No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-14 • Town of Lansing Monday, April 14, 7:15 PM PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS (tenons; present( * Nancy Loncto Torn Ellis * Larry Sharpsteen * Lin Davidson, Chairman Viola Miller David Hatfield Larry Zuidema Matthew I3esemer, Town Board Liaison Richard Platt, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer David Herrick , P. E . Town of Lansing Engineer Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt, Eq. Public Present Pete Peters Richard Pinney, Jr . Connie Wilcox Ruth Hopkins Dan Konowalow Wayne Matteson, Jr . , P . H . Ron Seacord Daniel Konowalow Michael Moore General Business Lin Davidson called the Planning Board Meeting to order at 7: 15 PM. Mr. Davidson stated for the record, the Agenda was being amended to allow for a scheduling oversight. Public/Member/ Comments/Concerns Mr . Pete Peters suggested that the person and or Department in charge of the announcement board located out by the road, keep it updated as the time for the Planning Board Meeting was listed incorrectly . Mr . Pete Peters again appeared before the Planning Board to follow up on concerns related to Tax Parcel # 21 . 4 -3 .31 owned by Common Field Inc . (a . k. a . Christopher Muka) in regards to an unauthorized Subdivision . Mr. Peters asked the following questions; DRAFT /Id 4108 P13 1 . Who follows up to make sure this unauthorized Subdivision gets • corrected ? • Lin Davidson, Chairman explained that it would be the Town. Nancy Loncto recalled that Darby Kiley has previously requested from Mr. Muka to take care of the problem with the County . Mr . Peters indicated as of April 9, 2008 it has not been corrected with the Tompkins County Assessment Office . Ms . Moynihan Schmitt volunteered to follow up on the matter . Ms . Moynihan Schmitt advised Mr . Peters to allow her approximate one (1 ) week to follow up on this . 2. In the February 11 , 2008 Planning Board Meeting Minutes they indicated; Thomas Ellis stated that the Planning Board should hold a Public Hearing on the use (Public Recreation) if this comes before the board again . How does this issue come before the Board again? • Lin Davidson advised Mr . Peters that the Board was looking at the Ordinance as it stands with the concept that possibly they didn' t look at it that way before . Mr . Davidson further stated when Public Recreation or common land issues arise it should be looked at with the tool of Site Plan Review. Ms . Moynihan Schmitt indicated the new amendments could affect Mr . Muka's Application if he chooses to come before on the Planning Board . At this time, the Subdivision matter is the issue . 3 . Mr. Peters would like help reviewing what " Public Recreation " really means . Mr. Peters would like the Town to be very clear on the expectations . • Ms . Moynihan Schmitt advised Mr . Peters that a definition for Recreation will be addressed in the new Zoning Ordinance. Larry Sharpsteen questioned if the Town permitted the use then what would be the Town' s liability if injuries occurred . Ms . Moynihan Schmitt expressed that Counsel should review with the Town Board . 4 . How can Mr. Muka have a Nature Preserve when he has no access other than over the guardrail to the property ? Revised Sketch Plan, Lansing Commons, Applicant: JRS Reality, Inc., Cayuga Vista Drive, Tax Parcel # 37.1 -2-53. 222 Mr. J . Ronald Seacord and Engineer Wayne Matteson Jr. appeared before the Board with a revised Site Sketch Plan of the proposed Lansing Commons Subdivision. The following is a brief summary; 2 DRAErl 4/ 141.18 P13 The project involve the residenle& development of a portion of an existing lot owned by JAS • Realty, irtc. The host lot is 32..2 acres, of which the area proposed for development is approximately 13.6 acres in size. Development ectividct wrd Include the extension of Woodsedge MOD into the eublecl property, the construction of various interior strives, Including connection to Cayuga Vista Drive, and the construction of various utilitiea and infrastructure to service the proposed homes (i.e. , water main and serous curb stops, never main end laterals, storm water controls, underground electric and natural gas services, etc.). The construction of wastewater treatment teeiiitiee and storm water control and treatment methods will else be part of the construction activities. The current proposal ie to subdivide the subject prottony into 37 residential lots which will be developed to three (3) separate phases Into e mix of townhouses and small Duple-twrily dwellings, generally two to three bedrooms each. A copy of the Sketch Flee deyteting the ,proposed tot and road layout has been inetuded in Appendix C. Upon approval of the project by the Carat of Lensing Planning Board and involved regulatory ageneiee, it is planned that construction of utilities and made will begin, as well as the sale of the Con. 