HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-23 Town of Lansing
Special Joint Meeting
Monday, April 23, 6:45 PM PLANNING BOARD
TOWN BOARD MEMEBERS PRESENT
A. Scott Pinney, Town Supervisor Connie Wilcox, Deputy Town Supervisor
Matthew Bescmer Bud Shattuck
Marty Christopher
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Nancy Loncto TIu?mas Ellis
Larry Sharpsteen Lin Davidson, Chairman
Viola Miller Larry Zuidema
Richard Platt, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer
Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt, Esq.
ZONING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Gregg Travis, Chairman Linda 14irvvonen
Henry (Hurl) Sheldon Daniel Konowa.low
Public Present
Marcy Rosenkranti. Sorel Gottfried
Michael Huffaker Andy Sciarabba
Dan Veaner Ruth Hopkins
Roger Hopkins Brent Zifchock
General Business
Lin Davidson called the Meeting to order at 6 :45 PM. An Amended Agenda was distributed to
those present. Mr. Davidson indicated that a change of order was being made to the newest
Agenda .
"In-House" Checklist Discussion
TB : Mr. Pinney stated that the Town Board is in favor of having the Zoning Officer perform " In-
I-louse" Site Plan Review using a prepared "Checklist" . The list will not only include items for
the actual Site Plan process but will include other items of interest to the Town. Mr. Pinney
advised the Planning Board Members that any X 's to the left on the Checklist indicates the review
will be turned over to the Planning Board . The PB/ ZBA Members were asked if they agreed with
the items checked and i.f there was any other items they would like to see X.
(10 LI): Read the following: In general, In -House Site Plan Reviews do not allow for public
participation as do full Planning Board reviews during open public meetings.
DRAFT'p
4/23108 PB
• Furthermore, good governance would suggest that the level of " discretion" that is built
into the system of site plan reviews is much better exercised by the Planning Board in
public meetings than by an individual in an office potentially subject to pressures from
developers and Town officials.
All submitted site plans be brought to the attention of the Planning Board by the Town
Planning Office. In certain defined areas and for straightforward site plans, the Planning
Board may choose to refer them back to the Planning Office for action . Giving this
discretion to the multi-member Planning Board not only gives the opportunity for public
participation, but also allows for a high level of transparency.
NL: Reiterated that " In- House" Site Plan Review by way of the 239 should be taken into serious
consideration . Ms. Loncto read the following prepared and submitted to the Town by The
Tompkins County Planning Department:
The definition of the proposed In House Site Plan Review should be clarified. We
recommend this review be titled "Zoning Permit Review", which would be an internal, non-
discretionary, administrative review to ensure compliance with the zoning ordinance. Zoning
Permit Review should not be discretionary and should not allow for waivers. Under the
administrative framework established in NOW York State Town I.aw, waivers are granted by
a decision-making body. not by an individual, and the Town Board may authorize the
Planning Board or "such other administrative body that It shall so. designate. . . ", Town Law
§274 —a (2)(a), to review and approve site plans.
We are very concerned that In House Site Plan Review is proposed for the most intense land
uses, particularly retail and industrial uses, across all zoning districts. In order to evaluate
impacts to State and County highways, drainage systems, and a host of other intercommtntity
® ��ulucrorc th mjic rDPwTity
:impacts, those classes of use with the greatest impacts, including all of those identified under
"Intense Land Uses" below, should bo required to undergo Special Urn Permit or Site Plan
;Review.
.Any type of Site Plan Review will require Comity review under GML §239 4 , -m, and -n.
1f, as M this case, the County recommends modifications or denial of a project, it will be
impossible for an individual to achieve a supnrmajority, which is another reason why
discretionary decisions need to be made by an authorized board.
Ms . Moynihan Schmitt pointed out with regards to the 239 response, that it seems there is a lot of
concern with one particular individual making determinations rather that an actual Planning
Department with a " Planner" involved . Os. Moynihan Schmitt suggested that the Town Board
move forward and pursue filling that position . Supervisor Pinney agreed .
