HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-15 - PB TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
08/15/06
APPROVED 09/19/06
Present : Chairperson Margot Chiuten, Planning Board Members : David Means,
Rod Porter, Darien Simon, John Wertis, Ken Zeserson , Deputy Supervisor Dick Coogan
Excused: Rebecca Schneider
Applicants : Jamie Kehoe, Peter Novelli , John Burrows , Billy Grunder
A quorum is present at the meeting; the meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 pm by Ms . Chiuten.
Minutes :
Decision to table the minutes until the next meeting was made.
Keyman ' s New Park, Inc.
Ms . Chiuten asked if the members had all had a chance to visit the project site. All of the
members affirmed they had . She informed the members she had met with Ms . Simon,
Mr. Rachun, Mr. Coogan and the applicants for a Sketch Plan Conference to review the
sketch plan drawings and discussed what other information would be required for the site
plan process and SEQR process . They came up with a list of items and she had been in
contact with Mr. Novelli regarding that list. The items to do tonight is go through the
materials and decide if they want to declare lead agency, distribute the information to the
other agencies, the other item is to schedule a public hearing if appropriate . She asked the
applicants to present a description as well as background of the project.
Mr. Kehoe introduced himself as the creator of the park . He introduced the other
members of the group with him . He stated New Park comes from a place that they
spent time at in Ireland, it was his mother' s favorite hotel . It is similar to Taughannock
Park and located outside of Londonderry, she passed away a long time ago and that is
where he came up with the name . It was a ten year plan that he has been doing site prep ,
he is at the point that he is ready to be developed to open the place . This has been a labor
of love, there is a lot of family involved in the process , and a lot of kids that grew up here
have worked on New Park with him to get to this point . It is a community inside a park.
This is located in the heart of the Finger Lakes, representing the Town of Ulysses and
Trumansburg; they hope to start tours of the wine trails, the colleges and the gorges, the
Black Diamond Trail. They hope to have a facility where people can get away from the
hustle and bustle yet still enjoy nature . If you have been in hotels/motels, bed and
breakfasts all are looking for privacy, security and service . Their goal to provide these
services as well as where we come from. It is their hope to give the people visiting an
experience they cannot get anywhere else in this area.
Ms . Chiuten stated they had requested the uses of the property at the sketch plan
conference she asked Mr. Kehoe if this had been compiled .
Mr. Kehoe stated it was an interesting question the uses are the arts, the activities as far
would be hiking, mountain biking, trails , teaching people about the woods and wildlife.
They would be open for weddings, family reunions or small parties . It would not be a
Grass Roots Festival where they would have twenty thousand people . They are looking to
limit the people and enjoy the outside .
Ms. Chiuten asked if they would be looking at lodging, food service and special events .
Mr. Kehoe stated yes that is the purpose .
Mr. Means asked what they would expect the maximum number would be, what are they
set up for parking facilities, rest room facilities etc .
Mr. Kehoe stated in the past he has held his High School Reunion, two Police Benevolent
Association parties as well as a private wedding function . They were comfortable with
Planning Board Meeting 2
08/ 15/2006
150 people to 200 people maximum. They did bring in porta-a-johns, they were not the
stand up they were generator operated with a powder room and the toilets . They would do
similar for larger events, for smaller events they would have the facilities to handle the
bungalows that are onsite . As far as the wine tasting room and the wish room they can
adjust for that.
Mr. Zeserson stated that if there is parking space for 50 cars, and there are 250 people,
how would that is accommodated.
Mr. Kehoe stated he would have to evaluate each party, if there were a situation where he
needed additional parking he could contact the Cayuga Nature Center and rent their
parking facilities and provide transportation to the site. Taughannock Farms Inn and the
park are other options; they could offer scholarships etc . in exchange. He used the facility
when he got married and they accommodated 350 people.
Mr. Means stated they are having a difficult time determining if this a hotel/motel,
this is important in determining parking. He did not see 100- 150 people being
problematic, however then there would be neighbor concerns to deal with.
Mr. Wertis stated the name of the project does not tell much about the project, he asked
Mr. Kehoe what he calls his project. What has been brought to the board to be reviewed .
Mr. Kehoe stated it is home, he is trying to change the experience and inviting the people
to his home, it is not a bed and breakfast they can get it all. If they want to be left alone
they can do that too .
