Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #103 Monday, May 23, 2022 Marcham Hall – 7:00 pm Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, Clerk J. Walker, Deputy Clerk A. Jacot, Alternate Member M. Johnston, Mayor Woodard R. Varn, Starland Builders Item 1 – Meeting called to order • Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:05 pm. • Chair F. Cowett stated that Board Member J. Leijonhufvud is unable to attend the meeting, and Alternate M. Johnston is appointed a full voting member of the Board for this meeting; R. Segelken and M. Johnston are attending the meeting remotely. Item 2 – April 25, 2022 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the April 25, 2022 meeting. Motion: M. McMurry Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 348 APPROVING MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2022 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the April 25, 2022 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None Item 3 – May 10, 2022 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the May 10, 2022 meeting. Motion: M. Johnston Second: M. McMurry 2 RESOLUTION No. 349 APPROVING MINUTES OF MAY 10, 2022 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the May 10, 2022 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni. Abstained – R. Segelken Opposed – None Item 4 – Public Comment • No members of the public wished to speak. Item 5 – Videoconferencing for Conduct of Meetings • Chair F. Cowett stated that Attorney R. Marcus has advised the Planning Board to consider a resolution authorizing the use of videoconferencing (i.e. Zoom) to conduct Board meetings when Governor Hochul ends her executive order allowing for public meetings to be conducted via videoconferencing; the resolution requires a quorum of Board members to be physically present at the meeting location, such as Marcham Hall or the Village firehouse, where members of the public can attend in person; it also requires that, at meetings where public comment or participation is authorized, members of the public must be able to participate in the meeting via videoconference in real time; to permit consideration of this resolution, the Board passed a resolution at its May 10, 2022 meeting scheduling a public hearing for this meeting to hear public comments. • The public hearing commenced at 7:09 pm. • No members of the public wished to speak. Motion: M. McMurry Second: E. Quaroni RESOLUTION No. 350 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING RESOLVED, that the public hearing regarding the use of videoconferencing for the conduct of Planning Board meetings residence be closed. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None • The public hearing closed at 7:10 pm. 3 Motion: M. Johnston Second: M. McMurry RESOLUTION No. 351 AUTHORIZING THE USE OF VIDEOCONFERENCING FOR THE CONDUCT OF PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS WHEREAS, as of April 9, 2022, the previous videoconferencing provisions found in Public Officers Law § 103(c) were removed, and public bodies wishing to conduct meetings via videoconference must comply with the new requirements of Public Officers Law § 103‐a; and WHEREAS, Public Officers Law § 103‐a(2) authorizes public bodies to conduct meetings using videoconference technology so long as a quorum of the public body is physically present at one or more of the locations where the public can also attend in person; and WHEREAS, in order for public bodies to conduct meetings via videoconferencing, certain requirements of Public Officers Law § 103‐a(2) must be satisfied; and WHEREAS, among the requirements of Public Officers Law § 103‐a(2) is that the public body must adopt a local law or a resolution after a public hearing authorizing the use of videoconferencing for itself and its committees or subcommittees; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of Cayuga Heights desires to authorize the use of videoconferencing for itself; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has conducted a public hearing to hear comments on the use of videoconferencing to conduct public meetings; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Planning Board of the Village of Cayuga Heights as follows: 1. The Planning Board of the Village of Cayuga Heights is hereby authorized to conduct meetings via videoconferencing in accordance with the requirements of Public Officers Law § 103‐a(2), including, but not limited to: A. A quorum of members of the Planning Board must be physically present at one of the meeting locations at which the public can attend in person unless the member is unable to be physically present due to extraordinary circumstances, which include disability, illness, caregiving responsibilities, or any other significant or 4 unexpected factor or event which precludes the member's physical attendance at such meeting. B. Except in the case of executive sessions conducted pursuant to Public Officers Law § 105, the Planning Board shall ensure that members of the Planning Board can be heard, seen, and identified while the meeting is being conducted, including but not limited to any motions, proposals, resolutions, and any other matter formally discussed or voted upon. C. The minutes of meetings involving videoconferencing must include which, if any, members participated remotely and must be made available to the public pursuant to Public Officers Law § 106. D. The public notice for the meeting must (i) inform the public (a) that videoconferencing will be used, (b) where they can view and/or participate in such meeting, and (c) where required documents and records will be posted or available, and (ii) identify the physical location(s) where members of the Planning Board will be participating in the meeting and where the public can attend the meeting in person. E. The Planning Board