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of a 13.6-acre parcel of undeveicped fend located in tto south- central portion of the Town at teeming . The specific property is a portion of Tax Map No. 37..2- 53.222, which is owned by JAS Realty, the. A copy of the tax map shoving the paraet has been included in Appendix A. The property is bordered on the south by undeveloped private land, on the west by undeveloped private land and a portion of JRS Realty, inc. land, on the east by the remain"ng JRS Realty, Ins. Lands, end on the north by Cayuga Visa Drive, the terminus of Woodzedge Drive, and a commercial testing taboratonp. • The property proposed for development has bean vacant agbotrtterat land for many years. The Mand Is gently sloping from southeast to northwest. tlevatlons across the property rano from 590 font to 940 feet above mean sea level. An Intermittent tributary to nearby Atnnegar brook [which is tributary to Cayuga Lake) flows along the north property boundary. Stopes (across the property ere generally less than Eck. There are no designated Critical Environmental Areas, wetlands, or ur quefumrsual lend forms on the site. The stormwater detention area will be collected in the northwest corner of the site . In addition, the proposed Sewage Treatment Center will be located nearby . The existing 6 .1 acre detention area up above the property will alleviate a 10 or 100 year storm . Mr . Matteson has spoken with David .Herrick, P . E. for the Town and they will be treating for water quality rather bran quantity . The road layout has been thought out to minimize any turn around on the property and to provide gond access for emergency vehicles . There will be two (2) accesses . The minimum size of the lots will be 8,000 sq . ft. Tin Davidson inquired if there would be bike lanes or sidewalks . The specifics of what will be in the right of may other bran the road, has not been considered . Thomas Alis inquired if this project would be a TDA . Larry Sharpsteen indicated he believed it would be a Major Subdivision if the Town Board and Town Engineer gave the go ahead for the package plant. It would be considered sewer, ® and the square footage requirement would be lowered . I • 1D.R_AFnr 4/14/08 P13 • The entire project is located in an Agricultural District, as well as the Empire � p Zone . Ms . Moynihan Schmitt inquired of Mr . Mattison if he was looking into the potential Archaeological Significance with the DEC . Mr . Matteson indicated he did include a Structural Archaeological Assessment Form, however there may need to be some notification to NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation as a follow up . Connie Wilcox, Deputy Town Supervisor stated the Town Board Members met with the DEC and the Tompkins County Health Department and reviewed the plans. The proposal looked favorable . A Wastewater District will be formed and then the Town would take over and bill accordingly . Ms . Wilcox stated the Developer will be responsible for the cost of the installation . Mr. Secord states an Association will be formed until such time when the Town • takes over. Larry Sharpsteen expressed to Mr . Secord that with a project this large, the Planning Board will be looking for sidewalks . Deed restrictions can include that the homeowner be responsible for them. A garage and paved driveway will be a requirement per Mr. Secord . Thomas Ellis suggested a public transportation pull off. Ms . Moynihan Schmitt stated the Planning Board can put restrictions on the proposal if they wish . Mr . Secord ' s vision for the plan is to have single family homes at the top of the property towards the east, and the lower level to have two and three story buildings in the west. Larry Sharpsteen advised Mr . Secord the next map prepared should show all the details . Mr . Matteson was advised he must submit an Agricultural Data Statement to the Planning Department. Viola Miller made a motion to accept the Sketch Plan for Phase I with the provisions that the Developer return with the necessary items required per the Subdivision Rules and Regulations . Larry Sharpsteen seconded . VOTE AS FOLLOWS : Thomas Ellis - Aye 4 DRAFT 4114108 PB �I Nancy Loncto - Aye • Viola Miller - Aye Larry Sharpsteen - Aye i Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. Site Plan Review-4 Season Storage, Applicant: Michael Moore Buck Road, Tax Parcel # P/O 28. -1 -28. 32 Michael Moore appeared before the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review . Mr . Moore intends to build and operate a mini storage business on his six acre lot. The Storage will be 20 x 200 foot mini storage consisting of 36 - 10 x 10 foot units and 8 - 5 x 10 units for a total of 44 units . The existing driveway will be used to access the site . A stone/ gravel drive will be around the entire building. Lighting Lvi11 be low impact. There will be no fence . For the landscaping, Mr. Moore intends on planting-staggering of bushes 6-8 ' in size, and in a cluster formation. The Planning Board requested that Mr. Moore plant the bushes 20' apart. Mr . Moore does not want to screen the entire building as he would like the exposure for advertising. This site is in an Agricultural District, an Agricultural Data Statement has been completed and the active farm owners have been notified of this Application. Nancy Loncto requested that Mr . Moore return at the Public Hearing with a more complete set of plans for, landscaping, lighting, the driveway around the building and where the signage will be located . Nancy Loncto made a motion to set a SEQR Public Hearing for 7: 20 PM and a Site Plan Public Hearing at 7: 30 PM on Monday, May 12, 2008 . Larry Sharpsteen seconded . VOTE AS FOLLOWS : Thomas EIlis - Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Viola Miller - Aye Larry Sharpsteen - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. One Lot Subdivision, Applicant: Steve White, Buck Road Tax Parcel # 28. -1 -28. 