Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-06 A r? ASA ii r ? p r 4 ilk i n Le 4 t7 4 ig NI p Visitors Please Sign In Wiwi, . i. e ow . Name Address :GIRL CtStjt/t-Z:--, / i° Sle; v gc kee t hicd ' a ` d yt 1 M 9&\ : 2-€/c f a # ; 1Ic. reser tai Aht:0(14 i s"/ // 5-6 74.-42. h /forfientffier7ffitte... „v —� jam' r- 1- _ G. ` fir it i rwreolay7‘-ez4), ,� d • L)04i T4nq 2 6 kP�� to vvy atlic---si ( + 57jal d /6) tut° >46t W5 o''A 1 Ie Y4 itiAt. etillt 173 4 Pod ‘te andat E its) by; SPe /kl uyy � A Y W 7 Tom`' ia, rrear--6-3- . D .... 4e RA es4Vitain a-- 4 ,rt . ' eJ . ' 1a ' . . r 4. .0, r 25 kali, s rte ,, C. • 1 v. , ) 4 Town of Lansing Planning Board Meeting • May 6 , 2002 Visitors Please Si (Please Print) In Below : Name Address ,, CA) 11,E ete selatel : SI ahe fit4reptsgestwesse ellt Y 1 - ' ( '4 31 -Ann Q:j Pect- Centedeitc Cs r- �' 1 ------ i c- '? 4,1_, øz -eJ r - 1 (/\� 40 4, , V laki ,_ / ,IF w‘ifeyi 12 if 9 / -- a y 1I r 1 k w 14.1 40 1 I -71 l.."4T ' tat.--4,),974 ---Thi 4 C , `t ±� , , ,-- die► " , , J J wea (hazel/ he Si issa 9 09 G� ir qk p / ,s; . 471C . j et y= a �ri-v, g Am A ;.: CW-01/1N 141512 ) A II Lr y pf pc t L L" b 24 ,irke_c_. Aek (04,....A ,Mtoog,#\eve-i\ ? Li i ; cc ,v 36) 1rnyz Zet, 01 ? ?, Ac' riflcg eI. 4 PC itifirrLit_ 02AINOk- 5 aAnyattst, el ilk �l • � , L , bitn , r, tit , 0 J s 14 1 L c out\ '.\ TAveQ Sam ( 0o joy 16 Ia 1 _ k . p c FIE copy '1/4\11111 TOWN of LANSING • "Home of Industry, Agriculture and Scenic Beauty" % � r1 , Box 186 , A Lansing, NY 14882 February 8 , 2002 Dear Greg: I am writing in regard to the above-mentioned matter where I anticipate that Mr. Ronsvalle will make application to the Planning Board for consideration of a planned unit development for his property on Hillcrest Road. Because of the contentious nature of the prior proceedings relating to this property, the Town Board wishes to clearly state its position regarding development of this land. So long as the review process properly addresses the development issues already identified, the Town Board is not opposed in principle to the use of this property for rental housing or some other appropriate development. It is our consensus that the • process for considering a Planned Development Area would provide a useful vehicle for a full review of the proposal with opportunities for input from neighbors and other interested parties as well as allowing the flexibility to tailor an acceptable resolution . As you know, under the present Zoning Ordinance, the Planned Development Area process is driven by the Planning Board . The Town Board will ultimately review the Planning Board ' s recommendation, but the real public input and negotiation with the developer will , and should, take place at the Planning Board level . Therefore , the Town Board is nr t attempting to give the Planning Board direction as to what is an acceptable development proposal , but only to indicate that it is not opposed t;o development of the parcel . Moreover, the Town Board is in agreement that a full and open discussion of the possible uses of this land would be of benefit to the Town as a whole . If an application is forthcoming and the Planning Board determines that a joint meeting with the Town Board would be helpful in this process , we would „certainly be willing to attend and participate . Please let me know if you have any questions . / 1 Sincere` / Stephen L . Farkas cc: Richard T . John • II 26 Aspenl',Way • Ithaca, Isil 14450 Tel. (607) 266-8771 May 5th, 2002 F Members of the Lansing Town Board and Planning Board Dear Board Members, h When my wife and I purchased our home in Lansing, we had a strong desire to live in a neighborhood of single- family homes with spacious lots. We found what we thought was the ideal location for our family in a low-density residential zone (R1) and spent most of our savings to purchase our home. We were of the belief that low-density residential zoning meant that we would be protected against the development of apartments or other multi-family housing being developed next to our neighborhood. Ila Apartments were not permitted in the Lansing R1 low density residential zone as far back as 1978. Last year the Town Board and Planning Board agreed that the sweeping changes made to the Ordinance in 1998 that permitted multi-family housing in RI were incorrect and unanimously voted to reject the allowance of multi-family housing in Rl . Now you are