No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-2495 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING The Lansing Town Board met in Special Hearing on the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Center at 7:00 p.m. with Supervisor Kirby Jeannine Kirby Herbert Beckwith Paul Butler Jeffrey Cleveland Larry Tvaroha Bonita Boles Richard John ROLL CALL Session to hold a Public at the Lansing Community presiding. Supervisor Present Councilman Present Councilman Present Councilman Present Councilman Present Town Clerk Present Town Attorney Present VISITORS: Debbie McKane, John Purcell, Susan Miller, Martha Gold, Brad Griffin, Claues Nyberg, William Warmus, George Gage, Roger Van De Poel, Donna Mazza, Bob Keefe, Scott Baird, Bob & Jackie Baker, Susan Brock, Viola Miller, Matthew & Aline Shulman, Pat Conlon, William Miller, Ralph Barnard, Bud Howell, Sarah McKane, Ethel Cratsley, Diane Rutherford, Marcia Lynch, Katrina Greenly, Michael & Joan Brink, George Totman and about 4 other Lansing residence. Proof of Notice having been furnished by the Town Clerk, the Public Hearing on the Proposed Zoning Ordinance was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Mrs. Kirby read a short statement to the public regarding the reasoning for the proposed zoning ordinance and the work that has been involved in the preparation of said ordinance. She also thanked the Lansing Planning Board, Town Board, Town staff and County Planning Department and the members present for all of their hard work. She then opened the floor to questions and concerns, which were as follows: 1. Joan Brink (318 Asbury Road): Concerned that she was once in an agriculture district and was told that because of that she was not allowed to be in a water district. She is now in an R1 district and wondered if she could now get water. 2. Bill Miller (154 Wilson Road): He wondered where the 111,000 feet restriction" came from as stated in the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. 3, John Purcell (111 Burdick Hill Road /Property on Portland Point Road) : Stated he had just purchased land on Portland Point Road and that if the ordinance passes, it will be zoned "commercial" and he would not be able to build on it. He asked if this could be changed so he could build on it. 4, Bud Howell (1 people in Lansing He stated that the I s very opposed tc rights. 067 Ridge Road) : Stated that the majority of the do not want zoning especially in the North end. Town Board is doing an injustice to the Town. He > it and it would take away an owner's property 5. William Warmus (20 Fiddlers Green): Supports the concept of zoning but felt there could be possible modifications. 6. Clause Nyberg ( 162 Ludlowville Road) : Wanted to know what the difference was between an R1 and R2 district. Also felt that people who had over 100 acres of land should be allowed to place a trailer on it if they wanted to. There are a lot of inconsistencies within the proposed ordinance. He felt common sense should be used and more time should be given for people to voice their comments and concerns. 7. Donna Mazza (532 Buck Road): Feel it's a good thing to have zoning but it was hard for one small group of people to make decisions for an entire community. Felt that maybe smaller groups 96 continued June 24, 1998 should go before the Planning Board or their specific needs. Was confused why zoned different than the other end. She zoning but felt the community needed to the Town Board to� discuss one end of Buck Road was stated that she supported be involved more. 8. Diane Rutherford (5 Fiddlers Green): Her area is unique. Different spaces ,and places are different. 9. Roger Van De Poel (2 Sunset Drive) : Why is his residential neighborhood, that was specifically subdivided for this purpose listed as commercial mixed use B1? 10. Susan Broth (355 Luce Road) : Thanked the Town Board and the Planning Board and felt there has been a lot of opportunity for public comment and has been an open process. She supported the concept of zoning but felt there are many inconsistencies in the proposed ordinance. She presented the Town Board with the following letter: Dear Town Board Members: I live at 355 Luce Road in the Town of Lansing and have the following comments on the proposed zoning amendments dated June 2, 1998, SCHEDULE 1 1. The schedule of land uses and activities (Sec. 503) shows applicable Special Conditions. This schedule lists "SC 802.0" numerous times for many types of uses and activities. But there are no special conditions set forth in Section 802.01 That section merely states that a building permit shall be issued if applicable conditions specified elsewhere in Section 802 are met. None of the conditions specified elsewhere in Section 802 are applicable to these uses. So the reference to 11802.0" appears to impose no special conditions . The Town Board needs to revise this schedule to clarify what special conditions apply. Similarly, the schedule lists "SC 802." a few times, but this section does not exist. The applicable special conditions for these uses should be clarified. 