Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-11 To Seneca Falls To Auburn — ' I —n � TOWN of LANSING • `F 1 " Home of Industry, Agriculture and Scenic Beauty " e , ,..4.4. riN I Town of Lansing imi ORDINANCE DEPT. ` 1 \ 1 Box 186 1` Lansing, New York 14882 �; \ \ To Ithaca ® k� Town of Lansing 0.0, , ,P.. Plannm:gBoard Mettin; g 0 08/11/97 7 :30 PM Lansing Town Hall - Board Room Type of meeting : Agenda topics 7 : 30 PM Open Meeting - Approve July Minutes 7:45 PM Bud Howell Boundary (Easement) Change (Tax. Map # 28 .-28 .122). 8: 00 PM Clifford Buck- 3 Lot Subdivision (Tax Map # 27.- 1 -26.2) 8 : 15 PM Norma Kalk- 4 Lot Subdivision (Tax Map # 25 . - 1 -5 .1) 8: 30 PM Industrial Subdivision-Ron Seacord - (Tax Map # 37. 1 -2-53 .22) Any Other Business That May Come Before The Board • • Town of Lasgin Monday , August 11 , 1997 ; 7 : 30p . m . PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS (*Denotes present) * Larry Sharpsteen, Chair * Jacoba Baker * Viola Miller * Brad Griffin * Lin Davidson Al White * Robert Todd * David Lippert * Larry Tvaroha, Town Councilman * George Totman, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer PUBLIC PRESENT Tom Neiderkorn Planner Consultant Matthew Shulman Lansing Community News Herbert Howell 1067 Ridge Road Peter DeLorme 186 Buck Rd Susan Miller 194 Buck Rd Lawrence H. Conlon Jr. 56 Conlon Road Susan Brock 355 Luce Road • Ron Seacord 1437 East Shore Drive Larry Sharpsteen opened the meeting at 7 : 35 p. m. Review of Minutes from meeting held on July 28, 1997 Page three, third paragraph, -Brad Griffin corrected. . .concerned with the thoroughfare..., last paragraph, sixth line. . .within their properties. . .last paragraph, second to last line. . . -Lin Davidson corrected. . . has granted variance due to a loss of economic viability or distress . . .Page four, line four, . . . Brad Griffin corrected . . .Livestock is permitted . . .second paragraph, line four. . .Larry Sharpsteen acknowledged . . .line six. . . Larry Sharpsteen corrected. . . Town Board. . .line nine. . .Brad Griffin corrected. . . if we apply. . .Page five, third paragraph. . . Brad Griffin stated a visitor shared some experiences with the City of Ithaca that he thought was relevant regarding the difficulty in objectively enforcing noise ordinances. . .fourth paragraph, first line. . . Lin Davidson correct. . . in site plan review, not as a matter of use, but as matter of abatement procedures, buffers, and times that noise is generated. . . .Page six, first paragraph, line four. . . . Brad Griffin corrected. . . .waste of resources and money. . .last line. . . Town Board feels they. . .second paragraph, line five. . . stated deed restrictions and covenants can be binding, but we should focus on minimums standards. . .sixth paragraph, line five. . . Larry Sharpsteen corrected. . .Larry stated in the right hands, a case could be made against the town for having enacted spot zoning. . . .Page seven, fifth paragraph, first line. . . Lin Davidson corrected. . .Pat Conlon stated. . . last paragraph, first line, . . .Tom Ruane, owner. . .Page eight, third paragraph, line eleven, . . .Brad Griffin corrected. . .threshold of homes. . .ffth paragraph, first line. . . Lin Davidson corrected. . . letter from Mark Catone. . .Page nine, third paragraph, line four. . . Dave Lippert corrected. . . making the road one way south from 34B to 34. . .line five. . . Lin Davidson said. . .would be a temporary easement by the developer, Mr. Seacord, for a private driveway from the flag lot to 34. . .Brad Griffin made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Lin Davidson seconded. VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY • Bud Howell Boundary (Easement) Change Tax Map #28.-28. 122 George Totman explained Bud Howell was here to change the boundary line because one of the neighbors in the lot subdivision he had on Auburn Road wants to buy more land in back and along the side of his property. George said where 2 Town of Lansing Planning Board , August 11 , 1997 • this person wanted to buy the property is where the Planning Board asked for an easement to the remaining property in back. Bud is agreeable to changing the easement down a little farther so he still has access to the back parcel . The reason for it being is Lyle O ' Dell wants to buy an extra 165 feet of land to the side and the land in back of the other properties, which would mean moving the easement down another 165 feet. Larry Sharpsteen asked if Lyle owns all three parcels. George Totman replied he does not own all three. The Planning Board reviewed the SEQR and received a negative declaration. Larry Sharpsteen stated that from the standpoint of our subdivision rules we are not supposed to consider the use of the land, but for SEQR we have to. Larry reminded everyone they continue to dance the fine line between bending and actually breaking it. Brad Griffin motioned to approve the subdivision request and boundary and easement change and waive the public hearing. Lin Davidson seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Clifford Buck, 3 Lot Subdivision Tax Map #27.