Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-01-PB Ulysses Town Planning Board Minutes 1 May 2012 Approved May 15, 2012 I Present : Chairperson Ken Zeserson , Members — Stan Beames, Rod Hawkes, Sarah Adams, John Wertis, Rebecca Schneider, Environmental Planner Darby Kiley Excused : Peter Fry Public : Jim and Jeff Brown ( and family), Scott Sears, Paula Horrigan, Philip Maguire . Agenda Items : 1 . Approve minutes from April meeting . 2 . Consider Brownie' s Produce Market Site Plan application 3 . Consider Wilcox/ Maguire application for Minor Subdivision approval 4 . Discussion on Tompkins County Development Focus Area Strategy 5 . Discussion of a resolution requesting that the Town Board entertain action to modify the Zoning Law in respect to " flag lot " use, definition, and standards . 6 . Final review of draft Lakeshore and Conservation Zoning language Item 1 : Meeting Minutes from April 17, 2012 Mr. Hawkes had one edit on page 3 . Mr. Wertis made a motion, seconded by Mr. Zeserson to approve the minutes of 4/ 17/ 12 with Mr. iiHawkes' edit . The vote was taken, all members in favor, minutes approved . Privilege of the floor: no one from the public spoke . Item 2 : Brownie' s Produce Market Jim and Jeff Brown have been selling produce and sweet corn for 15 years by Route 96 and that land was sold . They needed to have a site to sell and want a permanent building in a commercial area . Jim' s son, Jeff, and daughter will be part of the business — growing local produce and related items . This year will be seasonal ; they would normally open by May ft. All bank financing is approved . They want to add products and stay open with Christmas trees through December. Ms . Adams asked about the schematic of building elevations and clarification is needed . She also asked about the sign and whether they would consider an alternative . The application material shows a 24 square foot sign with changeable lettering . That is what they plan to use for this year but will want to replace that with landscaped sign ; a new sign will also need to have changeable lettering but will not be lit . They are looking at something like the mini-golf sign . Mr. Wertis said that when the Ulysses Square sign was changed , the residents wanted something rustic . Mr. Brown said that could be nice, but they need to be able to change the letters . Mr. Hawkes wanted to verify the hours of operation . Mr. Brown responded that they will be open seven days a week, starting around 9 AM and close around 7 PM . Mr . Zeserson added that this business will not add large amounts of traffic . Ms . Schneider said that the business fits the community look and needs . Ms . Kiley stated that Tompkins County completed their review under GML 239 . The County recommended "that a 50 foot buffer measured from top of bank ( or level of bankfull discharge ) be maintained along the intermittent stream on the property' s southern boundary. Furthermore, all of the Planning Board Mtg . 2 05/01/2012 vegetation in this buffer area should remain in its natural state ." While 50 feet is recommended, according to the site plan, the actual width is 125 feet . The Town' s Zoning requires 25 feet . Resolution WHEREAS : 1 . This is a Preliminary Site Plan Review for the proposed Brownie' s Produce Market project located at 1901 Trumansburg Rd , Town of Ulysses Tax Parcel Number 25 . -2 - 1 . 52, B1- Business District . The proposal is to construct a 1, 728 +/- square foot produce market with a 630 +/- square foot porch , a 1, 152 +/- square foot greenhouse, a 378 +/- square foot covered display area , as well as parking, signage, and landscaping . James and Jeffrey Brown, Owners/Applicants, and 2 . The proposed project is not subject to SEQR because it is a Type II action ; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED : That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby schedules a public hearing for review of Brownie' s Produce Market project located at 1901 Trumansburg Rd , Town of Ulysses Tax Parcel Number 25 .-2- 1 . 52, for May 15, 2012 at 7 : 00 PM . Moved by Mr. Zeserson ; seconded by Mr. Beames . All members in favor, motion carried . Item 3 : Maguire/Wilcox Minor Subdivision on Pennsylvania Avenue Mr. Zeserson asked if there were any comments regarding this project . Ms . Adams said that the board needs to decide now whether to schedule a public hearing . Mr. Zeserson said that it is worth going over the history and interpretation : Maguire/Wilcox applied for a subdivision that included a flag lot; Ms . Kiley determined that the lot was flag lot based on zoning law; the Planning Board disagreed ; Mr. Hawkes represented the board at the Board of Zoning Appeals; the BZA agreed that this will not meet the standards of a flag lot as Ms . Kiley had defined it; but that is all immaterial to our decision tonight; the BZA said our interpretation was correct; however they approved the variance on the frontage, so it is a lot . Ms . Adams asked a procedural question; she understands that a variance is an appeal to the zoning officer' s decision , so how did it go from not a flag lot to it is a variance ? There was no decision by zoning officer that they