Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-28 • w 1 • Town of Lans . 3 Thursday, August 28 , 1997 ; 5 : 30pm PLANNING BOARD 4 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 5 (*Denotes present) 6 * Larry Sharpsteen, Chair * Jacoba Baker 7 * Viola Miller * Brad Griffin 8 * Lin Davidson Al White 9 * Robert Todd * David Lippert 10 11 Larry Tvaroha, Town Councilman 12 * George Totman, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer 13 PUBLIC PRESENT 14 Tom Neiderkorn Planner Consultant 15 Susan Miller 194 Buck Rd 16 Matthew Shulman 204 Wilson, Lansing Community News 17 18 GENERAL BUSINESS Robert Todd called the meeting to order at 5 :40pm. Robert suggested turning the meeting over to Tom Neiderkorn. Larry Sharpsteen entered at 5 :45pm. Tom stated that after they get through this, he will put together the proper wording, and bring 21 back a clean copy for the Board to review in the next couple of weeks. 22 APPENDIX I, Definitions 23 A.3 Agriculture-Dave Lippert stated this definition is all right. Robert Todd agreed. 24 A.38 Farm-Brad Griffin questioned what the 5 acres is tied into? State law? Tom stated he thinks it is arbitrary, state law says 25 $ 10,000. Robert Todd said he thinks the $ 10,000 is more pertinent. Robert Todd recommended using both "5 acres and 26 $ 10,000 gross sales of agricultural products." The Board agreed. 27 Tom Neiderkorn read letter from John Sterling regarding 4-H and school agriculture. Lin Davidson added if it is independent 28 or even if it is the 4-H program, that there be some sort of husbandry regulations in terms of control of litter so it is not 29 objectionable to the neighbors. Tom stated they would probably put that in as "4-H or educational activities" in Residential 30 areas, RI , R2, and R3 . Lin stated that is where he would like it under the guides of a program or a husbandry practice 31 suggested by a program. Tom stated they could put that in Schedule I, as "4H and other educational husbandry," then define 32 that. Larry Sharpsteen suggested putting a defmition of "pet" as "an animal, not to be limited to a particular species, owned 33 by an individual for the purpose of companionship' or enjoyment." Lin Davidson suggested that they state as long as a pet 34 does not impact the neighborhood more than a customary pet, a cat or a dog. 35 A.37 Family- Strike "recognized family relationship" from definition. 36 37 SEC. 503. SCHEDULE I 38 Residential Uses 39 8. Mobile Homes- should they be permitted under special circumstances in residential districts, i .e. a granny flat or tenant home? Larry Sharpsteen stated he thinks they should be allowed anywhere. George Totman stated that granny flats or ECHO Housing can be almost anything. It is temporary. First you have to set up the need. It has to be an elderly relative. When 42 you get permission to put it in there, it is for that particular person. It can not be transferred. After that- person has passed 43 away, it normally has to removed within 90 days. Tom Neiderkorn asked what they do about water and sewer. George stated 44 they have to get a permit from the Health Dept. George Totman suggested Tom Neiderkorn look into this and take ECHO • 2 Town o Lansin_ Plannin_ Board Au% st 28 1997 1 Housing guidelines. Tom asked if they were going to put ECHO housing in a separate category from mobile . omes. Robert 2 Todd suggested Tom look into what other municipalities are doing. Viola stated it is being done in other muni cipalities and 3 suggest they allow it. Tom asked what about mobile homes or tenant homes? Viola questioned why isn't a to ant home on • 4 farm property considered a farm building? Tom stated he did not think of that. 5 9 . Mobile Home Parks in Rl & R2- Is it a good idea to allow mobile home parks in RI and R2 . George To i an stated that 6 realistically it will not happen. Lin Davidson suggested taking it out, and you have made all those people hap ►y and you 7 don 't have to change anything. Robert Todd agreed. Tom stated they will make the change so mobile home arks will not be 8 allowed in R1 and R2. 9 Commercial Uses 10 Congregate housing and Senior Citizen Housing- places where you can live that has meals served, but no med cal care. Like 11 Woodsedge, but they have a kitchen and small staff to serve meals. Jacoba Baker stated it is like Titus Tower . . Larry 12 Sharpsteen stated that was an acceptable community use. Tom stated he will add a couple more uses. 13 Business Uses 14 1 . Farming- dairy- Tom Neiderkorn stated that in the R1 district, dairy farming is not going to be allowed. In the L1 and R3 15 dairy farming is allowed. Viola Miller questioned it being allowed in L I . Tom asked if there are currently an, dairy farms in 16 that area. It was stated there are none presently. Tom asked if it were even a practical consideration . Lin D . idson stated he 17 did not think it was. Tom stated it would not be allowed in Ll . 18 4. Farming- livestock- Tom asked if livestock would be permitted in the L1 district. Larry Sharpsteen stated ealistically 19 there is not much open grazing land within 1000 ft. of the lake. Tom questioned if Larry was saying it would ake care of 20 itself, that there is no real reason why the Board should say it is not permitted, because it will probably never n appen. Larry 21 stated that is correct. The Board agreed. 