Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-09 APPROVED Town of Lansing Monday, March 9, 2009 7:15 PM PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS (*Denotes present) * Nancy Loncto Tom Ellis Larry Sharpsteen * Lin Davidson,Chairman Viola Miller * David Hatfield Marty Christopher,Town Board Liaison * Richard Prybyl * Jeffrey Overstrom,EIT David Buck,Alternate * Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt,Esq. Public Present Wayne Matteson Connie Wilcox Ron Seacord Chris Muka Andy Sciarabba Jeanne Bishop Scott Bishop Mr. &Mrs. Ebersold Tim Buhl Chris&Kristine Marshall Jack Young Dan Veaner General Business Lin Davidson called the Planning Board Meeting to order at 7:15 PM. Public Comments/Concerns Mr. Davidson, Chairman inquired if there were any Public Bodies present that would like to make a statement that is not related to any Agenda item. Andy Sciarabba inquired with the economy the way it is, what is happening in Lansing as far as development or Building Permits. Jeff Overstrom explained there are currently two large projects happening within the Town (Cayuga Farms and Lansing Commons). The Building Permits seems to be at a steady stream. Within the last week there are 3 new Residential homes being built and one next week. There is also a lot of remodeling work going on. SEAR Review- Exempt 1 Lot Subdivision, Applicant: Jeanne Bishop, 709 & 715 Lansing Station Road, Tax Parcel # 13.-2-4 1 APPROVED Mrs. Bishop appeared before the Planning Board requesting an Exempt Subdivision SEQR. Mr. Prybyl inquired about Health Department issues and neighbor notification process. Board Members explained to Mr. Prybyl the policy of the Health Department and Town notification policy. The Planning Board reviewed Part I of the Short Environmental Assessment Form completed by the Applicant and completed Part II by the Planning Board Members. No significant adverse environmental impacts or effects were identified in Part II by the Planning Board Members. Thomas Ellis made a motion to declare a negative declaration. David Hatfield seconded. VOTE AS FOLLOWS Thomas Ellis - Aye David Hatfield- Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Richard Prybyl - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. Zoning Definitions Thomas Ellis brought to Lin Davidson's attention that the new Zoning Committee may want to come up with definitions for Lakeshore and Lakefrontage. Jeff Overstrom indicated there are other Zoning concerns that need to be reviewed. Public Hearing- Preliminary Site Plan, Cayuga Farms Town Homes, N. Triphammer Road, Tax Parcel # 37.1-6-3.362 Chairman Davidson read the Legal Notice published in The Ithaca Journal. Richard Prybyl made a motion to open the Public Hearing. David Hatfield seconded. VOTE AS FOLLOWS Thomas Ellis - Aye 2 APPROVED David Hatfield - Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Richard Prybyl - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. Public Comments/Concerns Edward Ebersold: Concerned with the increase of traffic as the result of this proposed project. Timothy Buhl, P.E.: explained that two traffic studies have been researched approximately 6 months ago and they show the section between Asbury and Hillcrest Road has an average daily traffic count of 2869 which is considered non congestive. Connie Wilcox: Has a lot of concerns, especially the increase in traffic and the sewer issue. According to Ms. Wilcox, she spoke with the Fire District and they have not heard from Mr. Buhl regarding this proposed project. Ms. Wilcox further stated she feels there are too many unknowns at this time to approve a preliminary plat for this project. Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt: Concurs with Ms. Wilcox and feels it is too premature to vote on the preliminary site plan approval. Nancy Loncto read the following: 3 APPROVED February 24,2009 Rachel Jacobsen Planning Clerk Town of Lansing P.O.Box 186 Lansing,NY 14882 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Re: Review Pursuant to§239-I and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Cayuga Farms Site Plan Review,Tax Parcel 37.1-6-3.362 Dear Ms.Jacobsen: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to§239-1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law.The Department has reviewed the proposal,as submitted,and has determined that a full statement needs to be submitted,specifically a complete Environmental Assessment Form(Parts 1 and 2),in order to conduct final review. However,we would like to offer preliminary comments and recommendations at this time and will send final comments upon receipt of a complete submittal. Preliminary Comments: . In aocordsnce with the Town of Lansing Local Law 2 of 2008,Subdivision Rules and Regulations, the proposed project may be subject to subdivision review.A subdivision is defined as"the division of any lot,tract or parcel of land into two or more parcels,lots,plots,tracts,sites,and including any other form of division of land for any purpose,including leasing whether immediate or in the future..."in the 2008 regulations. The two intermittent streams that cross this parcel should be protected from development with buffers that extend 75'from both bank edges of each stream. • An affordable housing component should be included in this project in keeping with the Town's 1994 Comprehensive Plan housing objective of supporting a full range of housing opportunities for different age,groups,family sizes and income levels.One building or section of buildings could be designed to include affordable units while maintaining similar orientation and facade as other units. 