No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-01296 September 01, 1999 The Lansing Town Board met in Special Session at the Lansing Court Office at 7:00 P.M. with Supervisor Kirby presiding. ROLL CALL Jeannine Kirby Supervisor Present Herbert Beckwith Councilman Present Paul Butler Councilman Present Jeffrey Cleveland Councilman Present Stephen Farkas Councilman Present Bonita Boles Town Clerk Absent Debbie Crandall Deputy Town Clerk Present Rich John Town Attorney Present VISITORS: George Totman, Betty LaBar, Bente King, Barbara Hulbert, James Hulbert, Dorothy Krizek, Mary Krizek, Debbie Wood, Rue Chagoll, Martha Stage, Nancy Stage, Betty Mahoney, Roberto & Virgin Siena, Glenda Long, Barry Long, John Stevens, Richard Krizek, Lawrence Conlon Jr., Sarah Hale & Jim Lombardi, Jean & Dick Wentworth, Mark Nijland, Michael Brown, Kathleen Kemple, Judith Perine, Susan Jaquette, Lorilei Skoch, Barbara Lok, Matt & Aline Shulman, Dale Skoch, John Jaquette, Tom LiVigne, Bob Kemple, Sandra Dhimitri, & Bill Dhimitri, Mattison Burt, Craig Trowbridge, Greg Trowbridge, Greg Nichols, JoAnn Mancini, Leonie Kallfelz, Francis Kallfelz, James Hisle, Margaret Tollinger, Bud Shattuck, Gerald Friedman, Tom Gifft, Marcher Phillips, Al Phillips and several other residents. The Supervisor called the meeting to order and had the clerk take the Roll Call. k' AU 1 Mrs. Kirby stated that the Town Board has decided on a PDA for that area. Mrs. Kirby than asked Mr. John to explain how a PDA worked. Mr. John stated that the Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance has provision for a PDA (Planned Development Area) which would allow development of a parcel of land separate from its zoning on a case by case consideration. There have been three PDA's in the Town of Lansing. They are the Dutch Mill Park, East Lake Subdivision and the Horizons. Mr. John stated that a PDA is a way of insuring there would be Site Plan Review. Mr. John explained the Site Plan Review process. Under Site Plan Review consideration of noise, light, odors, traffic, adequate buffers and types of hours of operation are addressed. Mr. Krizek asked what the method of enforcement was for a PDA. It was stated that the method of enforcement is the Code Enforcement Officer. It was also stated that each PDA requirement is different and that the Town Board sets the requirements for PDA's Nancy Stage read the following on Planned Development Area (PDA): Purpose: The purpose of this Sec. 706 is to introduce flexibility in conventional land use and design regulations by applying performance criteria established to encourage development in an imaginative and innovative manner while, through the process of review, discussion and ordinance amendment, insuring efficient investment in public improvements, a more suitable environment and protection of community interest. This section is aimed primarily at achieving innovation in residential development so that the demand for housing at all economic levels can be met by greater variety in type, design and siting of dwelling units, and so the conservation and more effective use of limited land can be achieved. It is also recognized that certain types of nonresidential development are beneficial to the Town and would not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan if they adhere 297 September 01, 1999, continued to certain predetermined performance and design conditions. The Planned Development technique is to be used to enable this nonresidential development to occur even though such development may not be specifically listed in SCHEDULE I of this Ordinance. This section further recognizes that, while the standard land use control function (land use and density) and the subdivision function (platting and design) are generally appropriate for the regulation of the use of land in the Town, these controls represent a type of pre- regulation, regulatory rigidity and uniformity that may be adverse to the objectives of the Planned Development concept. Further, this section recognizes that a rigid set of space requirements along with area and use specifications would frustrate the application of this concept. Therefore, where the Planned Development concept is deemed appropriate through the rezoning of land by the Town Board to a Planned Development Area, the set of conventional land use activities and area specifications set forth in SCHEDULES I and Il of this Ordinance are hereby replaced by an approval process in which an approved Development Plan becomes the basis for continuing land use controls. Mr. Rue Chagoll, 5 Whispering Pines, stated that he understands the change and approach but he still has continuing confusion and disturbance over what appears to him to be rather than an organized and strategic approach of development of an area but rather a response