must record each meeting that uses videoconferencing and such recordings must be posted or linked to on the public body’s website within five business days of the meeting. The recordings must remain available for a minimum of five years thereafter, and recordings must be transcribed upon request. F. At meetings where public comment or participation is authorized, members of the public must be able to participate in the proceedings via videoconference in real time. G. If the Planning Board broadcasts its meetings or conducts its meetings via videoconference, it must use technology that permits members of the public with disabilities to access the video in a manner consistent with the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None 5 Item 6 – Site Plan Review – 211 North Sunset Drive • Chair F. Cowett stated that the proposed project is a two story, single family residence with an attached garage to be constructed on a vacant lot at 211 North Sunset Drive; the lot was created by subdividing a larger vacant lot into two lots; the subdivision was approved by the Planning Board in August 2018; in May 2020, the Planning Board approved construction of a single family residence at the northernmost of the two lots at 213 North Sunset Drive; the lot at 211 North Sunset Drive was deemed by the Planning Board in 2018 to be compliant with the Village’s Zoning Law for average minimum width and depth; the lot is bisected by a private sanitary sewer lateral which connects via a private easement agreement from a residence at 600 Cayuga Heights Road to a Village sewer main on North Sunset Drive; a site plan provided by the applicant shows that the proposed residence will be located on the lot’s northern portion and will avoid any disturbance of this sewer lateral. • Chair F. Cowett asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross if the proposed project will be able to connect to public potable water and public wastewater treatment facilities. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that the project will be able to connect to a public potable water main on North Sunset Drive; the project could connect to the Village sewer main on North Sunset Drive; however, it would mean less work for DPW if the project could connect to the private sanitary sewer lateral instead and he has asked the applicant to explore whether this would be feasible or if it would be prohibited by the easement agreement. • R. Varn, Starland Builders, stated that the sewer easement has created problems with prospective buyers; it limits potential locations for a residence; the site plan shows the residence, garage, and driveway confined to the front portion of the northern portion of the lot; the client prefers a straight driveway leading in from North Sunset Drive which means that the driveway grade will be on the steep side. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the Village’s Zoning Law generally limits driveway grades to 10%, but the Planning Board can approve driveways with grades up to 15%; based on the garage location and topo lines from a previous survey, the driveway grade appears close to, but less than 15%. • R. Varn confirmed that the driveway grade will be less than 15% and may wind up being closer to 10%. • E. Quaroni stated that in the 2018 subdivision review the option of locating the residence in the lot’s southern portion was explored; this option included a curving driveway traversing the sewer easement with a grade of less than 10%. • M. McMurry asked if the sewer easement prohibits the construction of a driveway over the private sanitary sewer lateral. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that he has not seen the terms of the sewer easement, but such easements generally prohibit construction over them, at least in part due to the cost of making future repairs to the sewer lateral. 6 • M. Johnston asked if the sewer lateral has ever been accessed by Village DPW. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that it is a private sewer easement and therefore Village DPW would not have access to the sewer lateral. • M. Johnston asked how stormwater runoff on the site will be directed to the retention basin shown in the site plan to the southwest of the residence. • R. Varn replied that footer drains and gutter drains will direct runoff to the basin via pipes and swales. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that he will recommend that R. Varn install a culvert pipe under the driveway which will direct runoff north of the driveway via a swale within the property to the retention basin. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross further stated that the treatment of stormwater runoff associated with this project is a schematic concept at this point; R. Varn has arranged for engineering support to deal more fully with stormwater management prior to the next Board meeting; this support will include calculations on the quantity and quality of the runoff; he will review these calculations and advise the Board about stormwater management on site prior to the next Board meeting. • M. McMurry asked about possible tree removals. • R. Varn replied that trees will be removed to excavate and construct the residence, garage, and driveway; there are no plans to remove trees on the southern side of the sewer easement other than those that are dead and trees along the northern boundary line will be preserved to serve as a vegetative buffer with the neighboring property. • M. McMurry asked if the Board will receive more formal plans prior to its next meeting. • R. Varn replied that it will. • Chair F. Cowett asked about the number of bedrooms in the residence. • R. Varn replied that there will be four bedrooms and an upstairs TV room; it is a two story house with a four car garage. • M. Johnston asked about the energy package for the structure. • R. Varn replied a decision has not been made whether the residence will employ a geothermal heat pump or more conventional forced air heating and cooling; he is still discussing with the client; a decision will be made prior to the Board’s next meeting. • M. Johnston encouraged R. Varn to educate his client about energy saving options. • Chair F. Cowett asked if the residence will have a basement. • R. Varn replied that there will a crawl space, but not a basement. • Chair F Cowett asked about architectural features and finishes. • R. Varn replied that the residence will be modern in style with Hardie panel vertical siding, stone columns, and casement windows with transoms. • M. McMurry asked about roof materials. • R. Varn replied that the roof material will be architectural shingles. 