low density, adding two more building lots behind would not be considered low density . Mr. Wertis stated the Ag Committee is actually encouraging this type of development . Cluster type housing is how they would like to see the district grow. Mr. Fry stated he had looked at the lot on the application and the zone to see if it complies . He noted that flag lots in the ag area are a concern. He stated they could tell the applicant to change the flag lot frontage . Mr. Wertis stated with this subdivision the remainder of the property would be for sale as a whole . Ms . Adams stated she understands Mr. Gleason stating he would not sell currently . This Board has witnessed this with the Carman Hill Subdivision. They ultimately had to split due to being unable to sell the large lot . Planning Board Mtg . 2 DRAFT05/04/2011 Mr. Fry stated he had reviewed the lot and noted the side setbacks were not met, he questioned if these were previous issues would this be out of their control . Mr. Gleason stated he had hired a surveyor based on what Mr. Rachun had instructed him he needed . He is very concerned after hearing the discussion what to do if he has to hire TG Miller to do another survey, he would have to incur additional expense . He is really disturbed as Mr. Rachun and he had worked with the surveyor to make sure the lots were in compliance and would be acceptable to the Planning Board . Ms Carlisle Peck stated this is the procedure that this Board actually be reviewing but does not necessarily approve . Mr. Wertis , Mr . Fry and Ms . Adams all stated this Board would be final approval . Mr. Wertis added there had been a precedent in the past in that the Subdivision' s on a connector road were treated differently . The Board cannot tell an applicant to not do a specific item yet they could suggest this . With this past history the applicant could be a lawsuit against the Town and would probably win. He stated the Board should not be looking at the Comp Plan for compliance but use the Zoning Laws . Mr . Wertis MADE the MOTION, Mr. Beames SECONDED the MOTION to approve the subdivision. Mr. Wertis asked the members for discussion. Ms . Schneider stated she appreciates Mr . Rachun ' s logic . She has appreciated his input for years and while he may miss a point she would like to hear his argument why he would recommend and refer this application to the Board . Ms . Adams stated Mr. Rachun moved forward with this application and she is in Ms . Schneider' s camp, why did he move forward with this . She is uncomfortable making a decision without Mr. Rachun' s presence . She realizes it puts the applicant in a longer time frame however she has concerns regarding the application. She reviewed the application and it appears to her Mr. Rachun has checked the wrong classification . Mr. Wertis called the vote on the Motion, the vote is as follows . AYE : Wertis , Beames NAY : Adams , Fry, Schneider THE MOTION FAILED Ms Schneider stated she has appreciated the time spent on this Board they have always worked as a team to get results . She would like to have this brought to Mr. Rachun ' s attention so they can hear his interpretation, listen to his logic , review the application and revisit this with updated information. Ms Schneider MADE the MOTION, Ms . Adams SECONDED the MOTION this be brought to Mr. Rachun' s review, this Board be presented with his logic and revisit this application . Ms . Adams added a Friendly Amendment on the application the Simple Subdivision box on Perry City Road box is not checked . This Board needs to know what is actually being reviewed . Mr. Wertis called the vote . The vote on the motion is as follows : AYE : Adams, Fry , Schneider NAY : Beames, Wertis THE MOTION FAILED Planning Board Mtg . 3 DRAFT05/04/2011 Ms . Carlisle Peck stated they could table the application. Mr. Wertis stated there are items this Board can recommend but if not codified cannot enforce . A discussion of shall (required) vs . should (suggested) was held . He added it would be nice to wait two weeks to have Mr. Rachun in attendance . Ms . Carlisle Peck stated this Board has had this issue addressed by the Town Attorney . It the Zoning states SHALL it is required, if SHOULD it is a recommendation . Ms . Adams and Mr. Fry stated that is not true and they have difficulty understanding the rationale for this . Mr. Gleason stated he is very upset with this whole process, it took him 6 weeks to get TG Miller to do the survey, it cost him $ 1100 . To go back and have the work redone would be an additional expense . He does not understand why this is happening, he worked with the CEO , worked the survey according to zoning law, what is the issue ? He does not appreciate being told what to do on his property but is trying to work with the law. Ms Adams stated she appreciated his concern but she could not believe it would take six weeks . She explained the need to have the CEO ' s input on this application . Mr. Gleason stated it had taken six weeks, he and his wife are concerned with the continued delay . Mr. Wertis stated according to Zoning Law Section 18 . 3 . 