23 Mr . White purchased a three acre lot previously owned by Kansas Mead . Phil Bachellor, Agent for Ms . Mead presented this proposed subdivision to the Planning Board on 9/ 11 / 06 . The Planning Board adjourned further discussion 5 'DRAFT 4114108 P13 on this project until Mr. Bachellor returned with an updated survey map . Mr . • White has since purchased the property and submitted a new application for subdivision and an updated survey map . The Board Members discussed that this parcel was part of a larger parcel that was split off in sections of 3 acre, 300' road frontage which did not come before the Planning Board . The original owner being Kyle & Stacy Steffeneker . Ms. Moynihan Schmitt indicated that the Planning Board must use the current Subdivision Rules and Regulations that are in place as of this date . Current regulations require all Subdivisions must have Planning Board approval . The proposed Subdivision Rules and Regulations that are before the Town Board have not been voted on . Ms. Moynihan Schmitt further advised the Members they may waive the Public Hearing if they so wish . Larry Sharpsteen stated for the record that there is an existing business to the east and one across the road . Thomas Ellis made a motion to set a SEQR Public Hearing for 7:40 PM on May 12, 2008 and waive the Subdivision Public Hearing . Larry Sharpsteen seconded . VOTE AS FOLLOWS: 0 Thomas Ellis - Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Viola Miller - Aye Larry Sharpsteen - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED . One Lot Subdivision, Applicant: Richard Pinney Jr., Farrell Road Tax Parcel # 39.-1 -18 Rick Pinney Jr . appeared before the Planning Board requesting a one (1 ) Lot Subdivision on tax parcel #39 . -1 -18 . Currently on the property there is an existing single family home, and a new 2 family duplex . Mr . Pinney would like to split off the existing residential home, from the duplex . Both parcels will be rental property . Mr. Pinney would also like to erect a second duplex on the back parcel . However, due to the amount of land required (1 . 5 x) for Flag Lots, Mr . Pinney is requesting a waiver from the Subdivision Rules & Regulations requirement. After some discussion , it was determined that the Planning Board must deny the waiver request and refer Mr. Pinney to the Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration of the additional duplex . Larry Sharpsteen made a motion to approve the one (1) Lot Subdivision contingent upon the SEQR Public Hearing outcome . With the approval of this 6 DRAFT 4114/OS PB Subdivision, it will create a Flag Lot which fits within the requirements of the • Town's Subdivision Rules & Regulations, and further waive the Subdivision Public Hearing. A SEQR Hearing has been set for May 12, 2008 at 7:50 PM . Nancy Loncto seconded . VOTE AS FOLLOWS : Thomas Ellis - Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Viola Miller - Aye Larry Sharpsteen - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt expressed to the Board Members if they so choose to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, they may do so at the May 12, 2008 meeting. Approval/Denial of Minutes for March 24, 2008 & March 31 , 2008 Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt requested on the March 24, 2008 Minutes the start time be changed to 6: 00 PM. Thomas Ellis made a motion to accept as amended . Nancy Loncto seconded . O VOTE AS FOLLOWS: Thomas Ellis - Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Viola Miller - Aye Larry Sharpsteen - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED . Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt noted for the record that the provisions made in the Minutes of March 24, 2008 & March 31, 2008 with regards to the proposed changes should note the citations to the numbers in the Schedule have now changed due to the Schedule being adjusted after Town Board Members / Planning Board comments. Nancy Loncto made a motion to amend the previous approval to include the above notation. Larry Sharpsteen seconded . VOTE AS FOLLOWS : Thomas Ellis - Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Viola Miller - Aye Larry Sharpsteen - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. 7 DRAFT 4/ 14M PB Developer's Agreement - Cayuga Farms, Applicant WB Property Group, LLC North Triphammer Road (Condo/ Townhomes) Development, Tax Parcel # 37. 1 -6-3 . 362 Ms . Moynihan Schmitt stated the official Application for Site Plan Review was received today in the Planning Office . Attorney(s) Guy Krogh and Mark Wheeler have negotiated and agreed upon a Developer's Agreement. The Agreement will be brought before the Town Board on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 for approval . Ms . Moynihan Schmitt is requesting that the Planning Board give approval for Town Engineer, David Herrick to move forward and review the Site Plan . This approval will then allow for the Applicant to be placed on the Planning Board Agenda for. May 12, 2008 Meeting for the Site Plan Process to begin without delay . Nancy Loncto made a motion to allow David Herrick, P. E . to move forward with his review . Larry Sharpsteen seconded . VOTE AS FOLLOWS: Thomas Ellis - Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Viola Miller - Aye Larry Sharpsteen - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. Larry Sharpsteen stated for the record , any delays to this point on the Cayuga Farm project are not the result of any activity or in activity of the Planning Board . PB/ZBA Comments/Concerns on the proposed Subdivision Rules & Regulations & Land Use Ordinance Daniel Konowalow offered the following concerns with regards to the " In- House " Checklist: 8 DRAFT 4/ 14418 P13 . uan . c 1 < 0 ^4 • i 4'w» , • F • r A .