DK: Suggested that the " In-I-Iouse" review be carried on, but, that the Code Enforcement Officer
give a recommendation to the Planning Board on the projects and brings the complete package to
the Board . It is Mr. Konowalow' s observation from attending Planning Board Meetings, that
incomplete Applications were accepted and presented to the Planning Board , which resulted in
the Planning Board's decision being delayed . Further more, Mr. Konowa.low stated if the Code
Enforcement Officer has as part of his responsibility the task to make sure all the documentation
is complete, then it would seem that the Planning Board action would be very timely and still be
Public.
2
DRAFT 4123;'08 PD
• LD: 'There are no landscaping requirements per zones or protocols. The Planning Board should
work on this .
CT: Line 31 Mr . Travis inquired as to how the number 10 came about. Also, the size of the
construction and area of disturbance should be included .
SR The Town hoard came up with the number 10 to keep it a fairly small business .
'1`L: Does not see the benefit of taking the Site Plan Review out of the democratic process and
placing it in the hands of one or two individuals.
LS: If the Checklist was completed before coming to the Planning Board, most Site Plans could be
completed in 1 Meeting. One item the In-House Site Plan Review may not make allowance for is
established precedence. If the Application comes before the Planning Board , they can reflect on
Site Plan Review decisions that have been made in the past and see #1. that the Town is consistent
in the Application of the process .
LZ: Concerned that streamlining may not happen at all, if allowing one individual to perform
Site Plan Review .
VM : Feels it is impossible for one person to take the responsibility to perform a duty that he may
later have to judge either right or wrong. Policing their own work is impossible.
Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt: Speaking to the potential of a controversial issue, where the
® Checklist to be utilized may have the potential for controversy, it certainly should come before
the Planning Board . There should be a provision where adjacent landowners to the proposed
project are apprised the of the proposed project and make their thought known to either the
Planning Department or the Planning Board at which they could request a Public Hearing.
NL: Requested to hear a response from the Town Board to the comments that have been made
thus far.
BS: Checklist is a great idea . However, he does not feel this should be a Code Enforcement
Officer' s decision . Once the Checklist is complete, it should go before the Planning Board .
Supervisor Pinney read the following :
• Planning Board Concerns: The Comprehensive Plan clearly defines R1 , R2, and R3
districts (located mainly in the southern end of the town) as areas primarily for residential
use. 51 , 132, and lit districts are currently available for commercial uses. The Commercial
Mixed Use District (B1 ) is specifically designed to accommodate both housing and
commercial uses. The proposed zoning ordinance changes for residential districts are
substantial and have the potential of having a major impact on the future character of the
town .
• R1 - Residential Low Housing 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) commercial recreation
facilities (indoors and outdoors), and (4) professional or business offices, banks, and
financial institutions .
® • R.2 - Residential Medium Housing Density Districts - While not currently allowed,
neighborhoods in these districts will have the possibility of having the following
3
DRAFT 4123/98 PB
commercial uses: ('I ) roadside stands, (2) public stables, (3) commercial recreation
• facilities (indoors and outdoors), (4) photocopy services, (5) convenience math, (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 (Tl ) self-service laundries.
• R3 - Residential Mixed Housing Districts - While not currently allowed , neighborhoods
in these districts will have the possibility of having the following commercial uses: (1 )
rooming house or tourist homes, (2) professional or business offices, banks, financial
institutions, (3) retail sales stores (general, lumber, industrial and agricultural equipment,
services, storage, mobile homes, RVs, snowmobiles), (4) restaurants or taverns, (5) drive-
th.ru restaurants, (6) barber/ beauty shops, (7) photocopy services, (8) convenience marts,
(9) self-storage warehouses, (10) vehicular fuel and service stations, 01) new and use 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, would 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) facilities for
agricultural, industrial or educational research, design and production of prototypes, and
(5) vehicle body shops .
12: Read the following data he gathered :
There is a possibility of about a 1 % error rate on the information gathered due to some parcels
being in two districts .
• TB/ p13/ ZBA Meeting 23 April 2008 - Larry Zuidema Comments
We all live in a town characterized mostly by residential units in the
• southern portion and agriculture with residential units in the north.