- 1 -26.2 Clifford Buck was not at the meeting yet, but Larry Sharpsteen stated he had some questions for George Totman regarding this subdivision. Larry said that it occurs to him that at this point, this becomes a major subdivision. George stated it had been over 3 years since Mr. Buck had done anything with that land. Larry Sharpsteen stated the time does not make any difference, there are actually four parcels. George said Mr. Buck is taking one parcel and making three, which winds up being four. Larry questioned if his original house was off that subdivision, now he has it so the next parcel in each one of these subdivisions is going to make it a major subdivision. Larry stated the way he reads the subdivision rights, this one is already at that point. Viola Miller agreed. George Totman stated Mr. Buck is leaving more than the required amount for an easement. Larry Sharpsteen stated he was leaving it right on the worst curve in the town. If an easement is left, it has to be left on the straight-away, more or less opposite Sill Road. George said he would be agreeable to that, he just wanted three lots, he did not care where. Lin Davidson suggested moving the easement on the straight-away and move that lot south. Viola Miller stated it has been said at various • meetings she has attended, that if you have subdivisions and you are adding three more, you really ought to go see the subdivision, you should not sit here and look at a map that you can see what is really happening. Larry Sharpsteen agreed. Larry stated his point is this is a major subdivision and asked George Totman to check the regulations. Larry added that he thought the current subdivision regulations do not differentiate between a major and a minor in the same way it use to. George Totman said Larry was correct. Viola said we do not call it a major, we just say that anything with four you have to have more attention. George stated the Board was quite strong in that when making these regulations. Larry stated there are two things with this one. There has to be a higher level of scrutiny and he thinks the easement should be adjacent to Bower Road . George stated Mr. Buck will not have a problem with that. Viola stated she thinks this is one that needs to be looked at to see what they are doing. Robert Todd stated, if it is a major subdivision, probably the only thing they would do differently would be to hold a Public Hearing. Viola and Larry both said it would get a public hearing anyway. Robert Todd stated he thinks they need to wait until Clifford Buck is present. George Totman stated it is Mr. Buck' s intention to have permission to someday sell three lots. He has no qualms about where those lots are as long as they are legal lots. Viola stated it looks like a strip subdivision, which we have been trying to avoid. Larry suggested they table any further discussion until Mr. Buck is here. Norma Kalk- 4 Lot Subdivision Tax Map #37. 1-2-53.22) George Totman introduced Tom Kheel and reminded the Board that Tom was at the July 14 meeting and presented a subdivision for Kalk and at that particular time there was a lot of controversy on the amount of driveways coming out on the road, so the Board asked him to reconfigure the subdivision so that instead of having the two flag lots coming out on each end of the subdivision, put them together in the middle. The Board said at the last regular meeting that if he got them in time, they would go over them on the July 28th meeting, and schedule a public hearing for tonight. Tom got them to George in time, but the meeting lasted until 11 :00p.m. that night and George forgot to give them to the Board. George suggested to Tom that if the Board approved what he gave them and accepted it as a preliminary submission, that if they did have an extra meeting in August, that they could hold a public hearing shortly before the work meeting. Larry Sharpsteen stated that to his • recollection, the suggestions were heeded. Viola Miller stated it looked so much better. Lin Davidson added the depths the Board asked for are there. Larry Sharpsteen stated he does not see anything wrong with holding the public hearing at the next meeting. Robert Todd motioned to accept it as a preliminary plat. Viola Miller seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . 3 Town of Lansing Planning Board, August 11 , 1997 • Public Hearing set for August 25 at 7 : 30p.m. Viola thanked Tom Kheel for taking their suggestions into consideration. The rest of the Board also thanked Tom. Clifford Buck, 3 Lot Subdivision Tax Map #27.-1 -26.2 Larry Sharpsteen informed Mr. Buck they had some discussions before he arrived and gave a synopsis of the earlier discussion. Larry suggested the easement be moved. Mr. Buck agreed. Larry then stated it was not a minor subdivision and asked George to explain the few differences. George stated the main differences are a public hearing is required and the fee is different, instead of $25 .00 it will be $250 . 