were appealing . Was this correct procedurally? They weren' t appealing the fact that it was a flag lot . Mr. Hawkes said that the wording of the BZA appeal is about the variance from the lot area and yard requirements unrelated to the flag lot . Ms . Adams said that it is all so murky; Ms . Kiley' s role as staff to BZA and to planning board ; are we functioning procedurally? Mr. Zeserson responded that Ms . Geldenhuys outlined these issues in a memo to the board , and she also shared similar comments with the BZA: if the BZA reversed the zoning officer' s determination, the next step is to hear and decide the variance application . Mr. Hawkes added that this was the reason that the planning board initially sent it to the BZA. Ms . Kiley responded that in discussions with the attorney for the town, she did not have a problem with the two appeals happening simultaneously . Mr . Maguire added that the applicants were concerned about time and appreciates that it was expedited . Mr. Zeserson said that this brings us to this crossroad — the BZA still approved the variance, so before the board today is to schedule the public hearing . 2 I? Planning Board Mtg . 3 05/01/2012 Mr. Sears noted for the public record that there is a property dispute, but he knows the board has to proceed regardless . Regarding history and process, he understands that planning board ' s job is to decide if there is a public hearing, then is it the boards role to allow the subdivision ? Ms . Kiley responded that the BZA' s variance made the site a lot . Next the board can approve, approve with condition, or disapprove the plat after the public hearing . Tonight the board can do the SEQR, then schedule the public hearing . The Town ' s zoning says "if required" to schedule a public hearing; however, town law says public hearings are required . Ms . Adams asked how do conditions that the BZA put on this lot get addressed relative to subdivision . This is not site plan review; how are those conditions implemented ? Ms . Kiley responded that when someone applies for building permit, all the BZA requirements will be part of the building permit file . As an example, a variance was recently granted on a single family home on Trumansburg Rd, and all of the BZA records are part of the permitting process . A similar process would be used here with the conditions stated in the BZA resolution . The Planning Board should reiterate the conditions in their resolution . The Board cannot condition the subdivision on that but can put it in the resolution . As a reminder, the attorney for the town said to carefully consider subdivision in terms of law; it is important to say findings that support the zoning law. Mr. Sears asked what the board ' s consideration is based upon ; there is variance . Ms . Adams responded that the board considers it relative to comprehensive plan . The BZA had standards to consider in granting the variance; even if the board disagrees, we can't take issue . Mr. Sears stated that the BZA had 5 criteria; a ) is the variance substantial, i . e . the frontage of 78 vs 160 ft and they said it was substantial, and b ) say yes it is self- imposed . Mr. Sears suggests that 78 vs 160 ft seems like a big deal, and he thinks the planning board should seriously consider this . He added that another resident at the BZA hearing asked why 160 ft is the required road frontage, and what is intent IIbehind it? If that rule isn't protected then anything goes . Ms . Adams asked about the meaning of substantial and will have to go back to the comprehensive plan . Is half of what is required substantial ? If it meets everything else then ignore the frontage ? Ms . Kiley responded that once the BZA grants the variance, it is a lot . The board cannot change that. The board cannot disagree unless they want to appeal the decision . Mr. Hawkes said that the BZA action makes it a done deal . The lot is defined, but it is still a subdivision, which the planning board has that authority. Mr. Maguire asked about the land vs . the building. The applicants have not even decided what will be done . He continued that when the applicants first were in front of the planning board, the key question was the pole for the flag lot. It exceeded all other requirements of flag lot and was a cosmetic issue . Mr. Hawkes responded that in terms of width of pole, it's OK, but not the other definitions, such as lines parallel and perpendicular. Mr. Maguire said that at the February meeting, the pole was the only problem, which is why it was appealed to the BZA. The BZA did not have a problem with pole, instead they had a problem with another aspect of the lot . They discussed the flag lot but exceeds so many minimum standards for flag lot; this is 78ft which exceeds flag lot and almost 2 acres . Ms . Adams said that this is now moot point because it is an accepted lot. Mr. Zeserson and Ms . Adams both stated that they would like to have the attorney for the town present at the public hearing . Ms . Horrigan wants a transparent deliberative process no matter how long it takes . Mr. Maguire wants to expedite this as fast as possible . Mr. Zeserson stated that an applicant comes before us, we do the best we can to be timely. 