HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-27-PB TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
09/27/05
Approved with Corrections 10/18/05
Present : Interim Chairperson David Tyler, Planning Board Members : Margot Chiuten, Rose Hilbert,
David Means, Rod Porter, Darien Simon, and John Wertis . Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun.
Others present : MCCI-Judith Cone (Applicant) , Cheryl Thompson (Architect)
Lyle Gordon (Neighbor) ; West Hill Community Church -Tom Chaffee (Building Chairperson),
Pastor Morris, Cheryl Thompson (Architect) . Lee Scott, Town Councilman
A quorum is present at the meeting; the meeting was called to order at 7 : 35 pm by Mr. Tyler.
Minutes :
The minutes of the September 20th meeting were presented. Mr. Tyler submitted
revisions to the text; review indicated other changes as necessary from Ms . Hilbert. Mr.
Porter motioned to accept with corrections, seconded by Ms. Hilbert.
Mr. Tyler, Ms. Hilbert, Mr. Means, Mr. Porter, Ms. Simon and Mr. Wertis approved-
Ms. Chiuten Abstained-Minutes approved.
Planning Board Meeting-
Mr. Tyler reviewed the items on the schedule, Public Hearing for MCCI at 8 : 00 pm and West
Hill Community Church at 8 : 30 pm . Several weeks ago it was indicated there may be time to
meet with the Washington St . Partners after the meetings tonight . Mr. Rachun advised him they
are revising their application, they are planning on removing the fast food component . When the
materials are received by Mr. Rachun we can evaluate where to progress to next.
Mr. Tyler has prior commitments on Tuesday' s for the month of October-he questioned if
Thursday would be a satisfactory meeting day on a temporary basis . The other members
indicated this would work with their schedules ; Mr. Tyler will contact the other members and
advise if the meetings would need to be changed .
Mr. Tyler wanted to review the procedures for the Public Hearing as following-
1 . Open the Hearings,
2 . Applicant Statements,
3 . Public Comments
4 . Close Public Hearing
5 . SEQR process- if appropriate make determination of Negative Declaration
6 . Review merits or request more information etc .
Mr. Tyler noted another error in the Zoning Ordinance, on the 24th of August District 22 was
created but it is not in the Ordinance passed on August 30th 2005 . He felt there will need to be
technical corrections made to a number of items in the document .
Mr. Scott commented that the corrections would be added as an addendum to the document .
Mr. Tyler commented that addendums are confusing, the document is supposed to be self
contained-since it is all on Word or Word Perfect it is fairly simple to reproduce and refile . He
noted they have it in the back but do not have it listed as a development district in Article 16 .
Mr. Tyler requested all to review Ms . Cone ' s application for areas of concern.
Mr. Porter added that the item he found not clear was the lighting plan, it had been discussed
before but no final plans were presented .
Mr. Tyler stated that confirmation came back from NYS that the filing date was September 6,
2005 ; the Zoning Ordinance (August 30, 2005) will be used for all applications .
Planning Board 2
09/27/2005
Mr. Rachun questioned why SEQR was being done ; discussion resulted that the Board would do
the SEQR using the forms provided by both applicants .
Mr. Tyler noted that both have a long form EAF to work from as they were submitted prior to the
adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance (August 30, 2005 ) .
Mr. Tyler distributed the 2391\m comments from the County Planning Department that were
sent today. The letter determined "no negative inter-community, or community-wide impacts"
for the MCCl/Judith Cone project . The letter for West Hill Community Church commented that
"The Town should consider the benefits of switching the location of the parking lot and the
building . Since this is a corner lot, community aesthetics would be much improved by having the
church building rather than a parking lot at the corner of Iradell and Van Dorns Corners Road .
This would benefit both the applicant and the town by improving the sense of community and
providing greater visibility for the church. " The County Planning Department has noted that they
would like to be informed of the decision to file with their record .
Public Hearing-MCCI/Judith Cone :
Mr. Tyler read the Legal Notice of the Public Hearing from the Ithaca Journal verbatim . Notices
were also sent to the necessary neighboring properties thus we have Notice and a duly convened
meeting. Local Law passed on August 24`h 2005 creating Development District #22 which
related to this application .