- 14+ 0ce Rri Y � (fl -. . . . d Pt ' G i ' « ,':fit- . . irfi' >< _ ' „ ,1%:i_., r / 0 7 , Al.�y t . . r ^ •;� , y en • 1 F I /� h.q et IRn.�. 4 . t.. : t. � ' "' :I.:1.a. s. o i9 a ` i ' Y49 - 1 Y .I �iI . / �li•� rbN 1 d ! . v f OOP "Aiy . . J:,. .. , . � ,1 . . e v : . Li O /h� i ,r /1 M .f :1 leis 7 • L444)-"—' : ..,. +. „ . e ^ _ tW .vri i ' ice: P-4 .- "{ ti. `` .� !✓� /v e. .1A. Ca . ' _ a . 1 4. /fid : J ;Su ; A-�:-:r. lP . . 'bra ! <'• . ,./L• : c / a. 4 E' er / 4 if .. ✓ �! ( • ad off6 f . . Mr . Konowalow further stated numerous items listed in the RA District are being reviewed by one (1 ) person. This is especially an area that must be reviewed by a group. In addition, Mr. Konowalow is concerned with the small amount of property required for the Lakefront area . Larry Zuidema was unable to attend the Planning Board Meeting . Mr . Zuidema provided the follow letter of comments : 410 9 m DRAFT 4/14rO8 PH ® 9 April 2008 To; Lin Davidson, Chai ' on, Planning Bo •rd From: Larry Zaidema /( ((4`�` f Subject: Comments for I4 April .21008 Ptarming Board Meeting I`in sorry that I will be out of town for the Planning Bored Meeting on April 14 as I would very much like to be involved in the discussion about the proposed new Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, I would like to have the following 5 points presented at the meeting and entered into the record on my behalf or, if this is not legal or aiapmpriete, 1 would hope that you or anothc member of the Planning Board could agree to offer mart (attributed or not). And, if there is a joint meeting of the Planning cad Town Boards that week, I request that these same conweatts be publically read into the record of tIunt meeting as .veil . The comments below are based an analysis of the substantial changes in the Zoning Ordinance proposed by the Town Board end are fully consistent with the many decisions made by the Planning Board at its lost two meetings. el1te purpose of these comments is to explain the basis of Planing Board concerns and to highlight how the changes proposed by the Town .Board will affect the residents of the Town of Lansing. 1 , Residential li,stulcts '#tai , 142, 4t3) — The Comprehensive Plan clearly defines Cl , R2, 411 and R3 districts (located mainly in the southern end of the town) as areas primarily for residences. The limited residential areas defined in longing have many established neighborhoods where residents understand that the land around them in these districts will be used for housing. As a "bedroom community" (particularly in the southern end of the town), it is11 +tal�meeefty important for us to protect Il= idents from encroachment new uses at this point in time. Furthermore, land in B 1 , 132, and 54 is currently available for commercial uses and, ironically, some of this is now proposed for residential use (even in an Empire Zone). Note: The Commercial Mined Ile District. (BB1 ) is specifically designed to accommodate both housing and commereial tis. The following are the implications of "Losing Ordinance changes proposed by the Town Board for itesidential Districts, Rt — Residential Low Rousing Density Districts — While not currently allowed, neighborhoods in these districts wilI have the possibility of having the following commercial uses: ( 1 ) roadside stands, (2) public stables, (3) ge.elrgfreia( recreation facilities (indoors and outdoors) and (4). professional or busuaess °goes, banks, and financial institutions. 10 DRAFT 4/ 14/08 £13 Iiv2 — Residential Medium Rousing Density Districts — While not currently allowed, neighborhoods in these districts will have the possibility of having the following commercial uses : (1) roadside stands, (2) public stables, (3) siommiacjg recreation facilities (indoors and outdoors), (4) photocopy services, (5) convenience marts, (6) self- storage warehouses, (7) vehicular fuel and service stations, (8) new and used car sales, (9) car washes, (10) plumbing and electrical supplies stores, and (1i ) self-service laundries . 123 — Residential dfieed Rousing Districts - While not currently allowed, neighborhoods in thecc districts will have the possibility of having the following commercial uses: ( I ) rooming house or tourist homes, (2) professional or business toffiets, banks, financial institutions, (3) retail sales stores (general, lumber, industrial and ogricuitural equipment, services, storage, mobile homes, RVs, snowmobiles), (4) restaurants or taverns, (5) drive-thru ceetatuvnts, (b) barber/beauty shops, (7) photocopy services, (8) convenience mans, (9) self-storage warehouses, ( 10) vehicular fuel and service stations, (1 I ) new and used car sales, (12) car washes, ( 13 ) plumbing and electrical supplies stores, and ( 14) self-service laundries. In addition, several industrial/research uses, normally allowed in the commercial and industrial/research districts, maid be also be allowed in this residential zone . They are: ( 1 ) warehouse storage or wholesaling of non-agricultural materials, (2) printing and publishing facilities, (3) commercial assembly of small items, (4) .facilitaee for agricultural, industrial or Oeducational research, design and production of prototypes, and (5) vehicle body shops . Conclusion - these ' no se ,. ' nit:: hint _ no c_ .vrr. e • or . ' i " evtia areas are tsubstanttaland have de yaateotith jhouinw a. AMPArd pra.t„ rture _character of the fowv, Some changes may do publicly acceptable and