00 . Robert Todd asked if that was a town law or a state law. George answered stating it was a town law enacted in 1990 or 1991 . Larry Sharpsteen stated that in the subdivision regulations (Page Four, Section 402, Paragraph C) anything over the one original lot plus two, is a major subdivision. At the end of that paragraph, we have given ourselves the discretion under unusual circumstances to change the number. The idea was to do away with minor subdivisions per say, and that is how we did it. Viola Miller stated if you went back up to the other three lots it would cost $25 .00 per lot, if you wanted to do it that way, as long as you are not going into something with lots of lots . Robert Todd stated it was clearly a major subdivision, and there was nothing unusual about it. Larry stated it is unusual in that is does not requires a new road, sewer, water, etc. Larry Sharpsteen asked Tom Neiderkorn to take a look at the subdivision rules to see if it can be cleaned up in some future amendments of the subdivision rights for some other board. Robert Todd said it is $25 .00 per lot for three lots, so that would be $75 .00, what about when he comes back in again. Larry Sharpsteen stated then it would become a major. Robert questioned if the next lot he sells after that would be $250.00 . Lin Davidson said sometime we have to trigger an overall plan. Larry stated after classification to major, it would be $250.00 . So this would be $75 and the next one would trigger $250 when he applied for something in that area. Viola Miller stated at some time, the Board has to look at the overall picture of what is happening. Robert Todd asked Mr. Buck what his plans were. Mr. Buck replied he would just like to get the O.K. to sell those lots, if and when someone wants to buy them, no more, • no less. Robert Todd concluded he thought the Board should call it "unusual circumstances" and ask him to change the easement. Larry Sharpsteen asked Mr. Buck if he would be willing to bump the lots 60 feet to the north. Mr. Buck stated it would not be a problem. Larry Sharpsteen stated they need to see a new map with the changes at the public hearing. George Totman asked for clarification of whether the new map needed to be a new surveyors map or one like the map already submitted. Viola Miller stated she did not think they could not approve without a surveyed map. Larry Sharpsteen stated they could give a preliminary approval . George Totman said a subdivision is not final until a surveyed map is brought in, stamped and Larry Sharpsteen signs it. Larry stated when a preliminary plat is approved, they have six months to bring in the surveyed map for approval. Jacoba Baker questioned what happens if Kip does not get it surveyed in the next six months? Larry replied if it is not submitted within six months the approval may be revoked . Viola Miller asked how long after approval is given does a subdivision have if nothing is done on it. Larry stated indefinitely if they do not revoke it. Viola asked Tom Neiderkorn if there are rules on the amount of time that something can sit that we have essentially given permission, but they have not gone ahead with the road, and nothing has been done with it. Tom replied if they want it to be null and void after a year or two years or something, they must put it in if there is nothing automatic about it. The Planning Board reviewed the SEQR and received a negative declaration. Brad Griffin clarified that the Board will accept a new concept map with the changes for the public hearing. Within sixth months you have to have the surveyed map. Robert Todd motioned to pass as a preliminary minor subdivision with unusual circumstances; circumstances being no road necessary, no water or sewer lines need to be laid; with the understanding that the next parcel will kick in a major subdivision. There will be a public hearing and the lots will be moved north and there will be at least a 60 foot easement on the south. Dave Lippert seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY • Industrial Subdivision-Ron Seacord, Tax Map # 37. 1 -2-53.22 Ron Seacord presented a more formal request for the preliminary approval of the proposed subdivision. Ron stated he has the verbal O.K. from NYSEG where they can put the new road, Cayuga Vista Drive, and he expects the written O.K. within a day or so. He has been holding off on surveying the road until they get the written . He stated he had given George Totman a list 4 Town of Lansing Planning Board, August 11 , 1997 • of neighbors within 500 feet of his parcel. He is going to put in a retention pond so any run off from the new road will not flood the neighbors. Larry Sharpsteen stated he would have to have one in place during construction of the road and of the lots. Larry said he will have to have a non-point source permit from the D . E.C. Larry informed Ron he has the books and would loan them to Ron. Ron displayed the newest architectural map. Larry Sharpsteen asked if it was possible for the construction road for the subdivision that already exists to run along the new Cayuga Vista Drive . Larry asked if it would be reasonable to consider making the section of Cayuga Vista Drive from Woodsedge driveway to the 90° corner one way south . That would mean there would be no northbound traffic . Ron said that would be reasonable and asked if he wanted it set up that way. Larry requested it be set up that way for the public hearing. Viola Miller suggested talking to the Town Highway Superintendent about that possibility. Larry Tvaroha stated that would be an option, the Town would have to look at it. Larry Tvaroha stated another option would be stop signs, stating people would have to stop four times before getting to the other end. Brad Griffin stated this is a separate consideration than was laid on Ron about the construction road. Brad said, in other words, during construction it would relieve traffic from the Woodsedge area by operating both ways, but when it becomes a dedicated part of the highway system, it would become one way. Larry Sharpsteen said he would