Mr. Tyler opened the Public Hearing at 8 : 02 pm- he requested the applicant make a short
presentation .
Ms . Cone stated they are planning to take down an addition at the rear of the existing building.
Then adaptively reuse the building, which has been used for this purpose for 14 years , by
rebuilding the addition-bringing it out slightly, making it wider and adding a second story.
Mr. Tyler questioned the number of employees they currently have and the number they plan on
in for the future .
Ms Cone stated they currently have 12 daytime employees . They have hired 10 more people for
a total of 22-they are planning on having 25 with a maximum of 30 .
Mr. Means asked if they anticipated the growth of the business to double in 3 years .
Ms . Cone stated she is sure it will ; but, having several offices in Asia, they have two offices in
Europe and are expanding there. They have five offices across the US and two of these are big
commercial offices so they can expand there. When we expand we intend to keep administrative
functions and architectural engineering crew here with the test lab .
Mr. Tyler asked for clarification of the type of business .
Ms . Cone replied the business consists of writing software that they are licensed to major cell
phone manufacturers . They do not manufacture here, it is in downtown Ithaca-they write
software and test it on machines .
Mr. Tyler asked for Public Comments, requesting they state their name . .
Mr. Lyle Gordon introduced himself as residing at 2444 Perry City Road- from their front yard
they look directly at the property. Basically he is very much in favor of the plan as he
understands it. The final
look of the house has very little difference . It would be a two story vs . one story and somewhat
larger-the final appearance will not change much as far as the impact goes . Once everything is
done a trailer which has been on the property for several years will be gone-this will- all by itself
improve the neighborhood . The increased parking area they plan is to be screened already. My
wife and I are in favor and hope it goes forward with no problems .
Planning Board 3
09/27/2005
Mr. Rachun requested to speak as a citizen. He lives around the corner from Judy and he has
known Judy for many years . He thinks this is a great fit for the community, exactly what we are
looking for in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. As a neighbor this business has proven itself in
the past to be an ideal neighbor.
Mr. Tyler asked Mr. Rachun if his predilection he just expressed affected in any way his review
of the project as it came through his office.
Mr. Rachun replied it did not as Ms . Cone can attest .
Mr. Tyler asked for additional comments .
Mr. Means asked if the land had been purchased.
Ms . Cone answered that the purchase had been done prior to the PDD approval . It has been
leased back
to Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Porter asked Ms . Cone to address the lighting plan .
Ms . Cone stated the lighting plan may need some modification, if they put additional lights in
they would be lower watt lights, solar powered path lights and what they are currently using.
They have the parking lot lights on timers-they are turned on to exit the building then
automatically go off after 10 minutes . They would never have lights that stay on all night .
Mr. Tyler directed Ms . Cone to Section 3 . 4 . 10 which deals with Modifications Approved under
the new Site Plan Ordinance . This could be something that does not have to come back to the full
Board but rather the Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Board Chair. It appears that this
would fall into this type of modification .
Mr. Rachun stated this would apply, and there is a specific section on lighting-they would need
to comply with this section.
Ms . Cone replied it is their plan to comply and their intention is to provide the least intrusive
lighting as possible, nothing would distract passing cars etc . They like lighting that turns off
when they are done with it .
Mr. Tyler asked what the hours of business operation were .
Ms . Cone replied they are open from 9-5 ; it is a software company mainly populated by
engineers- engineers work all hours . There are people there at 7 in the morning there are people
there at 7 pm-she is always there at lam and 7 pm.
Mr. Tyler stated that in winter months lighting is an issue; it appears she would need to look
closely at this . If substantial changes are made she may need to come back to address these
changes . He asked if they plan on working with existing lighting and see how it goes or do they
plan on adapting new lighting.
Ms . Cone answered Ms . Thompson, her consultant, has informed her they would need an
additional light in the parking lot. She does not know at this time.
