Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-09 At Amended 06/23/03 • 4 Town of Lansing 5 Monday, June 09 , 2003 7 : 30 PM PLANNING BOARD 6 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 7 ('Denotes present) 8 * Gregg Travis * Tom Ellis 9 * Larry Sharpsteen * Lin Davidson 10 * Viola Miller David Hatfield 11 * Nancy Loncto, Chairperson * Brian Ivery (Alt.) 12 * Bud Shattuck, Deputy Town Supervisor 13 * Richard Platt, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer 14 15 16 Public Present 17 Charles & Mary Lent 18 Pat Conlon 19 Pat Mikula • 20 Steve Loncto 21 GENERAL BUSINESS 22 Nancy Loncto, Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 PM . 23 Lent, Charles & Mary, Cherry Road - Parcel # 44.- 1 -22 , 2 Lot Subdivision 24 Mr. & Mrs . Lent appeared before the board requesting that they be granted a two lot 25 subdivision. The Lents sold some of their property to Tompkins County Airport and the 26 remaining frontage the Lents would like to sell . They will retain 5 acres for their own use . 27 Mr. Platt explained that the Lent ' s previously submitted information that the Planning 28 Board had further questions . On the Map that was presented, the center lot is not part of 29 this subdivision, it is an existing lot. 30 Lin Davidson : It ' s presumed that the County has a right of way 31 Mary Lent: I believe they own the land east of us . They purchased the land so that they 32 would have clearance for the airport. They did not want it to be developed into a lot of 33 houses because that is in line with the runway. 34 Bud Shattuck : It is low level industrial research so it can have buildings in there. 35 Lin Davidson completed the SEQR. Lin Davidson moved to declare a negative 36 declaration. Gregg Travis seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED 37 UNANIMOUSLY. • 38 t Amended 06/23/03 • I Thomas Ellis made a motion to accept the subdivision application as is . Viola Miller 2 seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED . 3 Viola Miller made a motion to waive the Public Hearing. Thomas Ellis seconded. 4 VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5 Mikula, Patrick Preliminary Sketch Plan — 1 Lot Subdivision, Armstrong Road, Tax 6 Parcel # 37. 1 -4-2 7 Mr. Mikula states he is selling 3 acres with his home at 158 Asbury Road due to possible 8 relocation of his wife ' s employment. Mr. Mikula is going to give his brother a right a 9 way to the existing pond that is on his property. The pond will not go with the house. 10 Also, there is a second pond which Mr. Mikula intends to give to his cousin. Boundry 11 changes will need to be done prior to the selling of his house . This flag lot Mr. Mikula 12 would like to sell . 13 Nancy Loncto questioned Mr. Mikula as to why he didn' t do the subdivision all at once . 14 Mr. Mikula is unsure as to when his house will sell . 15 Gregg Travis : Do we want to make two accesses from Armstrong Road into one 16 driveway assuming in the future that that other remaining 36 feet could be another 17 request for a flag lot. 18 Larry Sharpsteen : It ' s possible . 19 Viola Miller: Mr. Mikula would have to make that wider according to our regulations . • 20 Larry Sharpsteen : Not try and make it a road. 21 Bud Shattuck : I thought we ' ve had discussions recently about not having side by side 22 flag lots . 23 Gregg Travis : We can make a stipulation that it can not be an access to a flag lot. 24 Nancy Loncto : What is the intent for this flag lot? Is somebody ready to build? 25 Pat Mikula: They' re saying they are . 26 Tom Ellis : Have you ever had Perk tests done on the property back there? 27 Pat Mikula: No, but if I have to I will . 28 Lin Davidson : Made a motion to accept the concept of this one flag lot. There will be no 29 other flag lot acceptable to develop in that spot. Mr. Mikula must return to the Planning 30 Board with results of a Tompkins County Health Department Perk Test prior to final 31 approval. This will be part of the general pattern of Patrick Mikula' s plans of dividing 32 land for his brother (John Mikula) and cousin (Donald Warner) . 33 Larry Sharpsteen seconded. 34 Approval of May 12, 2003 Minutes 35 Thomas Ellis made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted . Lin Davidson seconded. 