talk it over with Pete and show him some of the letters the Board has received, and not that they are reacting to threats or anything, but there were some reasonable comments made. Larry stated for the record, however, traffic on that road would be negligible during the time the athletic fields are generally in use, so that becomes a non-issue. George Totman suggested the Board tell the people at the public meeting the Planning Board is considering the options, but ultimately it is the Town Board that has the final say. Larry Tvaroha stated he does not see that it has to be done when it is first built, it is a tool that you have available and you should make people aware of that. Viola Miller pointed out they can make suggestions, but are not in the position to say that is the way it will be. Ron Seacord explained the new map. There will be three lots on the east side of Woodsedge Extension. There will be four lots on Cayuga Vista Drive. By the next time they come together, Ron stated the survey will be completed. George Totman asked if he would have it by September 8 . Ron stated he would. Brad Griffin stated since the last map, Ron has reconfigured some of the lots, so there are four lots instead of three . He asked if 25 acres is the total of Ron ' s holdings there. Ron responded the whole holdings are almost 48 acres, extending all the way to the lots on Sharon Drive and all the way down to Atwater. Viola asked if that would be Phase II or III . Ron stated that is correct. • Lin Davidson asked if there is an allowance for future sidewalks. Lin stated he just wanted to bring it up, as there are ball fields and there are going to be kids around. Robert Todd expressed appreciation to Ron for taking the Boards suggestions into consideration. Larry Sharpsteen said it is very much appreciated. Viola Miller motioned to accept the sketch plan for a major subdivision. Robert Todd seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY George Totman stated for the September 8 meeting Ron will have to bring the SEQR filled out. Larry Sharpsteen stated he does not think they can have a public hearing until they have a preliminary plat. Viola Miller agreed. Larry Sharpsteen said the problem with the preliminary plat is it requires 2 feet contours on slopes of less than 10%. The Top-O map that is required for the preliminary plat, the Planning Board can, at their option, modify the requirement Considering there is a cash crop on that property that would have to be completely removed in order to provide a two foot contour, but the ten foot contours are available currently without destroying that crop. Dave Lippert motioned to accept the 10 foot contours until such time that the 2 foot contours could be adequately measured. Lin Davidson seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Larry Sharpsteen informed Ron Seacord Section 502 , pages 14- 16 would show him what is required for a preliminary plat. If Ron had that available for the September meeting, the public hearing could be held at the second meeting in September. Larry Sharpsteen requested George Totman call Cheryl for the onion skins of the original plans. DISCUSSION ON LETTERS RECEIVED Susan Brock' s letter • Viola Miller reported she received a phone call from the people on Luce Road today saying they understood all the ramifications, and they did not have a petition ready to bring in tonight. They have been working with the landowners and they appreciated what we were considering, and they would try to have them at another time. 5 Town of Lansing Planning Board , August 11 , 1997 • Viola Miller also stated that zoning is not a consideration in assessment, it is based on sales of the land and what the land is being used for. Zoning has no bearing on it at all. The neighbor took that information to the farmer, Greg Travis, and he is considering it with his wife. Larry Sharpsteen said what the question they need answered by their consultant is in considering an area being zoned in the middle of a less restricted area, what sizes would be appropriate in order to not be considerate spot zoning. Tom Neiderkorn stated his sense is there are several lots that are contiguous and the landowners there are not going to benefit from the change from RA to R3 or whatever it is . When you change a particular lot for one owner for his benefit, that would be considered spot zoning. He does not think this would be spot zoning as long as there are several lots that are contiguous . George Totman inquired if the properties to which Susan Brock is referring are just on Luce Road. Susan replied there are some properties on VanOstrand Road. Tom stated as long as they are contiguous, it does not matter. Brad Griffin asked if he understood Tom, when he says "benefit." Brad stated he would presume the owners would perceive some benefit in the change. Is Tom saying that hinges on the term for "monetary profit?" Tom replied that, yes, he thinks the benefit to the owners in this case is a higher level of protection of their property. It does not necessarily relate directly to some kind of financial benefit because it does not change the value of the land. Robert Todd disagrees with the statement that zoning does not cause a monetary increase in the value of a property. Robert thinks most people want zoning, not necessarily to increase, but to maintain the value of the property. Larry Sharpsteen