4 APPROVED TCAT should be directly solicited for input regarding the transit stops and route alignment proposed in this project.In order to facilitate efficient transit service,it may be desirable to create a single transit pull off along North Triphammer Road and provide pedestrian connections to the bus atop. The County Highway Department needs to be contacted with regard to the proposed use of the North Triphammer Road right of way for the sewer line alignment. The SEQR review should evaluate the impact of the sewer line on the overall development in the area and other infrastructure plans,e.g.the proposed South Lansing sewer district. Documentation from the Village of Lansing and Village of Cayuga Heights sewage treatment facilities should be included in the submittal to verify availability of sewage treatment capacity for the proposed project and affected area. Internal pedestrian paths should be included within the project site to connect living areas to both � activity areas and North Triphammer Road.Additionally,pedesuian access along the frontage of d: North Triphammer Road should bo considered. We look forward to completing our review upon receipt of the completed Environmental Assessment Form. Sincerely, (� Edward C.Marx,AICP Commissioner of Planning and Public Works cc:Joe Turcotte,General Manager,TCAT Nancy Loncto noted for the record the internal walking paths should be included within the project site as previously requested by various citizens. David Hatfield made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Nancy Loncto seconded. VOTE AS FOLLOWS Thomas Ellis - Aye David Hatfield- Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Richard Prybyl - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. Nancy Loncto made a motion requesting the Planning Board consider an additional Site Plan Public Hearing once the Agencies have responded. Richard Prybyl seconded. VOTE AS FOLLOWS Thomas Ellis - Aye David Hatfield- Aye 5 APPROVED Nancy Loncto - Aye Richard Prybyl - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. Site Plan Review-Expansion of Lansing Fire Department 80 Ridge Road, Tax Parcel # 35.-2-8 The Fire Department is requesting to build a single story expansion of 7,200 square foot on the east side of the existing Central Fire Station. There will be a parking area for an emergency response vehicle,bunking area, storage room, kitchen and bathroom facilities. David Hatfield requested to know if there will be a weight lifting room as he has heard this rumor around town. Jeffrey Overstrom stated there is no weight room that is shown on the prints. Mr. Overstrom further stated there will be bunk rooms that will not be opened to the public. Those rooms will only be accessed by the bunkers. There currently is existing bunk and open space on the other side of the building which they are proposing to remodel to bring up to Fire Codes. Once up to Codes, it will be used for Public Space/ Assembly uses. Minimal grading will be performed due to the excavation of the proposed structure. The current water service is privately owned by the Fire Department and they will have to do some relocation of that. There will be no new curb cuts or driveways. Mr. Overstrom indicated he has received one citizen's concern with regards to the lighting. It was suggested by Mr. Overstrom that the Planning Board require full cut off lighting fixtures. Connie Wilcox: Added the real reason for the expansion is because the department has outgrown their space down there, and they have not been able to acquire space to build in the Village. The bunking facilities will help with the Volunteer service recruitment. Also the state has mandated so much training over the last few years that the department is in need of training space. Ms. Wilcox further stated there will be no additional cost to the taxpayers as the Fire Department has planned for this addition within their 20 year plan. TG Miller will be reviewing all the Site Plan work and will be reviewing the Stormwater. Thomas Ellis made a motion to approve as presented. David Hatfield seconded. VOTE AS FOLLOWS: Thomas Ellis - Aye David Hatfield - Aye 6 APPROVED Nancy Loncto - Aye Richard Prybyl - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Board reviewed Part I of the Short Environmental Assessment Form completed by the Applicant and completed Part II by the Planning Board Members. No significant adverse environmental impact or effects were identified in Part II by the Planning Board Members. Thomas Ellis made a motion to declare a negative declaration. David Hatfield seconded. VOTE AS FOLLOWS Thomas Ellis - Aye David Hatfield- Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Richard