A discussion took place regarding the various placement of lighting and the types of lighting that
could exist on this Site Plan. Ms . Thompson indicated placement of another pole would be
desired.
Mr. Rachun suggested that there are Design Standards and if they meet the Design Standards
they meet the Zoning Ordinance .
Mr. Tyler stated that the plan seems to be favorable due to comments from the neighbors as well
as the Board members . He would like to recommend that a condition the lighting plan be referred
back to the Code Enforcement Officer and Margot Chiuten for the final approval .
Planning Board 4
09/27/2005
Ms . Cone stated she has no preference of lighting; her requirement is for the safety of her
employees and meeting the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tyler closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 28 pm.
Public Hearing-West Hill Community Church
Mr. Tyler read the Legal Notice of the Public Hearing from the Ithaca Journal verbatim . Notices
were also sent to the necessary neighboring properties thus we have Notice and a duly convened
meeting.
Mr. Tyler opened the Public Hearing at 8 : 30 pm- he requested the applicant make a short
presentation.
Ms . Thompson, applicant ' s consultant, addressed the Board submitting a letter that
indicated three changes to the plans for the West Hill Community Church . The letter
addressed changes to
1 . The lighting plan,
2 . Permission to add brick veneer to the building face if budget permits and
3 . Allowance for signage to be increased to 18 square feet.
Mr. Tyler requested Ms . Thompson distribute the letter to the Board members for
consideration .
Mr. Chaffee introduced himself as applicant ' s Building Committee Leader. They are
proposing to build a Sanctuary with Classrooms, 126 x 52 on the property. They will be
using insulated concrete forms (ICF) styrofoam on the inside and styrofoam on the
outside for heating purposes and for sound purposes . They are proposing to put the efface
exterior plaster system on the exterior. They would like to put a stipulation in the Site
Plan that if financing allows they would be permitted to put brick up to 3 -4 feet on the
exterior. The other item is lighting for the parking lot. They have come up with a new
lighting scheme that provides more safety lighting for people in the evening .
Mr. Tyler stated that the letter submitted dated September 27`" by Ms . Thompson
confirms the issues discussed at initial meeting with applicant when the Public Hearing
was set .
Mr. Tyler asked if anyone had any comments or questions .
Mr. Porter stated he made a reference to two 200 watt metal halide lamps would remain.
Discussion regarding the various placements of the current fixtures and new fixtures
ensued .
Ms . Thompson presented a diagram of the lights they would be installing . The final
conclusion was there would be 1 pole in driveway, 2 lights under the canopy, and 2 poles
centered in the parking lot.
Mr. Rachun indicated that the lighting would meet the Zoning Ordinance minimums .
Ms . Thompson addressed the sign issue, there is not enough room to promote special
events, etc as individuals are driving down the road . They illustrated with an actual 3x3
sign.
Mr. Porter indicated that they would have to apply for an area variance through the Board
of Zoning Appeals .
Ms . Thompson asked if this is the actual size limitations per the new Zoning Ordinance .
, .
Planning Board 5
09/27/2005
Mr. Rachun indicated this is a problem he has with the Zoning Ordinance. The Al , B1 ,
and IL districts have everything except for a church or place of worship . The BZA is the
place to approach this type of concern .
Ms. Thompson asked how to start this process .
Mr. Rachun advised Ms . Thompson to contact him in the morning and he can advise her.
Mr. Tyler stated part of the requirement for approval when a project is within a certain
distance of a state highway. The County reply stated "it has indicated no negative inter-
community or county-wide impact however they suggest the Town should review the •
benefits of switching the church with the parking lot due to aesthetics improving by
having church building at corner of Van Dorns and Iradell . "
Mr. Porter asked if there was any particular reason it was planned the way it is .
Mr. Chaffee commented he originally wanted to have it this way; however the other
members for future references for building on etc . chose to build the parking lot in front.
Mr . Morris stated that if all reviewed Phase II of the Site Plan it would put it right against
Iradell Road thus future building would be restricted .
Discussion ensued evaluating the project being moved. Conclusion that due to soil levels,
expansion plans, and handicapped access the church and parking lot should remain as
shown on the Site Plan.
