HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-03-PB TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
04/03/12
Present: Acting Chairperson Rod Hawkes, Members- Sarah Adams, Stan Beames,
Peter Fry, John Wertis, Environmental Planner Darby Kiley
Excused : Rebecca Schneider, Ken Zeserson
Public : Scott Sears, Paula Horrigan
Mr. Hawkes called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 pm, he noted Mr. Zeserson and
Ms Schneider had informed him they would not be in attendance . He asked the members
if they had reviewed the agenda.
Mr. Wertis stated he would like to add the Planning Board Roles/Duties review added to
the agenda at the end . The members agreed this would be acceptable .
Mr: Hawkes asked if the members had reviewed the 03 /20/ 12 minutes .
Mr. Fry stated he had submitted edits via email .
Ms Kiley had provided copies of Mr. Fry ' s edits to the members . They reviewed the
edits .
Mr. Wertis made the motion, seconded by Mr. Beames to approve the minutes of
03 /20/ 12 with Mr. Fry ' s edits .
The vote was taken . ALL IN FAVOR — minutes approved with edits .
Mr. Hawkes stated the next session was privilege of the floor, he noted they would be
limited to 3 minutes .
Mr. Sears stated he had emailed all of the members prior to this meeting with his
thoughts and concerns . He is very concerned with the flag lot dispute as there is a
property line dispute at this point in time . He is asking the Planning Board to not continue
with the flag lot discussion until the boundary lines have been determined . It is his
impression that the boundary lines should impact the flag lot determination .
Ms Horrigan presented maps and informed the group of the history of this property since
1869 . She stated she had been documenting this since 1988 when they took possession of
this property . The lines on the original survey showed possession of the hedgerow as
indicated on the map . The survey prepared by Mr. Dresser from TG Miller moved the
original pins . The original lot is described as a 4 sided property; however, Mr. Dresser' s
survey indicates a triangle shaped lot. She stated this should not be an allowed use as
there is not 25 feet of road frontage nor 160 feet width until they are 190 feet back on the
property . The survey by Lee Dresser puts the property line across their septic system .
There is also a hedgerow that has lilac trees that are not part of their property on the new
survey. This had been part of their property on the old survey . She stated they used the
prior survey lines when they put the septic system in . She requested this Board not have
the Zoning Board review this until the property lines are disputed .
Ms Adams stated she and Ms Schneider (who was not in attendance) are in agreement
that this does not fit the definition of a flag lot . She noted that the property line is based
on the center of the road . She does not feel this is a completed survey and would like to
not take further action until the property line dispute is resolved and they have a
completed and accurate survey to review.
The members discussed the procedures at length. Ms . Kiley informed the group that
zoning laws have timelines , 45 days from application to make a decision and 60 days to
file an appeal . If this time frame is missed the application is automatically approved . The
Planning Board Mtg . 2
04/03/2012
members decided they needed to move forward with the appeal . They questioned what
would happen if the survey done by Lee Dresser is deemed incorrect . The action taken by
the Zoning Board would be voided as the decision is based on the survey map presented .
Mariette Geldenhuys has advised Ms . Kiley that the Board should move forward with the
appeal based on the zoning laws . There is concern from the members regarding who
would represent the Planning Board at the Zoning Board meeting . Who would prepare
the documents seeing as this is a disagreement between the Planning Board and the
Zoning Officer the "the fox guarding the hen house" scenario . Ms Kiley stated she would
prepare the documents and provide all information available , including resolutions,
minutes, etc . to the Zoning Board . The members agreed they would like to have Mr.
Hawkes present the information to the Zoning Board . Mr. Hawkes stated he would be
willing to do this with Mr. Zeserson in attendance . The question of past flag lot
determinations was brought up, it was noted by several members they would like to have
the prior approvals reviewed. They realized Ms Kiley would not have knowledge of this
but insist they be given this information by Mr. Rachun as soon as possible . The lack of
information has a large impact on property values, Mr. Fry is attempting to purchase this
lot, etc .
Mr. Wertis made the motion, Mr . Beames seconded the following :
Whereas, a Minor Subdivision proposal submitted by Phil Maguire and Corie Wilcox for
Parcel 12 . -2-9 . 3 (now 12 . -2 -9 . 31 ) includes a lot, designated as Parcel A, that the Zoning
Officer defined as a Flag Lot per her January 17, 2012 memo to the Planning Board ;
Whereas , on February 7 , 2012 the Town of Ulysses Planning Board reviewed the Minor
Subdivision and determined that the dimensions of Parcel A does not agree with the
Town of Ulysses Zoning Law definition of a Flag Lot;
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Planning Board appeals the flag lot determination
made by the Zoning Officer; and
Further Resolved that the Vice Chair of the Planning Board will represent the Board at
the Board of Zoning Appeals .
Ms Adams AYE
Mr. Beames AYE
Mr. Fry Recused
Mr. Hawkes AYE
Mr. Wertis AYE
MOTION APPROVED
Ms Kiley stated she would prepare notices and mailings for the April 18th meeting . Mr.
Hawkes stated he would speak to Mr. Zeserson and Ms . Kiley to prepare for that meeting .
Mr. Hawkes stated the next item on the agenda is the continuation of the Lakeshore and
Conservation Zones review.
The members reviewed Mr . Fry ' s erodible soils information he prepared. The group liked
this idea better than the slope . This is defensible due to the erodible soils definitions . It
does not state they cannot build but that they have to mitigate to prevent erosion . What
would be the trigger for this, when would they require an engineer? If an applicant comes
in for a building permit, would the person reviewing this have the knowledge needed to
determine if an engineer is required? The expense of an engineer would be the applicant ' s
responsibility . The discussion continued with edits to 2 . 6 . 4 and 1 . 4 of the zones . Ms .
Kiley made the changes to the document.
Ms Adams noted agriculture is an allowed use, does that mean a 50 x 100 foot pole barn
could be built without a review.
It was discussed that this is an allowed use . The need to review this again was discussed,
the members could not recall why this was put in the zones . It was mentioned the
..
Planning Board Mtg . 3
04/03/2012
Northern portions of the zone have fairly large areas that could be utilized for vineyards,
etc . thus believe that is why it is allowed . Ms . Adams agreed she would do research on
the Ag District and Ag Zone in relationship to these zones for the next meeting .
Mr. Hawkes asked if the members were agreeable to tabling the Planning Board
Roles/Duties until the next meeting . The members agreed this would be acceptable to put
on the April 17`h meeting agenda.
Ms . Kiley stated she had been approached by Mr. Brown to build a produce stand along
Route 96 in Jacksonville, he has cut trees but has not done anything to require permits ,
etc .
The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 47pm
Respectfully submitted,
Robin Carlisle Peck
Zoning/Planning Secretary
1
1
1