3 Planning Board Mtg. 4 05/01/2012 Ms . Adams noted that if public hearing is held on May 15th, the board has 45 days to make a final decision . Mr. Maguire asked if there are guidelines on length of speaking at the public hearing . The response was that it is up to the discretion of the board, but the guidelines are that the public has 3 minutes each to speak . The public comment need to relate to the project and keep inappropriate comments to a minimum . Everyone who wants to speak should have a chance . Maguire said that this is an emotional issue for both sides, as families are affected and there are financial issues . The BZA meeting was delayed a lot of things for unproductive conversation . Resolution BE IT RESOLVED : That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board schedules a public hearing for review of the Minor Subdivision located at 335 Pennsylvania Ave and an unnumbered lot south of 355 Pennsylvania Ave, Town of Ulysses Tax Parcel Number 12 .-2 -9 . 31, for May 15, 2012 at 7 : 15 PM . Moved by Mr . Wertis; seconded by Mr. Zeserson . All members in favor, motion carried . The SEAR forms will be reviewed at the public hearing . Ms . Kiley reminded that board that they will be determining the environmental impact of a subdivision of two lots being created with at most one more house being added . There is controversy with the project but the board needs to see the bigger picture regarding what is meant by environmental impact . Notices will be sent to all neighbors within 500 feet of the property . After the members of the public left, the Planning Board discussed other subdivision issues, including the differences between simple, minor and major subdivisions . Mr. Wertis also mentioned that in regard to flag lot on p . 45 of zoning law, under 8 . 2 permitted uses — a permitted use is a flag lot . He raised a question about designating a flag lot as a use and wondered if the applicant should have pursued an use variance . . A use variance is harder variance to get than area variance . Item 4: Tompkins County Development Focus Area Document Ms . Adams was unable to attend the meeting in March when Joan Jurkowich from the Tompkins County Planning Department presented to the Town Board . Mr. Wertis was there from the Planning Board . The County has not finalized the document, so another draft will go out later in May . Ms . Adams said that some of the goals in the document were conflicting; that there is a certain amount of development in Ulysses/Trumansburg and that should be taken advantage of, but the growth should make sense . If more growth is encouraged then it will defeat the purpose of "controlling sprawl" as that many more households will be driving to Ithaca . These are a lot of planning buzzwords . A subcommittee of Ms . Adams and Ms . Schneider will review the document and draft a resolution regarding the development focus areas specific to the town . Ms . Kiley will let the County know that comments will be coming after the May 15th meeting. Item 5 : Modify zoning law with respect to flag lots Mr. Zeserson proposed a hold on the discussion about flag lots . Mr. Wertis said that there is an issue with flag lots in the lakeshore zone because it is inconsistent with language for rest of the document . It has to do with "what is the lake" ? Is it a public highway? Item 6 : Final review of lakeshore and conservation zoning comparison Mr . Zeserson said that the board has spent over 2 years working on the language of the conservation zoning and have approved it all . Now the town board needs to interpret it and decide if is passable . Do we have to do another presentation of the lakeshore/ conservation zoning? Ms . Adams suggested a formal presentation to ask the town board for a timeline — we spent a lot of time and want them to do 4 Planning Board Mtg . 5 05/01/2012 this right . Mr. Wertis suggested that the planning board might want to invite the town supervisor regarding her vision of the time table . The town board can' t just adopt this with the other stuff in place, i . e . farmland protection . They have to do it all at once . Ms . Adams suggested that the town board could put a moratorium in place . Ms . Kiley said that the town board is waiting for planning board to come back with the next draft . Resolution Whereas the planning board has worked for two and a half years on development of conservation zone, and the lakeshore committee has spent comparable time on the lakeshore zoning, and Whereas planning board has made sure of consistency between both zoning documents and the existing zoning code, and Whereas time is of the essence as construction and development are moving ahead in the very areas that these regulations are designed to protect, Resolved, we are putting this forward with a very strong recommendation from the planning board , and implore the town board to consider and approve these proposed zoning amendments in as timely a fashion as possible . Moved by Ms . Adams; seconded by Mr. Zeserson . All members in favor, motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 8 :45 PM . Notes taken by Rebecca Schneider, edited by Darby Kiley . 5