Most of the north is zoned for rural/ agriculture and most of the south is
zoned as residential with smaller areas for commerce and
industry/ research. The proposed changes in the zoning/ land use ordinance
mostly impact residents in the south of the town (excludes RA and LI )
where about 57% of all residents live on about 30 % of the land.
The southern part of Lansing can be described sociologically as a "bedroom
community" composed of numerous undividable lots containing residential
units. Excluding all of RA and Li districts, there are 1624 residences in
Lansing of which 1424 (88 % ) are in R'l , R2, and R3 . The number of vacant
parcels in this same southern area (again excluding RA and L1 ) is 404 of
which 303 are in RI , R2 and R3. However, only 180 of these 303 parcels
in R1 , R2 and R3 are greater than one acre and, of this amount, only 61
are greater than 5 acres . With an average of 35 homes being built in
Lansing (north and south) each year, it seems imperative that we retain as
much available land as possible in R1 , R2, and R3 for housing. Data
source: TC Assessment Office.
Under the proposed changes in the zoning ordinance/ law, a few commercial
activities could be introduced into the R1 residential district, many
" non- residential friendly" commercial activities could occur in the R2
residential district, and many more commercial and some industrial
activities could occur in the R3 residential district. In fact, even
vacant one acre lots in totally residential neighborhoods could he used
for commercial purposes.
As public officials in a town dominated by residences in the more densely
populated southern half, we need to preserve the character of this portion
of the town and protect the neighborhoods that have been established for
4
DRTD ^AF�
4/23708 PB
a living only. Many residents purchased their homes with the understanding
that they were living in zoned (protected) areas where only homes would be
built. They have a right to a peaceful existence in such an environment .
Also, about 80 homes have been sold in Lansing in each of the last 5 years
( Source : Board of Realtors) . Those who plan to buy homes in the future
will want assurances that no "non-residential friendly" commercial
activity will appear next door. If the proposed changes are implemented,
it will certainly give pause to those who want to purchase homes in the
southern portion of Lansing in the future.
On the other side of the coin, Lansing ( for its size) has limited commerce
in the southern half of the town. However, the B1 , 132 and IR areas, which
have 88 parcels in use for commerce and industry, still have 101 vacant
parcels of which 50 are greater than one acre. Given the fact that new
business construction permits averaged less that 1 per year over the past
5 years and less than 2 per year over the past 15 years, there does not
appear to be a shortage of land for commercial and industrial purposes in
the southern part of the town. Furthermore, one large B I parcel is now
being proposed for housing instead of commerce, possibly due to lack of
business demand . Therefore, there is no " business" need to permit/allow
commerce and industry to share space with residential units in residential
areas.
NL: Suggested looking at larger pieces (over 5 acres) and identifying then as candidates for
PDA'S. Once identified , then incorporate them into the comprehensive plan specifically and
strengthening that FDA tool within the Schedule I .
LH : Lansing is the fastest growing community in Tompkins County . The R3 District is where
the future growth is going to occur. The Town should re-consider Mixing Commercial and
Residential should be looked into . Property values will be affected if a mix of Commercial will be
permitted with Residential .
GT: Expressed that it would be difficult for the Board of Zoning Appeals to consider an
Application for a Use Variance unless the Town Board gives guidance as to where they would
like to see development.
TE : Concerned with Commercial In- Door and Out - Door Recreation going from not allowed in
the R1 & R2 to being allowed with In -House Site Plan . This type of Recreation creates a large
amount of traffic that will now be tunneled through neighborhoods . Mr . Ellis does not feel it
should be allowed as a matter of right. There is plenty of land in RA & R3 for Recreational
activities to be placed .
CW: Disagreed with Mr. Ellis's comment. Ms. Wilcox gave the example of Walden Oaks in
Cortland, where there is a Golf Course in the middle of Residential housing. Many people
purchase the homes, if order for themselves to live on the course.
NL: Felt the " list" needed to be refined to segregate Commercial Recreation from Residential
Recreation in the definition portion of the Zoning Ordinance.