Ms . Thompson offered that per the meeting they would be planting fruit trees on the
property as indicated on the Site Plan for neighbor borders .
Ms . Chiuten stated that they need to be aware of the dimensions of where they locate the
parking lot . The new ordinance states they cannot have parking in the yards-make sure
the future edge is outside of the yard setback.
Mr. Tyler asked if the property is located on a corner lot do they have two front yards .
Ms . Hilbert asked where they receive mail-that should be the front yard .
Mr. Rachun advised that the setback is 75 feet and both yards on a corner lot are
considered front yards . Part of the problem is the law changed after they made their
plans-the Town attorney advised the Board they have to use current law to review.
Ms . Thompson advised they have already installed their driveway.
Ms . Hilbert offered they could approach the BZA for a variance regarding the setback.
Mr. Porter asked if they are not parking on the edge would that count . The actual parking
area is designated in the center.
Mr. Rachun stated that would be possible, except they have the two front yards . He
would have to clarify it with Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Chaffee stated that this would prohibit him from expansion of the parking lot . If they
moved the parking lot back to 100 feet would they be within the ordinance .
Mr. Tyler offered they could move it now or get the variance; he was surprised to find the
new ordinance was in effect.
Ms. Thompson asked if they could take the time to review how they anticipate dealing
with the parking lot change.
Mr. Tyler stated they could keep the Public Hearing open, they could review and come
back another evening.
Planning Board 6
09/27/2005
Mr. Chaffee stated that if they have to move the parking lot 100 feet, he cannot expand
his parking lot . He feels this is a major change and they could end up with a parking lot in
front as well as in back. He would prefer to leave this open and discuss it with the
committee.
Mr. Porter asked if they could amend their Site Plan to include additional parking.
Mr. Tyler stated that they would have to come back; there would be such variation from
the application as to require them to have a Public Hearing to hear the neighbor' s
comments .
Ms . Thompson asked how long they would be putting themselves off
Mr. Tyler stated the Public Hearing would be adjourned at their consent. They would
have to tell the Board when they were ready to continue . They would not need to have
lead time or be advertised again. They would adjourn to a particular date and time .
Mr. Chaffee offered that he is getting very nervous regarding time constraints .
Mr. Tyler asked if they would like to adjourn so the applicants could discuss their
options .
Mr. Thompson, Mr. Chaffee, Mr. Morris left the room for a private discussion.
Mr. Rachun indicated he had a prior commitment thus had to leave the meeting. He is the
appointed agent for SEQR for the Town of Ulysses . One is a long form and one a short
but they are both unlisted actions and do not fall into the category of Type 1 or Type 2 .
They do not meet the thresholds to kick into Type 1 action. They are not a listed Type 2 ,
as an unlisted they can do a Negative Declaration. They both stay in the Ulysses Town
Offices , even though there is a long form it is not a Type 1 -it is just the requirement from
the previous ordinance.
Mr. Chaffee requested the Hearing be closed; they plan on approaching the Board of
Zoning appeals for the necessary variance . No other members of the public came forward
to be heard.
Mr. Tyler accepted the request and closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 12 pm .
Mr. Rachun was excused and left the meeting.
MCCI-Judith Cone Project Discussion/SEQR-
Mr. Tyler presented the SEQR review all members had their copies. Part 1 of the project
information for Judith Cone application he requested all review page by page .
Mr. Tyler questioned why listed as a commercial district. Ms . Cone replied due to PDD .
Mr. Tyler questioned if the Health Department had made modifications to the septic .
Ms . Thompson replied she had contacted Environmental Health for requirements .
Mr. Tyler noted that under approvals required City, Town or Village Planning (Page 8)
it should indicate Yes - Site Plan Review .
Mr. Tyler asked if the Board was ready to make a Determination of Significance.
Mr. Wertis made the motion for a Negative Declaration of Part 1, Mr. Porter seconded.
