Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1996-10-01n • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 1, 1996 FILED TOWN /A/� OF ITHACA Date 1 / 9� Clerk 000 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, October 1, 1996, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7 :30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Candace Cornell, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), John Barney (Attorney for the Town), Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering). ALSO PRESENT: Mary Turner DePalma, Bernie DePalma, Anne Perna, Vince Perna, Judy Long, Thomas L. Bonn. MOTION by James Ainslie, seconded by Herbert Finch: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby appoints Board Member Robert Kenerson as temporary Chairperson of the meeting for October 1, 1996 until relieved by Chairperson Cornell. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES -Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Temporary Chairperson Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :42 p.m. Temporary Chairperson Kenerson read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard. III A III IL"511PA5 VA NO MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the July 16, 1996, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, Temporary Chairperson Kenerson called for a vote. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 OCTOBER 1, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 AYES -Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by James Ainslie, seconded by Herbert Finch: RESOLVED, that Minutes of the September 17, 1996, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, Temporary Chairperson Kenerson called for a vote. AYES -Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: REPORT OF TOWN ENGINEER: MODIFICATION OF LOT LINE FOR LOT #62, MARCY COURT - DEER RUN PHASE IIIB SUBDIVISION. • The Planning Board Members had a brief discussion on the handout that was supplied to them from Director of Engineering Daniel Walker on a modification of the lot line at Marcy Court Lot # 62. Temporary Chairperson Kenerson handed the meeting over to Chairperson Candace Cornell at this point. AGENDA ITEM: INFORMAL DISCUSSION OF BAKER PARCEL (TAX PARCEL NO. 58=1=14e2)9 SLATERVILLE ROAD. (POST PONED FROM SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 MEETING Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that each Board Member was provided with materials in their packets. Mr. Kanter stated that the Bakers own a parcel of land on Slaterville Road (Tax Parcel No. 58 -1- 14.2), which consists of approximately 12.7 acres. This is a parcel that is partly in the new Conservation Zone that the Town Board recently enacted. Another part of the parcel is in the R -15 zone that goes along Slaterville Road. The parcel is an odd shaped piece of land that has frontage on Slaterville Road. Mr. Kanter pointed out the parcel on a map entitled "Exhibit A - Town of Ithaca Proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District," dated April 30, 1996 and revised June 26, 1996. Mr. Kanter stated that this agenda item is for the Planning Board to have an informal discussion. Mr. Kanter stated that in the memorandum he sent to the Planning Board, the question that was posed by Mr. Baker was, "If the City offers to acquire part of his •property as part of the City's Park Land Substitution Project, what could happen with his remaining land in the Conservation Zone ?" Mr. Kanter stated that the City has currently offered to buy the back PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 OCTOBER 1, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29,1996 four acres of Mr. Baker's parcel. This would leave approximately three acres within the Conservation Zone, and the Conservation Zone now requires seven ,,acres minimum lot size to be a legal building lot. Mr. Kanter stated that the question posed by Mr. Baker was, what could he do with the remaining three acres if he was to sell the four back acres to the City. The memorandum was put together to run through some of the possibilities. Mr. Kanter stated that he has had some brief discussions with Mr. Baker on the telephone about this proposal and some of the possibilities. Mr. Kanter stated that he told Mr. Baker that he would discuss this with the Planning Board, and he would write a letter in regards to some of the ideas on how to approach this. Mr. Kanter stated that the first point of focus would be No. 5 in the memo that would suggest that Mr. Baker propose a cluster subdivision and average the density between the two zones. Mr. Kanter stated that the current State Legislation authorizing cluster specifically states that when there is a parcel that is split zoned, that the parcel could average between the two densities. It would be possible to build more in the lower density zone, as long as it is one parcel and doing this as a unified clustered subdivision. Mr. Kanter stated that based on the overall size of Mr. Baker's parcel that he could theoretically get up to a maximum of 20 dwelling units under the existing zoning. A cluster subdivision could be done with some units on the R -15 zone and some on the Conservation Zone area. The three acres in the middle of the Conservation Zone appears to be the most buildable part of the property. This might be one of the best places on the site where clustered buildings could go. Mr. Kanter stated that adjacent to this area is the Commonland Development with Penny Lane •coming through the development to extend to the edge of Mr. Baker's parcel. Part of the approval of Commonlands included the potential that some day there would be a roadway