Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-23 TOWN OF LANSING Planning Board Monday, October 23, 1995; 7:30 p . m . 4111 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS (* Denotes present) * Jackie Baker * Cheryl Nickel * Lin Davidson * Larry Sharpsteen, Chair * Brad Griffin * Robert Todd * Viola Miller * Al White . Larry Tvaroha, Town Councilman * George Totman, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer PUBLIC PRESENT William Albern Ithaca, NY Three-Lot Subdivision, Novalane Subdivision, East Shore Drive The Planning Board reviewed the SEQR and received a negative declaration. It was noted that this subdivision is currently in the Agricultural District. William Albern provided a draft of the covenants and restrictions for review by the Planning Board . These restrictions as is will most likely be used by the three lots in this proposed subdivision, as well as the remainder of the property to be developed at some point in the ® future. Brad Griffin questioned a letter dated October 20 from Dave Herrick to Larry Sharpsteen in which he stated that it is his understanding that the future owners of lots 15 - 17 will be entirely responsible for the maintenance of the ditches and culverts, and that Pete Larson is also in agreement with this stipulation. Brad question Mr. Albern whether the current owners agree to this stipulation; to which Mr. Albern responded that the owners do agree. Mr. Albern referred the board members to covenant #7, which basically restate this issue. Brad Griffin questioned #3 of the covenants, which exempted the two lots along Route 34 from the drainage restrictions. Mr. Albern clarified that one of the earlier sketch plans had the lot numbers beginning with the lots closest to Route 34, but the most recent version of the plan has the three lakefront lots as 1, 2, and 3. Brad wanted verification that the town wouldn't be responsible for the drainage on the remainder of the lots as well. Mr. Albern stated that the only lots that the town will be exempt from maintaining the drainage on are lots 1, 2, and 3, because they will be on private property. The road drainage on the remainder of the property, now and once developed, will be the responsibility of the town because the drainage will fall along a dedicated road. He clarified that Pete Larson didn't want the Town to have to go onto private property in order to maintain a drainage ditch, but he will take care of the drainage along the roadway. Lin Davidson was concerned that the Town not be held responsible if, for example, a homeowner had water in their basement but the drainage ditch had been properly maintained by the Town. Viola Miller steered this discussion back to the three-lot subdivision being proposed. Larry Sharpsteen suggested that 1011 further discussion on the remainder of this proposal be continued after review of the three- lot subdivision. Town of Lansing Planning Board Page 2 Monday, October 23, 1995 Larry Sharpsteen asked whether the developers would consider a possible easement for a future road along those three lots to potentially connect with Reach Run. Mr. Albern stated that he would approach the developers to get their reaction, but he didn' t think it would be feasible to connect to Reach Run because of the deep gulley between the developments . The Planning Board would like to have Dave Herrick evaluate the potential for a future connecting road and report back as to its feasibility. Lin Davidson made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for this three-lot subdivision; Al White seconded. VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY A public hearing is scheduled for Monday, November 13, 1995, at 8:00 p . m. Continuation of Discussion of Potential Development of Remainder of Parcel - Mr. Albern didn't feel that the developers would pursue the development of this parcel in the immediate future. Larry Sharpsteen warned Mr. Albern that it is likely that the majority of the.._ questions at the upcoming public hearing will be focused on the plans for the upper parcel. When he opens the public hearing, Larry will clearly state that the meeting is regarding the three-lot subdivision only. If Mr. Albern wishes to answer questions regarding the upper parcel, he can do that after all questions relevant to the three-lot subdivision have been answered . Al White questioned the location of the culverts and whether their size would be sufficient to handle the runoff. Mr. Albern stated that the two 36" culverts will be more than enough to handle the runoff. The technology and techniques used now for erosion control are much more efficient than in the past which will help the runoff. Cheryl Nickel was concerned that the covenants and restrictions presented by Mr. Albern aren't legally binding to the potential lots in the upper parcel. Larry stated that these restrictions are not legally binding, but do signify an intent by the developer. Anyone coming back before the Planning Board to develop these lots would basically have to begin this process all