to a specific request on behalf of a specific property owner for a specific tract of land. He is further disturbed by the continuing lack of sensitivity to the neighboring property owners. Barbara Hulbert, 21 Stormy View, addressed the Board with her concern about the process of zoning. She believes the zoning regulations represent a covenant trust between the residents and the Town Board. Based on this trust the residents make decisions, buy property, spend money and the tax base for Lansing goes up. She is concerned that in the past this covenant has been broken. She referred to the two businesses on Triphammer Road. One, which was suppose to be owner occupied and wasn't and the other was referred to as a mistake. When they purchased their land they looked at the property around their house and it seemed to be what was needed for protection in a residential area. They purchased the land knowing what the constraints were. When Mr. Stevens purchased his land he knew what the constraints were, so what is the issue now? They knew the regulations, they knew the covenants and have obeyed by them for 26 years. This has been the third issue within 2 miles of their home in the past few years, this is a worry. Her concern is more than just one piece of land but the entire area and how many times they have to come back because somebody didn't know or somebody made a mistake or we didn't think it would matter. Barbara Hulbert thanked the Board for listening. A resident from the audience presented the Board with the following written objection and asked to have it made a part of the record. The Board has indicated that sale of Stevens' parcel is not feasible with R1 zoning. Evidence given was "the sales activity in the last decade." Stevens bought parcels 5.31 and 5.32 combined for $13,000 in July 1985. Current combined assessments are $58,600. Stevens sold adjoining parcel 5.1 for $89,500 in June 1993. Since that time this property has had very substantial and attractive additions. It is currently assessed at $175,000. The strong appreciation of Stevens' parcel zoned, as RI, along with the substantial improvements in the immediate area, do not suggest that Stevens' parcel is not valuable as zoned. While property fronting on Warren Road may be less valuable as R1 properties than. they would be as IR properties, that does not mean that any particular parcel on Warren Road should be rezoned IR. Such an act would only serve to pass the lower values to the to the adjoining parcels (unless they were also rezoned IR). The increased value of Stevens' parcel is obvious. The subject 5.32 parcel doesn't even have to be developed from Warren Road since Stevens holds adjoining parcel 5.3 1, which would permit development of both parcels from Hillcrest Road. The Board has indicated that the proximity to the airport makes development of Stevens' RI zoned property undesirable, unlikely, or impossible. In 1990 an Environmental Assessment for a 298 September 01, 1999, continued runway extension was prepared for the county. Pertinent parts of this assessment are attached. Two primary concerns were addressed, impact of noise, and psychological impact of low flying aircraft on approach or departure directly in line with the runway. In both cases it is clear that the assessment finds Stevens' parcel are in nearly the same compatible noise level zone, and all are fairly safely outside the zone directly in line with the runway approach and departure routes, with Stevens' parcel more so. Warren Road is a natural dividing feature between differently zoned areas. Gerrymandering the IR zone across the road to accommodate Stevens is grossly unfair to residents all along Hillcrest who purchased or developed homes there relying on the stability of the RI zoning, including the beauty of.Hillcrest Road beginning at the entrance of Warren Road. Imagine daily seeing industrial structures resembling those recently built in the Woodsedge/Ridge Road Imports B1 area as you enter Hillcrest from Warren Road. Even the Town Attorney admits there is no effective way of insuring that this would not occur if Stevens parcel is rezoned IR. Values would be significantly reduced at the entrance, and to a degree all along Hillcrest, and perhaps even on the side streets. The Dutch Mill Road Industrial/Research zoned area across the road east of Warren Road is well planned, has a nice large safe feeder road serving many developed and undeveloped properties, and has minimized the visual impact from Warren Road and from the residential zoned properties across the road. Rezoning the Stevens parcel to IR would immediately result in a small "strip developed" industrial area which would likely march north on the west side of Warren Road. Strip industrial development is the worst kind of development! The Board should recognize