36 VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 0 37 Pat Conlon, Proposed Ordinance changes • Amended 06/23/03 . Mr. Conlon presented a letter to all Planning Board members regarding his 2 feelings/concerns over the proposed Ordinance changes . At the Public Information 3 meeting held on June 4, 2003 , Mr. Conlon was shocked to find out that a portion of his 4 land is proposed to be rezoned for two districts. Many of the people who attended the 5 meeting on June 4, 2003 were given responses to their questions he feels he ' s entitled to 6 some of his questions answered. Mr. Conlon has since spoke to his neighbors, they do 7 not appear to agree with the changes any more than he. Mr. Conlon voiced his opinion to 8 the Board regarding the "carving up" of his property as well as 4 other residents to the 9 South. 10 Viola Miller: If it ' s labeled B1 and people can continue to have their houses there, it can 11 stay residential. Just because it says B1 what does it do to it? 12 Pat Conlon : I can ' t have a roadside stand, if I sell my property it ' s in two different zones . 13 Lin Davidson: I think as we were looking at sewer and water coming in, the Town Land 14 zoned B1 has some issues with that it. I think the intent was to square up the Bl . 15 Viola Miller: Sure it was, but not assuming that the people who were there was 16 residential . I didn ' t think we were creating a hardship for people . 17 Pat Conlon: I would like to have you people take a long look at where you' re putting 18 Commercial Development. The nature would be to push away from the residential zone, 19 instead of into it. My biggest concern is in changing from one zone to another that much 20 land and that many neighbors why at least wasn ' t some information passed out. • 21 Viola Miller: That ' s why we 're having all these informational meetings, so you can come 22 in and talk with us . 23 Nancy Loncto advised Mr. Conlon that the Town Board will take further Public 24 comments at their regular Town Board Meeting scheduled for June 18 , 2003 @ 7 : 00 PM. 25 Kirby, James, Jeannine & Keith — Preliminary Plan, 5 Lot Major Subdivision- Buck 26 Road Parcel # 29-1 -37.6 27 Mrs. Kirby explained to the board that they have reduced their subdivision from a 6 lot to 28 a 5 lot . 29 Gregg Travis : There isn 't any access from Buck road to the remaining lots . 30 Jeannine Kirby: Yes there is up above, going East . 31 Larry Sharpsteen : I' m going to recuse myself from the vote, but I ' d like to comment. I 32 think that the concerns that the board presented at the last meeting have been answered. I 33 think what we ' re left with here probably other than the extreme depth of the lots is pretty 34 much inline for what we ' ve been looking for. 35 Gregg Travis : We need to classify this as a Major Subdivision 36 Tom Ellis : I would like to make the motion to accept the drawing and move forward to a 37 Public Hearing. Lin Davidson seconded . VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION 38 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Larry Sharpsteen — Recused) The Public Hearing will • 39 be set for Monday, June 23 , 2003 @ 7 : 00 PM. 1, Amended 06/23/03 • 1 * *Nancy Loncto recused herself from the next discussion and requested that Lin 2 Davidson, Chair the next portion of the meeting. 3 Loncto, Stephen & Nancy — Informal Discussion, 39 Hillcrest Road- Tax Parcel # 4 44.- 1 -5. 1 5 Mr. Loncto appeared before the board requesting their advice. The Loncto ' s are thinking 6 about building another house and would like to know if it would be possible to subdivide 7 their current land and build a new home at the other end of their property. The current 8 Ordinance required 40,000 . 00 sq. feet per lot. After reviewing an old survey map ( 1983 ) 9 it states it contains 1 . 94 acres plus or minus . Another map dated ( 1993) shows 1 . 67 acres 10 net to the right of way. If you take the 1 . 94 acres, multiply that by 43 , 560 it comes out to 11 84,506. 00 sq. feet if we consider the gross size of the lot. If you multiply the 43 ,560 12 times 1. 67 (net size of lot) you end up with 72 ,745 . 00 sq. feet. The Loncto ' s request 13 would be to subdivide using the gross size of the lot. Mr. Lontoc has spoken with Janice 14 Koski from The Tompkins County Health Department regarding a conversion of the 15 current 4 bedroom system to a 7 bedroom. A couple other considerations have been 16 made, one is to purchase land from the neighbors (Warren Road and Hillcrest) but still 17 that land would be unusable to the Loncto ' s and would not help with the setbacks . 18 Lin Davidson: I really don' t think it ' s the purview of this board without a ruling from the 19 Zoning Board of Appeals. 20 Viola Miller: The Zoning Board of Appeals often like the recommendation from the 21 Planning Board. • 22 Steve Loncto : If the septic system goes to a 7 bedroom situation they would have to 23 allow for enough room . . 