34 a Simple Subdivision on a connecting State Highway requires Minor Subdivision review. He noted Mr. Fry ' s using the Comp Plan criteria is bringing the future to zoning . These are good things however they are not in place at this time . Mr. Wertis MADE the MOTION , Mr. Beames SECONDED the MOTION to approve the Simple Subdivision for Mr. Richard Gleason, 8211 Perry City Road, Trumansburg, NY, Tax # 36 - 1 -4 . WHEREAS , the Town of Ulysses Planning Board received a Simple Subdivision application and map from Mr . Richard Gleason, 8211 Perry City Road, Trumansburg, NY , Tax # 36- 1 -4 . and WHEREAS , this Subdivision is on Perry City Road which required this Board to review as a Minor Subdivision, and WHEREAS , the members discussed the plans and were able to ask the applicant questions, and WHEREAS , this Board has concerns regarding errors and lack of duties on the part of Mr. Rachun-CEO , and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN : Ms . Adams ADDED a CONDITIONAL AMENDMENT, this subdivision is approved pending final review by Mr. Rachun . It is noted there is an error on the application-the wrong box is checked indicating Simple Subdivision on Perry City Road . The Board further stated the CEO needs to be present at all subdivision reviews to answer questions . This Board has noted that the CEO was not at this meeting and this created a hardship for them as well as the applicant . Mr. Rachun has not been doing his job properly and this has been a pattern to this Board . This Board does expect feedback from Mr. Rachun at a future meeting regarding the corrections . Ms Carlisle Peck asked Ms Adams if she would like to have a Friendly Amendment as this would be part of the minutes and documented . Ms Adams stated she would not and she understands and wants their concerns documented . Planning Board Mtg . 4 DRAFT05/04/2011 Mr. Fry agreed with Ms Adams, he stated Mr. Rachun had not been doing his job properly they have reviewed two subdivisions both of which had errors . They sent one away and this one created problem for the Board and applicant . Mr. Beames reminded the Board they would not be reviewing this if it was not on Perry City Road . Mr. Wertis stated they have sent a precedent in the past when reviewing this type of action, they could be sued and the applicant would win the lawsuit . Mr. Fry stated he has concerns due to the flag lot issue not being addressed . Mr. Wertis called the vote, THE VOTE IS AS FOLLOWS : AYE : Adams, Beames, Schneider, Wertis NAY : Fry Application APPROVED . Ms . Schneider stated the application had been approved . She expressed her appreciation to the applicant for his patience . She agreed there were concerns and would appreciate having Mr. Rachun follow through and speak with this Board . She has great trust and appreciation for Mr. Rachun . He has been in this position for years and is the only one that really knows this Zoning Law . She knows he has been considering leaving and feels this would be a great loss to the Town. Mr. Fry stated he does not believe it would be they could find a replacement for Mr. Rachun easily enough . Mr. Wertis stated he would like to remind the members the minutes will reflect their comments, In addition, Mr. Wertis stated they have minutes to approve from the meeting of April 20`" , he does have corrections . He was appointed Parliamentarian and it is not documented . In addition, the Procedures are listed as a working draft . It was his understanding the document was approved . Ms . Adams stated this is a draft and not final . She would prefer a subcommittee be formed. This committee would review/edit this document. Mr. Wertis stated he does not agree . This Board has been a mess for the past three years and this is his attempt to make their meetings function properly . Ms Schneider stated she would need more time to review the content due to having missed meetings . She also questioned the role/duties of the Parliamentarian . Mr. Wertis stated the Parliamentarian enforces the Roberts Rules of Order to have the meetings run correctly and smoothly . He asked the other members if they recalled his being appointed . Mr. Fry stated they did not vote on the position, they discussed the role and the members were asked and Mr. Wertis was suggested but not voted into the position . Ms Schneider MADE the MOTION, Mr. Beames SECONDED the MOTION to have the members reviews the document, submit comments/suggestions to Ms . Carlisle Peck by next Wednesday. Ms . Carlisle Peck will compile and distribute to the members . In addition, the Board would like specific information as to what authority/duties the Parliamentarian has and vote on this position. The vote was taken, ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED Mr. Wertis stated the Board had discussed moving the meeting night back to Tuesdays . Ms Schneider asked if this had been acceptable to Ken, Rod and Alex . Planning Board Mtg . 