faced with reviewing a 48-unit apartment complex that is propose' in the R1 zone in the form of a PDA. Having attended several recent PB meetings, I got the feeling that some members of the PB think that they "owe" the developer something since the developer says that he has spent so much money into the project already. We must remember that there would be no development in Lansing without investment of hard earned dollars by the residents and that most of us individually have far more invested in our homes than thi 's developer says that he has • invested in his project. Discussions at the PB meetings have been focused on how many units should go there, how much landscaping, paved verses gravel, varied rooflines, etc. These are good questions if you agree upfront that apartments should be allowed on this property. I have had many discussions with members of the TB and PB regarding PDAs. I was assured that a PDA would be for the good of the neighborhood and for the good of Lansing. I was assured that if the surrounding neighbors didn't want it, it wouldn't happen. Surely the acceptance of any PDA must come a demonstrable benefit to the neighborhood and the community. When considering this PDA, I ask myself if we, the' neighbors, will benefit from the development of this project. What is the benefit for giving up the RI status ofthis property to the surrounding neighbors who thought they were protected against the building of apartments in an RI zone? What is the benefit of such a project to the other developers of single family housing next to the project? What is the benefit of such a project to Lansing community as a whole? These are the key questions that must be answered first. What type of development should occur on this property will fall out of answers to these questions. Up to this point, any benefit that this apartment complex brings to the surrounding net Ighborhood and to the community at large has not been demonstrated. I ask that you not support this PDA or any PDA unless a benefit to the neighborhood and community at large can be clearly demonstrated. l` Thank you for your consideration. i4Y Sincerely, , . - / e 74,0 q=z-. Douglas R. Firth • III eatt c /! One Whispering Pines Drive • Lansing, NY 14850 April 25 , 2002 Planning Board, Town of Lansing Lansing Town Hall Lansing, NY Dear Members of the Board: I wish to state my views and concerns on the proposed Ronnsvalle PDA and on PDAs in general . These views are shared by many of my neighbors . PDAs should not be a way to spot zone or in any way get around th Ie zoning ordinance . When I bought my house in Lansing, I invested most of my net worth, more than Mr.Ronnsvalle has in his project. I wanted a house in a low density worth, and that is what the area was zoned as . Since zoning existed, I thought Lansing and the Townspeople had an implied contract not to change the character of the area. I bought!, in. I don' t want high density development in the R1 area. I don' t care if it will increase or decrease my property value, or looks nice, or provides facilities that some Planning Board members think the town needs . If we can change the character of a neighborhood without an over- riding need of the town, then why have zoning at all . Why imply something that the town is not going to live up to . • This project is essentially the same project as was previously proposed. At the recent meeting where Mr. Franz presented Mr. Ronnsvalle proposal, I did not hear the question asked by the board, with one exception, "What is the benefit to the town which will cause us to break our bond with the townspeople. " What I heard was how can we ameliorate this project, maybe if the driveway was paved, maybe there should be some swings, maybe the height of the buildings should be X feet less, maybe the spacing between buildings should be greater, maybe some buildings should be painted a different color, maybe if the project did not take 12 years to complete, etc. etc . etc . Where is the benefit to the town. Why do you break your word with me and the others who have made the investment in the town of a major part of their life savings . The concerned townspeople were invited to attend and participate in the discussions the Planing Board had as they revised the zoning ordinance . When PDAs were discussed I and others voiced our objections . We were assured, by long time members of the board that PDAs would only be used