stated that whether or not the assessment changes, if a piece of property is in a zoned area the real, not the assessed, value is increased. Tom said he does not think that unless someone is intent on keeping this from happening, that they are going to bring any type of lawsuit. Tom stated he would not be concerned. Larry recognized that was a good point. Brad Griffin stated that in the last meeting Susan had left them with the question, who would it hurt? Brad thought about this and questioned, whom would it benefit? Brad stated it would protect property values and it would in time be reflected in higher property values, but only then would the assessment be affected. That is a step away. Viola Miller stated as far as if they take in more land, if the farmers are willing to say part of their land can go into the area, it will not affect their farming whatsoever, they can continue farming forever. They do not have to sell their land for residential, they simply can not sell it for commercial . Larry Sharpsteen stated they could not put in livestock. Viola stated they could • not put it in within 500 feet. Lin Davidson asked if the request was for RI . Larry stated he believed the request was for R1 , then asked Susan Brock if she would consider R3 . Susan responded that she, personally, would consider R3 , but there are some others who wanted R1 because they do not want mobile homes . Larry Sharpsteen stated he does not think that is likely, but there are some other things that are allowed in R3 that are not allowed in RI . Susan said yes, there are some retail trade and she does not know about the livestock issue. She knew the livestock issue was discussed last time, but does not know if that is a changing issue or whether that has been settled. Robert Todd stated they had referred it to the Town Board. Brad Griffin stated they had recommended to stay with the old standards that already exist in the old ordinance. Pete DeLorme asked what that was. Tom Neiderkorn read the current ordinance for Special Permits, Section 1303 . Tom stated that was not going to apply that in the RA district, but in the RI district. It was stated that R1 was transposed to R3 with the exception of mobile homes and retail trade. Susan Miller stated at the last meeting they discussed the livestock issue for RI and R2 , but did not mention it extending to R3 . Larry Sharpsteen stated the only differentiation made between R1 and R3 is the allowance of mobile homes and home retail businesses. Tom stated what Susan is saying is that the livestock issue could be eliminated from R3 . Larry Sharpsteen stated those are preexisting, non-conforming uses. Susan Miller questioned what happens if the property is sold. Larry stated the new owner can continue the use in exactly the same fashion and expansion is allowed. If the use in discontinued, it can be resumed within one year and it is still protected. Pete DeLorme questioned if the right to do that can be transferred. Larry Sharpsteen said yes, and it can be expanded. Robert Todd stated if it is an Ag. district, the Ag. law supersedes the zone laws. Robert stated the Ag. district line does not follow the zoning lines. Tom Neiderkorn stated he is not absolutely sure that the Ag. law supersedes the zoning. Robert replied he is pretty sure it does . Tom stated he would like to check that to make sure. Larry Sharpsteen stated that from the standpoint that if you have an existing use, it is protected both because it is grandfathered and by the right to farm law. Pete stated they are saying that even though he is in an R3 district, if someone buys the lot next to him, that person could have livestock because they are in an Ag. district, even though the zoning says he can 't? Larry Sharpsteen and Viola Miller both stated that is not correct. Robert Todd said he thinks that is correct, he thinks it supersedes the zoning laws. Larry stated that is something on which they would have to have a reading. Robert Todd stated that the other part of the Ag. law is that even though you are not in an Ag. district, if you can make an individual commitment to keep that area agricultural for 8 years, he thinks it is 8 years, you can have all the benefits of an Ag. • district. Viola Miller stated then you can go ahead and sell it and just pay back a little bit of taxes . Robert Todd stated that is what Kippie Buck does. Robert Todd stated he thinks you have to gross $ 10,000 per year off of that land. Larry Sharpsteen stated they would have Tom Neiderkorn research that point. Susan Brock stated she would like to go back to the spot zoning issue. She researched it also. What she found was that you have spot zoning when you have 1 -3 parcels . In their situation, they are talking about approximately 15 parcels or so. Right 6 Town of Lansing Planning Board , August 11 , 1997 • off the bat she thinks they are knocked out of the spot zoning. The other thing she came across was that you do not want to permit a less restrictive use in the middle of a more restrictive use area. Again, in her situation, they are looking at a more restrictive use . And the final point is that spot zoning is not necessarily improper and illegal. To give a hypothetical example, Susan stated the 4 corners of Triphammer and Peruville Road. If that were in a residential district, and the four corners were not developed, you could say you think it would be appropriate