Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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,