extending from Penny Lane to the Baker and surrounding properties. There is still questions as to whether the Town actually owns Penny Lane or not. Chairperson Cornell asked what is the topography just west of Penny Lane. Director of Planning Kanter stated that part of the property in question is fairly level, and that is one of the reasons why the roadway would be possible through there. Director of Engineering Daniel Walker stated that the original intention was not just to gain access to the Baker parcel, but to continue the road to eliminate a long cul -de -sac. There have been problems with emergency access off Penny Lane, so the intention was to continue the road through the Baker property back to Route 79. Director of Planning Kanter stated that in the resolution for approval of Commonlands there was some specific language regarding the future extension of Penny Lane. Chairperson Cornell asked if there have been any problems on Penny Lane with access. Director of Engineering Walker stated that there were some problems with the ownership of Penny Lane that the Attorneys are trying to work out. • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4 OCTOBER 1,1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 Chairperson Cornell asked if there is another access road instead of Penny Lane that could serve the Baker parcel. Director of Engineering Walker responded, no. The Town has a temporary easement on the Clausen property for emergency access. Director of Planning Kanter stated that access off Slaterville Road to the Baker Parcel is a little steep and difficult through the two frontage strips. There might be a way to bring Penny Lane through the area. Director of Engineering Walker stated that he would not recommend any consideration of any subdivision unless that extension was executed. Director of Planning Kanter stated that one of the other possibilities might be No. 1 in the memo, which is to go through a variance process. The process of selling a piece of land to the City would involve a subdivision because of the transaction that would occur. In that process, it would be possible, if the Planning Board thought it was appropriate, to recommend granting a variance for the three acres to be used as a building lot. °There is some justification for a variance, since the four acres being sold to the City would be permanently preserved as park land. Mr. Kanter stated that No. 2 in the memo, which would be for a zoning change could be a possibility. He is not sure, however, that a zoning change would be the best idea with the new Conservation Zone. Every time a different situation comes up, the Planning Board may be changing the original purpose of the Conservation Zone. Mr. Kanter stated that this discussion would be a good chance to get some feedback from the Planning Board to send a message to the Bakers on this. There is no action that needs to be taken at this time. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board could entertain some comments from the public. Thomas Bonn, 110 Penny Lane, stated that he lives approximately an eighth of a mile from the Baker property across the glen that separates the dead end of Penny Lane and the beginning of the property. Mr. Bonn stated that he would like to know if the Town actually owns Penny Lane. The area of Penny Lane that the Town does not own would be somewhere between the Crescent Development and where the dead end of Penny Lane is. Mr. Bonn stated that Mr. Walker referred to some litigation that involve problems with the title for Penny Lane. Mr. Bonn asked if this is public information. Attorney for the Town John Barney stated Lane is, and that he is looking into it. It appears it did not include all of Penny Lane. Attorney conversations with Jerold Weisburd, the develop( • by use as a municipal road, and effectively, this using it and maintaining it. that he is not sure what the title status of Penny that when the conveyance to the Town occurred Barney stated that there have been numerous :r of Commonland. The Town can acquire a title is what has occurred here because the Town is • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 OCTOBER 1, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 Mr. Bonn stated that Penny Lane residents are concerned that the road is relatively new and is already breaking up. Mr. Bonn asked who will be maintaining this road. The Town has been great in terms of snow removal, but there is some break down in the road already. Mr. Bonn stated that there is some irony here when the Board is talking about extending Penny Lane, which does not fall in the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, but the concern is the road. Mr. Bonn stated that he does not think anyone was aware that there were questions about the title of Penny Lane. Attorney Barney stated that when the road was conveyed to the Town it did not include all of Penny Lane at that time. It was conveyed before there was anything on the end of Penny Lane, and the Town is in the process of getting a deed. Mary DePalma, 117 Penny Lane, asked if someone could explain why the Town did not obtain access from Route 79, rather than extending Penny Lane, since there are two ways to access the Baker Parcel. Director of Planning Kanter stated that as Mr. Walker mentioned earlier, the original concept of Penny Lane was to go through those parcels behind Slaterville Road. The access from Slaterville Road is somewhat constrained to the Baker Parcel. There is another parcel just to the north of the Baker Parcel owned by the Sweet's, which is quite constrained in terms of access. It is public record •that the City is also negotiating with the Sweet's on