24 Bud Shattuck: If you have to subdivide where the sand filter sits now, it will determine 25 where part of your property lines will be. There are setbacks from that also . You can ' t 26 subdivide down the middle of your sand filter. 27 Lin Davidson: What is the policy on net versus gross? 28 Richard Platt : It' s never been an issue. I will check with the State and the County. 29 Larry Sharpsteen: The problem I didn' t think of was, if you ' re moving out of the duplex 30 than it becomes a duplex and not a Mother-in-law apartment. You can not create a 31 nonconforming lot which that would be. 32 Lin Davidson: The current Schedule now says 40, 000 sq feet per dwelling unit . 33 Bud Shattuck: The duplex can stay, but you couldn 't put anything else on it. 34 Comments of proposed Ordinance changes 35 Larry Sharpsteen: In regards to Fiddler' s Green "tuff". None of the land that is adjacent 36 to them is ever going to be developed as a Trailer Park on the Lakeshore. The arguments 37 are nimby, they want what they want and they don ' t want to pay any attention to the good 38 reasons for having it Ll . • 39 Lin Davidson: Trailer Parks are behest to the Town Board and there is no way they would 40 allow them there. • Amended 06/23/03 • 1 Bud Shattuck : Why are Mobile Home Parks in that area? 2 Lin Davidson: I think we would save some grief if we just take them out. 3 Bud Shattuck: You can take them out of L1 & R3 . After the last public informational 4 meeting, probably the majority of the Town Board members will grant the RI status for 5 Fiddler' s Green. The IR will cut off flush prior to getting to Farrell Road as was 6 requested as oppose to coming all the way up on the edge. There ' s new language for the 7 definition of R3 , you might want to go back to the definition that was there before. 8 Viola Miller: How can we put most in, it didn 't make any sense when I tried to read it 9 this afternoon. 10 Larry Sharpsteen : I' ll go along with that. 11 Lin Davidson: I would definitely put it back. 12 Viola Miller: I make the motion to change the language under the definition of R3 and 13 remove Trailer Parks from L1 and R3 . Lin Davidson seconded. VOTE : ALL IN 14 FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15 Nancy Loncto : I will read and change slightly what we have in the new Ordinance. 16 The intent of the R3 District is to designate areas where the use of the land will change 17 from the most traditional uses of the community to a more residential development 18 depending on introduction of water and sewerage. Regulations and standards in the R3 19 District are intended to guide density and establish the criteria and conditions for • 20 development of the land driven by the reality of land values . 21 Nancy Loncto : I would move that we make this change recommendation to the Town 22 Board. Larry Sharpsteen seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED 23 UNANIMOUSLY. 24 Bud Shattuck: The Conlon request is reasonable . Normally you wouldn' t split some ones 25 property that ' s why taking that out of there is a reasonable request. 26 Lin Davidson: His question is really, he has to look across at a different zone. Basically 27 if we did the 300 foot rule that ' s been done in the past down to the line you do in fact 28 split a 40 acre field, but if a fields big enough you ' re going to split anybodies property. 29 Larry Sharpsteen : The only reason to put BI out there is to have some sort of buffer 30 between residential and the prison as far as I 'm concerned. 31 Lin Davidson : You really don 't have an area for Commercial development to occur in the 32 town in any kind of area where you could development an area. The issue of a B1 being 33 all the way to Pat Conlon' s if it' s properly landscaped, there is a burm and nicely 34 developed there ' s more control over what happens to that land in a B1 than any where 35 else. My recommendation would be either leave it or give it a 300 foot standard line (half 36 B1 and the rest R3 ) . 37 Viola Miller: Frankly, I don' t care . 38 Larry Sharpsteen: The main reason I see to keep that way in the BI is because that' s 39 about the only possible access to the rest of the BI other than thru the State Land. I object Amended 06/23/03 • 1 to changing what we ' ve already done, either there, Fiddler' s Green or anyone of these 2 other places . 3 Bud Shattuck: No one has been able to really explain Pat' s piece to him and I think that ' s 4 what his contention was. Why did we do it there? We 're still struggling as to why, other 5 than Lin ' s clarity. 