22 Tom Neiderkorn stated the only place where there are conditions, as per the present ordinance, is poultry fa ing and 23 livestock in LI , RI , and R3 . Tom asked if this kind of farming is under special permits or special conditions? Robert Todd 24 stated it is currently under special permits. The Board agreed to continue it that way. 25 14. Commercial Recreation- Tom Neiderkorn suggested splitting commercial recreation into 2 categories, in . oor and 26 outdoor and have separate definitions. Tom stated if it is split up, you would have to decide where you wanted to have the • 27 indoor recreation and where you want to have the outdoor. Viola Miller, Jacoba Baker, and Larry Sharpsteen stated it should 28 be separated. Lin Davidson agreed. Brad Griffin stated that Site Plan Review will separate them anyway, so by separate it 29 here. Tom Neiderkorn stated that because you may decide not to allow outdoor commercial recreation in the • 1 and R2 30 districts. Robert Todd agreed that they should be separated. 31 13 . Veterinary Hospital- Viola Miller questioned why they allowed them in residential areas. Larry Sharpster n stated is was 32 because it was allowed in the old ordinance. 33 24. Restaurant, tavern- Tom asked whether that should be allowed in the Industrial district. Brad Griffin sta led he thought 34 they went by historical use and now there is truly a conversion of use so complete it is no longer that zone. Sharpsteen 35 stated he talked to Dick and their complaint was that they wanted that zoned so they could put their resort the e. Larry also 36 informed Dick that it could be done under a PDA. Tom stated he does not think they should change it from but that they 37 should allow restaurants in the IR district. Larry stated he thought the reason they didn't allow it was because there was a lot 38 of resistance from the Town Board liaison. Brad Griffin stated the whole idea of an IR zone would be to give some 39 predictability to the people that are operating there, and not to bring in situations that would create hazards. arry Sharpsteen 40 stated that there is contention on both sides. He suggests leaving it as is. Tom Neiderkorn stated restaurants . d taverns 41 would not be allowed in an IR district. 42 Marina- Tom asked about new uses. He asked if a marina should be allowed someplace in the town. Larry S arpsteen asked 43 if they did not already allow it in the LI district. Tom stated it does not have marina specifically. Larry state n he took it that 44 #22 "retail sales, services and storage; marine and water oriented" to include a marina as storage could be in u r out of water. 45 Tom stated they would leave it as is. 46 IndustriaUResearch Uses 47 10. Tower for the Reception or transmission of electronic signals.- Tom stated this is getting a lot of discus % ion these days. 48 He thought that even though they are allowing it in RA, maybe they should include some criteria. Right now t is SC 802.23 49 which is Town Board approval required, but would the Town Board find it useful to have some criteria. Bra ' Griffm asked 50 what criteria would be included. Tom suggested height, the location, not close to an existing residence. L . stated he 51 thought it would be reasonable to suggest that they not be within the reach of their height of an existing resid :nce or 52 agricultural building. Tom stated he could develop some criteria and let the Planning Board take a look at it. The Board 53 agreed it would be worthwhile to have some criteria. 3 Town of Lansing Planning Board, August 28, 1997 1 ARTICLE V, SCHEDULE II : AREA, FRONTAGE, YARD, HEIGHTS AND COVERAGE IREQUIREMENTS RA-Rural Agriculture- Tom suggested splitting RA into two categories, Farming & Non-Farming. The reason would be 4 because they could ease up on the minimum lot widths and minimum yard setbacks for farming areas and still have the 10 ft 5 and 50 ft. for non-farming. Lin Davidson and Brad Griffin stated it would not be worth it. 6 Tom Neiderkorn stated he had 10 ft. side yard and rear yard in the RA District and 50 ft. front yard in all districts . He asked 7 if this was correct. The Board agreed it was correct. Brad Griffin asked if Tom wanted to revisit the minimum lot width in 8 R3 . There is no difference with or without public water and sewer. Tom stated 150 ft. is such a wide limit that maybe we 9 thought it was enough whether they have water or not. , but they can revisit it. Larry Sharpsteen pointed out that you can do 10 whatever you want with the water, but if you make it smaller, do not call it low density. Tom Neiderkorn stated that they do 11 not want to go into density or you are going to go all the way back to the comprehensive plan. 12 ARTICLE VI, GENERAL PROVISION 13 600.3 Future Public Water Or Sewers 14 Tom stated that there needs to be some kind of starting date for the 5 years to begin if there is a plan to have water and sewer 15 within 5 years. Tom suggested that it say that "within 5 years of the date the subdivision proposal is submitted." Robert Todd 16 stated that sounds reasonable . 