Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-05 TOWN OF LANSING Planning Board Monday, February 5, 1996; 4:00 p.m PLANING BOARD MEMBERS (� Ikruxes present) * Jackie Baker * Cheryl Nickel * Lin Davidson * Larry Sharpsteen, Char Brad Griffin * Robert Todd * Viola Miller * Al White * Larry Tvaroha, Town Councilman * George Tatman, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer PUB TC PR Sk'NT Jeff Cleveland " ( Q 4 e Scott Chatfield Larry Sharpsteen called the meeting to order at 4: 15 pm. Scott Chatfield was in attendance at this meeting to provide an overview of the site plan approval process. He began by stating that land use regulations and zoning have its base in statutory law. At common law, there is no regulation of land use. The principle between the common law and statutory law resolves itself to a rule of construction as applicable in all land use regulation. Land use regulation or zoning is in derogation of the common law rit. Because it is in derogation of the common law right, it must be strictly construed against the municipality. The municipality only has the authority in which the statute says it has_ The wosicipality can't grab regulatory power that isn't authorized by the enabling statute of the state. Site plan in the towns is contained in Section 274-A of Town Law. This is the law of the State of New York which is applicable throughout the State. It is an enabling legislation. It gives towns the ability, if they chose to, to establish a set of site plan regulations. That sane statute contains the statute with respect to special use permits. It says that if the legislative body, deems appropriate, it can establish a set of regulations governing the site, design, layout, of a even proposal within the framework of the towns regulations. The State law doesn't specify that there has to he buffer strips or driveway regu stdons. It says that in reed to the design and layout of a given land use, the town can adopt a set of regulations governing how that is to proceed. In an ordinance certain criteria are established Then if the criteria are met, a special use permit would be allowed. The site plan percuss is where the use itself is allowed. The issue dealt with by the site plan process is how the site is designed. When the statute was originally designed, there were clear distinctions between these two processes. As the case law in the courts has evolved over the years, the distinction between the two has become blurred. The courts have said that if an ordinance has identified a use allowed by way of special permit upon certain conditions. that is essentially the same thing as ung a presumption that that use is compatible on that site. The land of conditions that have evolved to control special permits have always been the same kinds of conditions than are dealt with for site plan (screening, landscaping draina,� ingress, egess, etc.). The site plan process has always contemplated that it is not a question of whether a person can do what they want to do, it is how it gets layed out Tam ofIansing Pllrorarg Board Page Monday February 5, 1996 A fundamental concept is the distinction between legislative acts and administrative acts. A 1e 'shrive a® act is one done by the legislative body, for example, the town board. Only the town board has legislative authority. When a legislative board is acting legislatively, they have a very broad power. The checks and balances on their authority is that they periodically have to stand for election. Because those checks and balances are built into the system, the board is given very broad powers to represent the feelings and the opinions of the residents of the municipality. Administrative bodies are designed to implement policy, for example, a town clerk There are a set of regulations governing the exercise of the authority. The administrative official within the framework of that regulatory process administers the procedures. The original notion of the State Environmental Quality Review (SPQR) law was to require that every town and village in the state deal with the flora and fauna aspects of any proposals that may come in . front of them. The regulations did not take into consideration the fact that many municipalities had been doing that same thing for decades. The SPQR processfor a vast majority of sites is extremely simple and can be dealt with in one meebny if there is an oniineer reviewing and reporting back The SEQR review carries with it the potential for a board that tends to an amuck tetathanamele When used correctly, the office of town attorney or planning board attorney can be a very potent tool in terms of keeping the process running the way it is supposed to run One of the ways that the law contemplates and works well is to insulate elected officials and, to a Lesser degee, appointed officials by utilizing the offices of the town attorney or the planaiog board attorney to make publicly those difficult decisions. In fact, annoorisny the law thus resolving the issue. Viola commented on land and buildino that currently exist are protected under the grandfather clause. She went on to say that there would never be any question about a farmer selling his land for farm land, but there is a question when farm land is sold for any other purpose (or a change in the use of the land). Mr. Chatfield responded that legislative bodies cannot make a law that affects a right established in the past A law created in the present would protect rights to be acquired. The Doctrine of Non-conforming Right says that if an individual has established a valuable use of property, the municipality cannot adopt a law that deprives him of the ability not only of himself to continue that use, but his ability to sell it to some third party. That use can continue forever. A special use permit would be considered in a certain area where criteria have been established and a use has met those criteria. Site plan review would be used in a certain area where the use is permitted, .but only as to how is it hkgeed. Iaay stated that the Planning Board has proposed a large rural aaiarltuaal area There are a wide variety of uses that are permitted in this area It has been proposed that the only eonv-ol to be placed on any nonfarm cur residual development in a anal ag<iculttaal area be site plan review. Would that be an appropriate use for site plan review? Mr. Chatfield responded that it would be appLopsiate making all underlying assumptions that it implements the policies of the board. In site plan approval the issue is not whether the use is allowed, but how is it designed Larry Sharpsteen stated that site plan approval is not an architectural review process, but a design process. Nit. Chatfield explained that it is possible to have a set of regulations that deals with architectural review. If the Planning Board is going to exercise authority over the architectural design of a given structure, there has to be some public policy to be served that can be shown in court 1 , Larry Tvaroha questioned what the best approach is for implementing site plan review (town board, planning board, etc.)