others not. At the least, the residents of the town need to understand these changes, their implications, and why it is now important to make them . I believe that this requires ( I ) an information meeting where a full explanation is made to all residents, (2) a referendum for resident approval, and (3) a change in the comprehensive plan before implementation. Commercial District (fat) — The Comprehensive dlev makes it clear that residential and commercial uses tube "appropriate and desirable development characteristics of the B1 District" (Commercial Mixed /Use District). It goes on to say "to achieve the harmonious and compatible use and development of land, it is appropriate to consider each development proposal as it relates to the overall development plan of the entire district, and particularly as it affects adjacent land uses and the safe movement of traffic. " Finally, it specifies a number of site planning concerns diet must be part of the process. Conclusion - It is clear that the characteristic of the 131 district is one of .mixed use with many factors to consider in site plan reviews. As such, project proposals will always require comprehensive public review and the opportunity for public hearings before he Il DRAFT 4/14108 P13 Planning Board. Accordingly, "inksouse" planning is totally inappropriate for the 111 Commercial Mixed Use District. 3 . Rural Agricultural District (RA) - .it is suggested that the RA district have publicly vetted site plans for all permitted non-agricultural and non-residential uses since the comprehensive plan makes strong statements about agricultural use in Lansing and, in effect, this constitutes mixed use. The fact that vie are about to develop an agricultural protection plan under a NYS grant awarded to Lansing in January suggests that these site- plans are appropriate and necessary. . 4 . in•Moune Site Km Reviews - In general, `"in-house" site plan reviews do not, at least in the first instance, tillow for public participation as do Planning Board reviews. Furthermore, good governance would suggest that the level of "discretion" that is built into the systemof site plan reviews is much better exercised by the Planning Board in public meetings than by an individual in an office. Soggestiuu - It is suggested that all submitted site plans be brought to the attention of the Planning Board by the Town Planning Office. In certain defined meas and for straightforward gioos, the Planning Board may choose to refer them back to the Planning Office for Action. Giving this discretion to the multianewbcr Planning Boardnot only, gives the opportunity for public participation, but also allows for a high level of transparency. 5 . 'Process - Earlier, the Planning Board passed a resolution asking the Town Board to allow -for public information sessions where the Town Board is pro-active in explaining the changes proposed and the reasons Ar them. Getting public response in this venue will idetnonstrate an interest in resident opinion and can both influence and improve the Final outcome. Gwen the significance of the proposed changes, it is suggested that several :months be Oven to the process before a vote is taken by the Town Board. Edits/Letter to Town Board Ms. Toncto assisted the Members with edits in a previously prepared letter addressed to the Town Board . Larry Sharpsteen made a motion to approve the letter as amended . A was requested that once the Planning Board Chairman signs the letter, it should be distributed to the Town Supervisor, Town Board Members, Zoning Board Members, and Legal Counsel (s) Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt and Guy Krogh . Thomas Ellis seconded . VOTE AS FOLLOWS: Thomas Ellis - Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Viola Miller - Aye Larry Sharpsteen - Aye 1 , ..DRAFT 4/14r(IR P13 Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. April I. 4 , 200£1 Town of Lansing Board Members Dear Supervisor Pinney, Monty Supervisor Wilcox , Councilmen Beserner, Christopher. and Shattuck: The Lensing Town Board desires to bane more business to Lansing and to serve its citizens efficiently when they ase subject to the Town ' s Subdivision Rules and Regulations andlor its Zoning (Land Use) Ordinance. Previously the Planning Board had hyla informed that the Lurid Use Ordinance needed to be revised to accommodate the anticipated growth due to sewer corning on line rather than the current stated purpose. It has been working on this through the review of plus or minus 100 items submitted for consideration from numerous constituents and simultaneously reworking the document into it narrative format; all while conducting its normal business meetings. The Planning Board recognizes the Town Board ' s most recent re-writes as commendable yet sees that there art a number of significant open questions about the proposed changes under consideration by the Town Board regarding review processes and the aforementioned documents. 1 . Do these changes comport with the Comprehensive Plan or not, 2 . Do proposed processes comport with the most basic of principle in our democratic government: a A . The division of powers and duties of government; B. Checks and balances on all branches of goveounrnt ; 3 . What findings in fact have been made to necessitate these changes in these doctwrwrts and processes; 4. Ras As consideration been pad to the right of the public to he informed and participate in this review? (Ref. Al Minutes of March 19 . 