6 Lin Davidson: Actually, I think when we drew the line it was to square things off We 7 were not looking at Pat ' s property. 8 Viola Miller: I think you ' re right. 9 Nancy Loncto : Two reasons, to make some sense of squaring things off, and to make sure 10 we had parcels large enough to account for a real commercial development . 11 Lin Davidson: If the need is there, Bud can communicate different ideas to the Town 12 Board. 13 Bud Shattuck: The 100 foot set back in the B1 has been brought to our attention by 14 Bentkowski and Scriabba. (Schedule II) 15 Viola Miller: I think that should be changed. 16 Lin Davidson : We definitely want reverse frontages. 17 Larry Sharpsteen: I think I see the point. If you have a business and your lot is 120 feet 18 deep and you have to put your business back 100 feet off the road, that ' s stupid. We were 19 looking at what felt good, but it just doesn ' t work out. • 20 Bud Shattuck: The closer to the road your businesses are, the slower traffic goes . 21 Lin Davidson: I don' t think we should be slowing traffic on our major connectors . In the 22 RA on 34 and 34B we looked to have a greater set back on the major connectors for 23 residential . 24 Larry Sharpsteen: On number 2 you say 60 feet in the B1 & B2 and leave the rest of it 25 the same. 26 Nancy Loncto : Number 2 should read : 27 There is a minimum front yard setback of 100 feet from road 28 right-of-way on Routes 34, 34B , Warren Road and North 29 Triphammer. Other roads minimum setback of 30 feet from 30 road right-of way. There is a minimum front yard setback 31 of 60 feet in B1 , B2 on Routes 34 and 34B and other 32 roads as may be designated as Major Connectors in the 33 Lansing Comprehensive Plan. 34 Larry Sharpsteen: I move to adjourn. Lin Davidson seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. 35 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • • 4 Town of Lansing 5 Monday, June 09 , 2003 7 : 30 PM PLANNING BOARD 6 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 7 (*Denotes present) 8 * Gregg Travis * Tom Ellis 9 * Larry Sharpsteen * Lin Davidson 10 * Viola Miller David Hatfield 11 * Nancy Loncto, Chairperson * Brian Ivery (Alt.) 12 * Bud Shattuck, Deputy Town Supervisor 13 * Richard Platt, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer 14 15 16 Public Present 17 Charles & Mary Lent 18 Pat Conlon 19 Pat Mikula • 20 Steve Loncto 21 GENERAL BUSINESS 22 Nancy Loncto, Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 PM. 23 Lent, Charles & Mary, Cherry Road — Parcel # 44.-1 -22, 2 Lot Subdivision 24 Mr. & Mrs. Lent appeared before the board requesting that they be granted a two lot 25 subdivision. The Lents sold some of their property to Tompkins County Airport and the 26' remaining frontage the Lents would like to sell. They will retain 5 acres for their own use . 27 Mr. Platt explained that the Lent ' s previously submitted information that the Planning 28 Board had further questions . On the Map that was presented, the center lot is not part of 29 this subdivision, it is an existing lot . 30 Lin Davidson: It ' s presumed that the County has a right of way 31 Mary Lent : I believe they own the land east of us . They purchased the land so that they 32 would have clearance for the airport. They did not want it to be developed into a lot of 33 houses because that is in line with the runway. 34 Bud Shattuck : It is low level industrial research so it can have buildings in there. 35 Lin Davidson completed the SEQR. Lin Davidson moved to declare a negative 36 declaration. Gregg Travis seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED 37 UNANIMOUSLY. • 38 • 1 Thomas Ellis made a motion to accept the subdivision application as is . Viola Miller 2 seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED . 3 Viola Miller made a motion to waive the Public Hearing. Thomas Ellis seconded. 4 VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . 5 Mikula, Patrick Preliminary Sketch Plan — 1 Lot Subdivision, Armstrong Road, Tax 6 Parcel # 37. 1 -4-2 7 Mr. Mikula states he is selling 3 acres with his home at 158 Asbury Road due to possible 8 relocation of his wife ' s employment. Mr. Mikula is going to give his brother a right a 9 way to the existing pond that is on his property. The pond will not go with the house. 10 Also, there is a second pond which Mr. Mikula intends to give to his cousin. Boundry 11 changes will need to be done prior to the selling of his house. This flag lot Mr. Mikula 12 would like to sell. 13 Nancy Loncto questioned Mr. Mikula as to why he didn ' t do the subdivision all at once. 14 Mr. Mikula is unsure as to when his house will sell . 