Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-14 r . • _Town of Lansing . 3 Monday, January 14, 2002 7 : 30 PM PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS (*Denotes present) II 6 * Gregg Travis, Chair * Brad Griffin 7 * Larry Sharpsteen * Lin Davidson 8 * Viola Miller * David Hatfield 9 * Nancy Loncto 10 1 11 * Bud Shattuck, Town Councilman 12 * Richard Platt, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer 13 14 Public Present 15 Diane Kinne 16 Betty Jirinec 17 Dennis Tarbell 18 Richard Moore 19 20 GENERAL BUSINESS 21 Gregg Travis opened the meeting at 7 : 30 PM. • Public Hearing, Tennis Tarbell, Auburn Rd, Tax Map #20:1 -18.2 - The Board reviewed the subdivision. 23 Dick Platt explained the choice made by Mr. Tarbell as to how to do the subdivision . Dick Platt explained that 24 the Parrish parcel is going to enlarge, but the right-of-way has been there and that is not going to change . Mr. 25 Tarbell explained that he owns the house on Parcel C and is waiting for the subdivision to be approved so that he 26 can sell it. 27 Dick Moore asked what the rules would be for future subdivision. Larry Sharpsteen stated that Parcels A & B 28 would be able to be subdivided into flag lots, with the lynch pin being the Town accepting that as a private road. 29 Dick Platt stated that he, Dave Herrick, and Pete Larson went up and inspected the road. Dick Platt stated that 30 David Herrick said he could not accept a road unless he inspects it as it is being built. 31 Nancy Loncto moved to close the public hearing at 7 :44. Larry Sharpsteen seconded. VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR. 32 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 33 Dick Platt stated that they did receive a letter from the County Planning Department regarding their review of he 34 239 —1 , -m , and n and they didn 't find anything. Larry Sharpsteen asked if they had to do that for this one as it 35 wasn 't on a County road. Dick Platt explained that it was for any subdivision or variance he was told he had to 36 send it to the County Planning Department. Larry Sharpsteen stated he thought it was only required if it was on a 37 county road. Dick replied that any action of the Planning Board or the ZBA. Larry Sharpsteen stated that if it' s 38 the law, that is one thing, but if it is just an executive decision that is different. Dick Platt stated that he would 39 look into it and give the Planning Board copies of it. The Board discussed that even if the County opposes 40 something, the Planning Board can still pass something if they pass it with a majority plus one . 41 Lin Davidson read the SEQR. Lin Davidson moved to declare a negative declaration. Larry Sharpsteen 42 seconded. VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. gli Bud Shattuck stated that Robert Freeman has suggested to board ' s that they do not have to read the whole SEQR wr aloud, they can allow for members of the audience to have a copy and read it for themselves and the Board can 45 just answer the questions. 46 Nancy Loncto motioned to accept the subdivision as submitted . Lin Davidson seconded . VOTE: 5 IN FAVOR. 47 Larry Sharpsteen abstained . MOTION CARRIED. 2 Town of Lansing Planning Board, January 14, 2001 1 2 Approve Minutes of 12/10/01 - Lin Davidson stated that his name was misspelled throughout the minutes. • 3 David Hatfield stated that he was present at the meeting. Page 2, Line 22 . . . . .Minutes . . . .Viola Miller stated that 4 the Nominating Committee was not listed and should be as follows: David Hatfield, Larry Sharpsteen, and 5 Brad Griffin as Chairman. Larry Sharpsteen motioned to accept the minutes as amended. David Hatfield 6 seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7 Discussion on Potential Purchase of Land 37. 1-3-3.36 by John Young — Dick Platt explained that John Young 8 is interested in purchasing this land and attach it to his current property. Dick stated that the owners of this 9 property want to maintain as much of the road frontage on North Triphammer as they can. Dick explained that 10 the owners are going to give Mr. Young a 60 ft. access on North Triphammer and Dick suggested either across 11 from Asbury Drive or Horvath Drive . The owners would like it to be either at the south end or the north end of 12 the property. Dick stated that at the south end, there is a big barn there so visibility would be zero from the south. 