rarely and only when there was great advantage to the town. In the meetings where the Ronsvalle project was discussed, that is not what I heard. Please do not allow this project. Very truly yours, • c Lansing development could be scaled back - Local/Regional - theithacajournal . com - The . . . Page 1 of 3 • . $ a 41News and information for Ithaca and Tompkins County y _Home IP News Communities OutHomes & About Classifieds ; Careers cars_co._.m nil � $ « ` a �. w € s ' b a n s,z <; 1 +.x .g • es » 4 �. fi t?dc' « € « s _ ✓ 'y ° g Likeflood fl ejb Farm�`mathere, �F p � n {7 P Sections Tuesday, May 7 , 2002 II* Local/Regional Lansingdevelopment News from Ithaca, TompkinsgCounty and be scaled back the Finger Lakes could , region i Obituaries Today's obituaries By ESTHER CAMPI G from The Journal Journal Staff 0 Local Sports Area high school and college sports LANSING -- A local developer who's been to opinion seeking permission for years to build a multi-unit Editorials, letters, housingcomplex on the northwest corner of columnists p 8 Weather North Triphammer and Hillcrest roads will have'', Forecast and latest conditions to keep on waiting. • Technology Your guide to the And even if Town of LansingPlanning Board 'Net, gadgets, gamesanng and more. officials finally do recommend that the project11 • I NaVor Breaking headlines move forward, they 'll likely suggest to Lansing G from The Associated Town Board officials -- who will make the final Press decision -- that the project be scaled back by half. Those were the highlights of a planning board 11 meeting in Lansing' s Town Hall Monday night in which more than 60 local residents turned out to '' protest developer Ron Ronsvalle 's proposal to designate a 14-acre parcel in their neighborhood "a "planned development area. " That designation allows a developer to build a complex exceeding low-density zoning limits if 11 the project is deemed to be in line with the town's planning goals . Ronsvalle wants to build a complex of up to 48 units dubbed Heritage Park Town Homes . He 's proposed 12 buildings of four units each, with construction at a pace of about one building per • year in the first phase . http ://www.theithacajournal. com/news/stories/20020507/localregional/258319 .html 5/7/02 Lansing development could be scaled back - Local/Regional - theithacajournal.com - The . . . Page 2 of 3 After a two-hour discussion, however, Planning Board Chairman Gregg Travis said the board wil!1 • likely suggest that density be limited to a maximum of 24 units, with varying numbers of units per building, varied architectural facades and a sped-up time frame for construction. Those details could be drawn up as early as the planning board 's meeting next Monday, though %t could take weeks longer to know when a recommendation could go to the Town Board, and what it will be, Travis said . "We also want to have the developer, if possible, agree with our recommendations to the Town Board, and we're not sure at this point if we 're going to have the developer's agreement, " he said. George Frantz, site planner for the project, would not say whether he and Ronsvalle would accept scaled-back terms . "Until we have some indication whether it' s 24, 28 units, or 48 or whatever, we can't go back and dog the math to figure out whether it would be, you know, a viable project, " he said . Residents opposed to multifamily units in the neighborhood helped stop Ronsvalle 's previous attempt in 2000 to get permission for a 24-unit row house complex . d, Dozens turned out in force Monday night wearing bright orange stickers that said, "PDA? No way ! ' "If we change the character of a neighborhood without an overriding need of the town, then w14 have zoning at all? " asked Paul Costantini, 1 Whispering Pines Dr. Douglas Firth, 26 Y Aspen Way, said town officials P had not yet answered the simple question: What is the benefit to the community? http ://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20020507/1ocalregional/258319 .html 5/7/02 Lansing development could be scaled back - Local/Regional - theithacajou'rnal.com - The . . . Page 3 of 3 Planning Board member Larry Sharpsteen said direct benefits include preventing future "strip " • development in the area, and the possibility for better traffic controls. - 471(01, w : To Giv .us A . CEIECE OF YOUR MIND ! Back to top Home Me News Communities Out_& About Classifieds Homes Careers cars.com