15 Gregg Travis : Do we want to make two accesses from Armstrong Road into one 16 driveway assuming in the future that that other remaining 36 feet could be another 17 request for a flag lot. 18 Larry Sharpsteen: It ' s possible. 19 Viola Miller: Mr. Mikula would have to make that wider according to our regulations . • 20 Larry Sharpsteen : Not try and make it a road. 21 Bud Shattuck: I thought we ' ve had discussions recently about not having side by side 22 flag lots . 23 Gregg Travis : We can make a stipulation that it can not be an access to a flag lot. 24 Nancy Loncto : What is the intent for this flag lot? Is somebody ready to build? 25 Pat Mikula: They' re saying they are . 26 Tom Ellis : Have you ever had Perk tests done on the property back there? 27 Pat Mikula: No, but if I have to I will . 28 Lin Davidson: Made a motion to accept the concept of this one flag lot. There will be no 29 other flag lot acceptable to develop in that spot . Mr. Mikula must return to the Planning 30 Board with results of a Tompkins County Health Department Pert Test prior to final 31 approval. This will be part of the general pattern of Patrick Mikula' s plans of dividing 32 land for his brother (John Mikula) and cousin (Donald Warner) . 33 Larry Sharpsteen seconded. 34 Approval of May 12, 2003 Minutes 35 Thomas Ellis made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. Lin Davidson seconded. 36 VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • 37 Pat Conlon, Proposed Ordinance changes • 1 Mr. Conlon presented a letter to all Planning Board members regarding his 2 feelings/concerns over the proposed Ordinance changes . At the Public Information 3 meeting held on June 4, 2003 , Mr. Conlon was shocked to find out that a portion of his 4 land is proposed to be rezoned for two districts. Many of the people who attended the 5 meeting on June 4, 2003 were given responses to their questions he feels he ' s entitled to 6 some of his questions answered. Mr. Conlon has since spoke to his neighbors , they do 7 not appear to agree with the changes any more than he. Mr. Conlon voiced his opinion to 8 the Board regarding the "carving up" of his property as well as 4 other residents to the 9 South. 10 Viola Miller: If it ' s labeled B1 and people can continue to have their houses there, it can 11 stay residential . Just because it says B1 what does it do to it? 12 Pat Conlon: I can ' t have a roadside stand, if I sell my property it' s in two different zones . 13 Lin Davidson: I think as we were looking at sewer and water coming in, the Town Land 14 zoned BI has some issues with that it. I think the intent was to square up the B1 . 15 Viola Miller : Sure it was, but not assuming that the people who were there was 16 residential . I didn ' t think we were creating a hardship for people . 17 Pat Conlon : I would like to have you people take a long look at where you ' re putting 18 Commercial Development. The nature would be to push away from the residential zone, 19 instead of into it. My biggest concern is in changing from one zone to another that much 20 land and that many neighbors why at least wasn't some information passed out. • 21 Viola Miller: That ' s why we ' re having all these informational meetings, so you can come 22 in and talk with us . 23 Nancy Loncto advised Mr. Conlon that the Town Board will take further Public 24 comments at their regular Town Board Meeting scheduled for June 18 , 2003 @ 7 : 00 PM . 25 Kirby, James, Jeannine & Keith — Preliminary Plan, 5 Lot Major Subdivision- Buck 26 Road Parcel # 29-1 -37.6 27 Mrs. Kirby explained to the board that they have reduced their subdivision from a 6 lot to 28 a 5 lot. 29 Gregg Travis : There isn ' t any access from Buck road to the remaining lots . 30 Jeannine Kirby: Yes there is up above, going East . 31 Larry Sharpsteen : I ' m going to recuse myself from the vote, but I ' d like to comment. I 32 think that the concerns that the board presented at the last meeting have been answered. I 33 think what we ' re left with here probably other than the extreme depth of the lots is pretty 34 much inline for what we ' ve been looking for. 35 Gregg Travis : We need to classify this as a Major Subdivision 36 Tom Ellis : I would like to make the motion to accept the drawing and move forward to a 37 Public Hearing. Lin Davidson seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION 38 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Larry Sharpsteen — Recused) The Public Hearing will • 39 be set for Monday, June 23 , 2003 @ 7 : 00 PM . 