that Stevens' parcel is as valuable zoned R1 as he has any right to expect, that Stevens' has benefited from the considerable appreciation of this property, that the location of the airport is not a significant determent to development of this parcel, that area residents have relied on the stability of their RI zoning, and that industrial strip development should not be encouraged by jumping the IR zoning across Warren Road. The Board should reject the application for rezoning of this parcel. Also, submitted for the record was the following: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR A RUNWAY EXTENSION AT PREPARED FOR TOMPKINS COUNTY BY CALOCERINOS & SPINA ENGINEERS, P.C. 1020 SEVENTH NORTH STREET LIVERPOOL, NEW YORK 13088 JANUARY, 1990 4.02 NOISE Aircraft generated noise is generally the most serious environmental impact at airports of all types. These impacts are directly affected by the volume and type of aircraft traffic at a given facility. In the case of the Tompkins County Airport, because of its low activity levels for all types of aircraft, noise impacts are very small in comparison with other airports which support commercial traffic. The noise exposure levels determined by the Ldn system correlate directly with a set of land use compatibility guidelines which have been developed by several branches of the Federal Government, as well as State and local governments. These guidelines are a result of nearly a decade of experience at both military and civilian airports nationwide. The guidelines indicate generally compatible and incompatible land uses in accordance with their degree of noise sensitivity. If the guidelines are effectively used to control development in the airport vicinity, F 299 most noise can be prevented. September 01, 1999, continued r,KAJ TABLE 4 -1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH YEARLY DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS YEARLY DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL r� RESIDENTIAL Land Use � Residential, Other than Mobile Homes and Transient Lodgings Mobile Homes Parks Transient Lodgings Editorial Opinion (LDN) IN DECIBELS Below Over 65 65 -70 70 -75 75 -80 80 -85 85 Y N(1) N(1) N N N Y N N N N N Y N N (1) N (1) N N The editorial column of the Lansing Community News is available to all community members for the courteous expression of varying points of view. I Just Don't Get It ? ?? Sometimes I agree with the Town Board's decisions; sometimes not. Agreeing to disagree is generally no big deal because I respect the Board; can usually follow its logic; and accept that in the long run I'm no wiser than they are. In the matter of changing John Stevens' parcel from "residential" to "industrial/ research" I am mystified and fearful. I am mystified at the Board's refusal to hear townspeople and fearful that their likely approval may establish a dangerous precedent for the future, evenhanded functioning of zoning in our fair town. The Board has heard uniform opposition to the change from 20 or more neighbors living within a mile or so of the site; not a single neighbor has (to may knowledge) been supportive. Board members state that the property is not suitable for residential development, yet no record exists of the owner having listed it at a price commensurate with residential use. No one buys $225,000 parcels for a house lot on Warren Road. Board members drafted a "policy statement" approving the change, but indicating items they want reviewed under site plan review. Yet, only 1 of 1.0 "industriaUresearch" uses (vehicle body shop) triggers site plan review. For the other 9 "industrial/research" uses, the code enforcement officer "shall issue a building permit" with no provision for site plan review that could protect residents. Even for a body shop, the Town Attorney acknowledges that the "policy statement" is not legally binding on future Boards and has no enforcement mechanism. Board members say that the FAA "prefers" industrial/research use to commercial use. Airport manager Robert Nicholas told the Lansing Community News that the rationale for this preference is just "a lower likelihood of noise complains." Board members say that they want both sides of the road to have the same zoning classification. Yet, Dutch Mill is not "Indastrial/Reasearch" but a "Planned Development Area" -- a process that all opponents have said they'd welcome. To an outsider, it looks like the Board is maneuvering to accomplish a preordained goal. MOM Though I attend almost all meetings, perhaps I'm missing something. One aspect of the Board's logic is certain: I just don't get it. - M.S. Pat Conlon stated that you can not have a PDA until someone brings you a proposed plan. Mrs. Kirby replied that was correct. If the Boards decision is to consider a PDA then the parcel would remain in its present form. The Board answered correct. Mr. Conlon asked if you could have a PDA anywhere in the Town. The Board replied yes. A resident asked what the proposed plan for Mr. Stevens parcel was. Mrs. Kirby replied there is not a proposed plan. 300 September 01, 1999, continued Richard Krizek made a few comments relating to the last Board meeting. 