17 600.7 Lot in Two Districts 18 Tom Neiderkorn will add "at landowners ' discretion." 19 20 ARTICLE VII- SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS 21 Sect. 701 .4 - Site Plan Review for RA Districts 22 Tom Neiderkorn stated what was said a couple meetings ago, that the Board wanted to have all non-agricultural uses require Site Plan Review in the RA district. Robert Todd stated all commercial uses . Brad Griffin stated all commercial and industrial. Tom asked if they needed Sect. 701 .4, they might not need separate provisions for Site Plan Review in the RA 25 district. Robert Todd stated just make a note that it will show up on Section 1 , for a particular use. Tom stated he will 26 illuminate Section 701 .4 in it' s entirety. 27 Lin Davidson stated that as an aspect of Site Plan Review, they look at buffers. 28 Larry Sharpsteen stated in the RA districts it was the only place they put a limitation on driveway width, 35 ft. , and he would 29 like it to be stated somewhere else that there be such a limitation. Lin Davidson said they should roll those standards into the 30 other standards. Tom Neiderkorn stated he had forgot that. He would include that in with the other standards. 31 Sect. 701 .5- Standards for Site Plan Review in all Districts 32 Tom stated they are going to add a criteria related to noise and other kinds of nuisances. Lin Davidson stated he thinks you 33 should say the noise can only be generated at a certain time of day, normal working hours, and be premitigated as much as 34 possible with buffers. Tom said you would have to do that as a condition of the Site Plan Review. Larry Sharpsteen asked 35 what are you going to call "noise" and what are you going to call "normal working hours?" Tom stated that each condition 36 will be different and whoever is reviewing that Site Plan has to specify what they are going to require. Larry stated he thinks 37 it is site specific. Lin stated he thinks they can make suggestions as to the time of day and mitigating efforts. Tom stated he 38 will come up with some language and they will review it. 39 Lin Davidson stated that according to George, Groton has a good ordinance on that, so maybe Tom could take a look at the 40 Site Plan Review. George stated in the Site Plan Review, on a one by one basis, it depends on how it relates to the neighbors 41 in the area. And that is what is put on their permit to operate. 42 Sect. 701 .6.2h- Site Plan Requirements 43 Brad Griffin stated that the word "critical" should be replaced with "unique." Tom Neiderkorn stated he already had that 44 corrected in his copy. • Sect. 701 .7.2- Decision. 46 Tom said a statement needed to be added saying the time periods which are included are not applicable if you are going 47 through the SEQR process. Tom stated he would remove the second 701 . 7 .2 and include that in the first paragraph after the 48 first "30 days." Regardless of what is said above, the 30 days do not apply until you have completed the SEQR process. Tom 49 asked if anyone remembered why they had put "30 days" in when the law allows 62 days. Larry Sharpsteen stated because 4 • Town o Lansin_ Plannin_ Board A : st 28 1997 1 they did not think it should take that long. Tom suggested that since some of these have to be sent to the • . unty Planning 2 Board, and they have 30 days in which to respond, you are cutting yourself short here. He would suggest ' 5 days. The Board 3 agreed to change to 45 days. 4 Added Sect. 701 . 9 • 5 Tom stated he was adding the reference of referring things to the County Board when necessary. Larry Sh . I Steen stated they 6 had that in there once and somebody said it made the document too long. Tom agreed they did have it in ere and took it out, 7 but stated they should put it back in there. Larry stated he would agree with Tom. 8 Section 703.0- Wetlands 9 Tom stated he would add language noting that Federal Wetland Requirements also apply. Brad Griffin stat d he would be 10 more cautious and state that they "may" apply. Tom Neiderkorn agreed to add "may apply." 11 Section 704.4- Private Roads 12 Lin Davidson asked if they could specify what a "turn-around" is. George Totman stated it is a state law th . t there can not be 13 more than 4 parcels on a private road. Toni stated that it seems to him if there are more than 4 parcels, then should be a way 14 to get an ambulance or something back there. Robert Todd stated he thinks they are going too far with this. It is like a 15 driveway. Robert Todd motioned to take out Section 704 .4 . Brad Griffin seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAV OR, MOTION 16 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 17 Section 707.7-Approval of the Planned Development Area 18 Section 708. 1 19 Tom stated that they will omit Section 708 . 1 because it has already been done before and the first thing you eal with is 20 environmental impact. 21 22 ARTICLE VIII: SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL USE PERMITS 23 All the sections will refer to R1 and R3 which we did not have when Tom printed this up. Tom will put all ase in there as 24 appropriate as he goes through. • 25 Section 802.3 - Mobile Home Park In RA, R1 And R2 Districts 26 Viola stated they had taken the mobile homes parks out of R1 and R2. Tom stated he would change it to read "IN RA & R3 ." 