Mr. Wertis stated he is having a problem identifying what this project is . He personally
feels this should have come in as a Development District. What he hears Mr. Kehoe state
the project is, he realizes it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the use of the
property — he is not against idea, he is having a hard time with the process . The first
question he has is would this be a legal and conforming use.
Ms. Chiuten stated they have to define, it is similar to a hotel in that he is charging to stay
in the lodging on his property.
Mr. Wertis stated this property is in a business district, and there are specific items listed
as acceptable is a business district. If it is a hotel this is an allowable use in the zoning
ordinance.
Mr. Kehoe asked what a hotel is defined as .
Mr. Wertis stated there is a definition in the zoning on page 27 of the Zoning Law.
Mr. Porter stated he has not heard anything they plan to do that does not fit under the
hotel definition, they also have restaurant and bars as allowed uses .
Mr. Wertis stated that he likes the term resort he had heard during the tour, but a resort
is not an allowed use.
Mr. Porter stated many of the name brand hotels call themselves resorts, yet they are still
a hotel but they offer activities onsite similar to what this project will do . He stated
another one of the allowed uses are conference centers, the planned activities they are
offering could be classified as such.
Mr. Wertis stated he tends to like to have information in black and white. He is not
opposed to this project, in fact he likes the idea of people achieving their hopes and
dreams and the Comprehensive Plan indicates this area was a hotel and the people who
wrote the plan suggest this is a great place for a hotel.
Ms . Chiuten states that a hotel includes most of the activities because of the line
indicating recreational facilities are allowed. The one question that has come up is the
inclusion of horses .
Planning Board Meeting 3
08/ 15/2006
Mr. Kehoe indicated he had hoped to have a reforested management plan, but as they
have pushed him forward, and he is thanking the board for putting the fire under him to
get him moving on this plan, but the horses are drafting horses. They would be used for
pulling the buggies, hay rides for the kids . There would never be more than two being
used, and 4 housed on the premises .
Mr. Wertis stated that is the problem- the hotel is a legal and conforming use within a
business district . Within a business district the question if barns and animals are allowed
is the issue.
Mr. Kehoe questioned the acreage per animal in the zoning code.
Mr. Wertis stated that is for the residential area.
Mr. Means stated it does not mean it could not be allowed, he may request a variance for
the horses/barns .
Ms . Simon asked why the horse and buggy rides would not be considered a recreational
facility or activity. When it was first mentioned she considered the hotels she has stayed
in out west-they have horses available for trail rides and are housed on the premises .
Mr. Means asked about the sight distance for the three road cuts , the two end driveways,
seemed fairly easy to get into traffic , but the middle one could be very hazardous getting
out of.
Mr. Novelli offered that the plan is to have one directional traffic from the different
driveways . The middle driveway would be the entrance and the northern most drive
would be an exit .
Ms . Simon asked if the stable were considered a commercial stable would it be allowed
in this project.
Mr. Porter stated he did not think it could be considered a commercial stable . It does not
appear it matches the zoning.
Mr. Coogan offered the Board could send this the Board of Zoning Appeals and request
an interpretation.
Ms . Chiuten stated they could make the recommendation considering the acreage and the
space and refer it to the ZBA .
Ms . Chiuten stated that they would need to have the SEQR form completed in more detail
as to the uses that will be happening onsite . This is sent to the County Planning
Department and needs to reflect accurately the uses on site. The form was completed but
in very general uses . In addition, the number of people expected to be serviced should be
included. She indicated the landscaping details also needed to be provided.
Mr. Kehoe stated he had questions regarding the line that determined the setback. They
measured from the yellow center of the highway and have found different measurements .
Mr. Coogan stated to clarify this information, on a state highway you do not necessarily
measure from the highway. Mr. Rachun has examined this project, this highway is
difficult to measure, and it appears he will more than meet the setback requirement . It is
the edge of the highway right of way that you measure the setback from . You have to use
the DOT drawings, when they pave they may or may not have the center direct on. That
is why you have to use the DOT drawings . The pavement curves and can make it difficult
to use for measurements .
Mr. Wertis asked if there was a problem with the height of the fencing.