2008) dile boards have been diligent in their work to review and amend cianntents to ensure that the Town is riot "slavish or lin) servitude to a particular plan and responsive to the community's change atter growth as is benefit to the canununity ars a whole (a)" (not just businesses) - as evidertcnl below: Oct .15 , 2003 Land Use Ordinance AS Adopted Update & Edits by P13 .feat 3 , 21104 LwU Use Ordinance Effective per TB Oct 17, 2006 Comprehensive Plan Last Reviewed & Edited by PBTB Nov 15 , 2006 Comprehensive Platt Revised, Adopted and Effective PB/TB Tug 29. 2006 Land Use Ordinance TB informs Pei at joist meeting that it has hired County Planting Department to Review/Change Land Ate Ordinance with penicular attention to S. Iansing given proposed sewer Mar 26, 2007 Land 'Use Ordinance 'Town Board agrees to have PB take over Review/Change given County delay. • 13 DIr~ T 4/14/08 P13 • i Nov 15, 2006 Comprehensive Plan Revised, Adopted and Effective l'13/T$ Jan 14, 2008 Land Use Ordinance Forwarded from PB to TB ; + or - some 100 hems for its consideration as well as proposal of narrative document on recommendation of Town Counsel Jan 28, 2008 Agriculture & Farland Town receives grant t:o facilitate protection planning of RA — as suggest by N3 .Ian 28, 2008 Subdivision Rides & Reg. PB begins review of chant s Feb 15 , 2008 Land Use Ordinance TB begins consideration of changes at special meetings held at 7 :30 am Fridays Afar 19, 2008 LL it 3 -- Subdivision TB continues and then closes public heeling on LL # 3 proposal -- 239 from County remains outstanding -- SEQR LL 43 left open Mar19, 2008 Ordinance ifl -- Land Use TB opens public hearing — no copies of document available to the public at the meeting; Lit closes public hearing on Ordinance ttl — 239 from County remains outstanding -- may be reopened -- SEQR Ordinance tel loft open 111cr 23, 2008 Ordinance fel — Land Ilse 213 reviews items A l through C22 of 411 Schedule 1 and pruparor responses for TB in writing Mar 01 , 2008 Ordinance 41 -- Land Use 02 review limns 223 through P4 of Schedule 1 and prepares responses for the TB in writing In regard to item number one, this Planning Board has received (with the Town Board), training thud enumerated the fact that " the rational for (Town Few #263) requiring consisteney with a comprehensive plan is the necessity that the welfare of the community as a whole be considered in adopting zoning regulations and amendments, A comprehensive plan has as its underlying purpose the control of land uses for the benefit of the whole community biased upon consideration of les problems and applying the enactment or a general policy to obtain a uniform result not enacted is a haphazard or piecemeal fashion .(e)" We arc concerned that them may be items that contravene the Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan such as: an allowance of land use for conunerciol (versus homeowner ownedtregulated) recreational facilities (indoors anti out) A RI (Low Density Residential), the allowance of land use for new end used car sales in .R2 (Medium Density Residential), or the allowance of land use for vehicular furl and service stations in R3 (Mixed Residential Use) . Even if these Are subject to Planning Board site plan review adjacent property owners could experience a diminution of their property values. On As other hand we are concerned drat the zoning to support business development in I31 (Commeseial Mixed Use), B2 (Commercial General Use), and IR (Industrial/Research) is being compromised through the expansion of some commercial uses of land in Residential Zones. Finally we do not believe that siteeplan review ehould be "m•house" under any circumstances for business applications in RA Zones (Rural Agriculture), Please reference for better explanation and greater derail Lorraine Moynihan Prlrrn is Memorandum dated April 14, 2008 and appended to tins letter. 14 .DRAFT 4/ta. ii PB "In exercising their zoning powers (ref. item #2), the local authorities (the Town Board) must act. for the benefit of the community as a whole following a cairn deliberate consideration of fine alternatives, and not bemuse of the whims of either an articulate minority or even a majority of the community. Such a requirement diminishes the likelihood that the zoning authority will be exercised to benefit benefactors of those in authority, to punish political foes, or to advance a seemingly legitimate community goal at the expense of a few property owners who are called upon to bear the brunt of short-sighted decisions.(')" If we move to 'bin-house" single lot and/or minor subdivision approval and site plan (all dealing with "property rights — of constitutional magnitude") we could he opening the Town of Lansing up to operational practices (non-codified) that. would "appear arbitrary wid discriminatory and not (based on preserving and promoting) the health, safety, welfare and morals of the community (°)" by virtue of the fact that a single position will be responsible for review, findings and enforcement functions. This blurring of detnrwinetinn and enforcement in one position (a singular person) increases the potential for conflict of-interest error, or arbitrary determination and innerneens the debility of the Town. This concern is in no way a reflection on the current Code Enforcement Officer. Please reference the appended Tompkins County 239 I , no and n reviews fur the documents udder consideration dated April I I and April 14 , 2028. Yes, the Planning 'hoard clearly understands that it is not our role to render interpretation of zoning law or determine if sennethind is permissible, this is the jurisdiction of the Code Enforcement Officer, and if appealed, the Toning Board of Appeals. It elan understmerds that the Town *Board may delegate to any administrative body the right to review site plans. However anti on the ether Mtd this authority is "almost universally delegated to planning boards.