acquiring some or all of their property. In terms of the overall access for that area, Penny Lane was originally intended to go through, and it was approved that way when Commonland was approved. The Town would want to see the best solution for the Bakers to develop their property. Director of Engineering Walker stated that the original approval of Penny Lane was given with the assumption that, at some time in the future, the road would continue to the Baker Parcel then to Route 79. Ms. DePalma stated that she understands the original concept, and asked if that was still necessary. Ms. DePalma stated that she would prefer not to see Penny Lane extended. Ms. DePalma stated that there are environmental constraints going from Penny Lane. There is a big ravine (10 feet high by approximately 20 to 30 yards wide by 20 yards high), which would be a constraint. Ms. DePalma stated that she had talked to an engineer many years ago, who indicated that in order to maintain the integrity of the land a bridge would have to be made. The bridge would also have to be stable enough for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. This would be a big endeavor. Director of Engineering Walker stated that it would be a significant investment to do. Mr. Walker stated that he was not working for the Town when the approval went through for Penny Lane, but he would have recommended against the project unless better provisions for access were discussed. There is a significant life- safety issue with a long cul -de -sac. The Town's maximum cul- de-sac length permitted is approximately 1 000 feet; this one is approximately 2,000 feet. This is why the Town has a secondary emergency access route for emergencies if the main route is • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 OCTOBER 1, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 blocked. If there is any further development, the Town would not want to see anything more at the end of the road without provisions for better access Director of Planning Kanter stated that Mr. Baker does not have any current proposals. This is just a discussion about the City offering to buy part of Mr. Baker's property. Judy Long, 116 Penny Lane, stated that the Planning Board is referring to a troublesome cul- de -sac that she thinks is a desirable dead -end. Ms. Long stated that the neighbors of Penny Lane are horrified at the idea that they might be confronting a development. There are twenty houses distributed over a very long curving road, which might be a problem for the Town, but not for the residents. Ms. Long stated that Penny Lane does not have sidewalks or street lights. They do not need them because the residents use the road in common and use it very carefully. Children play on Penny Lane, which is in use all the time. People are walking their children and pets up and down the road. The peculiarity of Penny Lane is that the neighbors are bordering the watershed, so they live in an area where they have some obligation to care for the environment. The neighbors are nurturing the wildlife that lived there before the houses were built. Ms. Long stated that the neighbors do not want more development because they like it just as it is at this point. The use of the road and what makes it safe is the dead end and it is so marked. The difference between a development and a neighborhood is what everyone wants in their living space, and the residents of Penny Lane have it. There was a little contrast when some unwanted company came this summer to party and threw their garbage about as they wanted. The neighbors had to clean up after the undesirable guests. This could become a great hazard to life on Penny Lane with strangers. Any development to this area would ruin the quality of life for the neighbors. Ms. Long stated that when the Planning Board thinks about these options, she hopes they would remember the horror for those who are committed to this neighborhood. Chairperson Cornell stated that this Board cannot tell people what to do with their property. They can develop on their property as long as it meets the requirements of the Town of Ithaca. Director of Planning Kanter stated that if the City was able to buy all seven acres of the Baker property within the Conservation Zone, that would be great. The City has limited resources available to buy a number of parcels in their overall Parks Substitution Program, so that might not be able to happen. Any pressure that the people could put on the City to do that would be helpful. Mr. Kanter stated that another option would be to simply have the City offer to place a conservation easement on the rear four acres of the Baker property and not worry about the fact of whether it is a legal lot or not. That would probably not fit into the City's Parkland Substitution Proposal because they would need to acquire park in exchange for the parkland that they would be alienating. Ms. DePalma stated that she understands they cannot prevent them from any legal use of the land, but many of the options would require a change in the current zoning of the area. Ms. DePalma asked if that would be at the Planning Board's discretion. • ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7 OCTOBER 1, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 Director of Planning Kanter responded, no. The only option discussed that involved a rezoning, would be done by rezoning the property back to R -15 or R -30. Mr. Kanter stated that he just laid out as many different possibilities as he could for the Board to consider. The Planning Board is not recommending or seeking any of these, they are just options. Mr. Kanter stated that if a variance were to be granted that would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It could be recommended by the Planning Board, but the Zoning Board of Appeals would have to do it on their r•71ViJ Chairperson Cornell stated that there are several issues here. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Town could always get an easement through the City's property for a road. Director of Engineering Walker stated that he does believe that the City's property would extend high enough to be in the way of the new road. What the City wants is the four acres which would be an extension of the Commonland property. Mr. Walker stated that another option for access could be through the Clausen property where the right -of -way is. The Clausen easement is for emergency access purposes only for the Town. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that this is definitely a complicated issue. The real desire of the neighborhood is to have the entire parcel bought by the City. The extension of Penny Lane is not actually the best thing. There are development possibilities on each one of these, but the Town needs to find out what the Bakers plans are. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Bakers are asking the Planning Board for some guidance on what to do. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning.Board might want to send a comment back to the Bakers just to the fact that the access is a difficult question on whatever they do with their parcel. It would be one of the things this Board or any other Board would have to look at carefully no matter what they planned to do there. Chairperson Cornell asked how soon does this need to be decided in terms of purchase of the land. Director of Planning Kanter stated that he thinks the City is getting close to some movement on this, so the sooner the better. Director of Engineering Walker stated that recognizing that the City is considering purchasing a portion of the land, that would still require a subdivision process before this Board. If the Bakers come in for a subdivision request, the Planning Board would have a chance to give some options on whether it should be clustered or a transfer of development rights. To make it eligible for a variance the whole parcel would need to be subdivided into a number of lots with a potential future • road. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8 OCTOBER 1,1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 Attorney Barney stated that it is up to the Bakers to come in with a plan for the Planning Board to look at, then the Planning Board could give their recommendations. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the City would probably be responsible as the applicant's agent for the subdivision, and they would have the proposal of the four -acre piece. Mr. Kanter stated that one question is whether or not the City would consolidate this piece with their watershed land. The City would be designating this as a park land, not watershed land. The City would need to track it very carefully as park land to be used as substitute land for alienation. Attorney Barney stated that they would still need to have access to the parcel. Chairperson Cornell stated that whatever letter the Town sends to the Bakers it should include the explanation of the subdivision process that would have to occur. Before the subdivision occurs, the Planning Board would like to know if the Bakers have any future plans for the remaining property. Board Member James Ainslie asked if the City and the Bakers agreed upon a price. Director of Planning Kanter stated that they are negotiating. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board should think of this as someone buying a piece of land to add on as conservation land, and how would the Board feel about it. In the letter to the Bakers it should be stated that the Planning Board would like to know if there is any future development planned on the property. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board cannot authorize a subdivision that does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance limitation unless it is done through a cluster. The Planning Board decided to send a letter to the Bakers with the recommendations in Mr. Kanter's memo, and ask the Bakers what their future use of the land would be. Chairperson Cornell will be writing a letter to the City to see what their plans are for this parcel of land. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES, Chairperson Cornell handed out packets of information from the New York Planning Federation Meeting that she and the Planning Staff attended September 30 and October 1, 1996. Chairperson Cornell stated that this segment of the meeting is for the Planning Board to • discuss how to make meetings more efficient and serve the public. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Town is lucky to have such a committed Planning • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9 OCTOBER 1, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 Board. One of the Town Board Members had recently indicated to him that he deals with a lot of other Boards outside this area, and he was impressed with how well this Board does, how committed the members are, and how fairly it treats the applicants. Mr. Kanter stated that when the Planning Staff went to the New York Planning Federation Conference, it is very obvious that when people visit different parts of the State there is such a varied level of professionalism and commitment on different Boards. Mr. Kanter stated that he cannot say that other Boards are not committed, but in terms of this Board, it is at a different level from many other parts of