Ms . Chiuten stated that because it is over 6 feet high it falls into the category of a
structure. The structure must fall within the setback requirement.
Planning Board Meeting 4
08/ 15/2006
Mr. Kehoe stated that they would be within the setback requirement.
Mr. Burrows stated that in addition to being within the requirement, they plan to have
evergreens (6 feet high) every ten feet planted in front and behind the fencing. They hope
to have the fence not be visible at all due to the plantings. They also hope this will take
care of the buffer issues between the site and the neighbors .
Mr. Wertis verified the measurements on each side of the property were within the
allowed setbacks . It was determined they are exceeding the required setbacks.
Mr. Porter asked for clarification regarding the fence height being classified as a
structure.
Mr. Coogan stated if the fence were six feet they could put it anywhere they want right up
to the property line. When it became eight feet it is now considered a structure. If it is
behind on a setback it needs a building permit, in a B1 you need site plan review . Mr.
Kehoe has asked if he could put the fence up before site plan review. The fence can be
de-linked from the site plan, it can be reviewed as its own site plan. The Board would
need to do a resolution yet are not required to have a public hearing. If the resolution
passed, Mr. Rachun can then issue the building permit. The Board can reference the
additional site plan project with this resolution.
Ms . Simon stated no matter where the fence is they still have to deal with it as a structure.
Mr. Coogan stated yes, it is a structure no matter where the setbacks are due to the height.
Ms. Chiuten asked if they would deal with the issue of segmentation, she stated she did
not believe it would have an impact thus be a type 2 .
Mr. Zeserson asked what the negatives would be.
Ms . Chiuten stated it would be a visual impact. t ,
Mr. Zeserson stated the trees would be planted, and eventually grow even more so why
would it be a visual impact.
Ms . Simon stated they will eventually be doing construction; she questioned which would
be more of an eyesore, the construction or the fence of a scenic byway. She feels the
fence would be an enhancement.
Mr. Burrows stated they do not have a picture of the fencing. But it would be cedar, the
smooth side would face the road, they would be flush to each other. There would not be
very much visible, with the size of the trees in two to three years it would be grown to not
be visible at all .
Mr. Wertis stated he would like to see this plan in writing. They can trust yet it does need
to be in writing.
Mr. Kehoe stated if they appear on the site they will see the gross meaning dozens upon
dozens of trees they have onsite to be planted. They really need this permit to get these in
the ground as well as the fence permit to move ahead .
Ms . Chiuten asked Mr. Kehoe about the drainage area. She also asked if they had
provided the species list of planting for the site .
Mr. Kehoe stated they had submitted an updated site plan on Monday; this is what they
have in their informational packets. They still do need to get the updated species list.
Ms. Chiuten stated Mr. Rachun had concerns regarding the public/private coming onsite.
Specifically, how would they deal with random people i . e. hopping in a pick up truck and
coming onsite with a keg of beer in the back.
Planning Board Meeting 5
08/ 15/2006
Mr. Kehoe stated having been in the hospitality industry they have the right to turn away
and not serve any individuals . If a truck appears onsite with a keg of beer they will be
asked to leave . The wine tasting room will be open on specific days to the public,
otherwise the area will be open by reservation only. If the people come in drunk they will
not leave drunk, they will provide transportation for the individuals that are drinking. He
is hoping to have a breathalyzer onsite that people can blow into before they get their
keys. It is their goal to have the facilities booked a year in advance . They will not just be
able to just drive in for a glass of wine or dinner. It is not a high end hotel, they will get
more than they would get at a hotel in Ithaca. They will charge the same but get more
their dollar. They will spend money in the Town of Ulysses and then come back to
New Park to stay.
Ms. Chiuten asked about the signage .
Mr. Kehoe stated it would be a rock with a plaque engraved New Park, established 1985 .
The boulder is seven feet high, the maximum would be 56 x 56 . There would be signs
marked exit and entrance . It is like the rock at the American Legion brass plaque onto the
stone. It might be less whatever the requirement is they would be willing to go with it.
Ms . Chiuten stated it is to his advantage to have all of the information available prior to
submission to the County. She asked about lighting for the project.
Mr. Kehoe stated there the plan indicates lighting north and south of the hobby barn,
the horse barn . There is no lighting on the back of the buildings facing north and south
due to the neighbors .