12: Reminded the Board how many vacant lots (5 acres or more) in the RI, R2 & R3 districts and
the number of residents in these districts that will he affected by the Commercial Uses that are
possibly going to be permitted .
5
I
DRAFT 4123108 PB
• LZ: Expressed that the Planning Board is requesting Developer' s of PDA'S and large
developments to allow for green space in their projects.
Supervisor Pinney read the following:
• Planning Board Concerns: The Comprehensive Plan instructs that residential and
commercial uses are "appropriate and desirable development characteristics of the 131
District" (Commercial Mixed Use District) . The purpose of the 131 District is " to achieve
the harmonious and compatible use and development of land, (and] 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, the Comprehensive Plan specifies a number of site planning concerns
that must he part of the planning process.
• Because of its mixed residential and commercial nature, 131 uses will always require
comprehensive public review and the opportunity for public hearings before the Planning
Board . Accordingly, " in-house" planning is totally inappropriate for the Bi Commercial
Mixed Use District.
LD: If a Use changes in an existing building, it should cone before the Planning Board with a
minimal amount of time involved .
• Planning Board Concerns: The RA District should 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, the Town Board
proposed amendments to this district constitute non-agricultural commercial mixed use.
• The fact that we are about to develop an agricultural protection plan under a NYS grant
awarded to Lansing in January also supports the proposition suggests that full planning
board site- plan review is appropriate and necessary .
IS: Feels the whole purpose of having Site Plan Review on Commercial development is because
the 'town has stated in the Comprehensive Plan how important the farm land is to them . Mr.
Sharpsteen further stated in his opinion, any Site Plan regardless of who performs it, should be
done before a Public Board .
LD: Landscaping standards should be set,
N L : Encouraged that the County 239 comments into consideration when making any of these
changes .
N L: Read the following:
P I
• In general, the proposed Zoning Ordinance requires less review for commercial and
industrial uses in the Rural Agricultural Zone than is required for those same uses in
designated Commercial and Industrial Zones. This is contrary to the goal of agricultural
preservation established in the Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan, as it will have the
effect of encouraging non-agricultural uses to move into the Rural Agriculture Zone. At a
:minimum, the stone level of review should En required in the Rural Agricultural Zone us is
:required for these rises in Commercial and Industrial Zones. It would be more appropriate to
apply a less strenuous zoning review process in zones for which intense uses are specifically
designated and zoned, in order to encourage appropriate uses to locate these.
• State law does eot allow agricultural uses to be restricted in Agricultural Districts. Since the
proposed Rural Agricultural Zone does not align oxactly with the County Agricultural
District, the zoning code should not interfere with generally accepted uses and practices in
zones that include Agricultural District land.
6
DRAFT 4/23108 PH
•
OK: If the Town liberally leaves the RA District open without restrictions, 20 years down the
road the Planning Board , Town Board or Zoning Board will have one big problem on their hands .
This is where Planning needs to be focused due to the large amount of land .
Scott Pinney read the following:
• 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 for them . Getting public response in this venue will
demonstrate an interest in resident opinion and can both influence and improve the final
outcome. Given the significance of the proposed changes, it is suggested that several
months be given to the process before a final vote is taken by the Town Board .
LS: The key is to have Public notice or participation .
Lansing Village Resident Sorel Gottfried stated it is her impression that there are a lot of people
that do not know the Town is making changes. Ms. Gottfried states people want to have an open
transparent process where everyone can have hearsay .
Supervisor Pinney stated that the Town Board Members need to listen to the Planning Board ' s
comments/ concerns tonight, then get together as a Town Board and have a further discussion
before they move forward .
Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt: stated she is hearing specific comments about specific uses . When
the discussion comes to Schedule I , those specific concerns can be addressed .