13 Dick stated that the north end isn 't as bad. 14 Viola Miller stated that she did not understand what John Young wanted to do . Viola asked if he wanted to buy 15 the whole parcel or not along Triphammer. Dick Platt replied that the owners do not want to sell the road 16 frontage on Triphammer. Dick stated that he thinks the owners felt that the road frontage on Triphammer would 17 be more valuable. It would probably be about 200 ft. deep. Larry Sharpsteen told Dick to make it clear if they are 18 going to keep it, they will have to put it onto a road built by him, because if lots are divided there and the curb 19 cuts were on Triphammer, it would make half a dozen curb cuts on the busiest section of road in the Town, close 20 to a bad intersection. 21 Larry Sharpsteen stated that he thinks Hillcrest should have a dog leg coming out directly across from the strip 22 next to Michaleen ' s . Larry stated that the strip there should extend all the way to the back parcel and there should 23 be another 60 ft. wide strip across from Asbury Drive that extends back as well . 24 Viola Miller stated that the setback on Triphammer is 60 ft. from the road right-of-way. Viola stated that if there 25 was any way legally to say no, she would certainly say it ought to be a no. Viola added that she did not see how • 26 they could put a decent subdivision in there. `' 27 Brad Griffin stated that as he understands it, the board could make recommendations but the authority to allow or 28 regulate curb cuts would be vested in the authority of whoever controls the road. Larry Sharpsteen agreed. Gregg 29 Travis stated that they could make recommendations, but at this point, they do not have anything to recommend. 30 Larry Sharpsteen stated that if they are going to ask for recommendations, he would say that it should be across 31 from an already existing road. Gregg Travis stated that this was being provided to the Planning Board as a 32 courtesy and that Dick Platt could give them feedback that the Planning Board is interested in minimizing curb 33 cuts and aligning new roads with existing roads . 34 The Board discussed the property. The Board stated that they would be very reluctant to create any situation that 35 encouraged multiple curb cuts on that road and, in particular, at that location. The Board stated that it would be 36 the Board ' s intention to use whatever influence they have to make Hillcrest Road a 90° intersection with 37 Triphammer, with a recommendation for a road opposite it on this parcel as well as another road opposite either 38 Asbury or Horvath, with the concept of reverse frontage on the remaining strip . 39 Viola Miller read Sec . 602 of the subdivision regulations . Dick Platt will give a copy of this section to Mr. 40 Young. 41 OTHER BUSINESS 42 43 David Hatfield stated that he was called by a farmer on Conlon Road named Jameson. Dave stated that 44 apparently, on Searles Road, there is a parcel that has been sold by Zifchock to Worsell . Dave stated that there 45 are about 4 people who claim ownership to the driveway to that parcel . Dave stated that everything has worked 46 fine up until the property was sold to Worsell . Someone approached Jameson, claiming that Worsell is going to 47 put 4 utility poles in there to put power back there and build a house and that Jameson would have to pay part of • 48 the cost to put electricity back there . David Hatfield asked if that was legal . Dave stated that he was aware that II 49 this went before the ZBA and was denied. Brad Griffin stated that it sounded like a property dispute . Dave 50 replied that no one is claiming to have deeded ownership of the driveway. Larry Sharpsteen stated that everyone H 3 Town of Lansing Planning Board. January 14. 2001 1 1 is willing to sign an easement, but what has happened is that someone went to the guy and said because he signed 2 an easement, I want to put power back there, and you have to pay for part of the cost. Dick Platt explained that he had been approached by Worsell about building a house, but the Ordinance requires 4 20 ft owned road frontage to build. Dick stated he contacted Harry Willis with the Department of State and 5 discussed it with him. Harry Willis stated that the ZBA can grant a variance. Dick explained that the application 6 did come to the ZBA, but Mr. Worsell did not have enough information. Dick stated that Mr. Worsell brought in ' 7 the deed today and it does state that he has deeded right-of-way and that he can improve that road. David Hatfield 8 replied that he can improve it, but can not charge improvements to the other owners. The Board agreed. Dick II 9 Platt stated that the ZBA did deny it, but stated that he could reapply and if he did, they would refer it to the 10 Planning Board for comments, but would want to retain Lead Agency on it. 11 Brad Griffin left at 8 :42 PM. II 12 The Board requested that Dick Platt mail the monthly report to the Planning Board members with the regular 13 mailing. Dick Platt agreed to do so. 14 Gregg Travis stated that he wanted to give a reminder about the first two questions on the SEQR form. Dick Platt 15 replied that he will see what he can find. „ 16 Viola Miller stated that they have spent a long time going over on the Land Use Ordinance, but she isn ' t 17 sure where they are exactly, but she thought it was time to start working on the maps . Nancy Loncto 18 stated that it would be nice to have a final copy of the proposed changes . Robin Cornell responded that 19 she has it from Article VI, but is not sure if she has it from before that. Nancy provided Robin with a 20 copy of the changes she had. Robin stated that she will try to update her records and provide a copy by 21 the next meeting. 