Ms . Chiuten noted there was information on the bridges .
Mr. Kehoe stated the suspension bridge is located in the picnic area. He turned the project
over to Mr. Novelli to describe.
Mr. Novelli stated the stone arch bridge happens in three places, one location furthest to
the north would be an access bridge. This would be designed for truck loading, i . e.
gravel, ambulance etc . The span is approximately 25 feet . The basic structure is
reinforced concrete foundation and arch material, it is clad in bluestone, the rail on top is
for safety it will be heavy timber. It ties with the pedestals on the four corners of the
bridge. The same stone arch bridge will appear to the south, there are only two on the
map but the other location is about an 8 feet span and will accommodate a team of horses
with a bridge. The suspension bridge which will be located in the picnic area will span a
gorge 40- 50 feet deep . The bridge is designed with galvanized steel cable for support in
steel towers that are 12 feet tall . The actual deck which is meant for pedestrians will be
made of a wood deck. The concrete anchors will provide the ballast for the tension to be
taken up . The idea is to clad the steel cables with grabble to give the appearance of a rope
bridge.
Ms . Chiuten asked if these are the drawings for the actual building permit. She asked if
there is accommodation for the 42" barrier.
Mr. Novelli stated that the 42" requirement is a government call, they are not required to
maintain these standards . This is not located on a public road, they would assume the
liability. It is like any public highway bridge-i . e . Taughannock Falls highway bridge
which is vehicular not pedestrian . The suspension bridge will have the hand rail, they
have large concern with small children crossing. They have discussed going 60" but no
less than 42". The stone bridges are 12 feet wide and the suspension bridge is 7 feet wide.
Ms . Chiuten stated they had discussed the driveway, she asked what the measurements
are .
Mr. Burrows stated they have culvert width of 25 feet, they are already curb cuts and they
would not want to go any further than that anyway. If they want to change they must get
permission to do that .
Planning Board Meeting 6
08/ 15/2006
Ms. Chiuten asked if they had blueprints for the buildings .
Mr. Kehoe stated they do not but will get them to the Board as soon as possible. He stated
they are having difficulty regarding the builder they had planned on using for the horse
barn. They have the blue print but will not be using this particular builder. The plan will
remain the same. It will be a basic Morton building concept.
Ms . Chiuten stated the blueprints will need to stay the same, however they can use a
different builder and still get approval . They will need all of the blue prints for the
building.
Mr. Wertis asked what the height for the hobby building and barn would be .
Mr. Kehoe stated it would be 16 feet to the eves, a basic pole barn. Instead of Morton
they may use Butler, Finger Lakes etc . The blueprints will give the height, width.
The beams from the pole barn are being constructed from timber harvested from the site .
They have been saving the beams from timber harvested for this project working
summers and winters for the past several years.
Ms. Chiuten stated she checked online and this area is not an area of archaeological
sensitivity; this is a question on the full EAF form. The septic approval would be
reviewed by the appropriate agency.
Mr. Wertis asked what the actual acreage of the lot is . He noticed when he was onsite
there was a creek on the property, Mr. Kehoe had talked about a management plan he
was concerned with the stormwater drainage and would like to see this addressed.
He is addressing this due to the trails that will be put on the property. He did not see these
reflected on the maps provided. He further stated in a B1 district there is a 35 feet buffer,
but no building should be located within 100 feet of a stream. He asked if this had been
looked at.
Mr. Kehoe stated he has hired Mr. William Jennings, a graduate forester, to provide
a management plan for the property. This is in the works and should have the results
soon.
Mr. Wertis stated in a B1 district there is a 35 feet buffer, but no building should be
located within 100 feet of a stream . He asked if this had been looked at .
Mr. Burrows stated the existing buildings are within 100 feet, but they can be, any of the
new buildings are within the 100 feet required.
Ms. Chiuten stated the existing buildings are grandfathered, and there are no wetlands on
the site . She stated the back part of the parcel falls in one of Tompkins County' s Unique
Natural Areas-she showed the area on the parcel map . She is not sure if there is a problem
if anything is done within this are what the impact would be .
Mr. Coogan stated the Town has never adopted the Unique Natural Areas, because of this
a review would not be done by this Board, but in the 230 the County will mention it is
part of a UNA in Ulysses .