® NL: Read the following from the Tompkins County 239 response:
Oat meg
An stated in the In House Site Plan discussion above, intense land uses should require a
higher degree of review. The following activities should require Special Use Permit, or at a
minimum, Site Plan review: Retail sales (All types its : 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28); Professional
or business office, bank, financial institution; Warehouse, storage or wholesaling of non-
agricultural goods or materials; Printing and publishing; Commercial assembly; jewelry.
leather, fabric, scientific instruments and similar small items; Agricultural, industrial, or
educational research, design and production of prototypes; General processing
manufacturing, and assembly; and Vehicle body shop, not as part of new or used car sales
and service. We are particularly concerned about the potential for conflicts between such
uses that are proposed to be permitted uses within Residential zones , including Retail sales,
and about the potential impact of these uses on State and County roads and facilities.
P In addition, retirement housing and congregate housing, because of their potential scale,
should require Site Plan review in the Rural Agriculture and Lakeshore zones.
NL: Concerned with equality among businesses and that they would not be treated alike. if a
Site Plan Application does not kick out to the Planning Board, it be given potential conditional
approval and still brought before the Planning Board immediately after that conditional approval
regardless if it is a Regular or Working Meeting.
It was requested that the Applicant and or Agent appear before the Board for a brief discussion
regarding their conditional approval by the Code Enforcement Officer. The Code Enforcement
41/ Officer should not represent the Applicant.
7
DRAFT 4123:08 PB
® TE : Does not believe there is any such thing as low impact Business. The Town wants businesses
to grow and have an impact on the Town . To not be able to review any type of business in a
residential neighborhood zone is remiss.
LI-l : Requested comments or opinions from the Town Board Members .
LD: Requested that the references in section 802 where a certain use had certain
requirements / conditions remain consistent.
DK: Opposed to In-House Site Plan Review due to it eliminating the Public from having any
input of any development until it is complete .
NL: Requested Town Board share feedback to include reason (s) why they disagree with the
Planning Board on certain items .
The question was brought up, what if the Planning Department denies someone with regards to
Site Plan Review, can they appeal to the Planning Board . Larry Sharpsteen indicated they would
only be denied if the Zoning Ordinance indicated so .
Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt stated an Application may be acceptable with some modifications
that the Planning Board would have the power to impose.
NL: Read the following from the Comprehensive Plan ;
"If full benefit is to be realized from this document and the countless hours that
®
have been required to complete it, the plan must be actively used by the Planning
Board and the Town Board and treated as an important element in the decision
making process which will determine Lansing' s fume."
BS: There is always room for change. Mr. Shattuck read the following from the Comprehensive
Plan;
There are, of course, alternative ways that growth and change can occur in the Town of
Lansing. The physical shape and developmental character that actually materializes in this
community will depend on the degree to which economic , political and social forces are
focused on long-range goals established as pan of the planning process.
Supervisor Pinney indicated the Town Board Members would meet next week for further
discussion on this matter.
Public Comments/Concerns
Supervisor Pinney opened the floor for Public comments / concerns .
Marcy Rosenkrantz suggested if the two boards can not agree on certain items that their
differences and opinions be put into the Town Newsletter and sent to every resident in the town
rather than solely putting it on the Web site. The Board may want to consider a group of
individuals to review the items the two Boards are disputing and give their input on behalf of the
® Town .
8
1
DRAFT 4/23109 PB
• Sorel Gottfried is concerned with the process . Ms . Gottfried states changes are being made so
rapidly and could possibly create legal issues for the Town . Ms. Gottfried further states that even
though she is a Village of Lansing resident, she is a major taxpayer and pays 1 / 3 percent taxes to
the Town of Lansing. if there were a lawsuit brought against the Town by a resident due to this
process, she would have to ultimately help pay the Town' s legal fees due to her being a taxpayer.
Ms . Gottfried further requested that the Town consider the landowner's property values when
making these changes .
Lin Davidson made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:32 PM . Scott Pinney seconded .
VOTE AS FOLLOWS :
Thomas Ellis - Aye
Nancy Loncto - Aye
Viola Miller - Aye
Larry Sharpsteen - Aye
Larry Zuidema - Aye
Lin Davidson - Aye
Matthew Besemer - Aye
Marty Christopher - Aye
Bud Shattuck - Aye
Connie Wilcox - Aye
A. Scott Pinney - Aye
MOTION CARRIED.
0
9