2. Schedule I often fails to show that site plan review is required for certain uses. For example, the Adult Entertainment Ordinance says sexually oriented businesses need site plan review. But in Schedule 1. there is no astrick (the symbol for site plan review) next to the "adult book store" and "adult entertainment" uses. This inconsistency occurs a number of times, where the Special Conditions or Special Permit sections state certain uses need site plan review, but the corresponding uses in Schedule 1 do not have astricks. 3. Schedule 1 needs to show whether communication towers are permitted or prohibited in the L1, R11 R21 R3 and B1 districts. (Those boxes in the grid are blank.) SITE PLAN REVIEW 4, Section 701.5.2 states that the Town Board may "request" an applicant to submit additional information when necessary. This section then states: "Such additional information, and the need for it, shall be agreed to by the applicant." This language is ambiguous. Does it mean that the applicant must agree to provide the information? (If so, this language should clearly state so.) Or does it mean the applicant does not have to provide the information if he does not agree it is necessary? (If so, it is inappropriate for an applicant to refuse to provide needed information and this sentence should be stricken.) 5. Adjacent neighbors should receive additional notices of pending applications for site plan approval (as well as for special permits and other Town discretionary approvals). The Town Board is suppose to consider the off -site impacts of various proposed 1 continued June 24, 1998 projects, so getting the neighbors' input is important. Most people do not read the legal notices section of the newspaper, so they may not learn of a proposed project until after the Town issues its permit or approval if the Town does not mail them a notice. SPECIAL USE PERMIT 6. The language in Section 803.3.1 is garbled at the end and should be clarified. It states: "Application for a Special Use Permit shall be made to the Code Enforcement Officer who shall refer it to the Town Board site plan review is required." CELLULAR TOWER ORDINANCE 7. To minimize visual impacts of a tower, this ordinance should require the applicant to demonstrate to the Town board's satisfaction that the requested height of the tower and antennas is necessary to satisfy the applicant's coverage needs and nothing lower would satisfy those needs. It should also state that wherever feasible, the height of the tower and antennas should be less than 200 feet to avoid the need for FAA- mandated lighting and marking. The FAA requires all towers over 200 feet tall to be lit day and night, which could have a substantial adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 8. Paragraph 2(f) in the "General Criteria" section states that new equipment located on the tower by other service providers does not require a new or modified special permit if there is no increase in tower height. But new equipment can substantially change the appearance of a tower. For example, a thin guyed tower with whip antennas will become much more visually prominent if another provider subsequently colocates and installs a number of microwave dishes on the tower. At a minimum, site plan review should be required for new equipment. 9. Section 3 (Colocation) requires an inventory report of existing telecommunications facility sites. This inventory should also include other tall buildings and structures, and the applicant should be required to show that its facility can't be accommodated on such tall buildings and structures. 10. Radio and television broadcast towers appear to be covered by this ordinance because they fall under the description of "communication towers" in Schedule 1. The definition of "telecommunications facility" in the cell tower ordinance should include these towers in the list. Since I do not believe radio and TV towers are considered public utilities in New York, the requirement in Section (2) (c) that the tower be considered a public utility needs to be deleted. If the Town Board intends to regulate radio and TV towers by some other means, then the language about "communication tower" in Schedule 1 needs to be changed so it does not include such towers. 11. A few miscellaneous comments: * Par. 5's caption should read "Lighting and Marking," not "Lighting and Marketing." * Par. 6(d) says the application shall be accompanied by a SEQR, which doesn't make any sense. This should instead specify the type of Environmental Assessment Form (long or short) that needs to accompany the application. A long EAF with the Visual Addendum would be appropriate to help the Town assess the visual impacts. * Par. 11(b) has a similar problem - it says the applicant shall submit a "complete application for SEQR review." The word "application" should be replaced with a description of the type of EAF required. * Par. 11(c) doesn't make sense. It requires 97 •i continued June 24, 1998 submission of a site plan "in accordance with the requirements for site plans generally, and if more detailed, in accordance with the site plan requirements of this section." What does "if more detailed" mean? * Par. 12(B) states the Town Board may impose "such reasonable conditions as either body may deem necessary." What does "either body" mean? ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE 12. Most similar ordinances restrict so- called "adult" entertainment to commercial areas, where law enforcement is more likely to patrol and the impact on residences is lessened. Here, the Town proposes to allow this use in the RA district, which is filled with residences and makes up a huge portion of the Town. The Town instead should limit adult entertainment to a few limited commercial areas where it would have the least impact on residences. 13. The definition of "adult book store" in Appendix I is inconsistent with. the definition in Appendix IV, In one, a book store is considered "adult" if it has 50 lineal feet of shelving devoted to adult materials. In the other, it's considered "adult" if 500 of its stock is adult. It is possible a store would be considered "adult" under one definition but not the other. The definitions in Appendix I need to be consistent with those in Appendix IV to assure enforcement efforts don't get bogged down over inconsistencies. 14. It is unclear if a sexually prohibited from operating within 1000 property boundary (which is what par. A (3 ) within 1000 feet of the residence itself implies in talking about measuring to the "residence. ") The 1000 -foot requirement distance to the property boundary, not to oriented business is feet of a residential on page 2 says) , or only (which is what par. D nearest portion of the should apply to the the residence. Thank you to the Town Board and Planning Board for all your hard work and consideration. Sincerely, Susan Hajda Brock 11, John Purcell (111 Burdick Hill Road): Felt the Town Board was rushing into the passing of the ordinance and felt there should be more talk before it is passed. 12. Thomas Payne (30 East Meadow Drive): Stated that he has been a resident of.Lansing for the past nine years. Saw the same thing happen in the Town of Dryden when he lived there. He did not feel the Town was taking away a lot of property rights. Felt the more things change the more things stay the same. Felt we have to start someplace and the proposed ordinance is a good start. There are some inconsitancies but felt they could be changed over time. He encouraged the Board to act positively on the ordinance which would put the basic rule into land use. He stated that he would appreciate it if the Board would vote in favor of the ordinance. 13. Donna Mazza (532 Buck Road) : If the zoning map goes into effect as is, could a section of a neighborhood petition to have the ordinance changed? If so, will there be a limit as to the area the Town Board would allow, such as would it have to be a three mile radius or could it be one square mile with ten houses? 14. Joan Brink (318 Asbury Road) : Will the change from Agriculture to residential effect the hunters? Will it change a hunter rights? 15. Claues Nyberg (162 Ludlowville Road) : Why could Paint Ball games be allowed and Ice Cream Parlors wouldn't be possible? Does continued June 24, 1998 the Town need zoning to get Federal funding for sewer? Mr. Totman stated that it does make a difference on projects such as the sewer one. RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Beckwith and seconded by Mr Tvaroha: RESOLVED, that all persons desiring to be heard, having been heard, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:31 p.m. Carried. Mr. Shulman stated that he would like the Board to publicly comment in his paper regarding the questions and concerns brought up tonight. The Town Board will answer the questions in letter form directly to the individuals whom asked the questions. Mr. Totman stated that he had received the following letters: Dear Town Supervisor Kirby, I will be unable to attend tonight's formal Public Hearing on proposed changes to the Town Zoning Ordinance but wish to make a public statement: "On June 17th, 1998 I stated I Peruville Road was placed in Zone R1 Zoning proposal. I hereby wish it be known Peruville Road be moved from general & mixed use) as it contingent properties." Thank you very much. felt my property on 59 by mistake on the latest that I request my property at 59 Zone R1 to Zone B1 (commercial, had been zoned previously with Albert Lacko 59 Peruville Road Lansing, New York 14882 Mr. Totman also received the following: June 24, 1998 To: Town Board, Lansing, NY From: Undersigned members of the Fiddler's Green community in Lansing Subject: Zoning We support the concept of zoning in Lansing, but wish to comment on the zoning of the Fiddler's Green community. We find it unusual that Fiddler's Green has been split into two zoning districts (R2 and L1) because we perceive the neighborhood as a cohesive whole with special characteristics. We trust that the zoning law will allow us, if we choose, to petition the town for a change at a later date. Signed: William Warmus Patricia Driscoll George H. Gage Diane Rutherford 20 Fiddler's Green 20 Fiddler's Green 23 Fiddler's Green 5 Fiddler's Green Mrs. matter at Kirby stated the next Town that Board the Board will further discuss this meeting and may vote on the proposed ordinance at the July 1, 1998 meeting. On motion, meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. 99