Ms . Chiuten stated that it might be offered that if anything substantial is done it would
need to be reviewed.
Mr. Coogan stated it has been suggested by the Planning Board that the Town Board
adopt the DNA' s as listed by the County.
Ms. Chiuten reiterated it could be proposed that if a trail etc . were if would be allowable,
however an addition of a building or structure would have to be reviewed. It showed up
in SEQR if additions are desired it would be reviewed at a later date .
Planning Board Meeting 7
08/ 15/2006
Mr. Wertis asked about traffic issues , with 10 cottages it would probably not be
problematic however an event with larger amounts of people in attendance could be on
this highway.
Ms . Chiuten stated the traffic study would be done on what the past use has been which
has been ten units, thus the study would not reflect what they would be looking. She
stated even if there was a study done, improvements would not get done on Route 89 .
Ms . Simon stated they have events with 50+ cars at the Cayuga Nature Center and she
has not experienced difficulty with traffic at these events .
Mr. Zeserson noted it is similar to the Fountainbleau , it is a private place used for
weddings of 350 people, and he has attended weddings with no traffic problems . In
addition, there were no people directing traffic-the exit and entrance should alleviate
some traffic problems .
Mr. Wertis asked for clarification as to why one creek disappears . He described what he
is questioning on the maps provided .
Mr. Kehoe verified that a creek does not disappear; it is not a creek but rather a swell on
the property currently.
Ms . Chiuten asked if the property was one parcel .
Mr. Kehoe stated he bought the first parcel in 1995 , the second parcel was purchased in
1996 . He thought this was taken care when he got a variance for non-conforming B1 in
1998/ 1999 .
Mr. Coogan stated the parcels are still listed as separate parcels on the tax maps.
He can check with the county to get a definite answer .
Mr. Kehoe stated he thought it had been taken care of, he will also check with his
attorney to clarify this .
Ms . Chiuten noted the one parcel is in an R1 district .
Mr. Kehoe noted the only item on the parcel is the horse barn.
Mr. Coogan stated a horse barn is allowed in an Rl district, however there is a business
going into an R1 which is not allowed. It was his understanding both parcels were a B1 .
If there are two parcels in two different zones, then a development district might be
necessary. There cannot be an accessory building on a parcel without a primary
dwelling. He suggested they continue as looking at both parcels being a B1 , they will get
clarify the lots with County Assessment as well as Mr. Rachun . They may be able to
combine the lots and designate them as a B 1 .
Ms . Chiuten asked if this would have to go the Town Board and have the Zoning map
approved.
Mr. Porter asked if this problem came up during the Kinney project.
Mr. Coogan replied it had, Mr. Rachun had interpreted that the majority of the property
was in the business district, thus the lot was determined a business district. If the
interpretation does not sound right it could go to ZBA for interpretation. He will speak to
Mr. Rachun and Mr. Wilson. He believes it would work if they combine the lots with this
interpretation in mind.
Mr. Burrows asked how much time it would take to get this done.
Mr. Coogan stated it could run parallel to the Site Plan Process, this Board because it is
on a state route would review it as a subdivision.
Planning Board Meeting 8
08/ 15/2006
Mr. Wertis asked Mr. Coogan to investigate how long a Development District would take
to be approved.
Ms. Carlisle Peck stated Judy Cone ' s approval took 4-5 months to get approved.
Lead Agency Letter
Ms . Chiuten stated they need to decide if they want to become lead agency and send a
letter to the appropriate agencies requesting input and objections . The Board reviewed the
draft of a letter she had proposed, edits were made and the letter is as follows .
TO : Involved/Interested Agencies
Erin M . Crotty, Commissioner, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
XXX, NYS Dept. of Transportation
Ed Marx, Director, Tompkins County Dept. of Planning and Economic
Development
XXX, NYS OPRHP
XXX, Tompkins County Department of Health
XXX, Chief, Trumansburg Fire Department
FROM: Alex Rachun, SEQR Coordinator
Town of Ulysses
10 Elm Street
Trumansburg, NY 14886
DATE : August 16 , 2006
RE REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE IN LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION :
Keyman ' s New Park Project
1488-1500 Taughannock Boulevard
Town of Ulysses
The Town of Ulysses Planning Board has received information for the proposed
Keyman' s New park Project located at 1488- 1500 Taughannock Boulevard/NYS Route
89 in the Town of Ulysses . Preliminary determination of the action classifies it as an
Unlisted Action, and the Town would like to engage in a coordinated review with the
agencies listed above .