1) I asked the Board why they are so intent on approving this zoning change. Jean Kirby , 4 response was that "based on sales activities of the last decade, residential sale of property didn't seem feasible." The facts show a different view. If you look at the vacant property along Warren Road south of Mr. Steven's property, it is owned by Tompkins County or Cornell University and neither have ever gone on the market and probably never will. They are zoned I/R anyway. If you look to the north of Mr. Steven's property, first is the Krizek farm, zoned RI, (never been for sale), next the Butler's property, zoned R1, (never been for sale), next is Thaler's property, zoned R1, (not on the market). So how can you say that the past history shows that you cannot sell lots for residential use if none were ever offered for sale? On the other hand if you look just about a hundred feet west of Mr. Steven's property, on Hillcrest Road across the road from Nancy Stage's property, the property was for sale, zoned R1, and a residence has been built there within the past decade. There have been other properties that have been sold and residences that have been built along Hillcrest Road. This completely contradicts Mrs. Kirby's argument. 2) Board Member .Herb Beckwith stated that he wanted to correct the mistake made when the zoning was established. What mistake? The zoning allows the road to be a dividing line between two different zones (article 401.1), sometimes this is the only appropriate and practical way to zone an area. The Planning Board stated that, in principle, they would like to see zoning classifications the same on both sides of the road. They did not say that you cannot have different zoning classifications one side of the road and different on the other side of the road. There are other roads in Lansing that have different zoning on each side of the road. Examples: Farrell Road, Milliken Station Road, East Shore Drive, Brickyard Road, & the rest of Warren Road. A portion of the property across the road from Mr. Steven's property is a "Planned Development Area" and this is not what Mr. Steven's has asked for. So there will be still another type of zoning on one side of the road and different on the other. 3) The policy Rich John read stated that it would address the concerns of the area residents. What he stated is already in the zoning ordinance, which offers very little protection to the those next to IR zones areas. The Town Planning Board stated that there is not any way to enforce the zoning requirements. The zoning enforcement officer is the one who would approve the building permits. He is the one who brought this zoning change matter before this board. How can there be any protection for the area residents if the zoning enforcement officer is asking for this zoning change? 4) Jeffrey Cleveland stated that he wanted to make this stated that he needed more time to study the issue. We months. When 100% of the neighborhood has signed a one has stated any reason for the approval of this resole is not logical to approve this zoning request change. zoning change acceptable to all. He have been studying this issue for over b petition opposing this resolution, and no tion, except the three board members, it When the vote came up for the water district at the last board meeting Mr. Cleveland said "I base my vote on the survey which showed a majorily of Armstrong Rd. in f vor," and he voted with the majority. The mjkjo n (100 %) has showed that they oppose this zoning change resolution with the petitions that were signed. Is there two different standards that apply? The Board should not approve this resolution, I have not heard any rational reason that would warrant any other decision. Mr. John stated that from a legal stand point there are two different standards that apply. A- t September 01, 1999, continued Formation of a water district needs approval from Audit and Control in Albany. They are looking for more than a majority of the people. They also realize that there are going to be some people that do not want water. In order to make the district financially feasible you can not do a cookie cutter district when the water needs to pass through all peoples' properties. With regard to zoning those issues present some of the toughest challenges for any municipality. Clearly part of the purpose of zoning is to protect the majority but it is also to protect the individuals involved. In case law it is filled with