to have commercial property on the corners. That might be an example where you could zone just those four parcels because of the unique situation of it being at a major intersection. That could be a situation where spot zoning could be allowed and could be proper. Susan also stated she does not think their situation is not spot zoning at all. Brad Griffin stated George and others had passed along cases, and Brad would say that in every case where the court has decided spot zoning, they have struck it down. Viola Miller stated her point was they should not be calling it spot zoning, they should be calling it a new zone. Viola said it does not fit the description of spot zoning. Robert Todd said what it comes down to is what Brad Griffin stated in the last meeting, what is the number of houses, what is the cut off'? Brad Griffm stated he remembered somebody asking a question at the public informational meeting how the Board drew the districts, and his answer was that they tried to find areas with homogeneous uses . Larry Sharpsteen said his point is they have to be careful in doing the research and establishing the proper precedent and that is why he asked Tom whether zoning case law had any opinion if there was a lower threshold and if so, what that threshold is, and pass that on to the Town Board. Pete DeLorme asked to go back to the livestock issue. He stated that R3 is a little bit different, he does not know from where the preponderance of the comments came that requested the restriction. Larry Sharpsteen stated they were R1 people. Pete stated it was not an issue that they discussed amongst themselves, but aside from the smaller lots, many of the people have livestock. Pete thinks that considering the nature of the neighborhood and the fact that the Board has already segmented that off as R3 , that it would not be difficult to say that in R3 , this is a specific permitted use. Larry Sharpsteen stated that people in Pete ' s neighborhood have already expressed there are things that they can not abide. How do they as a Planning Board decide where that line can be drawn? Susan Miller said because it is something that fits in with the character of the neighborhood. Susan Miller pointed out the Board had not heard from anyone in R3 regarding the livestock issue, they heard from the people • in R1 . Susan also stated that unless she is mistaken, people in R3 have not written about not wanting livestock or all the contingencies that go with livestock. Larry stated he was all for it, the less restrictive a regulation can be, the better as far as he is concerned. Susan stated that because they have not received any comments from people in R3 stating they want the livestock restrictions, and since R3 already has some distinctions from R1 , that it can have separate descriptions, such as in the area of livestock. Robert Todd stated the problem they have with it is they went to the informational meetings, and he does not care whether it is R1 , R2, or R3 , the people in residential areas said they do not want livestock, now you are coming in and saying you do want it. Robert Todd stated they have already made the recommendation to the Town Board to have the old ordinance in effect in the residential areas. Robert said he feels that is a reasonable move to make . He suggested waiting to see what the Town Board has to say about it, because he does not want to waste any more time on it. Susan Miller stated it was not entirely clear last week that what was applied to RI would automatically apply to R3 . Larry Sharpsteen stated they can take that point into consideration. Viola Miller stated it is possible they need to take a look at R3 again, and see where it is and what they are putting in it because it is that R1 and R2 that are screaming so hard about the size of their lots. Larry Sharpsteen asked Larry Tvaroha to mention it at the Town Board meeting so they could get some feedback on that and on the possibility of petitions from people in R3 , which the Town Board specifically wanted to increase the restrictions in their area. Tom Neiderkorn suggested what they ought to do is go through this process, get it the way they want it as a Planning Board, invite people to petition you if they want to do it, turn it over to the Town Board with the understandings that they have gone through and the explanations and so forth and let the Town Board do with it what they want. Viola Miller agreed. Lin Davidson stated that was what he was going to say, we ' ll just do this as a subject that we have discussed and that the Town Board has to make that decision. Viola agreed, the recommendation should come from them, what they believe in as a Board, and then if the Town Board does not like it, they change it. Larry Tvaroha stated what the Town Board is looking for something as inclusive as it can, but that they anticipate neighborhoods coming in with a petition to change it. He would like to get something passed and it can be changed later as it is a living document. Mrs. Harner' s letter • Larry Sharpsteen stated the next token is Mrs. Harner' s concern regarding her property being shown as R1 instead of B1 on the proposed zoning map. Larry said as far as he was concerned that is commercial . Larry stated he spoke with Jackie today and he does not feel they should respond to any individual comments in writing until the entire document has been