Prybyl - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. Further Discussion - Lansing Commons, Cayuga Vista Drive, Tax Parcel # 37.1-2-53.222 Nancy Loncto read the following letter for the record; 7 APPROVED New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water, Region 7 615 Erie Boulevard West.Syracuse.New York 13204-2400 Phone:(315)426-7500• Fax:(315)426-7459 Vebsite:vo.vw.dec nv.4ov Pie xanRS c .Grannis g Commissioner ipzirm 3�Q)0•5 Mach 4.2009 ( ., Wayne C.Matteson,Jr.,P.E. 3893 Eatonbrook Road Erieville,NY 13061 Re:Lansing Commons Subdivision,Wastewater System Review and Comments Dear Mr,Matteson: The Division of Water has reviewed the project drawings and specifications for the above-mentioned proposed realty subdivision and we have the following comments: 1. Enclosed is a Plant Scoring sheet which may be found in the WWTP Operator Certification Manual,avai able on our web site.Please fill it out and return it. 2. If during construction more than one acre of soil is to be disturbed,contact Val Murakami in this office,(315)426- 7503,for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan permit. 3. To protect the plant from vandalism and to provide public safety,it Is recommended that a fence with locking gate be installed. 4. Provide construction and installation details for: Manholes Sewer/water crossing Trench and backfill detail iv Septic tanks,if any v. Pumping stations,if any 5. Provide design data for the various elements of the treatment and conveyance system,including the phosphorus and ammonia removal system. 6. Provide material and performance specifications. 7. How will sludge be handle and disposed of?Will there be sludge digestion? 8. Provide case studies for the treatment system. 9. The basis of design of the treatment and collection system shall be per the Ten-States Standards,2004 edition. If you have any questions.please phone me(315)426-7505. Sincerely, d4 . /, Frederick M.Gillette,P.E. J.Ronald Seacord.wio attachment A Scott Pinney.Town Supervisor Thomas Ellis read the following for the record: 8 APPROVED -Tih 54-1 LANSING COMMONS SUBDIVISION From Tom Ellis This project continues to get my attention and maybe I am being overly concerned but I would be remiss in serving the TOL(Town of Lansing)as a board member and not speak my piece.In my conversations with the public on this project I feel they are as concerned as I am.This type of overall project has never been tried as far as I can recall with a PDA involved.Previously created water and sewer districts within the TOL have already had a set and defined customer base with known quantities and parcels to calculate fees.This project is going from scratch with an uncertain number of parcels to base an uncertain cost of services on an uncertain sized infrastructure.I feel we all have to work together,the TB and PB to make sure we cover all the unknowns as well as we can to protect the future TOL and this development. This project has got to defined as to its maximum capacity up front and before any approval.The uniqueness of the sewage Package Plant and the TOL role in owner ship makes this up front work on the maximum density a must The PDA aspect of the project can still be a mixed use and density within this pre-set limit and build towards the max as the project fills in. 'the reasons for the pre-set limits arc the problems that would arise within the subdivision from the future need to expand this system because of lack of capacity or a partial or full failure.If the TOL owns this facility it has by that ownership pretty much guaranteed these residents that there toilet will flush.Think about that statement in the context of an interruption of service caused by a need to build a larger facility ,or a full or partial failure.,and inevitably a full replacement someday.These systems don't have a reserve or backup holding tank so any of the above scenarios mean the sewage would have to be trucked,pumped or stored someplace and at whose expense.The TOL?A failure in the system means the sewage has entered Minniger Brook and the NYSDEC will be involved with analysis and new permits to repair or rebuild.How long does this take?Where is the sewage going in the mean time because it can't flow in the Brook?Permits could take weeks or more.The TOL rneenwitite because of its ownership is moving sewage to keep its contract to the residents.Is there money in the O&M to cover such work?Will the bond,promised by Seacord,cover such cost?How arc we going to assure the tax payer outside this small benefit district that one nickel of their tax dollars are going to this repair or replacement? Then we move inside the benefit district and see what happens.The O&M fee bas been set and suddenly the developer wants to add on to the system to make more Dwelling Units(DU).Do we now reassess the 0&M budget already agreed to by residents?Didn't the TOL go through this with the water consolidation a few years ago?There has got to be a top set limit up front to eliminate at least this scenario because that is all we have control over at this tune. I think there could be enough up front language in a sewage agreement between the TOL