7 Motion: E. Quaroni Second: M. McMurry RESOLUTION No. 352 TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 211 NORTH SUNSET DRIVE FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW RESOLVED, that the Planning Board accepts the proposed project at 211 North Sunset Drive for site plan review. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None • The Board discussed the project in relation to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and whether to categorize the project as a Type I, Type II, or Unlisted SEQRA action. • Chair F. Cowett stated that this project involves the construction of a single-family residence on an approved lot and includes provision of necessary utility connections; therefore, under § 617.5.C.11 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, the project shall be categorized as a Type II SEQRA action; the applicant will not need to complete Part 1 of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form, nor will the Planning Board need to complete Parts 2 and 3 of that form, but the Planning Board will still consider environmental factors in making findings related to site plan approval or disapproval. Motion: R. Segelken Second: M. Johnston RESOLUTION No. 353 SEQRA REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 211 NORTH SUNSET DRIVE RESOLVED, that the Planning Board declares itself lead agency for SEQRA review of the project at 211 North Sunset Drive which the Board categorizes as a Type II action. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None 8 Motion: M. Johnston Second: E. Quaroni RESOLUTION No. 354 TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 211 NORTH SUNSET DRIVE RESOLVED, that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 27, 2022 at 7:05 pm regarding site plan review for the proposed project at 211 North Sunset Drive. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None Item 7 – New Business • Chair F. Cowett stated that the Village’s Board of Trustees (BOT) at its May 18th meeting asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross to inform the RaNic golf club that the Trustees have agreed to consider the creation at RaNic of a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) which would allow the site to be improved with townhouses and a hotel; the Trustees also asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross to inform the golf club that the Trustees ha ve concerns about the scale and intensity of these improvements; the Trustees expect RaNic representatives to attend the BOT’s June 15th meeting to discuss the project further; in order for more than two Planning Board members to attend this meeting, whether in person or via Zoom, the Planning Board needs to consider a resolution scheduling a special joint meeting with the Board of Trustees at the BOT’s June 15th meeting. Motion: M. McMurry Second: M. Johnston RESOLUTION No. 355 TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WITH THE VILLAGE’S BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT MARCHAM HALL RESOLVED, that the Planning Board schedule a special joint meeting with the Village’s Board of Trustees at Marcham Hall on Wednesday June 15, 2022 at 7:05 pm. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None 9 • Chair F. Cowett asked Planning Board members for their reactions to the presentation made by the RaNic design team at the May 10th joint meeting with the Board of Trustees at the golf club. • M. Johnston asked whether a PDZ is really required for this project; the RaNic design team stated at the May 10th meeting that they had considered locating the hotel in the Town of Ithaca portion of the golf club rather than in the Cayuga Heights portion; if the hotel and all townhouses are located in the Town of Ithaca and not in Cayuga Heights, there would be no need for the Village to create a PDZ. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that he would phrase M. Johnston’s last statement somewhat differently, that there would be no need for the applicant to propose a PDZ; the applicant needs to propose a PDZ, and the Village then considers whether to approve the PDZ proposal, amend it, or disapprove it. • M. Johnston questioned whether the Village should even want to consider approving a PDZ when proposed by the applicant. • M. McMurry replied that the Trustees, at their May 18th meeting, expressed interest in entertaining a PDZ proposal. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that the Trustees agreed to entertain a PDZ proposal which would include townhouses and a hotel, but also expressed reservations about the scale and intensity of these improvements as presented to date. • M. McMurry stated that an advantage of a PDZ is that it allows flexibility in locating improvements such as townhouses and a hotel; for example, the Trustees at their May 18th meeting expressed reservations about locating townhouses adjacent to Pleasant Grove Road. • M. Johnston stated agreement with not locating townhouses adjacent to Pleasant Grove Road; an alternate location for the hotel might also be considered. • E. Quaroni stated that the RaNic design team at the May 10th meeting did not describe the benefits of the PDZ to the Village; their presentation focused almost exclusively on the benefits of the PDZ to the golf club; their PDZ proposal should describe more fully the PDZ’s benefits to the Village. • M. Johnston agreed with E. Quaroni about the need to clarify the project’s benefits to the Village; the hotel is of questionable benefit because it is not guaranteed of success, particularly during the off-season, and could possibly fail; the townhouses might be a different story; the demand for additional housing is more of a sure thing. • E. Quaroni stated that price points given for the townhouses at the May 10th meeting were between $500k and $600k; this is high end pricing and demand may be limited. • M. Johnston agreed that townhouse price points matter; it would be instructive to know how a hotel such as La Tourelle copes with the off-season. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that the Board of Trustees, in considering a PDZ, could require the applicant to provide a market analysis of the proposed hotel; there are consultants who specialize in the hotel industry; the Trustees could require that a study be conducted before proceeding further in this project. 10 • M. Johnston stated that a hotel also entails a huge use of resources; the hotel seems part of a grand vision which the applicant apparently wants to realize all at once; this seems a risky strategy; phasing the project in stages might make better sense. • Chair F. Cowett stated concern that the RaNic design team may have not consulted a professional golf course management firm; such firms specialize in reviving courses in decline and putting them on more sustainable financial footing; a hotel requires large capital expenditure up front and then substantial overhead to operate; more emphasis should instead maybe be given to the quality of the course; if the course doesn’t measure up, people won’t want to come play it nor stay in the hotel. • R. Segelken stated that it is not the responsibility of the Planning Board to ponder a dubious business plan; the Board should instead ask the RaNic design team whether there is a Plan B if the hotel does not pan out; it may also be that the hotel is a developer’s bargaining chip, i.e. ask for a lot more and then downsize a bit. • M. McMurry agreed with R. Segelken regarding the bargaining chip; in her legal experience representing developers, it is a common strategy for a developer to ask for more than the developer expects to receive, and then downsize as a concession so as to obtain what is really wanted; she is also wary of marketing analyses provided by developers since they are often biased. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that any marketing analysis would be applicable to Board of Trustees consideration of a PDZ proposal and not Planning Board site plan review; if the Trustees approve a PDZ, the Planning Board would then need to judge whether the project as proposed fits within the PDZ. • M. McMurry asked whether the Planning Board can disapprove aspects of a PDZ in site plan review once the PDZ is approved by the Board of Trustees. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that the Planning Board cannot disapprove the PDZ once approved by the Trustees, but it can disapprove the project site plan according to the usual site plan criteria, e.g. parking, traffic, stormwater management, etc. • Chair F. Cowett stated his concern that the Trustees may approve a PDZ for which the Planning Board would then be unable to approve a site plan based on site plan criteria; the RaNic design team so far has not provided sufficient details about the project for the Trustees to make a well-informed decision about the PDZ. • M. McMurry stated that the RaNic design team needs to state more specifically the benefits to the Village associated with the project and the PDZ. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that from the project’s start the RaNic design team should have provided the Village with a bullet list of the project’s benefits to the Village; he expects that, when the PDZ proposal is formally presented to the Village, the RaNic design team will identify those parts of the Village’s comprehensive plan that they believe are achieved by the PDZ and the project. • E. Quaroni asked whether the golf club is on the Village sewer system or a private septic system; the comment was made at the May 10th meeting that the clubhouse’s septic system had failed and requires a half million dollars to fix. 11 • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that he believes the comment regarding the septic system was a slip of the tongue since the golf club is 100% on public water and sewer; currently, the Village is carefully managing the number of sewage units available to developers due to capacity issues related to inflow and infiltration (I & I) at the Village’s wastewater treatment plant; this project will require additional sewage units; no sewage units are available at this time and the RaNic design team is aware of this fact; the expectation is that plant capacity will improve as the Village resolves its I & I issues; as for the half million dollars needed to fix the septic system, he believes this sum applies to more than sewage problems in the clubhouse. • M. McMurry asked about expectations for the Board of Trustees’ June 15th meeting. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that he expects the RaNic design team to present more specific project plans and ideas, but doubts that it will be a formal PDZ proposal. • The Board’s next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday, June 27, 2022 at 7:00 pm. Item 8 – Adjourn • Meeting adjourned at 8:40 pm.