adopted. They have told her that was the recommendation to the Town Board, that they agree. Larry Tvaroha stated the Town Board agreed to it as well, it just did not get changed. Brad Griffin stated she already had an answer from the Town Board that was 7 Town of Lansing Planning Board, August 11 , 1997 • favorable. George Totman stated she had an answer from the Town Board before that map was made, but her concern was that when the map came out, it had not been changed. The Board agreed it will be changed on the new map. Viola Miller stated there was one other question that came up today. Ralph Barnard called her today regarding Lansing Station Rd and 34B, they are concerned about the 1000 ft. Ralph pointed out the building was not going to take place on that 1000 ft. , it is going to take place on the road. Viola stated that as she drives up through there, it does seem to her there is more building going on. Viola asked if that was a valid thing to think about. Dave Lippert stated he thought they moved it back at the informational meeting they had with the Town Board because they wanted it moved back. Viola stated they had talked about it for 2 years, and this maintained there were others thinking about it too and wondering why we did not take it all the way to the road. Robert Todd stated you are going to have development there anyway because of the water. Viola stated that was the initial reason they started this 5 years ago, because they felt very strongly there should be zoning in place where the water went in. Viola tried to say that they are in a district and they can not connect to the water, but she guessed she was wrong on that. Robert Todd stated if they are participating in the Ag. districts they can not. Robert Todd stated his point was to say to the Town Board, this is the way we have it now, and let the people petition to change it. Tom Neiderkorn stated they did have a public hearing where concerns were expressed and the Town Board said to listen to them, so he thinks the Planning Board is doing the responsible thing. Pete DeLorme commented that they were directed to listen, but if they do not want the process to go on forever, perhaps the thing to do is say they will listen for a certain amount of time and then they are done . There is a finite end to the process. George Totman stated what is done in other areas. They open the first part of the meeting, for 1 /2 to 1 hour, for public comment, then they close it to public comments and the public just listens. Viola stated they should put a limit on time and have a notice on that. Larry Sharpsteen stated the next meeting will be the last meeting they will be taking additional public comments limited to 5 minutes per subject. The public hearing will be held August 25 at 7 : 30p.m . Discussion on Portland Point Development Larry Sharpsteen stated Portland Point is in the IR zone . The point was made that the development that is going on down there is in the county waterfront plan, fits the comprehensive plan for the Town, and is not the type of development allowed in that area currently. When we drew the lines we recognized the fact that with the development of the waterfront, we might be looking to change that particular area. Tom Neiderkorn stated a private commercial recreation, indoors or outdoors, whether or not for profit, are permitted in the industrial research district. George Totman stated that they are talking about a restaurant and that is not allowed. Larry Sharpsteen added residences are not allowed and they are talking about condos . Brad Griffin said it struck him at the public meeting, that when Flo made her comments it really pointed out the fact that they have responsibly been guided by the historical use of that property, not one of which we were unaware. Viola stated they should ask for a Plan Development Area. Viola added it only takes 2 acres for a P.D.A. and it can go in any zone. It is a perfect P. D.A . Jacoba Baker asked who gives them the P.D .A. ? Larry Sharpsteen stated that the Planning Board does. Tom Neiderkorn stated a P. D.A. would work fine, and that it is the Town Board that finally approves that. Larry Sharpsteen asked about the flip side of that same letter about site plan review be under the auspicious of the Town Board only. He feels they have answered that question, they have explained all the reasons why that is not the correct thing to do . Viola stated she would like to answer that, from all points of view, it would be much better for the Planning Board to handle it. Viola would like to recommend to the Town Board that the Planning Board handle it, but it is their provocative to change it if they feel they should. Larry Sharpsteen stated site plan review, done by the Town Board had a history of being overturned in court because of political pressure being brought to bear on the Town Board. Tom Neiderkorn stated it is important that everyone understands that site plan review are permitted uses, it is not a question of whether it is permitted or not permitted. Larry Sharpsteen stated he agrees with Viola that should be the recommendation, if the rest of the Board agrees, that it would be a perfect application for a P. D.A. ' Larry stated he would personally respond verbally to Mr. Penny. Lin Davidson questioned whether the Board had discussed comment #2 on Susan Brock 's letter. Lin suggested they change the defmition in