Mr. Tyler stated that Paragraph A of the Determination is that "The project will not
result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have
a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be
prepared. "
Planning Board 7
09/27/2005
All in favor- Voted Unanimously
Mr. Tyler requested all to refer to page 14 of the Zoning Ordinance (3 .4 . 5 ) . He suggested
all review to themselves, if they feel something has not been addressed please comment .
Mr. Tyler stated his view of the application is as they determined the impact was
minimal . The real thrust of the whole application was changing to a PDD so the type of
activity was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, not really that it effects the intensity
of the use of the land from what it has been.
Ms . Hilbert stated the review criterion does not send up any flags . She would like to start
a list of findings . She stated this particular project illustrates the excellent use of a
development district and how our town in the Comprehensive Plan has viewed industry
like this one that is proposed and the work that is done . This is the kind of thing we want
to encourage . The fact that the appearance of the house conforms to and complies with
wanting it to continue to look like a farmhouse is sensitive to the area around. She also
found the applicant to be accommodating in lighting and hiding the parking, we have had
no neighbors complain and two citizens speak in favor of the project . There was no
objection at the Town Board level when reviewing the Development District. She feels
this is a good number of findings and she agrees and this is a good project and would like
to pass the Site Plan Review.
Mr. Tyler stated the Board agreed, in approving the PDD in August, and it is the Board ' s
job to satisfy public health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community-he
asked if anyone saw any negatives in this regard .
Mr. Porter commented that the development is occurring away from the road and behind
the existing building.
Mr. Wertis noted that the Board does not find it to be a threat to health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood and community.
Mr. Porter stated that final lighting fixtures and placement would be co- approved by Mr.
Rachun and Ms . Chiuten as a modification to the project .
Mr. Tyler asked if any negative comments . No comments were noted.
Mr. Tyler asked for motion to approve the Site Plan.
Ms. Hilbert made the motion to approve the Site Plan with a modification that Mr.
Rachun and Ms. Chiuten approve the light pole and fixtures in the parking area. Mr.
Wertis seconded the motion-
All in favor — Voted Unanimously
Ms . Chiuten was excused and left the meeting at 9 : 35 pm .
West Hill Community Church-Project Discussion/SEQR
Mr. Tyler and Mr. Chaffee discussed the process and time constraints on the building
project.
Mr. Tyler explained the process per previous conversation as documented.
Mr. Chaffee asked if they proposed to move the parking lot back.
Mr. Tyler stated they could approved reducing the depth of the parking on Van Dorn ' s
which allowed them to get the building permit, then they could still go to the BZA. A
modification could be inserted that if the variance is approved they could expand the
parking lot. The issue has to do with physical location of the parking spaces in the
parking lot . If they do not get the variance they would go back to the plan with the
reduced spaces that the Board approved .
Planning Board 8
09/27/2005
Mr. Porter stated they would be surrendering 4 or 5 spaces .
Mr. Chaffee asked if they moved the building back would this take care of the problem .
He illustrated on the map if he shifted the parking lot and the building back 25 feet he
would be within
the Zoning requirement.
Mr. Tyler asked if they could still build future additions .
Mr. Chaffee commented they own 38 acres so there is sufficient space .
Mr. Tyler stated the plans would be the same, the project would be moved back 25 feet to
maintain setback compliance of the Zoning Ordinance . He mentioned this would lengthen
the driveway.
Mr. Porter stated he had a procedural question-if they had closed the hearing, then
afterwards decided to shift the project 25 feet. He does not want it to be an issue but is
this a problem .
Mr. Tyler stated it is not-they discussed the setback issue during the Public Hearing. It is
a finding they can make based on what they heard in the Public Hearing.
Mr. Tyler presented the SEQR review all members had their copies . Part 1 of the project
information for West Hill Community Church application he requested all review page
by page .
Mr. Tyler asked what the site consists of in its unimproved state . If cultivated how long
had it been.
Mr. Chaffee replied part of the field had been worked . There are 25 acres of tillable land,
some woods are on the property but none of these areas would be disturbed for this
project.
Mr. Tyler clarified all excavating material would remain on site .
Mr. Wertis asked for clarification if the drainage would be to the North to the swale.