and the residents of this benefit district that could assure the residents of the TOL not benefited by this district that the residents only benefited in this district were handling all there financial obligations to maintain,repair or replace this system.If this were put to a public referendum today I guarantee this would fail without a clear,concise and simply worded,iron clad,no obligation document that totally relieves non benefit residents from paying for a sewage system none will benefit from. I don't even know if this would require a referendum ,1 suspect not but in the light of the current TB wanting transparency(campaign promise)it would be prudent to keep the public informed and involved as much as possible. The case for enlarging the system for an enlarged project in the future we can address now with a defined maximum and stay within that goal with a"tax payer cushion"to boot.A failed or failing system is something that has to addressed with contracts with the benefited residents as well as we can looking into our crystal balls The TOL has got to be willing to accept the gamble that this system will operate as designed and'101.can pre structure a payment plan to cover all contingencies for the future. 9 APPROVED If this project does move forward!suggest we use the 1 5,000 gal.per day(GPI))sewage system applied for already ,it seems a reasonable size for the property.Then we insert the"tax payer cushion"of 85%of this total to get to 12,750 GPD limit.Based on 110 GPD per person wo can now move back to density.For safety,again, we calculate one person per bedroom.3 bedrooms per lot and 31 lots we get 93 people or 10,320 gal per day sewage output based on 110 GPD.This leaves us 2,430 gala day short of the target goal of 12,750 gal per day. Now in the next phases R&M we can apply the PDA aspect by mixing in uses and density ie allowing a 4-unit,2 bedrooms each apartment house on two lots.We can also assign a commercial property some portion or portions of a bedroom allocation of sewage depending on the commercial use,dentist,doctor law office etc.All these torah would accumulate towards the total sewage allowance which would be 116 bedrooms worth or 85%of 15,000.00 gal per day. An arrangement such as this will make it easy to keep a naming total for the future planning dept.and town engineer. We will have a way of assessing all development from a pre-set menu of uses and assigned sewage rates, keep a running total and leaving a good"tax payer cushion". If indeed as it seems it will take years to completely build out this development a simple arrangement like this will allow the in fill to occur without refiguring or calculating to see where the running total is.If the developer doesn't meet his max.allowance then the TOL has a better cushion as the burden is not on the TOL to take any chances in this endeavor. A system like this w ith a preset maximum and an 85%cushion factor protects the TOL and non benefit residents as well as benefited residents by having as much as possible spelled out up front in as succinct language as possible.Part of a PDA should not be a floating size of capacity based on the size of the sewage system,only the make up of the density and uses within a defined maximum.Once again the TOL has got to be willing to accept the risk of failure and weigh that against the benefit to the TOL as a whole. As far as a fee schedule for O&M and a fee for an accumulating reserve replacement fund,the pre determined up front maximum density is also a must.This lets all know what the cost is and what the end(total build out)cost will be.If the rates•for example.are based on the previously set 116 units talked about above or 116 bedrooms worth of development each lot in phase one will get charged 3 units.Upon the completion of phase one 36 units will have been assessed and ur+ed..Each house sold in essence is paying 3/116 of the total fee.Meanwhile the developer is charged with picking up all the remaining portions of these 116 units and they would drop off as the lots are sold.1 feel its necessary to start 100%O&M foe structure from the start as the system will be in use and has the possibility of failure from the start.Also it would be wrong to expect the first few residents to pay for all O&M or that the TOL contribute any money for O&M.This system would also put the developer on a quickened pace to complete the project as he will be anxious to switch the sewage fee to buyers.The thing to remember here is the TOL has on obligation financially in any foes for O&M or development process and a simple fee structure like this assures this. When Phase II&111 move along and the mixed use is applied to the development. The per-assigned units will be charged to new owners or sub-developers when the lots are sold and that amount will be dropped off the primary developers total O&M fees.Any speculative purchases will have to start paying their O&M immediately.lixamples of mixed use totals might again be a 4-unit apartment house.2 bedrooms each on 2 building lots for a total of 8 new sewage units or a 25%increase in density from just 2 lots.'These combinations can be mixed and matched with the PDA and keep accumulating toward our 1 16 unit total. If in the end we are totally built out and full and the sewage units didn't get to the 116 units(we should be close)an adjustment would have to be made to the O&M foe.This adjustment can be covered in the original signed contract with buyers and the TOT..If for example we get to 116 sewage units each 3 bedroom home will cover 2.59%of the O&M foe.If the total sewage units actually built is 105 unit's the same 3 bedroom house would increase to 2.86%of the O&M fee.The changes would be very small and done once,upon completion of the project,as opposed to a portion that will constantly change if we don't set limits up front. 