By way of this letter, the Town of Ulysses Planning Board would like to declare its intent
to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed
Keyman ' s New Park Project. Mr. Jamie Kehoe is the Applicant; Allen Engineering and
Novelli Engineering are the Consultants .
Description : The Town of Ulysses Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the
proposed Keyman ' s New Park Project (NYS Route 89), Town of Ulysses Tax Parcel
Nos . 18 . -4-2 and 18 . -4-3 , B- 1 Business District and R1 Rural Residential District. Since
proposed project is located in a B1 and a R1 district a determination will be made setting
the zoning precedents for this project. The project proposes rehabilitation of 7 existing
cabins/bungalows, rehabilitation of the existing garage into a wine tasting room,
construction of 3 new cabins/bungalows and a hobby/storage barn, a new horse barn, new
septic systems, a gravel parking lot for approximately 50 cars, and site improvements .
The proposed site improvements include plantings, stone walls and other aesthetic
structures, two stone arch vehicular bridges and a wooden pedestrian bridge over existing
drainage ways, and 8 ' high cedar stockade fencing. There are currently three driveway
curb cuts onto NYS Route 89 which will remain. Existing trails throughout the parcel
will be rehabilitated for use by pedestrians and horse-drawn wagons . Jamie Kehoe,
Owner/Applicant, Allen Engineering and Novelli Engineering, Consultants
Tentative Date for Planning Board Meeting (Lead Agency Designation) : September
19, 2006
Planning Board Meeting 9
08/ 15/2006
By this letter, I am requesting all other interested/involved agencies to state their interests
and concerns regarding selection of lead agency and potential impacts of the overall
action. Concurrence with the designation of the Town of Ulysses Planning Board as lead
agency and comments or concerns related to the proposal should be received within 30
days . An agency's failure to respond within 30 days will be interpreted as having no
interest in the choice of lead agency and having no comments on the action at this time.
Included are the following for your review :
• FEAF-with a description of proposed uses, and inclusion that part
Part of the project is located within a Tompkins County Unique
Natural Area.
• Plan for landscaping details,
• Architectural blueprints for buildings to be constructed.
• Base Map
• Concept Map
• Septic System Plan
• Septic System Details
• Erosion Control/SWPPP Plan
• Pedestrian Suspension bridge detail
• Masonry Arch Bridge detail
If you have any questions regarding the above matter, please contact me at 607-387-
5767 , or by email at arl @lightlink . com .
Attachments
Resolutions
Further discussion regarding the project resulted in the following resolutions. It was
determined that these would be contingent on interpretation by Mr. Rachun that it would
be a legal conforming use due to the different districts of each parcel .
TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-006
Keyman ' s New Park Project
Lead Agency Designation
Tax Parcel No. 18.-4-2 and 18.-4-3
1488- 1500 Taughannock Boulevard
Town of Ulysses, New York
Planning Board, August 15, 2006
MOTION made by Mr. Wertis, seconded by Mr. Porter
WHEREAS :
1 . The Town of Ulysses Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the
proposed Keyman' s New Park Project (NYS Route 89), Town of Ulysses Tax
Parcel Nos . 18 . -4-2 and 18 . -4-3 , B - 1 Business District and R1 Rural Residential
District . Since proposed project is located in a Bl and a Rl district a
determination will be made setting the zoning precedents for this project. The
project proposes rehabilitation of 7 existing cabins/bungalows, rehabilitation of
the existing garage into a wine tasting room, construction of 3 new
cabins/bungalows and a hobby/storage barn, a new horse barn, new septic
systems, a gravel parking lot for approximately 50 cars, and site improvements .
