The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-02-27 • Town of Lansing Planning Board Meeting February 27, 2012 at 7: 15 PM Lansing Town Hall - Large Court Rm. http ://www . lansingtown . com / Agenda Time: Agenda Topics • 7:15 P. M. Public Comments / Concerns Tompkins County Planning Department, Re : Review of the " Draft Development Focus Areas Strategy " Any other business deemed necessary • • Town of Lansing Planning Board Meeting February 27 , 2012 Visitors Please Sign In Below : (Please Print) Name Address Na,,,, 1 Lerveh 3cl VALitrect Ouitim/ deufte47(./1 S /T.4 I r ‘AN \oti I 1 ge, //uric- fa kin CoviAll\-1 Pkinekvt„ • ceD -To2_, / 734 7zeivit, s , M , y hfrarbAew (, /7/1, / I / Rcetic co L ; vvi l ‘ 3 gS kC Ifs r\ -) ct,t6 ason 17, 10i ; c • 1 U at LUU. i5 http : //www . lansingtown . com/ l a TOWN ofLANSING ` 44ek' ,3, iri "Home of Industry, Agriculture and Scenic Beauty " 9. � 't \ ZONING, PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT • , Box 186 Lansing, NY 14882 Phone: 533-7054 E-mail : tolcodes@twcny.rr.com Town of Lansing Web: www.lansingtown.com Planning Board Meeting February 27, 2012 at 7: 15 PM • Lansing Town Hall - Large Court Rm. http ://www.lansingtown.com/ Agenda Time: Agenda Topics ID7:15 P. M. Public Comments / Concerns Tompkins County Planning Department, Re : Review of the " Draft Development Focus Areas Strategy " Any other business deemed necessary reit .. fl i AVE • 2 /a a To : Lansing Planning Board Members lo& From: Lansing Pathways Committee Date: September 12, 2011 Re: Initial recommendations for pathways presented at September 12th Developer' s Conference - Preliminary Proposal by Applicant(s) Lucente Holding & Lucente Homes for a Planned Development Area Expansion, Warren Road & Village Circle Two Lansing Pathway Committee members (Ruth Hopkins and Jennifer Miller) met and had a cooperative and productive meeting with Larry Fabbroni Sr. and Larry Fabbroni Jr. on Thursday Sept 1, to review the initial plans for the proposed development on Warren Road. We reviewed ways in which pathways would provide recreation for residents within the proposed development area, ways in which pathways might benefit residents by connecting to the longer term plans for town-wide connecting paths, and ways the paths might provide safe passage along busy Warren Road. • 1 . The pathways sketched on the plan we reviewed showed a. paths from parking lots to the apartment buildings. These paths were connected which will provide additional benefit of a walking path through the development b. paths leading to the swimming pool and community building and to the path that follows the east-west military lot line, and c . paths along all the internal roads and along Warren Road. 2. We agreed with Messrs Fabbroni that paths connecting to adjacent Town connector paths would be beneficial to the residents. These possibilities include: • Connection to a path that might follow the Lucente lot lines leading toward Niemi Road for a connection to Dryden pathways. This connection would logically extend from the eastern edge of the military lot line. For this reason, we recommend that an easement for the Lot line pathway be extended on the plan sketch to the edge of the development. • Connection to Farrell Road along an easement that would be constructed if a water line is installed leading to this development. • Connection to a potential future pathway leading west along the same military lot line, adjacent to the current Cardamone development on the northern edge of this line. This connector would benefit residents by IPallowing them, in the long term as the paths are developed, to walk or use non-motorized transportation to the Town Center and to paths toward the Lake. Based on this preliminary sketch and plan we recommend 1 . that the paths shown on the sketch provided be included in the developer's agreement as the apartments are completed, block by block, not waiting for the community building or all of the apartments. 2. that the expected surfaces be included in the developer's agreement with a suggestion that they be either asphalt or a cinder walk as described on pages 20- 25 of the Lansing Village Greenway Plan construction guidelines. 3 . that the pathways along Warren Rd be maintained by the developer during the winter months allowing safe access to the bus stop. 4 . that the military lot line be extended to the eastern edge on the sketch plan. 5. that the developer's agreement for this PDA include the understanding that the Military Lot Line Path would be available to others as a 4111/ community benefit. 