cases where Boards have zoned or failed to zone such that someones property has lost it's entire value. This is not allowed and there has to be a comprise. This has been the basis for the drawn out procedure, trying to draw a compromise that will allow some development of this property without impacting the neighbors. The Town Board's legal responsibility is not just doing whatever the majority wants, it is trying to accommodate the majority but also to protect the rights of the minority. Trying to achieve this balance can be a difficult task. Pat Conlon stated that Mr. Krizek's statement of what the ratio of pro's and con's of the water district versus the ratio of pro's and con's of this situation was not alluded to the legal part of it. Mr. Conlon objected to the counselor drawing conclusions on the legal part, although it is good to be educated. The Town is not committed to rezone a property just because an owner claims he cannot sell it or market it. The property was bought under R1 conditions and has remained RI. Mr. Kemple asked the Board what obligation do you have to an individual that bought the property that was zoned R1? Mr. John stated that the Board does not have an obligation to rezone or not to rezone. The Board has an obligation to consider all the aspects of the question including the interest of the minority and the majority . John Stevens stated that he bought it RI but the character has changed dramatically. Residential use just isn't appropriate. Mr. Stevens submitted the following statements to the Board: Letter from David Long Appraisal Company to Mahlon Perkins dated July 6, 1999. As per your request I have physically inspected the 5.26 acre parcel belonging to Mr. John Stevens on Warren Road in Ithaca. It is my opinion that its best use would be industrial for the following reasons. Access to this property is from Warren Road across from the Dutch Mill Road industrial development. Its orientation is Warren Road and the industrial uses that surround the Tompkins County Airport rather than the residential lots along Hillcrest Road. Currently there are over 70 building lots for sale in the Lansing Central district. Many of these have at least partial lake views and other residential amenities associated with subdivisions. Given the availability of so many more desirable residential lots, there is no demand at this time or in the foreseeable future for residential development along this portion of Warren Road. Letter from Stephen Cardamon of Cardamon Home Builders to Mr. Stevens no date. I have looked at your property on Warren Road in the Town of Lansing as a residential lot. This property is unsuitable for residential development because it fronts on Warren Road and it is across from the Warren Road Business Park. Additionally, this property is very close to the airport which effects its use for residences. Letter from Susan Cosentini of Cosentinit Construction Inc. to Mr. Stevens dated August 3, 1999. In response to your inquiry, I looked at your property which fronts on Warren Road north of the intersection with Hillcrest Road. I would not be interested in this parcel for residential development. Its location across from a business park, adjacent to a busy road and in close proximity to the airport, are not conducive to residential development. September 01, 1999, continued After further public input Mr. Farkas asked Mr. Stevens if considering the number of people that are adamately opposed to the rezoning request would he consider withdrawing his request. Mr. Stevens stated NO. After further discussion the following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Beckwith and seconded by Mr. Butler: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has received a request from John. Stevens, an owner of land located on Warren Road to rezone the property from the Residential 1 classification to the Industrial/Research classification, and WHEREAS, the Town Board held a public hearing to receive public comment on this proposal on March 3rd, 1999, and subsequently received additional information and comment from members of the public at several later meetings including the meeting held on September 1, 1999, and due deliberation having been had, therefore, it is RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Lansing hereby denies the request to rezone the parcel of land located on Warren Road and instead indicates that it would consider at some time in the future development of the parcel through a .Planned Development Area pursuant to the Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance with the Town Board consideration of the proposal to include the following factors: 1. The need to have appropriate vegetative, earth or fence barriers to separate the site from the adjacent residential areas. The use would need to accommodate appropriate side and back set backs to maintain adequate separations between the business and the residences. 