(')" The Pkuutieg Board is a body of citizen volunteers appointed to scree by the Town Board and is not en individual. Since these participants must reach consensus in e public forum , the likelihood of arbitrary determinations is significantly lowered. Further, we must provide any determination, bared on findings of they in the public record. If the Town Boer() ultimately moves ali of the currently indicated uses to "in -house" approval procedures, we mannan thenersill he an increased exposure to "arbitrary or discriminatory decisions (*)" because many considerations lack specific standards. In ether words where the l.wrrd Use Ordinance Schedule .I has been subjected to numerous changer, site plan review standards have not been brought in doe. Finally, then: are no procedural uses of the " in house ' checklist cud inod and we view this as adding to potential liability issues. in regard to item three, the Planning board has net specifically been given details of nay purported complaints 2mm constituents or any threatened litigation as a result of its actions. it would be useful for the lopping Board to have this infeedtetion perhaps in executive session. Please remember that we can only conduct business in a manner that is codified and/or lawful, We cannot be nccouetable for incomplete or deficient applications, unresponsive client (applicant) service providers, Or delayed engineering or agency reports. This Hoard has been exhorted that "unless Ave accept and mange clewde eee community will fail I')". We are concerned diet the work we have conscientiously done on behalf oar fellow citizens for ineny years will be scuttled and indeed the Town will fail beceusc some of the recoreneodetl changes are not in line with its Comprehensive Plan - in the best interest of the `/'own as a whole. Collectively we have endeavored to respond to requests from the Town Board as responsible Planning Board members. Therefore we see as priorities for the Apill 23'1 Special Joint Meeting of the Boards : 0 l5 DRAFT T 4/ 14/08 P13 1 . Identify in Schedule I those recommendations that conflict with the Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan; 2, Address concerns identified in County 239s: 3 . Development of a reasonable timeline for any additional review and changes it necessary, methodologies for public education, review and comment, 239 review consideration, and eventual approval and effective dates. .Respectfully made a part of the public record and submitted on behalf of Planning Board members present ::t the Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2008 , .._ . �, A.0‘..\ .Lin avidson Chairman Town of Lansing Planning Board (*) Ref: Guy IC Krogh (Town Attorney) at Joint Town Board and Planning Board training session Enol : County 239 -- Town of tanning Subdivision Cuter andRegulations, Local Law #,3 of April 11 , 2008 Erich County 239 - Town of Lansing baud Use Ordinance of April 14, 2008 Ref Tom Board Minutes of`t4arch 19, 2008 including but Ott limited to citizen remarks by Carry Guidema cc; Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals 111 Other Business Ms . Moynihan Schmitt requested of the Members to review her Memorandum and Report that she has prepared and provide comments or concerns by tomorrow (April 15, 2008) at the end of the business day . Ms. Moynihan Schmitt would like to distribute this to the Town Board and Zoning Board Members as soon as possible . Thomas Ellis made a motion to adjourn the Meeting . Lary Sharpsteen seconded . VOTE AS FOLLOWS : Thomas Ellis - Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Viola Miller - Aye Larry Sharpsteen - Aye 411) Lin Davidson - Aye lb DRAFT F 4/ 14108 P13 MOTION CARRIED. • 17 ® Town of Lansing Planning Board April 14 , 2008 Visitors Please Sign In Below : (Please Print) Name Address . 11H 30 vass e i. t CePL7ArN ‘ 61(2..k t 4A3 C)Nemivaes ba . )1_ g3 41_ 6 Elam 41:- leo 4,114- /4( Pvo 4 . 1; r- 76— ACie_ 1/47 d Y 1/4/ 41 ' / ;1 / �� • - / `• / T114/N ONo4.✓ 4 at ' G r . cp. . AV /_ /dare • Mnet paw http : //www . Iansinatown . con-il U, I AMENDED AGENDA • TOWN OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD 29 Auburn Road Lansing, New York 14882 Monday , April. 14, 2008 AGENDA 7: 15 P. M . Public comments 7: 20 P. M . Revised Sketch Plan, Lansing Commons, Applicant: IRS Reality, Inc . , Cayuga Vista Drive, Tax Parcel # 37 . 1 -2-53 . 222 Site Plan Review - 4 Season Storage, Applicant: Mike Moore, 360 Auburn Road , Tax Parcel # P/ O 28 . -1 -28 . 32 One Lot Subdivision , Applicant: Steve White, Buck Road Tax Parcel # 28 . -1 -28 . 23 One Lot Subdivision , Applicant: Richard Pinney Jr . , Farrell Road 'fax Parcel # 39 . -1 -18 Continue Review of proposed " In-House Checklist" Approval / Denial of Minutes for March 24, 2008 Sr March 31 , 2008 Any other business deemed necessary (Cayuga Farms- Discussion re : David Herrick, P . E . ) • 1 I h, AMENDED TOWN OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD 29 Auburn Road Lansing, New York 14882 Monday, April 14, 2008 AGENDA 7:15 P.M . Public comments 7: 20 P.M. Revised Sketch Plan, Lansing Commons, Applicant: IRS Reality, Inc., Cayuga Vista Drive, Tax Parcel # 37.1-2-53 . 