6. that the Planning Board advise the Town Board and Pathways Committee of the desire for a path easement along any water line easement to this area. 7. that the sketch show plans for future connectors to such water line pathway or to future connector toward Niemi Rd, but that such paths need not be developed until such time as they would connect to the future path. • 8 . that should the apartment buildings be sold to individual owners that the Town be given an easement to the military lot line pathway of 10' wide, and an easement along Warren Road . 9. that a line and easement for a foot frail (hard pack) be included on the southern edge of the property to the north of the existing frees and where possible through the northern wetlands panhandle shown with trees. These would serve as a path for residents who are 'walking dogs, or simply out getting exercise' . Given the high density and likelihood for • many children in this area, an additional opportunity for outdoor recreation seems warranted. Maintenance in the form of tree clipping for this pathway could become the responsibility of the Lansing Pathways Committee. . IN • 9 1' • OPERATIONS . 06/22/11 SUBSTITUTED FOR 532558 � 06/22/11 3RD READING CAL.833 06/22/11 PASSED SENATE 06/22/11 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY 12/22/11 delivered to governor 01/03/12 signed chap.603 STATE OF NEW YORK 72 - -B Cal . No . 95 2011 - 2012 Regular Sessions IN ASSEMBLY ( Prefiled) January 5 , 2011 Introduced by M . of A . PAU.LIN , MARKEY , REILLY , GALEF , CASTRO , KAVANAGH , • PERRY , SPANO , ZEBROWSKI , LIFTON , LATIMER - - Multi - Sponsored by - - M . o f A . ABINANTI , GIBSON , LUPARDO , M . MILLER , THIELE , WEISENBERG - - read o nce and referred to the Committee on Governmental Operations - - ✓ eported and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means - - committee discharged , bill amended , ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee - - passed by Assembly and delivered to the Senate , recalled from the Senate , vote reconsidered , bill amended , ordered ✓ eprinted , retaining its place on the order of third reading AN ACT to amend the public officers law , in relation to requiring certain records which are the subject of a discussion conducted at an open meeting be made available to the public The People of the State of New York , represented in Senate and Assem- ble , do enact as follows : 1 Section 1 . Section 103 of the public officers law is amended by adding 2 a new subdivision ( e ) to read as follows : 3 ( e ) Agency records available to the public pursuant to article six of 4 this chapter , as well as any proposed resolution , law , rule , regulation , 5 policy or any amendment thereto , that is scheduled to be the subject of 6 discussion by a public body during an open meeting shall be made avail - 7 able , upon request therefor , to the extent practicable as determined by 8 the agency or the department , prior to or at the meeting during which 1119 the records will be discussed . Copies of such records may be made 10 available for a reasonable fee , determined in the same manner as 11 provided therefor in article six of this chapter . If the agency in 12 which a public body functions maintains a regularly and routinely 13 updated website and utilizes a high speed Internet connection , such 1 /23 /2012 -.711111 II � � 14 records shall be • osted on the website to the extent 15 determined b . the a •, enc : ;dor the desartment • rior to theameetable ;S EXPLANATION - - Matter in ita_csr ( undexscored ) is new ; matter in brackets [ - ) is' old law to be omitted . A . 72 - - B j LBD00911 - 11 - 1 2 1 asenc ma but shall not be re .: . ired to , e -. eend additional mone . s to 2 im • lement the :• rovisions of 1tthis subdivision . 3 § 2 . This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall 4 have become a law . NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f) BILL NUMBER : A72B SPONSOR : Paulin ( MS ) T I TLF OF 8 I ----_.LL : An act to amend the to Public officers requiring certain records which are the subject ofaa � discussioin nnn conducted at an open meeting be made" available to the public ft PURPOSE : To require that certain records the subject of discussion at an openjmeetinhrch are scheduled to be extent practicable , prior to or at such meetinge made available , to the • • SURy OF PROVISIONS : Section one amends section Officers Law by adding a new subdivisionTi 103e of the Public requires that certain records , I' ( e ) . This new subdivision requires by whichare scheduled to be the subject of a public body during an open meeting , shall be made avail - able , upon request therefor , to the extent�' practicable as determined by the agency or department , prior to or at the meeting . Copies records may be made available for a reasonable fee , determinedof insthe same manner as for a FOIL request . functions maintains a regularlyq If( the agency in which a public body