the State. Mr. Kanter stated that for a small community the Town has done a very good job. Part of the process of keeping that high level of commitment and good results is for the Board to review what is going on and see what could be done better. Educational and training" opportunities are there for everyone interested. The Planning Staff Department has a great library. The Planning Board Members are welcome to come and use the resources that are available. Mr. Kanter handed out a reference to the Board Members entitled "Planning Board Resources - Training, Education, Technical Assistance." This handout has a reference guide to the books available in the library. Mr. Kanter showed a few books and publications to the Planning Board as examples of what they would find in the library. . Board Member Kenerson asked if the Planners are still working on a Comprehensive Plan with the County. Director of Planning Kanter responded, not too actively. They seem to be focusing on • economic development right now. The County should be putting together an economic development plan. Mr. Kanter stated that the County Planning Department has been very helpful when there have been questions. If there are technical questions, the Planning Staff could call the APA Planner's Advisory Service in Chicago. Education and Training could be a big help to the Board Members, and people should try to make use of the resources that are available to them. Mr. Kanter stated that attendance at meetings is probably one of the very important things that the Town expects of any Board Member when they are appointed. It has been greatly appreciated when there have been special meetings scheduled of the Planning Board, and everyone has made a great effort to attend. Mr. Kanter stated that site visits are important for everyone to see the project or development and to get a better feeling for what the proposal is about. Having several Board Members going to a site at one time helps to review things as a group. If a quorum of members are scheduling a site visit to a particular site, it needs to be advertised in the paper as a public meeting also. Mr. Kanter stated that if a Board Member is going to be stopping by a property, they should either notify the owner or the Planning office for verification of approval for access to the property. Mr. Kanter stated that the quality of a good Board Member is his /her sincere interest in the community's future and willingness to give time to the work in which the Board is engaged. Board Members, ideally, should be independent individuals that are willing to make up their own minds on issues, have ability to analyze problems, and to be able to decide and vote on an issue based on their convictions for what is best for the community. If each and every Board Member approach their work that way, then they will continue to be the best they can be. • Attorney Barney stated that he agrees with Mr. Kanter, that this Board over the years has done a great job. Attorney Barney stated that he would take a few minutes to refresh the Board's • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 OCTOBER 1, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 memory on the types of things they are involved in and how things might need to be handled. There are three types of areas that this Board is involved in, which include subdivisions, site plan review, and special approvals or recommendations. All of these areas have different criteria that need to be applied to determine whether a particular. result should occur or not. Subdivisions are governed by Zoning Laws by so many square feet or so many feet of frontage. They are also governed somewhat by the Subdivision Regulations in terms of how a lot should be laid out. Through all of these, the Planning Board has a SEQR requirement to do. The criteria in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 46D) spells out a whole series of things that need to be looked at for a Site Plan Approval. Special Permit Regulations (Section 78) of the Zoning Ordinance has three parts that the Board needs to find before positive recommendation. Attorney Barney stated that in most instances, the discussions may not be focusing on these individual specific items that generally are not geared to what needs to be covered. Attorney Barney stated that during operations of the meeting, that with all Board Members (7) and Planning Staff (6) all together, everyone wants to pass on their own views and concerns. Sometimes the meetings get repetitious and sometimes it gets in the way of conducting the meeting correctly. One way the Board should look at it is what people offering to the Board that they need to be heard before making a decision. The Board does not stay focused on what the project, which makes it difficult to make their decision. The Board should always try to keep to the subject at hand. Attorney Barney stated that the information comes from the applicants, review materials, and from the public that participates in the Public Hearings. Personal knowledge •comes from the site visits for general knowledge of the area. In the information from the New York Planning Federation, it states that the Board should treat everyone with courtesy and respect. Attorney Barney stated that this Board is a representative of the Town for many people and the impression the Board makes would be an impression that would be carried forward. Attorney Barney stated that this Board has been great in listening with an open mind to everyone that has come in. There are occasions when the media has a tremendous interest in what the Board is doing or has done. Attorney Barney stated that the Chairperson should