222 ( Developer, Ron Secord has been working with the Town Board toward approval of an on site waste septic system . Wayne • Matteson , Project Engineer has submitted an updated Application, Engineering Report, Long Environmental Assessment Form, and Subdivision Plan . A project description. can be found on page 1 of the Engineering Report. ) 7: 30 P. M. Site Plan Review - 4 Season Storage, Applicant: Mike Moore, 360 Auburn Road , Tax Parcel # P/O 28 . -1-28.32 (Owner, Michael Moore plans to build a 44 unit mini storage building at the former site of J . T . Landscaping, 360 Auburn Road . The project is in the RA Dist ict . " Mini " commercial warehouse for self storage requires Site Plan Review with special condition 802. 16 . The only requirement of 802. 1. 6 is Site Plan Review . ) 7:30 P.M. One Lot subdivision, Tax Parcel No . 28 . -1 -28.23, Buck Road. Owner Steve White ( previously Kansas Mead) . ( Mr . White purchased a tree acre lot previously owner by Kansas Mead . Phil Bachellor. , Agent for Ms . Mead presented the proposed subdivision to the Planning Board on 9/ 11 / 06 . The Planning Board adjourned further discussion on this project until Mr . Bachellor returned with an updated survey map . Mr. White has since h 5 fi r purchased the property and submitted a new application for subdivision and updated survey map .) 7:40 One Lot Subdivision, Richard Pinney Jr., Tax Parcel din. • Farrell Road, DD1 District. { Mr . Pinney has request approval to subdivide a 4 . 71 acre lot creating a 40,077 s _ f_ road front lot for the existing house and garage, and a 165, 250 .flag lot. Mr Pinney has built a two Family dwelling in the proposed flag lot area, and plans to build a second two family Pc the same area . Mr . Finney is rept eating a waiver of the 1 . 5 a 40,000 s .f, per dwelling unit for the proposed Flag Jot . Since the buildings are two family units versus single family, and the area to the North is wetland which can not be disturbed, Mr . Pieney , s request appears to be reasonable . The [ and directly across Farrell Road is in the di District Where 2000 s _ f . lots are allowed , so it will not change the character of the neighborhood . ) 411 Continue Review of proposed "In-House Checklist" Approval/Denial of Minutes for March 24, 2008 igt March 31, 2008 Any other business deemed necessary 0 AMENDED AGENDA • TOWN T TOWN OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD 29 Auburn Road Lansing, New York 14882 Monday, April 1. 4, 2008 AGENDA 7: 15 P. M . Public comments 7: 20 P. M . Revised Sketch Plan , Lansing Commons, Applicant: JRS Reality, Inc. , Cayuga Vista Drive, Tax Parcel # 37. 1 -2-53 . 222 Site Plan Review - 4 Season Storage, Applicant : Mike Moore, 360 Auburn Road , Tax Parcel # P/ O 28 . -1 -28 . 32 ® One Lot Subdivision, Applicant : Steve White, Buck Road Tax Parcel # 28 . -1 -28 . 23 One Lot Subdivision, Applicant : Richard Pinney Jr. , Farrell Road Tax Parcel # 39 . -1 -18 Continue Review of proposed " In-House Checklist" Approval / Denial of Minutes for March 24, 2008 & March 31 , 2008 Any other business deemed necessary 111 rsr t TOWN OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD 29 Auburn Road. Lansing, New York 14882 Monday, April 14, 2008 AGENDA 7: 15 P . M . Public comments 7: 20 P. M . Revised Sketch Plan, Lansing Commons, Applicant: JRS Reality , Inc . , Cayuga Vista Drive, Tax Parcel # 37. 1 -2-53 . 222 Site Plan Review - 4 Season Storage, Applicant: Mike Moore, 360 Auburn Road, "lax Parcel # P/ O 28 . - 1 -28 .32 One Lot Subdivision, Applicant: Steve White, Buck Road Tax parcel # 28 . -1 -28 . 23 Continue Review of proposed " In- I-louse Checklist " Approval / Denial of Minutes for March 24, 2008 & March 31 , 2008 Any other business deemed necessary te • TOWN OF LANSING PLANNING BOARD 29 Auburn Road Lansing, New York 14882 Monday, April 14, 2008 AGENDA 7:15 P. M. Public comments 7:20 P. M . Revised Sketch Plan, Lansing Commons, Applicant: JRS Reality, Inc ., Cayuga Vista Drive, Tax Parcel # 37.1 -2-53.222 (Developer, Ron Secord has been working with the Town Board toward approval of an on site waste septic system . Wayne Matteson, Project Engineer has submitted an updated Application, Engineering Report, Long Environmental Assessment Form, and Subdivision Plan. A project description can be found on page 1. of the Engineering Report. ) 7: 30 P. M. Site Plan Review - 4 Season Storage, Applicant: Mike Moore, 360 Auburn Road, Tax Parcel # P/O 28.-1 -28 .32 (Owner, Michael Moore plans to build a 44 unit mini storage building at the former site of. J . T. Landscaping, 360 Auburn Road . The project is in the RA District. " Mini " commercial warehouse for self storage requires Site Plan Review with special condition 802 . 1. 6 . The only requirement of 802. 16 is Site Plan Review . ) 7:30 P. M. One Lot subdivision, Tax Parcel No . 28 . -1-28.23, Buck Road. Owner Steve White (previously Kansas Mead) . ( Mr. White purchased a three acre lot previously owner by Kansas Mead . Phil Bachellor, Agent for Ms . Mead presented the proposed subdivision to the Planning Board on 9/ 11 / 06 . The Planning Board adjourned further discussion on this project until Mr. Bachellor returned with an updated survey map . Mr . White has since }'I 4; purchased the property and submitted a new application for • subdivision and updated survey map . ) Continue Review of proposed " In-House Checklist" Approval/Denial of Minutes for March 24, 2008 & March 31 , 2008 Any other business deemed necessary 4