The proposed site improvements include plantings, stone walls and other aesthetic
structures, two stone arch vehicular bridges and a wooden pedestrian bridge over
existing drainage ways, and 8 ' high cedar stockade fencing. There are currently
three driveway curb cuts onto NYS Route 89 which will remain. Existing trails
Planning Board Meeting 10
08/ 15/2006
throughout the parcel will be rehabilitated for use by pedestrians and horse-drawn
wagons . Jamie Kehoe, Owner/Applicant, Allen Engineering and Novelli
Engineering, Consultants and
2 . The proposed Keyman' s New Park Project, which requires site plan approval, is
an Unlisted action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6
NYCRR Part 617 , and
3 . The applicant has submitted materials for the above-described action, including a
project description and a set of concept drawings, dated 8/ 14/06, as listed below :
• FEAF-with a description of proposed uses, and inclusion that part
of the project is located within a Tompkins County Unique Natural
Area.
• Plan for landscaping details,
• Architectural blueprints for buildings to be constructed.
• Base Map
• Concept Map
• Septic System Plan
• Septic System Details
• Erosion Control/SWPPP Plan
• Pedestrian Suspension bridge detail
• Masonry Arch Bridge detail
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as acting
lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Keyman' s New Park
Project proposal, as described above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all
involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, upon submission of the Full
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, by the applicant, said concurrence to be received
by the Town of Ulysses within thirty days from the date of notification of the involved
agencies .
The vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES : Ms Chiuten, Mr. Means, Mr. Porter, Ms . Simon, Mr. Wertis, Mr. Zeserson
NAYS : N/A
ABSENT : Ms Schneider
ABSTAINED : N/A
The vote on the motion WAS CARRIED
TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD .
PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-007
Keyman ' s New Park Project
Cedar stockade fence construction
Tax Parcel No. 18.-4-2 and 18.-4-3
1488-1500 Taughannock Boulevard
Town of Ulysses, New York
Planning Board, August 15, 2006
MOTION made by Mr. Porter, seconded by Mr. Zeserson
Planning Board Meeting 11
08/ 15/2006
WHEREAS :
1 . The Town of Ulysses Planning Board is considering a Plan for the proposed
Keyman ' s New Park Project (NYS Route 89) , Town of Ulysses Tax Parcel Nos .
18 . -4-2 and 18 . -4-3 to construct an 8 feet high, 2400+/- feet cedar stockade fence
which is considered a structure under the current zoning ordinance, and
2 . The fencing will be constructed outside the setbacks as required under the zoning
district of each parcel, R1 require 50 feet setbacks and B1 require 30 feet
setbacks, and
3 . Proposed improvements include 6 feet high evergreen plantings at a minimum
spacing of 10 feet in front and behind the fencing to mitigate impact to the
character of the neighborhood and
4. The Board has voted to not require a Public Hearing due to the structure being
inconsequential for impact to the property and
5 . The project is classified as a Type 2 action for SEQR; the Board has determined a
review is not required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby APPROVES the construction of the
fence to the applicant Jamie Kehoe, Keyman ' s New Park Project proposal, as described
above.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES : Ms Chiuten, Mr. Means, Mr. Porter, Ms . Simon, Mr. Wertis, Mr. Zeserson
NAYS : N/A
ABSENT : Ms Schneider
ABSTAINED : N/A
The vote on the motion WAS CARRIED
Ms . Carlisle Peck reminded the members they had not taken action on the zoning changes
they had prepared in a previous meeting.
Ms. Chiuten asked for a quick review of the document, the members reviewed with
action taken as follows .
TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO . 2006-008
Recommendation to the
Town of Ulysses Town Board
Planning Board, August 15, 2006
MOTION made by Mr. Wertis, seconded by Mr. Porter
WHEREAS :
1 . The current Town of Ulysses Zoning Law was adopted on August 30, 2005 AND
2 . The Code Enforcement Officer has noted several omissions, conflicts and errors
and has prepared a document identifying such, in conjunction with the Town
Board ' s liaison to the Planning Board and the Town Deputy Supervisor AND
3 . The Planning Board has found a number of issues with the current Zoning Law
during both Site Plan Review and Subdivision review/approvals, AND
4. The Planning Board on July 18 , 2006 , has reviewed the document identifying
omissions, conflicts and errors as listed by the Code Enforcement Officer.
Planning Board Meeting 12
08/ 15/2006
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby recommends that the following
changes to the Zoning Law be reviewed and possibly adopted by the Town Board.