Contact Us I Subscribe I Place an ad Copyright © 2002 Ithaca Journal. All Rights Reserved . Use of this site indicates your agreement to the Terms of Service (updated 08/10/2001 ) • • http ://www .theithacajournal.cominews/stories/20020507/localregional/258319 .html 5/7/02 3 1 t1 2 Town of Lansir. g • 3 Developer ' sConference 4 Monday, May 6, 2002 7 : 00 PM PLANNING BOARD 5 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 6 (*Denotes present)5/10/02 7 * Gregg Travis, Chair Brad Griffin 8 * Larry Sharpsteen * lin Davidson 9 * Viola Miller * David Hatfield 10 * Nancy Loncto 11 12 * Bud Shattuck, Town Councilman Developer's Panel 13 * Richard Platt, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer George Frantz 14 * Doug McEver, Town Councilman Ron Rons"valle 15 * Meg Overstrorn, Town Councilperson Dan Signore 16 17 Public Present 18 Paul Cosentini Caroline Rasmussen Walter Poland Jill Vaughan 19 Bob Keefe Eric Barden Francis Kallfelz Bill Demo Mary Krizek Marchel Phillips Catherine Morrell Bill Dhimitri 21 Candis Bailey James Ryan Gregory Dende Dave Wilson 22 Scott Sperling Arlene Dende Martje Baldini Lesa Wilson 23 Doug Firth Debbie Wood Bill Calhoun 24 Rue Chagoll Richard Meagher Pat Conlon 25 E.W.Trainer Charles Oltz Todd Mallison 26 27 28 29 GENERAL BUSINESS 30 Gregg Travis opened the meeting at 7 : 18PM by reading the description of the Developers Conference . 31 Mr. Travis also read a letter from the Town Supervisor, Stephen Farkas regarding the development 32 proposal . 33 On behalf of the Planning Board, Gregg Travis asked the developer if any changes have been made. 34 George Frantz, At this time they have not made any changes. They have heard a lot of individual 35 comments from some of the Planning Board Members but nothing they considered to be the total 36 consensus of the board. 37 Gregg Travis opened the question session to the board. IPLarry Sharpsteen, Have you made any decisions about changing phases of the project. Do you still see 39 foresee stretching out the project into 12 separate phases? 40 George Frantz, It is possible for 2 units instead of 6 . • 2 Town of Lansing Planning Board, May10, 2002 1 Ron Ronsvalle, 4 units, 1 building was the original plan. 2 Nancy Loncto, Could you explain your basement construction? • 3 George Frantz, Basements in areas like this, you dig a foundation, waterproof, and place appropriate drainage . 4 Gregg Travis, Would you be doing the entire road of the first phase with the first building or only the sections of 5 the road for each building? 6 George Frantz, preliminary Phase the road as the building are being built, our preference is to actually build the 7 buildings in phase I on the West side on the drive, building 2 & 3 also on the West side so by the end of the 3rd 8 building the driveway for phase 1 will be constructed. 9 Dave Hatfield, Do you plan on this taking 3 years? 10 George Frantz, Yes 11 Gregg Travis, Has the health department indicated what type of sewage disposable system will be required. 12 George Frantz, Yes, we have that information with the original application. A total of 4 sand filters, absorption 13 facilities 14 Greggtevenson, Will the sand filter be able to be in theground at thegrade it' s currentl at? gg Y 15 George Frantz, They will be raised up. 16 Larry Sharpsteen, How deep was the rock in the Health Department test? 17 George Frantz, 6 feet. 18 Nancy Loncto, Under # 14 on your long environmental form the question asked is,; Does the site offer or include 19 scenic views or vista known to be important to the community? You 've checked No, and I 'm wondering how you 20 know theses views are not important to the community or the height of the buildings? George Frantz, There ' s no public highway overlooking the vicinity. 22 Nancy Loncto, Did you consult any of the uphill residents (Asbury) about heights land views . 23 George Frantz, No we relied on the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance for that. 24 Larry Sharpsteen, We 've asked for that information from you twice . 25 Nancy Loncto, I think it ' s a question, density as well as height. It' s much more dense than it intended to be . How 26 does that affect the view? (Compared to what we would be there otherwise, other than a PDA. Duplexes, Single 27 Family subdivision)? 28 George Frantz, .I would imagine no more impact than they would. 