Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.9.2025 Minutes (joint meeting)1 VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHT December 9th 2025 Zoom ID # 4118425407 JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF 7:00 p.m. TRUSTEES & PLANNING BOARD Present: Mayor Woodard; Trustees: Conway, Hubbell, Rennekamp, Robinson, and Salton; Planning Board Chair Cowett; Planning Board Members: Johnston, McMurry, Quaroni, and Segelken; Superintendent of Public Works Cross; Village Attorney Shah; Village Clerk Walker. 1. Call to Order: Mayor Woodard calls the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. •Mayor Woodard states that she will turn the meeting over to Village Planning Board Chair Cowett to conduct SEQR. •Planning Board Chair Cowett states that the applicant has provided the SEQR short form part one, but we will also need to discuss parts two and three. •Mayor Woodard states that we will first need to approve the meeting minutes from the November 12, 2025, Joint meeting. Resolution: 9922 BE IT RESOLVED THAT: the Village of Cayuga Heights Board of Trustees approves the November 12, 2025, Board Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion: Trustee Biloski Second: Trustee Conway Ayes: Mayor Woodard; Trustees: Biloski, Conway, Hubbell, Rennekamp, and Robinson Nays: none Abstentions: Salton Motion Carried 2. Privilege of the Floor: •Mayor Woodard states that we will open the Public Hearing since most members of the public are here to speak to this project. •Mayor Woodard opens the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. Village resident Curt Ashman of 398 E. Upland states that he has been involved in discussions about this property since 2007. Village resident C. Ashman states that he is still not in favor of the project; he is concerned about the environment and character of the neighborhood, and most of all, the effects of water flowing from this property. Village resident C. Ashman states that he also has not heard of anyone publicly stating they are in favor of this 2 project. If the Boards are aware of anything, we would like to know. •Mayor Woodard states that she has not heard from anyone. It seems to be the case that those who are against it speak up, and those who don’t care or think it is fine do not express themselves. •Trustee Salton states that the people he spoke to when he first ran for Trustee informed him that the community corners are a bit tired. It has old shops and restaurants. •Trustee Salton states that when we were discussing the Village Comprehensive Plan, there was a discussion to expand the commercial zone, which included this exact property. It did not happen, but it doesn’t change the fact that we have a responsibility to carefully consider any project that comes before us. •Planning Board member Johnston states that there was an interesting article in the press on how the county has fallen quite short on housing goals. Particularly on smaller-sized single-family units. https://ithacavoice.org/2025/12/tompkins-falls-short-on-most-of-its-housing-goals/ Village resident J. Barr of 3 Triphammer Lane states that the traffic on E. Upland Rd. is terrible. People speed and do not obey the signage. She has had issues with water drainage associated with E. Upland Rd. Village resident J. Barr states that putting a condo project in is only going to add to the traffic. Village resident C. Ashman states that he is in favor of development as long as it is within the guidelines set. •Planning Board Chair Cowett states that the applicant has already completed Part 1 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form and submitted it to the Board of Trustees. •The Board discussed the project in relation to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and reviewed the applicant’s responses to the questions in Part 1 of the SEQRA short form read by Planning Board Chair F. Cowett. •The Board accepted the majority of the applicant’s responses and made the following comments and corrections: o Corrected the Brief Description of Proposed Action to read “a 6.12-acre site adjacent to the Corners Community Shopping Center.” o Added "Forest" to land uses that occur on, are adjoining, or near the proposed action in Question 4, due to the treed area in the southern part of the site adjacent to Lowell Place. o Noted in Question 5a that townhouses are not an allowed use under current zoning regulations; o Noted in Question 5b that Objectives EC1.3, HO1.1, and HO1.2 of the Village’s Comprehensive Plan advocated re-invigorating the Community Corners area as the economic and social hub of the 3 Village, updating zoning regulations to meet Village needs, and encouraging residential development in the Community Corners area; o Agreed that Question 6 should be answered Yes because the site of the proposed project is adjacent to Carriage House Apartments and the Corners Community Shopping Center. o Agreed in Question 8a that the proposed action will not result in a substantial increase in traffic because it would be unlikely to generate 100 peak-hour vehicle trips; o Confirmed with the applicant in Question 9 that the proposed action will meet NYS energy code requirements; o Added a comment in Question 13 that the wetland on site has been designated by the NYSDEC as a wetland of unusual importance because it is located within a 2020 US Census Designated Urban Area o Added “Forest” to habitat types occurring on the project site in Question 14; o Corrected Question 17b from No to Yes because, per Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, the stormwater containment system planned for the site will discharge stormwater into the Village’s stormwater system under certain circumstances, such as an intense precipitation event. o Agreed that Question 18, after some discussion as to the precise meaning of the question, should be answered No, in part because the proposed stormwater containment system is intended for detention and not retention; and o Noted in Question 19 that, while the site is not the location of an active or closed solid waste management facility, it was filled with excavated soil from the original construction of the Corners Community Shopping Center. 4 5 6 7 •The Board moved on to the SEQR questions in Part 2 of the SEQRA short form read by Planning Board Chair F. Cowett. •The Board found for questions 1 through 11 that the project would have no environmental impact or the environmental impact of the project would be small, and made the following comments: o Noted in Question 1 that the proposed action is consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, but conflicts with existing zoning, although zoning also allows the creation of a Planned Development Zone to remedy those conflicts; o Noted in Question 2 that 0.51 acres of the site, which is currently undeveloped, will be developed intensively, but the remainder of the 6.13-acre site will not be developed, and that the overall environmental impact of the project on the entire site will be small. 8 o Noted in Question 3 that the project, which is residential in character, occupies a transition zone between single-family residences and commercial and apartment residential development, and that the impact on the character or quality of the existing community will be small. o Noted in Question 9 that the project does not disturb the one hundred foot buffer of the wetlands, but driveway access to East Upland Road will impinge on the double row of mature evergreen trees along East Upland which provide a buffer for the single family residences located there, and minimizing the loss of trees should be prioritized so that any adverse change to natural resources will be small; o Noted in Question 10 that there have been flooding issues on East Upland Road impacting the residences located there, and the applicant should work with the Village to minimize the potential for any stormwater-related impacts associated with the project; and o Noted in Question 11, the potential for light trespass from a previously undeveloped site to the neighboring residences on East Upland Road, which the applicant can mitigate through Dark Sky- compliant exterior lighting. 9 10 11 Resolution: 9923 BE IT RESOLVED THAT: the Village of Cayuga Heights Board of Trustees has determined, based on the information and analysis of the findings in the Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1-3, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. Motion: Trustee Robinson Second: Trustee Salton Ayes: Mayor Woodard; Trustees: Biloski, Conway, Hubbell, Rennekamp, Robinson, and Salton Nays: none Abstentions: none Motion Carried •Mayor Woodard closes the Public Hearing at 8:32 p.m. •B. Cross states that the next step is for the developer to submit a draft PDZ language for this project. •Mayor Woodard adjourns the meeting at 8:32 p.m.