5 DRAFT05/04/2011 Mr. Wertis stated they had discussed this and it was acceptable to them. He was not sure why it had not been problematic in the past. Ms . Carlisle Peck state the Zoning Board meets infrequently, the past few months they have had more meetings . Mr. Fry asked when the Town Board meets, would this create a conflict. Ms . Carlisle Peck checked the wall calendar and noted the Town Board meets the 2"d and 4th Tuesday thus this should not be a conflict for Mr. Kerness . Mr. Wertis MADE the MOTION, Mr . Beames SECONDED the MOTION to change the Planning Board meeting to the 1St and 3rd Tuesday of the month . The vote was taken ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED . Ms . Carlisle Peck stated she would send the legal notices out so this Board can meet on the 17th Mr. Wertis stated he and Mr. Hawkes were meeting with Dan Spicer who is a land use lawyer regarding Floating Zones . Tompkins, Seneca, Schuyler and Steuben have access to this and are utilizing his expertise in reviewing zoning laws . He would report additional issues as they become more familiar with the zoning laws , the floating zones are one example . They feel more issues will come about as they start dealing with the Conservation Zone . There is concern that too much not be taken on, they still have to move zoning forward having it reflect the Comp Plan. Ms Schneider stated this Board and the Town have worked well for years on a variety of good zoning changes . She has been involved with Stormwater Management, Conservation Zone, they were making good progress on the OTMU . Then they were told this project was put on hold . She would like to have some agreement from the Town Board for a list of priorities and be provided with a timeline for completion. She appreciates they are looking at new types of zoning but would like to see the items they have worked on and have already started working on be completed . Mr. Wertis agreed having specific goals and times would be helpful from the Town Board . Ms Adams stated she has never had a history of what the Planning Board has worked on. She would like information on the Ag/Farmland Group , the Lakefront Zoning would be something she would like to work with. Mr. Wertis stated there is a Lakefront Group that has drafted the zoning . This Board received the directive to review the OTMU then it was directed to stop the review/edit process per Roxanne ' s letter. Ms Adams stated she is concerned with the OTMU , it seemed to be moving forward, now it seems broken, there were time issues, discussions as group to issue statements . She would like to hear form the Town as to what their interest is, she had thought this was a priority yet the " Summit" meeting was cancelled and not rescheduled due to not having the attorney present. We hired the attorney they should be available when we need them . She questioned why this is happening . Mr. Wertis noted the letter received and stated it was his belief it is a control issue, the Town Board has designated the Planning Board be a reactionary group vs . a proactive group . Ms . Schneider stated she is not sure she agrees with that statement . The Town Board has been supportive of allowing this Board to be proactive . They have designated the Stormwater, Conservation and Lakefront groups to make zoning regulations . They have made amendments to the zoning to allow changes to happen . Planning Board Mtg . 6 DRAFT05/04/2011 Mr. Wertis stated it maybe time to rethink how this group operates . The Town Board has accepted some suggestions and is still reviewing other work this group has done . He does not understand why it takes so long to get zoning changes done . The situation tonight is an example, the Board has asked the Town Board to make corrections to the Zoning that are problematic . The Town Board has stated they would yet they have not done this . This group has been informed it is a tedious process to make changes yet he sees other Town Board ' s make zoning changes relatively easy. Mr. Wertis stated the next order of business is reviewing the list of roles/duties of the Chair, Liaison and Secretary to the Planning Board . The members reviewed the list and stated this would be a good item to incorporate with. the review of procedures . One item to be added to the Chair ' s duties would be Orientation of new members . The members will review/edit for the next meeting . Mr. Wertis asked Ms . Carlisle Peck the status of the past minutes . Ms . Carlisle Peck stated she had sent them to all in emails as usual . There has not been returned emails thus thought they were being delivered . She advised Mr. Wertis it would be appreciated if before he approached other people about the minutes via email , going to the Town Cleric, etc . about the "MYSTERY" please call her. She did provide hardcopy and will subsequently do this on a regular basis . She noted they are all in Draft format and have not been approved thus would not be in the Town Clerk' s book. This is frustrating for her as she receives questions from the Town Clerk as well . The minutes have not been approved since 09/2010 . They were all sent again in November for the December meetings, unfortunately due to family emergencies these meetings were cancelled. Mr. Wertis stated he was trying to clear up a situation and if he offended Ms Carlisle Peck was apologetic . Ms . Carlisle Peck stated she would send out a test email and would appreciate the members sending a reply confirming receipt. Ms Schneider stated she wanted to express her appreciation to this group . She added good humor and civility tempered by a degree of respectful formality in our debates have prevailed to produce a reasoned and fair decision for the public we serve . The members made a motion and approved to adjourn at 8 : 37pm Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Secretary