Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.23.2012 MinutesMeeting #36 Planning Board July 23, 2012 Page 1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #36 Monday, July 23, 2012 Marcham Hall – 7:00pm Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair M. Harms, G. Gillespie, S. Cunningham, H. Richardson, Alternate D. Hay Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski Trustees B. Szekely, L. Karns, S. Hamilton Zoning Board of Appeals Members J. Young, A. Watkins Members of the Public Item 1 – Meeting called to order Chair M. Harms opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. Item 2- Approval of May 29, 2012 minutes In the interest of time, the minutes were tabled until the August 27, 2012 meeting. Item 3- Public question and answer discussion of June 2012 draft of the VCH Comprehensive Plan · Chair M. Harms gave an overview of the Planning Board’s process of creating the draft Comprehensive Plan. He also read aloud the email he sent to the Ithaca Journal regarding the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 2012. · Chair M. Harms informed the public the Board of Trustees will be hosting 2 discussion meetings regarding the Comprehensive Plan during the month of August. · G. Gillespie discussed the structure of the Comprehensive Plan. · Question/Comments from B. Levitt - Is under the impression that the current zoning laws are strong enough to protect against the dangers anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. · Response from G. Gillespie- As long as the current zoning laws are not changed and are adequate to handle increased traffic and types of housing that may be conducive to a increased density district. · Question/Comments from P. Bottorff- What was envisio ned to happen with the proposed redistricting? · Response from Chair M. Harms- The proposed redistricting would allow property owners the option to subdivide their property and sell it as smaller lots. · Question/Comments from B. Friedlander- 1) Stated he feels the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are admirable. 2) Stated he felt the meeting was not adequately advertised. 3) Why the future land use map was not labeled as a “concept plan” rather than “proposed plan?” · Question/Comments from P. Bottorff- 1) Asked for examples of what might happen in the future. 2) Why are other parcels not being considered? · Response from Chair M. Harms- The plan lays out some of the principles that the Board is looking into such as traffic and other possible changes. Meeting #36 Planning Board July 23, 2012 Page 2 · Question/Comments from S. Shiffrin- 1) Why are the impacts on traffic, the Police Department, Fire Department and schools not addressed in the plan? 2) Does not believe the current quality of life in the Village will be maintained. · Question/Comments from B. Correll- 1) Why was the topic of how the plan will affect the quality of life not a focal point of the meeting ? 2) Why were the particular residential models illustrated in the plan used? · Response from G. Gillespie- The residential models used in the plan represent models of smaller developed lots with single family homes and the types of topography changes that sort of development might bring. · Question/Comments from M. Zarem- 1) Who stands to benefit from the changes the plan suggests? 2) Does not see how the Village residents would benefit. · Response from Chair M. Harms- The plan considers future changes down the road such as changing demographics in the Village and surrounding areas. · Question/Comments from P. Velleman- 1) Concerned that if neighbors are allowed to subdivide their lots, it would affect his property values. 2) Believes the Board has an obligation to speak directly to property owners regarding such proposed changes and inform them that their properties could be affected. · Response from Chair M. Harms- Going forward, the Board will make every effort to communicate with property owners. · Question/Comments from S. Michaels- What is the rationale of redistricting for the purpose of allowing elderly residents to remain in the Village as well as accommodating families with small children along Triphammer? · Response from G. Gillespie- The plan was considering more of a cul-de-sac arrangement rather than along Triphammer. · Question/Comments from Resident - What are the plans for density units? · Question/Comments from J. Shreve- 1) How much of the land for the proposed redistricting is owned by Kendal? 2) Who will pay for the added sewer and utility lines? · Question/Comments from R. Bors- The Village was formed as a high quality residential community and the objective to “expand the stock of moderately priced owner-occupied housing” would adversely affect the quality of the Village. · Question/Comments from P. Velleman- The Board has not received the opinions of the Villagers on how they value the proposed affected properties. · Response from G. Gillespie- The Board is considering “what if” possibilities and how possible future situations could affect the Village. · Question/Comments from D. Skalleck- The Residents 2 objectives seem to be a priority over the other goals in the plan. · Question/Comments from B. Levitt - The Board should have received feedback from residents to see if redistricting was even desirable and if so where do the residents think it should be. · Question/Comments from S. Shiffrin- The majority of statements from residents have been against the Redistrict 2 objective to “expand the stock of moderately priced owner- occupied housing” in the proposed areas. · Resident- Has not heard from any residents who say they think the plan is a good idea. · Question/Comments from J. Cox- Does not agree with re-zoning of Kendall area. Meeting #36 Planning Board July 23, 2012 Page 3 · Question/Comments from B. Friedlander- Requested the Board to withdraw the plan until further public input is gathered. · Comments from Trustee B. Szekely- 1) The plan will not be adopted by the Board of Trustees until further public input has been obtained 2) Chair M. Harms has applied for a grant from Cornell to fund a charette which will allow for further public involvement in the plan. 3) There will be 2 discussion sessions hosted by the Board of Trustees to allow the public to give further input. · Response from Chair M. Harms- 1) The Planning Board has shown the members have an extreme interest in hearing what the public thinks. 2) The process of moving forward with the Comprehensive Plan should proceed rather than pulling the plan back from the Board of Trustees. · Comments from H. Richardson- 1) The purpose of the plan is to have a proposal in place that could serve as a buffer for traffic and other issues that could arise. 2) The charette will be an opportunity to show examples from other communities and how similar situations could affect the Village. 3) Reactions from the public are very welcome. 4) The plan is meant to anticipate possible situations that could happen and allow the Village to be proactive rather than reactive. 5) The plan is intended to allow the Village a means of responding to unforeseen situations or trends. · Comments from G. Gillespie- Would like to allow the process to play out and have a chance to hear from more members of the public on some of the other concepts of the plan. · Question/Comments from B. Levitt - Zoning laws should be strengthen in order to reduce traffic. By subdividing lots, traffic would increase. · Question/Comments from B. Levitt - Where in Cayuga Heights will a mass employment generator develop to support a node concept? · Discussion ended. Item 4- Review Tompkins County Planning Department letter re draft Comprehensive Plan dated July 17, 2012 The Board discussed the Tompkins County Planning Department letter regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan. Item 5- Other Business No other business discussed. Item 6- Adjourn Chair M. Harms adjourned the meeting at 9:02 pm.