speak for the Board about what has been done. The Chairperson needs to remember that they are speaking as a member of the Board or they need to specify that it is their own opinion. Attorney Barney stated that one of the questions is what are the conflicts of interest. The Town adopted an Ethics Law a few years back, which defines a contract that includes the denial or granting of zoning variances or subdivision approvals. The law also defines an interest as a direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit accumulating as a result of a contract or an action of the Town. The law goes on to prohibit a Board Member from voting, advising, or otherwise acting on a contract in which he /she has an interest. This means that if there is a benefit to them from the outcome of the action, that would be a conflict of interest, and the Board should act without their input or vote. Taking too much of a direct interest in matters that have a very direct proximity to ones own home is a conflict of interest. If a family member wants to come into state their opinion on a proposal, they have a right to do that. If a member of the Board has an interest in a proposal, they should step back from the discussion because of a conflict of interest. Attorney Barney stated that he thinks it is not appropriate for a Board Member to take a dual role, and make some kind of • statement on something that they have a direct interest in. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 11 OCTOBER 1, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 Board Member Kenerson asked if people should state their interest in the matter before the discussion began. Attorney Barney responded, yes. If there is conflict of interest on a proposal, then that person needs to state their reasons for abstaining. Abstaining should not be used to substitute for strong feeling against something. In terms of this Board making a decision, and after review of the application that meets all the requirements, the Board needs to approve it. If an applicant comes in with an application that fulfills all the requirements, then the Board needs to approve it. If there is an abuse of discretion, it would be hard to appeal in court. If a member of the Board is abstaining because they do not like it, but cannot find anything wrong with it, they should be voting for it as long as it meets the Town's requirements. Attorney Barney stated that if the applicants do not fulfill a specific requirement, then the Board does not have to approve the proposal. Director of Planning Kanter stated that if a member feels there was a direct conflict then that would be a good reason to abstain from participating. Mr. Kanter stated that the media is covering more of the Town's business than they used to. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Buttermilk Valley Estates proposal caused an uproar when people were claiming that the media was not covering enough Town issues. There have been discussions with the Times and radio stations for more coverage. This is one of the reasons why the Board should act their best and be professional while they are here. Attorney Barney stated that Open Meeting Laws require that all meetings be opened to the public. The Planning Board, over the years have had very few executive sessions, but the Board is allowed to have them under certain circumstances. Attorney Barney stated that site visits are a good idea for everyone to get familiar with the proposal on hand, and having them available to the public would be a good idea. After a site visit someone should write out a brief summary of the site visit on who was there and what was seen. Board Member Kenerson asked if a notice for a site visit needs to be advertised the same as a regular meeting notice. Attorney Barney stated that only if there is going to he a quorum for the site visit. Site visits do not necessarily constitute an official convening of a meeting for the purpose of conducting public business. If the Board is planning on a quorum then advertise the site visit in the paper. Attorney Barney stated that the way to comply with the Open Meeting Law is to advise.the media of when there is going to be a meeting held. At the beginning of the year, the Town sends a list of all the meetings for them to advertise during the year. Attorney Barney stated that Executive Sessions could be called upon for several reasons such as proposed, pending, or current litigation. If the Board wants to get more information about legal actions from the lawyer this can be a reason for Executive Session. There are certain items that need to be kept in house such as personnel affairs and property acquisitions. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES .12 OCTOBER 1, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 Board Member Kenerson asked who could call for an Executive Session. Attorney Barney stated that it is done by a vote of the body in a public session to vote to go into an Executive Session. Anybody could make a motion to go into an Executive Session to discuss whatever, followed by a person seconding the motion, and then a vote. The motion needs to identify the purpose, generally or specifically. Attorney Barney stated that there is a different section of the law in which there are certain types of meetings that are exempt from the Open Meeting Law, one including any matter that is made confidential by Federal or State Law and which is privileged information that is not available unless the client chooses to disclose the information. Privileged information is kept in house unless a client shares the information with the public. Director of Planning Kanter stated that if there