29 Viola Miller, Requested to read a portion of The Town of Lansing ' s Comprehensive Plan (Pages 18 & 19) # 8 30 Housing, to the public . One of the things we have tried to accomplish is to keep from having continuous strips of 31 housing along the major roads . We have asked for open land, housing that does not face the road. With this in 32 mind there is a need for desirable apartments, however, according to our regulations they need to fit into the 33 community where they are going. They need to be attractive, not different from what is already there . Not have 34 more than cluster housing, which is allowed. 35 Gregg Travis, Requested that a discussion be held between the Board Member as far a reservations. 36 Larry Sharpsteen, Our main concern is the scale of the project. I' ve been concerned about the height of the 37 buildings with regard to potential blocking of views above the first floor of the houses along Triphammer Terrace . 38 I have concerns about the positioning of the houses due to their large scale, also their similarity. I also think that 39 the density proposed is way too high for the area. I would point out that living in R1 the density vertical for this 40size would be 14 single-family units . I don ' t think that ' s entirely appropriate because of the way the units would • have to be accessed. We need to look at less density, more variety even if artificial. 42 Gregg Travis requested that the Board take Larry Sharpsteen ' s issues and break them down. 2 N 3 Town of Lansing Planning Board, Mayl0, 2002 1 2 Nancy Loncto, The construction schedule, 12 years seems to be an issue . Also paved verse gravel and the need 03 for sidewalks are concerns. 4 Gregg Travis, I would like it very much that statements be declared so that we had them in our records, also pass 5 on our recommendations to the Town Board. 6 Viola Miller, The Town Board will make the final decision on this. We are only making a recommendation on 7 this. 8 Gregg Travis read the PDA objectives- page 25 ,26 and than responded by reading the Developer' s statement in 9 their handbook, page 4, #5 A, B, C, D, E. 10 A. Growth and Development, no disagreements 11 B . Traffic and Transportation, 12 Nancy Loncto, I would like to point out in regards to Traffic and Transportation that if you look at the 13 environmental form, page —3 -, Project description #g. the traffic is very significant. 14 C . Sewer & Water Systems, no disagreements 15 D . Housing, no disagreements 16 E. Natural, Historic and Cultural Resources, no disagreement. 17 18 Gregg Travis, As a Developer ' s Conference we need to respond to the question, does the proposal meet our 19 issues? 20Viola Miller, What Brad Griffin has pointed out is something to consider. The size of the density allowed may be • judged with review of similar developments . We do have similar developments in the Town and the density in that development is much smaller than what he proposed to us . 23 Larry Sharpsteen, It appears to me that the questions had been addressed in this proposal . It remains to be seen 24 whether the interpretation is in full agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and with the regulations set forth in 25 the PDA. I believe the considerations have been addressed. 26 Dave Hatfield, Seconded. 27 * * * * * *VOTE* * * * * 28 Larry —Aye 29 Dave-Aye 30 Gregg-Aye 31 Viola-Aye 32 Lin-Aye 33 Bud-Aye 34 Nancy Loncto-Abstained. 35 MOTION CARRIED . 36 Viola Miller, The details of this must seriously be considered. 37 Gregg Travis, Now the specifics for the projects . Nancy Loncto, Are we going to consider the description in the Comprehensive Plan for the low density, 3 , residential I zone? 40 Gregg Travis, Yes, 3 4 Town of Lansing Planning Board, May10, 2002 1 Nancy Loncto, read the Comprehensive Plan R1 for the Public . 2 Gregg Travis wished to express Individual issues . 03 1 . Uniformity of the design, recommendation would be Variety of Architural design to be in conformity with the 4 neighborhood. 5 George Frantz, In our first presentation, I did state they would be treated differently in terms of details . We talked 6 about a combination of brick, siding and dormers . 7 Lin Davidson, We have also talked about different heights, as far as single story and two story. 8 George Frantz, Yes, we have . 9 Gregg Travis, Would you be more specific Mr.Davidson. 10 Lin Davidson, Would you consider a single story as oppose to a 2 story? There ' s too much density 11 George Frantz, No, these buildings go along with your schedule . 