2. The need to limit noise, odors and light emanating from the property such that it would disturb neighboring residential areas. 3. The need to limit hours of operation such that offensive noise and light are not coming from the property during evening and nighttime hours. 4. The need to limit the amount of traffic entering and exiting the business that might impact adjacent residential areas. Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Herbert Beckwith, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Paul Butler, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Jeffrey Cleveland, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Jeannine Kirby, Supervisor Nancy Stage thanked the Board and stated this has been a struggle for all of us.. She . stated she has learned a lot and had to work incredibly hard. Recently having to go through that amount of work but she believes the Board had this opportunity early on. On the other hand she would not have learned or have become involved and plans on staying involved. Mrs. Kirby stated that a PDA is entitled to a Public Hearing. Sarah Hale, Jim Lombardi and Michael Brown addressed the Board concerning the Water District. The residents asked the time frame of how quickly things could happen and how soon. water could be available. Mr. John explained the time frame and procedure of creating a district, scheduling a public hearing, holding a .public hearing, resolution forming the district, application process and approval from Audit and Control. U September 01, 1999, continued The residents stated that there were 6 '/z out of 7 residents that want water. The residents then asked the Board to expedite the water district. Mrs. Kirby will contact Dave Herrick, Town Engineer and have him prepare the final, map, plan and report so a public hearing can be scheduled. PUBLIC HEARING ON CLE ALE ROR$$ ON THE ZONM ORDINANCE On Motion, Proof of Notice having been furnished, the Public Hearing to discuss the clerical errors on the Zoning Ordinance was called to order at 8:00 p.m. All persons desiring to be heard, having been heard the Public Hearing was closed at 8:03 P.M. RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Cleveland and seconded by Mr. Beckwith. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has received a list of proposed changes to the Town Land Use Ordinance from the Town Code Enforcement Officer in order to correct typographical and clerical errors which occurred in the final version of the amendments to the Ordinance adopted by resolution of the Town Board dated July 1, 1998, which corrections are shown as follows and are hereby approved: Page V -3 Item .2.: In LIA1,R2,R3, and B should be SC* (not SP) 802.4 In RA should be SC 802.0 Item B.5.: In B I & IR an asterisk should be added to denote the requirement of Site Plan Review. Page V -4 Item C.10.: In RA change to SC 802.0. Item C.15.: In IR an asterisk should be added to denote the requirement of Site Plan Review. Page V -5 - Item C.22. In R2, should be SP (not SC) 803.2.4 Page V -6 Item C.32.. In R2, should be SC 802.0 (not N). A mini warehouse for self - storage is allowed in L1,B1, and IR, but not in R2. And D.1., (a warehouse, storage or wholesaling of nonagricultural goods or materials) is allowed in R2. This does not seem to be consistent. Item C.33.1 IR an asterisk should be added to denote the requirement of Site Plan Review. Page V -7 Item D.8.: ,In RA an asterisk should be added to denote the requirement of Site Plan Review. 0 Page V -8 Item E.5.: In R2, should be SP (not SC) 803.0. Page V -9 Schedule II: Change Notes to correspond with new numbers on Page V40, as follows: RA4,2,4,5,; Li- 1,3,4,5,6; RI- 1,2,3,4,5,6; R2a- 2,3,4,5; R2b -2,3, 4,5; R2c4; R3- 14-5; Bla•2,4,5; Blb- 1,2,4,5; Blc- 24-5; IR 2,3,4,5,6. Please see attached. Page V -10 Note 1. Replace `width' with `frontage', Note 7. Eliminate this note. September 01, 1999, continued Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Herbert Beckwith, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Paul Butler, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Jeffrey Cleveland, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Jeannine Kirby, Supervisor AMULAME SUEATLQN Mrs. Kirby referred to the information that was passed out two weeks ago. Mrs. Kirby stated that they never received the results from Paul Welch on the survey. Mrs. Kirby will contact Mr. Welch and ask him to attend a Town Board meeting. s.: AfQS fi tGFM RAISER Mrs. Kirby informed the Board that she was contacted by Kirk Shreve requesting use of the Community Center for September 25, 1999 for a lunch rest place for the AIDS Biking Fund Raiser. The Board has been asked to waive the fee for the use of the building. Debbie Crandall informed the Board that the Clerk's Office has received the insurance certificate. After further. discussion the following resolution was hereby adopted. RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Beckwith and seconded by 'Mr. Farkas: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Lansing does 1hereby waive the fee for the use of the Community Center on September 25, 1999 for the AIDS Biking Fund Raiser. Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Herbert Beckwith, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Paul Butler, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Jeffrey Cleveland, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Councilman Vote of Town Board.. . (Aye) Jeannine Kirby, Supervisor W" 1 i._ Mr. Beckwith stated that he will be meeting with department heads in two weeks to discuss their needs for new furniture in the new Town Hall. WAVILIFIVI 143 1631 . o RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Beckwith and seconded by Mr. Farkas: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has received a request from a developer of the parcel of property known as the Novalane Subdivision for permission to construct a connector road running from the Eastlake Subdivision to the Lakewatch Subdivision, along the continuation of a road known as Smuggler's Path, and WHEREAS, in the approval of the Eastlake Subdivision, the Town Board required the developer to maintain a right of way for future construction of a Town Road between the north subdivision boundary and Eastlake Road, and WHEREAS, the strip of land in question has been sold to two lot owners within the Eastlake Subdivision with a reservation of rights for the construction of a future Town Road, therefore it is RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Lansing hereby directs the Town Attorney to prepare, and authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute, such documents as necessary for the transfer of the property designated for the construction of the future Town Road from the developer of the Eastlake Subdivision and the adjacent property owners so that the continuation of Smuggler's Path may be completed. ` ✓1 41 September 01, 1999, continued Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Herbert Beckwith, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Paul Butler, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Jeffrey Cleveland, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Councilman Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Jeannine Kirby, Supervisor 161 � a I RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Beckwith and seconded by Mr. Butler. ® WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has received a request from t,,'. ha.. Intermunicipal Organization that is overseeing the Cayuga Lake Watershed Management'Plain'' for funding from the Town of Lansing in the amount of $900, to be included in the Town Budget for 2000, and WHEREAS, the Cayuga Lake Watershed management Plan conducts planning to protect the resources of the Cayuga Lake for all of the adjacent municipalities including the Town of Lansing, therefore, it is k RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Lansing hereby directs that the Town Budget for the year 2000 include an appropriation of $900 to contribute towards the costs of the Intermunicipal Organization that is overseeing the Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan. Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote of Town of Town of Tawn of Town of Town Board ... (Aye) Board ... (Aye) Board ... (Aye) Board ... (Aye) Board ... (Aye) Herbert Beckwith, Councilman Paul Butler, Councilman Jeffrey Cleveland, Councilman Stephen Farkas, Councilman Jeannine Kirby, Supervisor Mrs. Kirby informed the Board that they did not get the grant for the Algerine Road Water District. Mrs. Kirby has contacted Jack MacNamara. They will meet with Dave Herrick, Town Engineer to see what they can further do. OTTENSCHOT SITUATION Rich John informed the Board that papers were filed and served today for a motion to get the court to enforce a preliminary injunction against the Ottenschot junk yard. The motion date is September 21, 1999. EXECUTIVE SESSION I RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Beckwith and seconded by Mr. Cleveland: RESOLVED, that the Special Meeting be adjourned to go into Executive Session at 8:30 p.m. to discuss Employee Salaries for the year 2000. Carried. RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Cleveland and seconded by Mr. Beckwith: RESOLVED, that the Executive Session is terminated at 9:25 p.m. and the Special Meeting be reconvened. Carried. Meeting adjourned at the call of the Supervisor. Minutes taken and executed by the Deputy Town Clerk.