22 23 For the next meeting they will need the following: IP 1 . Complete Proposed Ordinance. 2 . Photos. 26 3 . Maps . 27 4. Sewer. 28 " 29 The next meeting will be held Monday, January 28 , 2002 at 7 : 00 PM. 30 31 Larry Sharpsteen motioned to adjourn at 9 : 05 PM. Lin Davidson seconded . VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION 32 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 33 34 Submitted by Robin Cornell • • F' • • 1. • :< _. C • e-to• re est I) 2c ,t , ,te , r �vit' jJ �-a A c,`i d I -o e c 1 n \-) 4 Town of Lansing evirdos Planning Board Meeting fAu 1 / 14/01. 7 : 30 PM Lansing Town Hall — Board Room gend a • Time: Agenda Topics 7: 30 PM Public Hearing , Dennis Tarbell Subidivision Tax Parcel 20:1 -18. 2 7:40 PM Approve Subdivision ---/\'>e ' ' ' '' ! .,.e ) 7:45 PM Approve Minutes of 12/10/01 Discuss purchase of 37. 1 -3-3. 36 by John Young from Andritsakis Anything else one deems necessary to bring before the ' 49' board. tm Resume Review of Ordinance - , � tt ' y604 - orf / r / 4=./ 4,,,:f 66 Zit r 40 {Ai f �; � /, i)� fl Ci /U/ULA 7 l`ii.' C//+ �i cfdr'.,S n cim /UO7 U ;f .i/i/!- N/ 1� let 7 • Page 1 fe-C- GOZ — C rLie D R4-4c _Cr T, 7J 1" (Yet. 7 (frcJ .f d' c /1r Al , ) (j(;x. GG (-4 1 1 .* -2 147 ft it IL-IC.. T+f 44 r,2 it %4L.. - + 2- 5 , 1frc .nm, r COUNTY REFERRALS 1 17) a al% AIN a", dis 0, Vyj UNDER GENERAL �' '� MUNICIPAL LAW • k v L 1 S !FriCorn § 239 -M : A PRACTICAL • , . APPROACH } Under §239- m of the General Municipal Law, certain matters which come !' \. ' \`'�- ; before municipal boards must be referred to the county planning agency Nt, fid.” 30 for review before a municipality can take final action on the matter. Strict rimier- •r ! , adherence to GML § 239 - m is critically important because failure to refer matters to the county as required by this section of law is a procedural defect rendering any subsequent approval or enactment by the local board 1null and void. l Although this section of. laW seems complicated at first ' ; i ' I� • `_ glance, it can be readily simplified by breaking it down into three compo - , nent parts : ( 1) the types of proposed actions which must be referred, (2) Pf?; ^ h. 4474t` r.. the instances when they must be referred, and (3) the procedure involved . F �.44t TYPES OF PROPOSED ACTIONS WHICH MUST BE REFERRED �� Actions which must be referred include : ;4iV r 4. 'e ' 2,11 ; ; .; 1 . Adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, L4 ( 2 . Adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance or local law, a r, i F 3 . Issuance of a special use permit, _ ' 5 . Granting of use or area variances , ' i! , 6 . Any other approvals which are granted pursuant to the local _ - f - zoning code , and .. i` 7 . Preliminary or final subdivision approval or proposal to by Andrew Brick, develop certain undeveloped plats already on file with county clerk. ' NYCOM Counsel WHEN A .PROPOSED ACTION MUST BE REFERRED Any of the above types of actions must be referred whenever they involve real property located within 500 feet of: 1 . The boundary of any city, village or town , - 2 . The boundary of any existing or proposed county or state park or any other recreation area , 3. The right of way of any existing or proposed county or state parkway, thruway, expressway, road or highway, 4 . The existing or proposed right of way of any stream or drainage channel owned by the county or for which the county has established channel lines, 5 . The existing or proposed boundary of any county or state owned land on which a public building is situated, or 6 . The boundary of any farm operation located in an agricultural district, as defined by Article 25 - AA of the Agriculture and Markets Law. 3 PROCEDURE FOR REFERRAL P U Ypropyisea 7„- .4-,; t in me as the above criteria , the local. board r+msideri 'w the proposed action : dust send to the county planning agency 4a. full state - Merit' of the proposed'action which includes all the materials required by NYCOM BULLETIN 32 JULY • AUGUST 200 I jyrey `;'the local board to be submitted by the applicant