12 Gregg Travis, For me it ' s difficult to agree to construct over a period of 12 years. ;'' Our recommendation would be 13 to do it in a shorter period of time . 14 Viola Miller, Could we see if this board is in agreement that the density is much too great. The kind of housing 15 they put in there might make a big difference if we feel the density is to be much less . 16 Lin Davidson, As presented 48 units, 12 structures is way too high. I would say maximum 24 units, 6 structures. 17 Viola Miller, I agree. 18 Dave Hatfield, yes, I agree with Lin, 24 is just right for that area, 48 is too much. 19 Larry Sharpsteen, I think 24 is about what the project will bare . You might consider a couple more units 28 -24 . 20 It seems to be an appropriate number. Also I don ' t see why it has to be in 6 buildings, put 24 units in 8 buildings, provide some striking variety. 22 Gregg Travis, Would the Developer respond to that suggestion please . 23 George Frantz, Obviously we would be more happy with the 8 units . We could make the numbers back. We do 24 essentially have to agree on this. We 're comfortable just sitting back listening and taking notes . 1 . 25 Nancy Loncto, I would like to expand on Larry' s last comment about not just considering 6 buildings to build out 26 24. but creating a lot of variety with units of 2, 3 and potentially units of 4 and dispersing and intermingling them. 27 My understanding of a PDA is that in exchange for the increase in density, you provide a lot of creativity in the 28 end. (Architecture, landscaping, paths) 29 George Frantz, As I understand the process the Planning Board will be making a recommendation to the Town 30 Board. There has to be areas where we both disagree with each other. Let ' s get this out on the table, so we have 31 something we can respond to . 32 Gregg Travis, The consensus of the Board would be 24 units. Regarding the road construction, I would suggest 33 that the section of the road as their built also be paved. The initial proposal is they are not paved. 34 Larry Sharpsteen, The runoff can be controlled, dust can 't. 35 Nancy Loncto, Also, bicycle/pedestrian safety issues on gravel . If this weren ' t a PDA this would go through a 36 sub division process and we have some minimum requirements there . 37 Larry Sharpsteen, The paving process doesn' t need to be asphalt, it could be stone and oil . 38 Viola Miller, The PDA does have some say about landscaping. I would question the Health Department on what 39 they are allowing for septic systems. • Gregg Travis opened the floor to public questions 4 • S Y .4 ` 5 Town of Lansing Planning Board, May10, 2002 1 Paul Costantini, Shared his views regarding proposed project via letter he wrote to the Planning Board. Please 2 don ' t allow this project. When PDA ' S were discussed we were assured by long term Members of the Board that •3 PDA' S would only be used rarely and only when there was great advantage to the ,Town. 4 Gregg Travis, Currently in the Town land Ordinance, PDA' S are allowed. As a Planning Board we must accept 5 them and discuss them as we are doing tonight. 6 Mr. Costantini, This still does not answer my question, How does this project enhance the Town of Lansing? 7 Viola Miller, In the R1 district, low density there are many things permitted. If you look at your zoning ordinance 8 you will see the uses. 9 Eric Barden. My company has made a significant investment of the subdivision Lakeview. These homes are 10 significant homes . We 're extremely concerned about a project like this that it will truly impact our ability to 11 attract the clientele that are buying houses in our subdivision. 11 12 Nancy Loncto, What did the town ask of you as far as streets, structures, time frame, planning. 13 Eric Barden, As for time frame I had to go back to the town and ask them if they bad suggestions . The roads were 14 built to town' s standards . Each lot were certain sizes to meet appropriate septic systems . 15 Female, Let' s take a look at it, sidewalks, bike paths, bus routes, and lower speed limits. 16 Walter Poland, This is a request to change the ordinance . This request strongly suggests there is much higher 17 standards . This is not business as usual; this is a challenge being presented to an existing community 18 Larry Sharpsteen, We realize that. Under no other portion of town ordinance, whether it' s zoning or subdivision 19 do architectural consideration or landscaping consideration that can be approved or denied enter into any 20 discussion. This is diffidently held to a higher standard than any other level of development. We have had 2 II 21 PDA ' S before (Horizon & Dutch Mill) . 