Mr. Morris explained that the swale is there because the water across the street empties
into there-the water comes across into their field.
Mr. Wertis commented that they would really not be adding water due to the gravel
driveway they plan to have.
Mr. Tyler asked the number of cars typical on a Sunday.
Mr. Chaffee replied 30-40 cars on a typical Sunday.
Mr. Tyler commented that in paragraph twelve it said heaviest traffic would be Sunday,
yet they have a Wednesday and possibly other nights . What would the traffic be on those
nights .
Mr. Morris stated that Sunday Services are the heaviest, the attendance is usually less on
Wednesday, and probably would be less on the other nights as well .
Mr. Tyler asked if the Board was ready to make a Determination of Significance.
Mr. Porter made the motion for a Negative Declaration of Part 1, Mr. Wertis seconded.
Mr. Tyler stated that Paragraph A of the Determination is that "The project will not
result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have
a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be
prepared. "
Planning Board 9
09/27/2005
All in favor- Voted Unanimously
Mr. Tyler requested all to refer to page 14 of the Zoning Ordinance (3 . 4 . 5 ) . He suggested
all review to themselves, if they feel something has not been addressed please comment.
Mr. Tyler wanted to note that the application was made and completed under the prior
Zoning Ordinance it was in all respects in compliance with that Zoning Ordinance . The
Board has since been told since the new ordinance is in effect, as of September 6 , they
have to comply with the specifications in this document . Mr. Rachun advised us that the
setbacks under the new ordinance are not satisfied with respect to the setback of the
parking on Van Dorns Corners Road. The applicant has requested the entire project be
shifted 25 feet West, such that it will comply with the setback requirements for the
parking area as it fronts on Van Doms Corners Road . The complexity is this property is a
corner lot and has two front yards as previously discussed . The topography of the
property allows for this change.
Mr. Tyler noted there were no Public Comments either pro or con offered on this
application .
Mr. Tyler also noted that County Planning offered a suggestion of switching the location
of the parking lot and the building. This was raised with the applicant and for reasons
which appear on the record-but essentially were rejected by the Building Committee
because of topography and handicapped access to the building.
Ms . Hilbert offered that in the criteria it states they need to review for bicycles . She
realized this is in the country but thought it should be addressed .
Mr. Porter indicated that the ordinance states if it is appropriate, this would inappropriate
for this site .
Mr. Wertis stated Iradell Road and Van Doms Road are not very bicycle friendly roads .
Mr. Tyler commented that for the most part it would be serviced by vehicles, but if there
are a number of bicyclist ' s they could accommodate them by providing a bike rack.
Mr. Porter added he wanted to note the letter of alteration if which the Board considered
item
1 and 2 but not item 3 ; item 3 (signage) was deferred to the BZA.
Mr. Tyler stated he would entertain some findings . He suggested that the proposed use
and facility are appropriate to the area of the community it is proposed to be located in.
Mr. Porter stated the construction seems to fit into the character of the area.
Ms . Hilbert provided there appears to be adequate landscaping for trees around the
outskirts which includes the parking lot. The lighting has been addressed and it has been
considered by the Zoning Officer to be adequate to meet the minimum requirements .
Mr. Tyler commented the new facility would have minimum impact on the road usage in
the vicinity.
Mr. Tyler asked for a motion .
Mr. Porter offered the motion we approve the Site Plan with several conditions
including the entire construction project be shifted West 25 feet. The lighting is
approved based on submission in the letter dated September 27`h, 2005 with the copy of
the specifications submitted of the fixtures. The modification of the brick veneer is
approved in place of stucco if financial circumstances allow. The additional request of
signage and parking would be approved pending BZA approval.
Mr. Means seconded the motion.
All in favor- Voted Unanimously
Planning Board 10
09/27/2005
Mr. Tyler noted that the regularly scheduled meeting would be October 18th , if this is in
conflict he will contact everyone .
Mr. Tyler adjourned the meeting at 10 : 15pm .
Respectfully submitted,
Robin Carlisle Peck
10/05/05
. i