Article IV-Definitions
Campgrounds-brief discussion led to agreement in making this change due to the
rationale.
Cottage Industry - Mr. Means stated he had concerns this might limit the type of business
Acorn Designs currently has . A review of the changes reflected that this in fact would
not affect this type of business, agreement with the change
Home Occupation-reviewed and in agreement with the change.
Sign, freestanding-
Article III Administration
Site Plan Review-the decision to review this in the detailed packet of information
provided at a later date was made . The joint conference was discussed briefly and
members felt it would eliminate the need for additional information being requested.
Districts
Al -Section 5.5-Permitted Uses
Section 5.5 Uses Allowed by Special Permit by the Town Board
Section 5.7 Lot area and Yard Requirements
The above were reviewed with approval for the changes with the rationale submitted .
A2-Permitted Uses
Section 6.2 Permitted Uses
A discussion determined the members would like clarification as to the rationale, the
number of events that created this change, the question if the Board could limit events
that may threaten the livelihood of the fairgrounds was brought up . A specific incident
was mentioned that it disrupted a soccer game on a Saturday. There is some language that
could be inserted limiting the decibels during specific hours . The concern that this was
being determined on a single event was discussed; additional information to be requested-
who complained, number of events, who can get permits for special events .
R1 -Section 7.5 Uses Allowed By Special Permit
Section 7.6 Lot Area and Yard Requirements
Added Requirement in Section 7. 6
Items were reviewed with approval with submitted rationale .
Article X-MHP Manufactured Home Park District Section 10.2 Permitted Uses
Items were reviewed with approval with submitted rationale.
Article XIII-Section 13 .2 Permitted Uses
This issue came across the table with the Kinney Drugs project, the ordinance lists
the maximum of 3 ,000 square feet the amount was discussed and the amount of
12 ,000 based on the size allowance for Kinney was agreed and approved by the Board.
The question of adding 1 and 2 family dwellings and multiple dwellings was discussed.
The decision to approve this addition was made.
In addition to amending the B1 district, the decision to include the wording for allowable
signs for home occupation was made.
Article XVII-Design Standards
Section 17.3 Standards for Parking in all Districts (17.3. 1 )
A discussion regarding having a maximum number of parking spaces rather than
minimum determined additional information is needed, based upon that fact that if there
is no minimum parking requirement, a business could come in and have no parking thus
using up other businesses ' parking spaces, or creating other problems if this is in place.
Ms . Simon agreed to review other ordinances to see how this is dealt with—no other
precedents for maximum number of parking spaces were found.
Planning Board Meeting 13
08/ 15/2006
Section 17.4 Standards for Signs
17.4.4 Signs in R1 , R2, RM and MHP Districts, add Al to this section .
17.4.5 Signs in Al , B1 , and IL Districts, omit Al District
Items were reviewed with approval with submitted rationale to amend the Al district
sign ordinance.
In addition to amending the Al district, the decision to include the wording for allowable
signs for home occupation was made .
A discussion regarding section 3 regarding the size maximum ensued with the proposed
changes
a . Eliminate the " 10% of the area of the building" alternative listed in the various sign
allowances .
b . The maximum height allowance for signs is 15 feet.
c . The maximum square feet of all signs will not exceed 64 square feet with a
maximum of two signs one of which can be freestanding.
d. The decision that both sides of the sign should be considered for maximum
square feet were made .
Section 17.5 Standards for Outdoor Lighting
Items were reviewed with approval with submitted rationale.
Section 17. 8 Standards for Animals in Residential Areas
Items were reviewed with approval with submitted rationale .
Section 17.9. 1 (New) Campgrounds, Overnight
A discussion concerning what the meaning of this was, it was decided they would
like to have clarification as to the rationale for this .
Adopt the UNA' s and CEA' s
Items were reviewed with approval with submitted rationale .
The vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES : Ms Chiuten, Mr. Means, Mr. Porter, Ms . Simon, Mr. Wertis, Mr. Zeserson
NAYS : N/A
ABSENT : Ms Schneider
ABSTAINED : N/A
The vote on the motion WAS CARRIED
The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 45 pm .
Respectfully submitted,
Robin Carlisle Peck
Secretary
09/20/06
1
1
II,