27 and that everything here would comply with the Schedule I. 28 Section 802.23 - Tower For The Rece s tion Or Transmission Of Electronic Si ! nals In RA B2 And IR 1 istricts 29 Tom stated this was the section related to towers in which is was decided he would draw up some criteria and hey would 30 review it. 31 Section 803. 1 .7 Added (GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS) 32 Tom stated that he would put in there the same kind of language that they talked about for noise before. 33 Section 803.4 Added 34 Tom stated it would deal with the expiration of a special permit. He does not know what the exact words will lie but the 35 theory is if you have gone through the trouble of getting a special permit, you ought to do something about it ithin a period 36 of time or it expires. 37 38 ARTICLE X: NON CONFORMING USES 39 Section 1001 . 1 40 Tom stated he thinks they should decide whether they would like it to read "unless a use variance" or "unless . n area 41 variance." Tom suggests an "area" variance. Tom said it should be spelled out because somebody is going to . k that 42 question. 43 Section 1001 .2 • 44 Also add "or an area variance." 45 . . 5 Town of Lansing Planning Board, August 28, 1997 1 Section 1003.0 - CHANGES ilTom suggests changing it to read `only by use variance granted". The Board agreed. 4 ARTICLE XI - ENFORCEMENT 5 Section 1100.3 - Application 6 Tom stated that they should add . . .on the written order of not just the Zoning Board of Appeals, but maybe the Planning 7 Board, and maybe the Town Board too, depending on jurisdiction. . . . 8 9 ARTICLE XIII - AMENDMENTS 10 Section 1304.0 - MODIFICATIONS OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 11 Tom stated this was not clear to Susan Brock, although it is clear to the Board. Tom said he can change the wording to 12 clarify. If somebody applies as a subdivision, you already have the authority by state law to modify the zoning regulations 13 related to that subdivision under certain circumstances. The Planning Board can make the changes. You have to go through a 14 certain procedure to do that. Tom thinks it is Sect. 281 . If you use it you have to make sure everyone understands what is 15 going on. Larry Sharpsteen asked if the title of Section 1304 .0 should say "MODIFICATIONS OF ZONING 16 REGULATIONS." Tom stated that is correct. 17 18 ARTICLE XIV: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES 19 Sect. 1400.0 20 Tom stated he just stopped on the last sentence . Tom stated there are several lines that are in the current ordinance that he 21 will put in there. 0 SEC. 503. SCHEDULE I, Site Plan Review Tom asked if the Site Plan Review was going to be a function of the Town Board or the Planning Board. It is a function of 24 the Planning Board. Tom stated that they have to go through and decide when they will require Site Plan Review. Robert 25 Todd stated "No residential uses." 26 B. Community uses. Tom stated it is required for a cemetery. The Board agreed no other community uses would require Site 27 Plan Review. Robert Todd stated that they had agreed on just commercial uses in RA. Viola Miller questioned if a nursing 28 home, hospital, and health related clinic should be a commercial use instead of a community use as it is listed. The Board 29 agreed it should be moved from Community to Business Uses and should require Site Plan Review. 30 C. Business uses. Tom stated he thought they should be very conservative with the Site Plan Review in the RA District. 31 The Board discussed the possibility of requiring SPR for each of the uses listed. Brad Griffm stated that the more they clutter 32 up this column the less likely the proposal will pass. The Board discussed requiring it for # 19-Retail sales, general. Lin 33 Davidson stated if you are going to require it for # 19, then you would have to require it for 18, 20, 21 , 22, right on down the 34 line. Brad again stated if they start cluttering the RA column, the less likely it will pass. 35 D. Industrial uses. Leave as is . 36 Lin Davidson motioned to leave as is, and recommend to the Town Board that they consider adding SPR for some uses, such 37 as # 19,20, and 27-30. Jacoba Baker seconded. VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 38 39 CHANGES ON THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP 40 Autumn Ridge will be changed from R2 to RI . The boundary between RI and R3 will be moved to 300 ft. East of Collins 41 Road and continuing down to Farrell Road. RA will be continue all the way to the IR district along the Town Line. There 42 will be a modification of the Northeast boundary of the R3 district, near Buck Rd., to include the other 4 lots. The boundary 43line between R2 and RI , Waterwagon to North Triphammer going North, will be moved to 300 ft. East of Triphammer. R3 • will not be returned to Rl . The square section of the RI district between B1 and B2 along RT. 34, will be changed to Bl . 45 Larry Sharpsteen stated once the corrected document is proofed, they need to get it in the Town Board's hands as soon as - 46 possible. 47 Submitted by Robin Cornell.