Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.28.2025 Planning-board-Minutes1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #130 Monday, July 28, 2025 Marcham Hall – 7:00 pm Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, M. McMurry Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney S.O. Shah, Deputy Clerk K. Perkins, Alternate Member E. Quaroni, Mayor L. Woodard J. Guo, 306 Highland Road J. Guisado, Architect Item 1 – Meeting called to order • Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:05 pm. • Chair F. Cowett stated that Board Members J. Leijonhufvud and R. Segelken are absent and appointed Alternate Member E. Quaroni a full voting Board member in their absence. Item 2 – June 23, 2025 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the June 23, 2025 meeting. M. Johnston E. Quaroni RESOLUTION No. 433 APPROVING MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2025 RESOLVED,that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the June 23, 2025 meeting are hereby approved. Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni – None Item 3 – Public Comment • No members of the public wished to comment. 2 Item 4 – Site Plan Review – 306 Highland Road • Chair F. Cowett stated that at its last meeting on June 23rd the Cayuga Heights Planning Board accepted for site plan review the proposed project at 306 Highland Road to increase the building footprint in the site plan approved by the Planning Board in 2018, declared itself lead agency for the project’s SEQRA review and made a negative finding of adverse environmental impact for the project, considered the variance request associated with the project for an increase in lot coverage to 17.01% and resolved that it did not oppose the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals granting such a variance, and scheduled a public hearing for the project at its July 28th meeting; subsequent to its June meeting the Board received on July 3rd a GML §239 - l, -m and –n letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability stating that the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact and which also encouraged the applicant to utilize lower- level outdoor LED lighting with a color temperature not higher than 2700 CCT to minimize adverse human and ecological impacts; additionally, on July 7, the Village ZBA considered the variance sought by the applicant to increase lot coverage to 17.1% and, in granting the variance, found that the benefit to the applicant if the variance was granted is greater than the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. • Chair F. Cowett further stated that the agenda for the meeting will be for the Board to hold the public hearing on the project, after which the Board will review the site plan submitted by the applicant. • The public hearing scheduled for this meeting commenced at 7:09 pm. • No members of the public wished to speak. • M. McMurry asked if any written or emailed comments from the public pertaining to the project had been received. • Chair F. Cowett and Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that no written or emailed comments had been received. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that three letters noticing the public hearing mailed to the adjacent property owners within 200 feet of the project site had been returned as undeliverable. M. McMurry M. Johnston RESOLUTION No. 434 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING RESOLVED, that the public hearing regarding the site plan for the proposed project at the 306 Highland Road be closed. 3 Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni None • The public hearing closed at 7:10 pm. • Architect J. Guisado discussed the proposed site plan; it includes a schedule of maintenance for when construction is completed; there will be a buffer of trees and plants between the parking area and the sidewalk along Highland Road, and perhaps a picnic table or benches; the retaining wall shown in the plan is for erosion control only and does not create a garden area; the applicant wants a parking reduction from existing zoning requirements; there can be overflow parking if needed in the fire lane; there is a lot of public transportation available adjacent to the site. • M. McMurry stated concern about the amount of parking provided and siting overflow parking in a fire lane. • E. Quaroni asked about fire safety and exits from the building. • J. Guisado replied that there are sufficient exits from the building for fire safety and residents can exit the building via windows if needed. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that the building provides direct access to the exterior via fire rated corridors; fire rated walls will separate the old building from new construction; windows can be utilized for emergency escape. • Chair F. Cowett stated that he had forgotten at the Board’s last meeting to ask two questions concerning fire safety which the Village’s Fire Chief had asked him to ask; the first question relates to fire sprinklers; the Fire Chief believes the building is protected by sprinklers; is that correct? • J. Guo replied that that there are no sprinklers in the building. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the second question relates to the fire alarm system; the Fire Chief believes that the old building had a local only fire alarm system that would alert building occupants of a fire, but not the fire department; has a monitored alarm system which would notify the fire department in the event of a fire been installed? • J. Guo replied that there is no alarm system directly connected to the fire department, but one could be installed. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that the building code does not require either a sprinkler system or a monitored alarm system connected to the fire department; construction will be fire rated to prevent the spread of fire. • M. Johnston asked if the fire wall separating the old building from new construction effectively creates two buildings. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that it would not; there is only one building. • Chair F. Cowett stated that he has problems with the site plan and is unable to support the proposed project; the Planning Board was supportive of the applicant in 2018 when the project was first proposed given that the building had been vacant for 4 several years even though the applicant could not provide construction plans for the project to the Board; the Board approved the project which included an addition to the existing building with one major condition, that the maximum number of dwelling units would be 16 and the maximum number of building residents would be 48; he was surprised to learn seven years later that the applicant was requesting an addition to the addition approved by the Board in 2018 and that, while the number of dwelling units would be 15 instead of 16, the number of residents would be 53 instead of 48; he cannot support the proposed increase in the building footprint and the number of residents since it is accompanied by a decrease in parking spaces from the 22 spaces in the site plan approved by the Board in 2018 to 16 in the current site plan and the current site plan shows overflow parking for 4 to 5 vehicles in the dedicated fire lane to the south of the building. • J. Guo replied that 48 residents was an artificial number since there were no final construction plans for project completion when the Planning Board approved the project in 2018. • E. Quaroni stated that she was on the Board in 2018; the applicant presented vague information concerning construction plans, and so estimates of the maximum number of residents and dwelling units were all that the Board had to work with when taking into account the number of former fraternity occupants; she also stated concern with the accuracy of the site plan which is superimposed on a 2018 survey; the orientation of the building in relation to the northern property line suggests that the proposed addition in the current site plan could impinge on the side yard setback which would potentially trigger the need for a second variance. • J. Guisado stated that the dimensions of the building and the lot are correct. • J. Guo stated that a new survey had been completed in 2024. • M. Johnston asked J. Guisado if the site plan could be updated to reflect the 2024 survey. • J. Guisado replied that it could. • M. McMurry stated that the site feels crowded in the current site plan; the site plan approved in 2018 reflected the Planning Board’s judgment as to how much density could fit on the site; although § 305-90.H.2.d of the Village’s Zoning Law permits the Planning Board to reduce parking requirements in the Multiple Housing zoning district by 20 percent, that reduction was meant for special circumstances; there is nothing special about this project nor are there special circumstances; it appears that the applicant is trying to squeeze more density into a site that is already crowded and this is not a benefit to the Village. • M. Johnston stated that the problem as he sees it is how to configure the site plan on a site that is relatively small; can the current plan be revised to work better with site constraints; he thinks the Board can work with the applicant to get this done. • J. Guisado asked what changes the Board would like to be made in the site plan. 5 • The Board asked that the site plan be revised to reflect the most current site survey, a fire lane without overflow parking, additional parking spaces, and terminal islands at the end of the parking aisles as shown in the 2018 site plan; also, that the dimensions of site plan elements be shown on the plan including but not limited to the ADA parking space and its adjacent access aisle, and the width of the walkway to the front door. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross asked if the changes to the site plan would require another public hearing that would need to be noticed. • Attorney S.O. Shah replied that the need for another public hearing would depend on the changes made to the site plan and whether they were judged to be substantial. • J. Guisado asked the Board to provide a list of requested changes to the site plan. Item 5 – Comprehensive Plan Update • The Board briefly resumed its discussion on updating the Village’s Comprehensive Plan and the results of the second survey. • M. McMurry noted that one of the survey questions combined biking and walking to the Community Corners area; she would prefer that any subsequent survey separate these two. • Deputy Clerk K. Perkins stated the Bike Ped survey conducted several years ago considered biking and walking separately. Item 6 – New Business • Chair F. Cowett stated that the next meeting of the Planning Board will be held on Monday August 25, 2025 at 7:00 pm at Marcham Hall. • E. Quaroni stated that she might be unable to attend the August meeting. Item 7 – Adjourn • Meeting adjourned at 8:34 pm.