utilizes a high - speed Inernetconnection ,and 1esuchly prrecorrdsdated eshill band e on the website to the extent practicable as determined byhthe agency ctor department , prior to the meeting . the or agency may , This section also clarifies that an implementtheprovisions not ofethisusecttion expend additional moneys to • Section two defines the effective date as thirt enactment date , y days following the JUSTIFICATION : In many instances • Meetings Law conducts a discussion aofualrecord body coveredhich was not made avail - b able to the public prior to or at then Ythe Open w meeting . Thus , although members of • 1 /23/2012 J the public are present at the meeting , they are unable to observe the •proceedings in a meaningful way . This legislation seeks to implement the recommendations made by the Committee on Open Government to correct this problem and enhance the public' s right to observe the decision -making process . If enacted into law , this bill would require that public bodies covered by the Open Meetings Law make records available to the public that are scheduled to be discussed at the body ' s meeting . Specifically , this legislation would require that such records be made available to the public , upon request therefor , to the extent practicable as determined by the agency , prior to or at the meeting ; and posted on the relevant agency ' s website , if it maintains a reguliarly and routinely updated website and utilizes a high speed Internet connection , to the extent practicable prior to the meeting . This legislation will actually decrease the burdens imposed on agencies . Making certain records available OR the agency website , or in hard copy at or prior to the meeting , greatly reduces the likelihood of FOIL requests for the records after the meeting is held . Additionally , post - ing the record on the agency ' s website imposes no cost to the agency , and eliminates the majority of administrative tasks necessary to process a FOIL request . Such proactive disclosure has been strongly recommended by the Committee on Open Government and 'comports with the movement Aft toward transparency in government taking place at the state and federal lop levels . LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : A . 9911 -A of 2010 , passed Assembly . Same as S . 6849 -A , referred to rules . • FISCAL IMPLICATIONS : None . LOCAL FISCAL IMPLICATIONS : None . EFFECTIVE DATE : This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become a law . Cindy Goliber Town ClerkIr 35 Market Street Potsdam NY 13676 315-265-3430 (phone) 315-265-3931 (fax) townclerk@potsdamny.us • Cindy Goliber Town Clerk 35 Market Street Potsdam NY 13676 1 /23/2012 r • s-, :,., F:011 flit- a Thaler & Thaler MEMORANDUM - LESISLATIVE ALERT AMENDMENTS TO OPEN MEETINGS LAW § 103 As many already may know, particularly Town Clerks, the Governor recently signed legislation amending the Public Officers Law ("POL"), Article 7, § 103 (commonly knows as the Open Meetings Law ("OML")), by adding a new subdivision (e) . This legislation was signed into law upon January 3, 2012 and, by its terms, takes effect upon February 3, 2012. This is legislation that largely flew under the radar unheralded; and while its goals are laudable, the impacts and fiscal implications could be quite large . Interestingly, in the legislative memorandum the local fiscal impacts were listed as "none" - which is demonstrably false. The text of flus new law is short, but its implications are not • The People of the State of New York, trepresented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1 . Section 103 of the public officers law is amended by adding a new subdivision (e) to read as follows: (e) Agency records available to the public pursuant to article six of this chapter; as well as any proposed resolution, law, rule, regulation, policy or any amendment thereto, that is scheduled to be the subject of discussion by a public body during an open meeting shall be made available, upon request therefor] to the extent practicable as determined by the agency or the department, prior to or at the meeting during which the records will be discussed . Copies of such records may be made available for a reasonable fee, determined in the same manner as provided therefore in article six of this If the agency in which a public body functions maintains a regularly and routinely updated website and utilizes a high speed Internet connection, such records shall be postedon the website to the extent practicable as determined by the agency or the department, prior to the meeting. An agency may, but shall not be required to, expend additional moneys to implement the provisions of this subdivision. § 2. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become a law. • The first clause of § 1 seems relatively clear - extra copies of what the Board is reviewing, or what the Board may rely upon in making a determination, must be available either before or at the meetin&so that the public is better able to follow along ii • .- • and understand what a Board is considering . Many towns already do this - however, this law seems to expand the scope of current practices to require the production of whatever is under review, including background or supporting materials, as it requires the availability of any documents that are subject to the Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL," also knows as POL Article 6) . There are certainly issues here to consider, and each document must be checked to see whether it is subject to FOIL, whether it is privileged, whether it may impact contract or other negotiations, or whether it contains information that is prohibited from disclosure (such as personally identifying information) . However, and despite the workload that will be placed upon town officers and employees by this first clause of § 1, the second clause of § 1 is problematic as is requires the posting of such information upon the town website prior to the meeting. So, what does this all mean, particularly considering that almost every town in New York has a website? Here are some topics and answers to consider: 1 . This applies to any "Agency" as defined in POL Article 6; thus including the Town Board, the Planning Board, the Board of Zoning Appeals, and other public bodies that meet the definition of " Agency." Per POL § 86, any " Agency" means " any state or • municipal department, board, bureau, division, commission, committee, public authority, public corporation, council, office or other governmental entity performing a governmental or proprietary function for the state or any one or more municipalities thereof, except the judiciary or the state legislature. " 2. The production of paper copies can allow a town to be reimbursed per the Town's FOIL rules or procedures, but in no case beyond what is permitted by POL Article 6. FOIL itself has become a morass with technical rulings, substantial fines for non-compliance, etc. FOIL was amended in 2005, 2006, 2008, and again in 2011 . In some years there was more than one amendment, and this does not count the evolving rules of procedure, the ongoing advisory opinions of the Committee on Open Government, or the changes in judicial interpretation as to what is and what is not required to be disclosed, or what is exempt from disclosure. The "inter-agency" materials exemption from FOIL is just one example where the law is in flux. Hence, and once again, many towns should take a hard look at FOIL and the OML and generally update their laws or procedures accordingly. 3. This law requires that any document that could be required to be produced under FOIL now be posted on a town's website in advance of the meeting - though this applies only to municipalities that maintain a regularly and routinely updated website that utilizes a high speed internet connection. What is "regularly" and whether the • term "high speed" refers to the town's access to the site or the access available to the ISP location where the site is hosted are matters left unclear. For towns that meet this definition, which in this area, will be most towns, great care must be exercised to items not subject to FOIL, such as inter-agency materials, sensitive materials exclude . that are excluded from the reach of FOIL, legal advice, o enation orpersonallyidentifying d matters, and matters pertaining to personnel of employees or citizens (see POL Article 6-A for more° on . thePOLe § 87; informationin Privacy Protection Law). General exemptions for oOr des�describe FOIL exemptions as, however, be forewarned, POL § 87 does not cove p pri for example, there are privileges that arise in law, such as the attorney-client on pr viles the privilege against disclosure of pnon-disci sure of certain disabilities. ersonal medical information pertaining to the mandatory 4. The rule seems to be one of practicality - whether it is feasible and practical noto place such records online . Thus, as of now, large platsat the last second wouldn of be fall under this rule; similarly, documents that arrive covered. However, most documents and submissions would be covered,some such as local ant $� laws, petitions, letters, applications, draft resolutions, etc. There are sigat nificant be issues hiding here, such as the application of �a�ou aw #o a proposedg subdivision, from: reviewing hundreds of pages of information topographical maps, correspondences, dozens of large maps, stormwater reports, 4111/ towns SWPPPs, etc. As well, there is bound to be an issue with draft the action,Many usually have resolutions prepared in advance to review and document the history and basis for the decision. However, to the public this t resolutions are like je an that issue has been pre-determined when, in fact,dwaccepted c�ed or rejehat cted, depending upon subject drafts - they are often amended, updated, p matter, the discussion of the Town Board, including input from het purblic, and will the actual vote as may be tallied. But, this is not how having a drafsometimes be perceived . . . . 