10 APPROVED There is no totally fair way to assign cost on this project until the project is done and operating cost are known.The TOL will have to rely on the TOL engineer to create an estimated cost that hopefully will cover all the costs and if say in three years we have to much money we can readjust the fee.But the flip side of this is we don't have enough money and our TOL contracts with the new residents have to be renegotiated higher or the non benefit residents are forced to pony up money to meet the TOL obligation to this development.So until this system creates a history of cost the burden again has got to be on the developer,sub developers and primary users in this benefit district and clearly stated to the rest of the citizenry not benefited.The primary developer would be very reluctant to come back,once the lots are sold,and give the TOL more money to cover actual cost,once determined,if we don't get enough up front.The bond talked about in the Feb.meeting would not cover anything but total failure as you couldn't write a bond that could be partially used in a piece meal fashion.I assume this bond would have to have a life expectancy so eventually the TOL is on its own.We have got to make every effort to get it right the first time So back to my original premise that we have got to make a cap on this project and work within this cap to keep it fair ,sane and equitable for all involved.This is not to say this board can not set a higher density or change the numbers from my examples,I have tried to create a realistic scenario with the numbers.Just allowing 116 bedrooms worth of development on this land size creates a 18.5%more dense development then would be allowed under current zoning rules with sewer&water but that is why we are considering a PDA. My conclusion is that this should not be rushed into an approval despite the time and effort the developer has put in to this project as they did take a lot of steps based on incorrect information thru no fault of this board or the TOL. Connie Wilcox: It is her understanding that a PDA is what Mr. Seacord is proposing. The PDA will be in phases, starting with Phase I. Each phase will come before the Planning Board for approval. In addition, Mr. Seacord can not build beyond the capacity of the sewer. Jeff Overstrom further stated with the request from the DEC requesting further information from the Developer with respect to the 10 state standards, which addresses a peaking factor and capacity above and beyond what is calculated. The site plan itself looks good from a Planning perspective, however, Mr. Overstrom feels the Developer/Engineer should be given the opportunity to provide the DEC with the information they are requesting. Wayne Mattison: Suggested that Mr. Ellis's letter be part of a condition in the Letter of Intent. Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt: Advised the next step for the Planning Board is to recommend to the Town Board whether this PDA can be approved or not approved. In additions, the Planning Board can recommend conditions not only in the Statement of Intent and addenda,but also additional conditions. 11 APPROVED July 14,2008 Richard Platt Code Enforcement Officer Zoning and Planning Admmistiation Town of Lansing Box 186 Lansmg,NY 14882 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL RC: Review Pursuant to§239-I,-m,and-n of the New York State General Mttlldpal Law Action: ansrng ommons Subdhisios—Preliminary Site Plan Review/Sketch Plat Dear Mr.Platt This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to§239--I,-in,and-n of the New York State General Municipal Law.The Department has reviewed the proposal,as submitted,and has determined that it may have negative inter-community,or county-wide impacts as described below. We recommend modification of the proposal.If the Board does not incorporate these modifications into its approval,such approval will require a vote of a superrt ority(meaning a majority plus one)of all members of the decision-making body. Recommended Modifications: . The proposed package sewage treatment plant should be screened and buffered through design, landscaping,or both as State Route 34 is a Scenic Byway and a sewage treatment plant could be visible from Route 34 and degrade the visual landscape.Detailed plans for the treatment plant, including visual impacts,should be submitted for County Planning Department review. • _A full traffic study should be completed for the impacted section of State