over again, whether it is the current developers or new owners. The deed restrictions do have the potential to change. George Totman was concerned that if all the neighbors show up there won't be enough room in the board room. Viola stated that there are only a few adjacent landowners that should have been officially been notified. George responded that he specifically asked the Planning Board as to whether or not they would like all the adjacent property owners notified of the upcoming public hearing, to which everyone agreed that it would be important to invite them all. Viola strongly recommended that the Planning Board be careful not to answer any questions about the upper parcel. Brad questioned that if covenants and deed restrictions are submitted with an application for a subdivision, would they be likely to become focus points of a public hearing. George Totman responded that covenants and deed restrictions are nice to have, but the Town cannot enforce them. Questions regarding the deed restrictions should be directed to the owners. OTHER BUSINESS II Subdivisions - Larry Sharpsteen wanted clarification from the other Planning Board members as to the way the number of lots are considered in a proposed subdivision. It was agreed that if an landowner proposes to divide off one lot from their main parcel, while retaining r ! a Town of Lansing Planning Board Page 3 Monday, October 23, 1995 IIII the remainder, that is considered a one-lot subdivision, not a two-lot subdivision. George Totman stated that when the subdivision is filed at the County Clerk's office, the above example would be considered a two-lot subdivision because it is creating two tax parcel numbers. Mobile Homes - Reporting back from the Planning Federation meeting, Jackie Baker indicated that she had spoken with representatives from the manufactured homes industry. She was told that 28 percent of the homes today are manufactured, and they become permanent homes not ones that are moved around . The town would be violating the state law if they preclude them from any certain areas . They can be handled with proper setbacks, minimum square footage, how the homes are installed, and minimum lot requirements. George stated that he had spoken with the lawyers that were at the same meeting about this statement from the manufactured homes representatives. The lawyers stated that that statement was not true. George stated that there is a definition of a mobile home in the New York State Uniform Building Code. According to the definition, a mobile home is a mobile home whether or not it is on a foundation or not. The same is true for a doublewide mobile home. Larry pointed out a statement made by George previously that what makes a mobile home mobile is that the frame is not removed. Larry stated that current legislation is proposing that the definition be revised since it is no longer considered cost effective for the transporter frames for modulars to be reused . The manufacturers are redesigning their homes so that the frames stay under all of the homes . Larry stated that once the Planning Board has had an opportunity to review the maps, and take into consideration the Site Plan Review and other tools under the new zoning regulations, they may allow what the Building Code describes as di a mobile home in more areas than just the Rural-Agriculture District in more than single sitings. Larry Sharpsteen suggested inviting the manufactured home representatives to attend one of the Planning Board meetings to provide information regarding the design and construction of their homes. Site Plan Review - The Planning Board began their review of the existing Site Plan Review. Robert Todd wanted to clarify his understanding of the use of Site Plan Review. He understood it to be used to determine how something will look in a certain area, and not whether or not it will be allowed or not. Others agreed. Larry stated that tonight's discussion is to share ideas and thoughts and then to present them to Tom Niederkorn for him to try to fine time. Robert stated that the original Site Plan Review was developed before zoning was in place. He suggested that Tom take another look at this and provide the Planning Board with a revised version to include references to zoning. Larry stated that it was his recommendation that the Planning Board review this version first before Tom looks at it again so that the Board members can become more familiar and to try to eliminate a double review process. The majority of the Board members felt that it would be more useful to have Tom clean this version up before they continue their review. Agenda Item for Next Meeting - The Planning Board will be continuing to review the R1 District and working on applying Schedule I to the maps . a Robert Todd made a motion to adjourn the meeting; Cheryl Nickel seconded . VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY This meeting was dosed at 9 :35 p .m. Submitted by Michelle Eastman The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 13, 1995, at 7:30 p. m .