was an egregious violation of the Open Meeting Law committed by a Board, the court can require the imposition of cost and attorney fees against the municipality. An egregious violation means that the Board committed the violation on purpose knowing it was violating the Open Meeting Laws. Attorney Barney stated that most of the penalty situations he is aware of with the Open Meeting Law have been when a Board has refused the response of a rightful person. Attorney Barney stated that an association a Board Member has with a particular group, could be perceived •as influencing the vote. There should be disclosure of that association. There is nothing wrong in using expertise for the issue, but it would need to be made clear where a person is coming from. If a Board Member is involved with an association of a proposal that is before the Planning Board, then that Board Member should not participate in the discussion and voting for the reason of conflict of interest. That Board Member should also remove him /herself from the discussion before the discussion begins on the proposal if they have a conflict of interest. Attorney Barney stated that Article 78 refers to the mechanism under the Section 282 of the Town Law, in which the Board's decisions are subject to court review. If a litigant successfully overturns the Planning Board's decision, they would need to show the Board acted in an arbitrary and capricious matter, the Board acted in violation of the Law of Procedures, or that the Board abused the view of discretion. However, the court needs to adequately review what the Board did. In addition to the minutes, the Board needs to show how they rationalize the decision and what type of thought process the Board had. To do that, the Board would need to produce findings for a particular decision. When passing a resolution, the Board should keep in mind that if this should go to court it should include all the findings at that time. Otherwise the court will be asking where the findings came from. Attorney Barney stated that it would be a good idea to do the findings at the time of the proposal in case the appeal goes to court, then everything would be in order at that time. Attorney Barney stated that he is always available if Board Members have any questions. Board Member Bell stated that he is concerned about the implications of what Attorney Barney said in regards to the issue of decision making. If a proposal meets all the subdivision requirements and any specific components the Board needs to approve the proposal. It seems that would make a mockery of the SEAR process. The SEQR process is intended to add another overlay • of decision making criteria besides just what the regulations are. 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 13 OCTOBER 1, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 Attorney Barney stated that he did not mean to limit it that way. He meant that if it meets all the requirements including the SEQR. The Board is obligated to go through the SEQR process for those matters that require SEQR. SEQR cannot be used to deny an approval for a project such as a development would cause too much traffic for the area. SEQR should be used as part of the requirements. Attorney Barney stated that as he looks at these proposals, he tries to determine if he be able to defend the Town in each case if he had to go to court. All the specifics of each case should be done .up front so there are no problems later. The Planning Board should make a determination in accordance with the criteria that they are given in the appropriate laws and regulations. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Board should know their regulations. Most of the decisions the Board makes come directly from the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. There are cases where the Board needs to use their judgement and interpretation on how a project meets these guidelines. This is why it is important to know the ordinances and regulations because they are what tells everyone whether something is approvable or not. Board Member Kenerson stated that he likes these type of meetings for the Planning Board to get together and become familiar with each other to discuss the procedures and organization. 40 The Planning Board needs to refresh themselves occasionally on how they are made up instead of just depending entirely on the long term memory, but it would be a refreshing session for the Planning Board to review the Zoning Laws and how they are set up. When the Planning Board is having a discussion on a project, they should concentrate on that subject only. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board should keep to the subject at hand, and the Board should keep in mind to treat everyone fairly and with courtesy. AGENDA ITEM: CANCELLATION OF OCTOBER 15, 1996 MEETING. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby cancels the October 15, 1996 Planning Board meeting. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote AYES - Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14 OCTOBER 1, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 29, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT. Upon MOTION, Chairperson Cornell declared the October 1, 1996, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Prepared by: j de`borah A. Kelley, Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder. Mary Bry nt, Administrative Secretary. n U • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD ATTENDANCE /SHEET Date , l L/(5-, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME ADDRESS OR AFFILIATE ( Please PRINT t© ensure Accuracy in Official Minutes ) /�i7 V1,l4 G t1h d,