1 * *Nancy Loncto recused herself from the next discussion and requested that Lin 111 2 Davidson, Chair the next portion of the meeting. 3 Loncto, Stephen & Nancy — Informal Discussion, 39 Hillcrest Road- Tax Parcel # 4 44.-1 -5. 1 5 Mr. Loncto appeared before the board requesting their advice . The Loncto ' s are thinking 6 about building another house and would like to know if it would be possible to subdivide 7 their current land and build a new home at the other end of their property. The current 8 Ordinance required 40, 000 . 00 sq. feet per lot. After reviewing an old survey map ( 1983 ) 9 it states it contains 1 . 94 acres plus or minus . Another map dated ( 1993 ) shows 1 . 67 acres 10 net to the right of way. If you take the 1 . 94 acres, multiply that by 43 ,560 it comes out to 11 84, 506 . 00 sq. feet if we consider the gross size of the lot. If you multiply the 43 , 560 12 times 1 . 67 (net size of lot) you end up with 72,745 . 00 sq. feet. The Loncto ' s request 13 would be to subdivide using the gross size of the lot . Mr. Lontoc has spoken with Janice 14 Koski from The Tompkins County Health Department regarding a conversion of the 15 current 4 bedroom system to a 7 bedroom. A couple other considerations have been 16 made, one is to purchase land from the neighbors (Warren Road and Hillcrest) but still 17 that land would be unusable to the Loncto ' s and would not help with the setbacks . 18 Lin Davidson: I really don' t think it ' s the purview of this board without a ruling from the 19 Zoning Board of Appeals. 20 Viola Miller: The Zoning Board of Appeals often like the recommendation from the 21 Planning Board. • 22 Steve Loncto : If the septic system goes to a 7 bedroom situation they would have to 23 allow for enough room. . 24 Bud Shattuck: If you have to subdivide where the sand filter sits now, it will determine 25 where part of your property lines will be. There are setbacks from that also . You can ' t 26 subdivide down the middle of your sand filter. 27 Lin Davidson: What is the policy on net versus gross? 28 Richard Platt : It ' s never been an issue. I will check with the State and the County. 29 Larry Sharpsteen: The problem I didn' t think of was, if you 're moving out of the duplex 30 than it becomes a duplex and not a Mother-in-law apartment. You can not create a 31 nonconforming lot which that would be. 32 Lin Davidson: The current Schedule now says 40, 000 sq feet per dwelling unit. 33 Bud Shattuck : The duplex can stay, but you couldn ' t put anything else on it. 34 Comments of proposed Ordinance changes 35 Larry Sharpsteen : In regards to Fiddler' s Green "tuff". None of the land that is adjacent 36 to them is ever going to be developed as a Trailer Park on the Lakeshore. The arguments 37 are nimby, they want what they want and they don' t want to pay any attention to the good 38 reasons for having it L1 . • 39 Lin Davidson: Trailer Parks are behest to the Town Board and there is no way they would 40 allow them there. 1 Bud Shattuck: Why are Mobile Home Parks in that area? • 2 Lin Davidson: I think we would save some grief if we just take them out. 3 Bud Shattuck: You can take them out of L1 & R3 . After the last public informational 4 meeting, probably the majority of the Town Board members will grant the R1 status for 5 Fiddler' s Green. The IR will cut off flush prior to getting to Farrell Road as was 6 requested as oppose to coming all the way up on the edge. There ' s new language for the 7 definition of R3 , you might want to go back to the definition that was there before. 8 Viola Miller: How can we put most in, it didn' t make any sense when I tried to read it 9 this afternoon. 10 Larry Sharpsteen : I ' ll go along with that. 11 Lin Davidson : I would definitely put it back. 12 Viola Miller : I make the motion to change the language under the definition of R3 and 13 remove Trailer Parks from L1 and R3 . Lin Davidson seconded. VOTE : ALL IN 14 FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15 Nancy Loncto : I will read and change slightly what we have in the new Ordinance . 16 The intent of the R3 District is to designate areas where the use of the land will change 17 from the most traditional uses of the community to a more residential development 18 depending on introduction of water and sewerage. Regulations and standards in the R3 19 District are intended to guide density and establish the criteria and conditions for • 20 development of the land driven by the reality of land values. 