_ Mr Chatfield stated that it works best if the planning board implements site plan review. Site plan review is the administration of a set of riles and regulations. If there is a board designated toinister'n,_g these rakes and regulations, they would be able to handle it easily - „ I • Town of Lansing Planning Board Monday, February 5, 1996 Page 3 and efficiently. M. Chatfield felt that more importantly though, the n taken away, it should be done so within if � of a property owner are defined, predicable confines. Tool owners want to know what there dents are and what the rights of the town are. When the adminirllidtive process is put in the hands of a legislative board subject to political pressure, the possibility of abhorrent decisions is i areered based on political pressure. He advocates that the site plan process should be given to an administrative entity, such as the plannirf board The more this process is removed from political pressures, the better off it will be.. .the less likely it will be to subject to law suits. Larry Tvaroha asked that in towns where zoning has been introduced within the last couple of years, what is the concept or biggest concern for residents in learning about it for the first time? It Chatfield stated that zoning is typify introduced into rural towns for the first time. The biggest concern eagressed in these towns is that the net of property owners are being taken away. The only y to over come this concern is through. education. Recognize the unique character of the town and incorporate the character of the town as it exists today. If there is a significant portion of the town that is characterized by large parcels of substantially undeveloped Iand, then have the vast majority of the town subject to the minimum restrictions. Viola Miller questioned how arbitrary items am be included in site plan review. If landscaping is required, does it need to be spelled out? Mr. Chatfield responded that it doesn't need to be that specific, but it ran be. By being specific it eliminates the ability of the planning board to recoyriee and deal with the peculiarities of a given site All land is not the same. It is better to say, for example. "where the evidence demonstrates that the potential exists for adverse effects due to the lights...". This identifies the ill sought to be remedied. The board can then recogcin the ill and is ® even the authority to impose the defined remedy on that ill. If the ill happens to be buffering the most common fil between commercial next to residential is car lights. Second is papers blowing over onto the nem persons property or kids walking from one site to the next through their yards. Ivy. Chatfield stated that he has preliminarily reviewed the working document on the revised zoning ordinance, and does think that it is a good start. He has spent a little time with Tom Neiderkom discussing this donewoct He f8l6t om is a good consultant and would be willing to review the document for technical or legrllwe, wouldn't offer comments on the substance_ He felt that was a function of the policy decision. George Tolman raised the concern many people have which is that the restrictions could be one thing this year and something different the next year. Also, that the ordinance could be applied arbitrarily to different people_ Mr. Chatfield responded that in order to prevent this coacem, the planning board needs to identify in words in the ordinance the reasons, for example, in order to protect adjacent properties from unwanted intrusion of lights. As another example, the planning board defines a specific corridor along Route 34 and identifies that any commercial uses along that odor am subject to site plan approval. The Planning Board am then my that it "reco two-lane hie � ' ,� that today Route 3� is a Hiway with six-foot shoulders, bort in 20 years that may be a four-lane highway." So, today an open expanse is desirable which doesn't have buaadmth of significant value that the town will have to pay for to tear down. Them needs to be an area to have snow storage, adequate areas to design drainage systems, and front yards of 35 feet which should be landscaped or at Least green Within the ordinance there should be words to generally descnIe the guidelines. harry Sharpsteen stated that from work done by Jackie Baker and Tom Neiderkorn, they are suggesting, that landscaping ® in a particular area has to maintain the minimum, standards of the existing neighborhood and as best as possible with the existing onsite sod editions. Mr. Chatfield said that he Wali this suggestion. He stated that the se of landscaping P y di-sagrees with legitimate governmental �� �p� may in 1� � to beautify the town, but the puopose is to protect From the above, the town recognizes a commercial use in a certain area cosies with it adverse affects. To safeguard and protect all properties from these Town ofLmrsi ng Planning Board Page 4 Monday, February 5, 1996 adverse affect, the following minimum regulations are necessary landscaping for the purpose of a� mating an open area, etc. Lm clarified that site plan approval was for future development rather than existing. Lin Davidson made a motion to adjourn this meeting Viola Miller seconded VOTE: ALL IN FAVQ&- MOTION CARRIED UNAMMOUYLY This meeting was closed at 6: 15 p.m. Submitted by Michelle Eastman The nem meeting is scheduled for Monday, Jorruary 22, 1996, at 7:30 p.m_ 4® 41 --_