5. We are unsure as to whether all bills and vouchers are subject auditthisovoucheOL § 87 excludes outside audits, but does not" address the internal rs (" paying the bills" ) that occurs at least monthly at regular Town ("bills' ) that mmeetings . Indeed, Town Law § 119 requires a consecutive numbering of be audited by the Supervisor, upon which an abstract is usuallybuilt and bill reviewedd thusat or before a meeting, and at which meeting the abstract119 re authorized to be paid. Since this is an " action" by a covered " gar cy, J and ainspections is§this requires the claims, audit, and publicly well? Must every bill paid at then something that must be placed on the website every meeting now be posted online, together with the nthat numbered the aanit sae andis thyabs but of such bills? Really? A strict reading of this law suggests we instead urge towns to consider this as impractical due to h volume ofateri ls, • the excessive time that would be needed to redact informationprivileged subject to disclosure, among other reasons. However, we also suspect that some ruling on this issue may be issued by the Committee on Open Government or the courts, so stay tuned . . . . Overall, this law seems more about transparency of government than anything else - and in such circumstance it is probably a good idea as we live in an area where we are blessed with many helpful and knowledgeable citizens whose informed input could only help . The problem is the cost and developing a regular system to make sure this happens, as well as discerning the relevant and feasible documents from those that just cannot be scanned, or those that should not be made available (personnel matters and litigation issues are easy examples that come to mind). Undertaking the role of a cynic, one cannot help but wonder webmasters, web design and computer/network support contractors, and ISPs, who are often paid by the ho for this work, have a powerful lobby we have not yet heard of. Compliance with this law for every board, commission, committee, etc., will very likely require three to six website postings and updates monthly. Absent having qualified personnel on staff who possess (or can learn) these skills, who have the time necessary to parse through and scan documents, as well as the time to, identify what should not be disclosed or what is illegal to post, it seems that these outside web and Internet contractors will necessarily see their workloads, and their revenues, rise in the very near future. y Overall, we highly recommend that the bras • p e •as determined by the agency or the department" be take quite literally and that each town develop and approve a policy that covers these documents and this new law. Any determination of what is posted or what is excluded must be reasonable, and a case-by-case determination of what is reasonable under the circumstances might prove problematic (and it could likely only lead to complaints or claims) . The better options is to have some written policies and procedures so that such determinations have a reasonable basis underlying and supporting them and, as importantly, so they do not appear to be ad hoc decisions that could be perceived as "selective bias. " We are available to assist with the implementation be needed to implement a system that ;compliesw t this n ws law.andprocePlease dfeel free to as a too contact us for. assistance: Guy K. Krogh, Esq. Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt, Esq. Thaler & Thaler Thaler & Thaler 309 North Tioga Street 309 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14851-0266 Ithaca, New York 14851-0266 Telephone: (607) 272-2314 Telephone: (607) 272-2314 Facsimile: (607) 272-8466 Facsimile: (607) 272-8466 G1Cro h®ThalerandThaler.co1n LSchmitt@ThalerandThaler.com) • www.ThalerandThaler.com • • • ' . 0 0 G) V C CO 13 2•Q V CO J /0 W 0) C C C SC C O. N r O N I N T.0 O M X X X X 0 X X 0 X X X X 1 N N O LL M X X X X X ox X O X X X N Nm • N O W N X X X X X X -°1 X X X X X m O -J O —y C L t" w arni N U T N w D ra L t' J COy > C 7 CO J a y 0 a c Eco •a O c co C E - w a` u U IX N H d .0 'N Q C O �' N X O c) > N es 0 C0 ~ N .0 a U O w it I -3 J 2 0 d co (n -- N CO V N CO h CO a, D •- N C') O N 0 N. (O O' O — (NN 1`9 O t0 N . 1rf N C] N N N N Nu). '��1 eK�� .+� en I+1 con M N rat)