as well 2nd - If the answer is no, no county referral is • '%s any materials required by the State Environmental required. If the answer is yes, ask whether it * ;'Quality Review Act including completed environmental involves property within 500 feet of the listed assessment forms . If the proposed action is the adoption boundaries. or amendment of a local law or ordinance, a complete 3rd — If the answer is yes to both questions 1 %.:text of the proposed enactment as well as existing provi- and 2, you must refer the matter to the county t cions of local law which will be affected must also be for review by submitting a full statement of the '''' included. Local boards may enter into agreements with proposed action (If the answer is no to either ': the county to define what constitutes a full statement. 5 question, no county referral is required) . } 4th — If you've referred it to the county and The county has 30 days from receipt of a full statement receive no response within 30 days, you can act to report its recommendations on the matter to the local on the matter by majority vote (unless you it; board. If the county recommends modification or receive recommendation from county after 30 disapproval of the proposed action, the local board days but at least 2 days prior to acting on the , , , cannot act contrary to the recommendation except by a matter), or super majority vote. This means that if the county - - If you receive a response from the county with- . ;V recommends that the local board either modify or in 30 days or at least 2 days before the local disapprove the action, the local board can still approve board is scheduled to take action and the 1.1 the action, but only if the vote to approve consists of a response recommends approval or determines >J majority plus one vote of the total membership of the that the action has no county wide or local board. In other words , a simple majority vote to inter-community impact, you can act on the • k,i approve an application is insufficient if the county has matter by majority vote, or 'a}; recommended modification or disapproval of the action. - - If you receive a response from the county • A majority vote would still be sufficient, however, when- within 30 days or at least 2 days before the ever the county recommends approval or finds that the local board is scheduled to take action and the action has no county-wide or inter-community impact. response recommends disapproval or modification, you can act on the matter but you If the county fails to report its recommendations within will have to obtain a majority plus one vote to 30 days of receiving a full statement, the local board can act in a manner contrary to the county's take action on the matter without the county's report. recommendation . In this instance no super majority vote would be 5th — Within thirty days of taking final action required. If the local board receives a county report you must file a report with the county as to what more than 30 days after the submission of the full state - action was taken . If you acted contrary to the ment but 2 or more days before the local board meets to county's recommendations , you must provide the take final action, the county report must be considered reasons for doing so . • and a super majority vote would be required to overcome • a recommendation of disapproval or modification. These Endnotes F time frames may be altered by agreement of the county 1 . Ferrari v. Penfield, 181 A. D. 2d 149, 585 N. Y. S. 2d 925 (4th and the local board. Dept. 1992); Burchetta v. Town of Carmel, 167 A. D. 2d 339, 561 N. Y. S. 2d 305 (2d Dept. 1990). A local board must file with the county a report of its 2. Subdivision review referrals are actually governed by GML final action within thirty days of taking the action. If §239 n, not §239 m, but the procedure involved is the. same. For the type of proposal to develop an already filed undevel- the final action of the local board was contrary to a oped plat which requires referral, see GML §239-n(1)(b). county recommendation of modification or disapproval, 3. This section related to farms does not apply to area the local board must set forth in the report reasons why variances. it acted in such manner. 6 4. In counties without county planning agency, but within the jurisdiction of ai regional planning council, referral is to the SUMMARY regional planning council. • '. To meet the requirements of GML § 239- m, follow these 5. Matters which have been previously referred, but have been • steps . substantially revised must also be referred. See Ferrari v. 1st — Ask whether the:proposed action is of Penfield at 152, 927. the type `chat has to he referred . NYCOM BULLETIN 33 JULY • AUGUST 200 I