22 Doug Firth, Read the ordinance, article II, purpose of the ordinance . The purpose 9f the ordinance over rides the 4 PDA. Also, read aloud the letter he wrote to the Planning Board. I ask that you not support this PDA or any PDA unless a benefit to the neighborhood or community at large can be clearly demonstrated. 25 Anthony Massi, Can you respond to all of those points? 26 Gregg Travis, Earlier in our meeting we read the descriptions of the objectives . We believe we addressed the 27 specific issues one by one. f. 28 Anthony Massi, If this is truly the exception to the rule and no one supports this PDA than what benefits into the 29 Community. 30 Larry Sharpsteen, Our motion reads that the questions were addressed. There was '!open room for interruptions of 31 their take on some of the points . Obviously, the take of the Developer does not meet the point of view to a certain 32 extent of the Planning Board and it definitely it doesn 't meet your Point of view. However, there is direct benefit 33 to the community as a whole and the reduction for potential strip development along Triphammer Road, better 34 traffic control . Potential advantages for the community, a livable concentration of density where infrastructure is. 35 The Board had a consensus that the questions that were required to be met, were met. We have agreed to nothing, 36 only to consider it. That consideration will be heavily colored with standards that We must pass on to the Town 37 Board. 38 Candis Bailey, Ms . Bailey brought in photos for the Board to view. I would like to „point out regarding the 39 environmental impact. Where the brush lot and as well as along Triphammer Terrace is a considerable amount of 40 wet land. I would hope that you would consider that and again check with the Health Department to determine if 41 that property can hold that many units that Mr. Ronsvalle is proposing. I would hope that you take a close look at 42 the development as proposed, in terms of doing something more creative. 43Paul' Costantini, If some PDA is not approved then some 12 houses w/ driveways On Triphammer can go there . I • don 't see how you can ever divide that up. 45 Gregg Travis, That would highly unlikely. hi fact we would discourage that. 5 6 Town of Lansing Planning Board, May10, 2002 1 Richard Meagher, Is my property going to be worth what the county says according to my assessment? 2 No response . . 1113 Male Audience, What is the benefit to the community? 4 Gregg Travis, Read requirements again. 5 Scott Sperling, Thanked the Board for diligence, patience, and concern. Mr. Sperling encouraged the Board to 6 walk up on the property and check out the views . 7 Male-Audience, Is there a time frame for sewers in that area? 8 Bud Shattuck, It' s likely that the agreement for municipally sewer is taking place this summer, Sewering down 9 Triphammer Road is not in the first stage . It ' s a number of years away. 10 Female-Audience, If the town is making an exception to the rule by putting high density housing in our 11 community, than the community should have sidewalks, bike paths, and lower speed limits . If your going to 12 allow high density than you need use it as an opportunity to be progressive in thinking about ecological design. 13 Richard Meagher, Have you taken into consideration that there is going to be road construction? 14 Gregg Travis, The County has decided to change the intersection of Hillcrest Road. 15 Bud Shattuck, I believe this will take place this year. 16 Male-Audience, Does this Board have a time frame for making this decision? 17 Gregg Travis, We 'll be quickly. 18 Larry Sharpsteen, There is a time line. PDA itself takes a great deal of time 6- 12 months . None of this happens 19 overnight. 20 Gregg Travis, We will do our part as soon as possible. Male-Audience, You mentioned that the PDA is stricter than a development. Can `"you explain some of those 22 things that you are looking at? 23 Larry Sharpsteen, Architectural considerations, size of footprint, height, landscaping, orientation of the structure. 24 Gregg Travis, Thanked everybody for coming. Meeting Closed 9 : 08PM. 25 26 Submitted by Rachel Jacobsen • 6