the RA to talk about compatible uses instead of just uses to assist farming. Larry Sharpsteen disagreed because historically those type of uses have been allowed and do support farming, because they allow farmers another use for their land, another source of income, whether they lease their land to someone else or do it as another part of their own business . One of the primary thrusts of the rural agricultural districts is to allow the greatest use of land possible to the people that own that land. Robert Todd agreed with Larry, and thinks they took a big step in the last meeting when recommended to the Town Board to look at site plan review for uses in the RA district. Larry Sharpsteen said now that we have recommended site plan review for all commercial uses in the town, he thinks that addresses Susan 's concern. Tom Neiderkorn stated what they need to do in the next meeting is to go through each one of these lists in the Ag. district and decide on a case by case basis, whether you think site plan review is necessary to decide if they are commercial or not. 8 Town of Lansing Planning Board , August 11 , 1997 Discussion on Jeff Cleveland 's letter Dave Lippert stated he can not remember what the resolution was, or if they did come to a resolution at the last meeting, regarding the Collins Rd and Farrell Rd where one end wants one thing and one end wants another. Brad Griffin stated they lobbied about that, but he is still not sure that he understands it. Dave said to his understanding, Collins Road area would like Rl and the Farrell Road area wants RA. Larry Sharpsteen stated they had discussed making it an R3 . Larry Tvaroha stated they have a neighboring town to the East and questioned if the Board had checked to see what their regulations are to see if we are compatible with them. Tom Neiderkorn stated he thinks they are compatible. Larry Tvaroha stated what Jeff is interested in doing is putting in commercial property as opposed to farm land. George Totman stated that he already has got it there . Larry Sharpsteen stated that would be an existing non-conforming use then just like Duthie Painting and The Rink. Larry Sharpsteen said Farrell Road better suits the RA district than an R1 . Tom Neiderkorn suggested continuing the RA district down past Farrell Road. George Totman also suggested bringing R1 over 300 feet to include Collins Road. Tom stated that he could make the changes. Discussion on letter from Fred Rogers Tom Neiderkorn stated that Fred wanted to change everything from Waterwagon south to R1 . The Board stated they would take it into consideration. Tom questioned, what about the area between N . Triphammer and Cecil? George Totman stated that Fred Rogers is the only one in that neighborhood from whom you have heard and he wants to change a vast area. Brad Griffin stated if they fiddled with that, an existing area, they could cut their own throats on that. Tom Neiderkorn stated the area West of N . Triphammer and north of Waterwagon is zoned as R1 . Tom said it does not make sense to him, and questioned why they did that. Larry Sharpsteen stated they made it R1 because that is how it is in the old ordinance. Tom stated R2 continue to 300 feet east of N . Triphammer. Larry Tvaroha stated you could get a lot of comment on that if it was changed . Larry Sharpsteen agreed. The Board decided to leave it as is. Discussion on letter from Kevin Koffman Larry Sharpsteen read the letter from Kevin Koffman, describing his lot as a single 3 acre lot, 15 & 17 Myers Rd., a lot split by a NYSEG easement with a clearing of 50 feet on either side of the center line of the easement. It appears his entire lot is • low density residential. Kevin requested his lot from the center line of the NYSEG easement west remain designated low density residential, and that from the center line of the easement east be designated mixed use commercial . Kevin ' s letter explained the rationale for this request is that the portion of his lot east of the easement borders the Citco Gas Station property owned by Messenger. Messenger' s property is designated mixed use commercial . In all likelihood, if any development is done on the east portion of his lot, it will be done in cooperation with Mr. Messenger and be of a mixed use nature rather than applying for a special permit or variance at a later date, with greater cost to all, Kevin asked for this change to take place on the ongoing zoning map development process. Larry Sharpsteen stated they could make this change, and then somebody else is going to come and say "you made the change for Kevin Koffman, but now you will not make the change for me ." Brad Griffin stated they really can not say they will not treat one person fairly just because the other people will want them to treat them fairly. It is not a reasonable exercise in precedent. Robert Todd stated he can come in when he is going to sell and get a variance. George Totman stated it is not easy to get a variance, as you have to prove a hardship in order to get one. Robert Todd stated he would have to abstain if they vote on it as he has to think about it awhile. Larry Sharpsteen stated he would be willing to wait to let Robert think about it before having a vote. Robert Todd made a motion to adjourn. Lin Davidson seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. This meeting adjourned at 10 : 57 p.m. Submitted by Robin Cornell . S