21 Nancy Loncto : I would move that we make this change recommendation to the Town 22 Board. Larry Sharpsteen seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED 23 UNANIMOUSLY. 24 Bud Shattuck: The Conlon request is reasonable. Normally you wouldn ' t split some ones 25 property that ' s why taking that out of there is a reasonable request. 26 Lin Davidson: His question is really, he has to look across at a different zone. Basically 27 if we did the 300 foot rule that ' s been done in the past down to the line you do in fact 28 split a 40 acre field, but if a fields big enough you ' re going to split anybodies property. 29 Larry Sharpsteen: The only reason to put B1 out there is to have some sort of buffer 30 between residential and the prison as far as I 'm concerned. 31 Lin Davidson: You really don' t have an area for Commercial development to occur in the 32 town in any kind of area where you could development an area. The issue of a B1 being 33 all the way to Pat Conlon' s if it ' s properly landscaped, there is a burm and nicely 34 developed there ' s more control over what happens to that land in a B1 than any where 35 else. My recommendation would be either leave it or give it a 300 foot standard line (half 36 B1 and the rest R3) . 37 Viola Miller: Frankly, I don't care . 38 Larry Sharpsteen: The main reason I see to keep that way in the 131 is because that ' s 0 39 about the only possible access to the rest of the B1 other than thru the State Land. I object • 1 to changing what we ' ve already done, either there, Fiddler' s Green or anyone of these 2 other places . 3 Bud Shattuck: No one has been able to really explain Pat ' s piece to him and I think that ' s 4 what his contention was. Why did we do it there? We ' re still struggling as to why, other 5 than Lin ' s clarity. 6 Lin Davidson: Actually, I think when we drew the line it was to square things off We 7 were not looking at Pat ' s property. 8 Viola Miller: I think you ' re right. 9 Nancy Loncto : Two reasons, to make some sense of squaring things off, and to make sure 10 we had parcels large enough to account for a real commercial development . 11 Lin Davidson: If the need is there, Bud can communicate different ideas to the Town 12 Board. 13 Bud Shattuck: The 100 foot set back in the B1 has been brought to our attention by 14 Bentkowski and Scriabba. (Schedule II) 15 Viola Miller: I think that should be changed. 16 Lin Davidson: We definitely want reverse frontages . 17 Larry Sharpsteen: I think I see the point. If you have a business and your lot is 120 feet 18 deep and you have to put your business back 100 feet off the road, that ' s stupid. We were 19 looking at what felt good, but it just doesn ' t work out. • 20 Bud Shattuck: The closer to the road your businesses are, the slower traffic goes . 21 Lin Davidson: I don ' t think we should be slowing traffic on our major connectors . In the 22 RA on 34 and 34B we looked to have a greater set back on the major connectors for 23 residential. 24 Larry Sharpsteen : On number 2 you say 60 feet in the B1 & B2 and leave the rest of it 25 the same. 26 Nancy Loncto : Number 2 should read: 27 There is a minimum front yard setback of 100 feet from road 28 right-of-way on Routes 34, 34B , Warren Road and North 29 Triphammer. Other roads minimum setback of 30 feet from 30 road right-of way. There is a minimum front yard setback 31 of 60 feet in B1 , B2 on Routes 34 and 34B and other 32 roads as may be designated as Major Connectors in the 33 Lansing Comprehensive Plan. 34 Larry Sharpsteen : I move to adjourn. Lin Davidson seconded. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. 35 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • • Town of Lansing Planning Board Meeting June 09, 2003 Visitors Please Sign In Below : (Please Print) Name Address Pe- C Al az Lox} id Jus / 137 I 11/4,111 f TOWN o LANSING "Home of Industry, Agriculture and Scenic Beauty " Sto 7 1 ZONING, PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT �� 1 Box 186 `, \� Lansing, NY 14882 `11 11 E-mail: tolcodes@twcny.rr. com Town of Lansing Planning Board Meeting June 09 , 2003 7 : 30 PM Lansing Town Hall —Small Court Room gnd a • Time: Agenda Topics 7:30 PM Lent, Charles & Mary - Cherry Road, Parcel # 44.-1 -22, 2 Lot Subdivision 8:00 PM Mikula, Patrick, Preliminary Sketch Plan 1 Lot Subdivision on Armstrong Road. Tax Parcel # 37. 1-42. 8:30 PM Kirby, James & Jeannine- Buck Road, Parcel # PI 29-1 -37.6 Preliminary Plan- 5 Lot Major Subdivision. 9:00 PM Approval of May 12, 2003 Minutes i