Route 34 with particular focus on the intersections with Cayuga Vista Drive and Woodsedge Drive. The Department offers the foilowing comments regarding the proposed project,which are not formal recommendations under General Municipal Law§239-land–tn. Comments: The proposed residential subdivision undermunes the goals of the Empire Zone in which it is located. The proposed subdivision will provide a single-use residential development and the deed restrictions for the proposed subdivision specify-'no commercial use,business or professional office may be operated or maintained—without the approval of the developers." We arc concerned that the proposed discharge of more than 12,000 gallons/day of treated wastewater into an intern»ttent stream,which is essentially a roadside ditch adjacent to Cayuga Vista Drive,i8 inappropriate. inclusion through Diversity eh a 12 APPROVED David Hatfield offered the following Resolution; RESOLUTION No. 09-30 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDING TO TOWN BOARD CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNDER WHICH LANSING COMMONS PDA APPLICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR PDA APPROVAL BY THE TOWN BOARD WHEREAS, Applicant, J. Ronald Seacord, has requested Town Board Approval of a PDA Application respecting 13.559 acre three (3) phase residential and commercial mixed use development in the B1 District located at the south of intersection of Cayuga Vista Drive and Woodsedge Drive in the Town of Lansing, P/O Tax Map Parcel 37-1-2- 53.222; and WHEREAS, the Lansing Planning Board has considered and carefully reviewed the Applicant's Statement of Intent to Comply with Conditions and Specifications of the Planning Board, dated January 7, 2009 and Addendum thereto dated February 3, 2009, respecting the Lansing Commons PDA Proposal; and WHEREAS, the Public Comment Period on the Application was commenced on January 26, 2009, pursuant to Section 706.5 of the Lansing Land Use Ordinance, and a public hearing was held by the Lansing Planning Board on February 23, 2009 respecting Planning Board consideration of the PDA Application materials and the Applicant's Statement of Intent and Addendum thereto, as well as consideration of whether the Planning Board should recommend to the Town Board either: (1) disapproval of the proposed PDA development; or (2) conditional approval of the PDA development, subject to such conditions set forth in the Statement of Intent to Comply and Addendum thereto and/or any other conditions otherwise imposed by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on February 23, 2009, the residents of the Town of Lansing were given a full opportunity to be heard respecting the Lansing Commons PDA Development Proposal, and the Planning Board reviewed said comments and concerns of the residents, including concerns respecting the following potential impacts of the project: increased traffic, capacity of septic system package plant, density issues, infrastructure capacity, cost of sewer and/or wastewater district formation, operation and maintenance of the proposed sewage package plant/infrastructure, and the potential environmental impacts of release of effluent into Minnegar Brook, and/or the adjacent stone quarry, and/or ultimately Cayuga Lake; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2009 and February 23, 2009, and March 9, 2009, the Planning Board, pursuant to Lansing Land Use Ordinance Section 706.5, underwent site plan review of the proposed PDA development, and has considered and carefully reviewed the requirements of the Land Use Ordinance Section 701 et seq., relative to Planning Board site plan review and the unique needs of the Town due to the topography, 13 APPROVED the soil types and distributions, and other natural and man made features upon and surrounding the area of the proposed Site Plan, and consideration of storm water drainage, erosion control, parking, water and sewer facilities, driveways, site lighting, off site impacts, roadways and walkways, height regulations, landscaping, open space, and compliance with other state, county and local agency regulations; and the Planning Board has also considered the Town's Comprehensive Plan and compliance therewith; and WHEREAS, upon due consideration and deliberation by the Town of Lansing Planning Board, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that, pursuant to Section 706.5 of the Town Of Lansing Land Use Ordinance, the Planning Board hereby recommends to the Town Board that the Town Board conditionally approve the Lansing Commons PDA application, subject to such conditions as set forth in the Developer/Applicant's Statement of Intent to Comply and all Addendum thereto and also subject to the following additional conditions recommended by the Planning Board: 1. The Town Board's SEQR environmental review of the project should carefully scrutinize the Developer's proposed wastewater effluent discharge into Minnegar Brook for any significant negative impacts created from said release of said effluent into Minnegar Brook and/or the Quarry located on the adjacent property owned by Tom Besemer, and ultimate discharge thereof into Cayuga Lake. Any identified significant negative impacts should be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable and the Developer must obtain all requisite effluent discharge approvals, including SPEDES Permits issued by the NYSDEC. The Developer shall provide the documentation and information requested by NYSDEC in its letter to the Developer's Engineer, Wayne Mattison, dated March 4, 2009, including Completion of Package Plant Scoring Sheet; construction and installation materials for manholes, sewer/water crossing, trench and backfill detail, septic tanks and pumping stations detail, if relevant; design data for the elements of the treatment and conveyance system; material and performance specifications; sludge handling and disposal specifications; and case studies for the treatment system. The Developer shall install a package plant fence with locking gate to protect the package plant from potential vandalism and to provide for public safety as recommended by NYDEC in its March 4, 2009 correspondence to the Developer's Engineer, Wayne Mattison. The treatment and collection wastewater system shall be in compliance with the Ten-States Standards, 2004 edition, in accordance with NYSDEC requirements. 2. Cost of Operation of the Sewer and Water Systems shall be initially borne by the Developer with any balance charged to the Benefit District after dedication to the Town of Lansing. Construction of package plant and all infrastructure shall be permitted only subject to a performance and completion bond to be posted by the Developer, with the Town of Lansing 14 APPROVED as the named beneficiary thereof, in an amount not less than the anticipated completion costs of the Sewage and Water Systems, including package plant and infrastructure, or as recommended by the Town Engineer. The Bond shall recite that it is not contingent upon, or subject to, any indemnity agreement between the Developer, any contractor and/or the Bond Issuing Agency. 3. Creation and Town Board Approval of any and all requisite Sewer & Wastewater Districts. 4. The Proposed Sewage Package Plant must be designed and built for maximum capacity of the proposed PDA project as projected for all three phases of the PDA project. 5. Maximum Density for the entire project must be identified by the Applicant and approved by the Town Board in any PDA Approval by the Town Board. 6. The Town Board and the Developer shall conduct Public Information Sessions, concurrent with the Town Board Public Hearing(s), respecting costs and operation of the proposed Sewer and Wastewater Systems and construction details thereof. 7. PDA Approval with Condition by the Town Board should encompass any and all deed restrictions, if any, currently encumbering the development property to be developed; 8. Notification of the Project and the proposed effluent discharge into Minnegar Brook shall be sent to all property owners owning lands adjacent to Minnegar Brook, downstream from the proposed Lansing Commons PDA project site. and it is further RESOLVED, that, pursuant to Section 706 et seq. of the Land Use Ordinance, the Planning Board recommends that the Town Board set public hearing(s) for Town Board consideration of the PDA and SEQR review, said hearing(s) to be held by the Town Board within 45 days of this resolution, pursuant to Section 706.6.1 of the Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 706.6.1 of the Town of Lansing Land 15 APPROVED Use Ordinance, Town Board conditional approval or disapproval of the PDA is to be issued by the Town Board within 30 days of said Town Board public hearing(s). Nancy Loncto seconded. VOTE AS FOLLOWS Thomas Ellis - Nay David Hatfield- Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Richard Prybyl - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. Approval/Denial of February 23, 2009 Minutes Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt requested on page 8 under Connie Wilcox be clarified to read; • Connie Wilcox: Advised the Planning Board and Mr. Buhl that there is no connection on Cherry Road for sewer. Before the Planning Board moved forward, Ms. Wilcox would like to see letters of agreements from the other Municipalities/Village of Lansing and Cayuga Heights. Nancy Loncto made a motion to approve as amended. Thomas Ellis seconded. VOTE AS FOLLOWS Thomas Ellis - Nay David Hatfield- Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Richard Prybyl - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. Training A brief discussion took place with respect to scheduling an upcoming Training Session provided by Scott Chatfield, free of charge to the Town. The date of March 23, 2009 @ 6:30 was offered. Ms. Loncto requested that other Municipalities as well as ZBA/ Zoning Committee, Town Board Members and the General Public be invited. Questions can be prepared in advance of the training and submitted to Ms. Loncto. Lin Davidson offered a video camera for use at the Meeting. 16 APPROVED Nancy Loncto made a motion to adjourn the Meeting. Thomas Ellis seconded. VOTE AS FOLLOWS Thomas Ellis - Nay David Hatfield- Aye Nancy Loncto - Aye Richard Prybyl - Aye Lin Davidson - Aye MOTION CARRIED. 17