Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.14.2010 Planning Board Minutes Minutes for Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #11 Held on July 14, 2010 The meeting of the Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board was called to order at 7:05 PM. Board Members Present: Chair Martin Harms, Graham Gillespie, Frederick Cowett, and Alternate Member, Sean Cunningham Absent: Mark Morris, Henry Richardson Board Secretary: Mary Jane Neff Others: David DuBow Guests: Elena Flash, Kate Supron, George Frantz, Jack Young, Carole Schiffman, Edwin Cowen, and Bea Szekley On a motion by Gillespie, seconded by Cowett the following was passed: RESOLUTION NO. 36 AUTHORIZING ALTERNATE SEAN CUNNINGHAM TO VOTE AT TONIGHT’S MEETING. RESOLVED, that Alternate Board Member Sean Cunningham is hereby authorized to vote at tonight’s meeting. The minutes were presented and reviewed for June 8, 2010 meeting. On a motion by Gillespie, seconded by Cowett the following was unanimously passed: RESOLUTION NO. 32 APPROVING MINUTES OF June 8, 2010 RESOLVE that the minutes of June 8, 2010 meeting are hereby approved. Chair Harms opened the floor for public comments. Mr. Cowen stated that he was concerned about the number of unrelated people who can live in a building that is located in the residential district. He encouraged the Board to act quickly on its’ recommendation to the Board of Trustees to clarify the number of unrelated people in a building. He requested that the integrity of the residential district be maintained The Board thanked him for his comments. Elena Flash, attorney for the Village on the Upland Road subdivision, was introduced by Chair Harms. He stated that, per the Board’s request, she is in attendance to answer questions from the Board about the site plan review and approval process in general and to explain the legal process involved with the Upland Road subdivision. She explained that on 4/9/07 the then Village Planning Board granted preliminary subdivision approval for the Upland Road subdivision with conditions to be met before final approval could be granted. Before this Planning Board can review the application by the developer for final approval, the technical conditions will need to be reviewed by Village Engineer, Brent Cross, and the legal conditions will be reviewed by her. She further stated that there is no time limit on subdivision that would require the developer to come back before the Planning Board for another approval nor is there a time limit on the preliminary approval for the developer to complete the conditions. She explained that only in extreme circumstances can a preliminary subdivision be revoked. The following are the outstanding conditions placed on the Upland Road subdivision’s preliminary approval: 1. A final map 2. Lot coverage variance for the parcel purchased from the Corner’s Community Center 3. The storm water retention pond currently on the Corner’s Community Center’s land conveyed to the Upland Road subdivision 4. The developer will pay the legal fees for the Village Attorney to review the land conveyance 5. The Homeowners Association must be approved by the New York State Attorney General (this is deemed approved once it is filed) 6. Agreement with the nine lot owners permitting the Village to assess taxes on the nine lot owners if they do not maintain the retention pond 7. After the final approval, the Village may impose a timing constraint assuring that the infrastructure is completed before a building permit is issued. Attorney Flash stated that additional conditions can be imposed on the final approval that relates to conditions that become known at that time. Chair Harms asked if the Planning Board would need to hold another public hearing on this subdivision application. Attorney Flash stated that as long as the developer continues on according to the preliminary approval, then no additional public hearing is required. The Board thanked her for the information and guidance. The next issue on the agenda was the proposed amendment to the Village’s fence ordinance to allow temporary deer fencing. Attorney DuBow presented a proposed draft local law amendment that would allow a maximum 8 foot high temporary deer fences with 90% transparency on a property’s side and rear lot line. No change had yet been made with respect to deer fencing and front yard setbacks pending the recommendation of the Planning Board per the request of the Board of Trustees. The Planning Board reviewed the draft local law. Attorney DuBow stated that the wording was based on the Board’s discussion at its last meeting. Member Cowett explained the building footprint study that he had sent to the members prior to tonight’s meeting. He explained the process he used and cautioned members about the potential for error in the study. The Board thanked him for undertaking the study because it gave them information that had not been available to them previously. They also commented that it would be helpful with their recommendation on the proposed change in the fence ordinance as well as being helpful with compiling the comprehensive plan. After a discussion, the Board concurred that the wording in Section III of the proposed local law needed to clarify that only the portion above the allowed 4-foot fence needed to be 90% transparent, that the fence must be black, green, or brown and that no gates or posts would be higher than 8-feet. The Board further concurred that the front yard setback should remain at 25 feet for an 8-foot high deer fence. The Board requested Attorney DuBow to stay for the discussion on the occupancy of unrelated people in the residential area. George Frantz, the Village’s comprehensive plan consultant, reported that he had transmitted to the Board a copy of the final inventory that had been prepared by the Land Use, Environmental & Urban Planning Workshop students and that he had brought hard copies and CDs to the Village Office for distribution to interested residents. Mr. Frantz commented that the graphics were not a forte of the class. However, Member Gillespie requested that what graphics were done by the class be made available for use during the charrette contemplated for late October. Mr. Frantz presented a draft comprehensive plan goal statement for the Board to review. He requested the Board to review the statement and give him feedback prior to the August 11, 2010 meeting. He would like to have the goals and objectives in draft form by the end of August. Also, Mr. Frantz stated that he would draft within a week an agreement for the remainder of his consultancy services for the Village Attorney and the Planning Board chair to review. Chair Harms stated that he had discussed with Bill Dennis different ways of using some of his company’s services for the Community Corners/Village Green charrette so that the costs indicated in his June 8th proposal could be reduced. Mr. Dennis had e- mailed him another proposal which had been forwarded to the Board prior to this meeting. Chair Harms distributed a budget he had prepared based on the new proposal. With what the Village has earmarked for the comprehensive plan less the amount used for the workshop and the projected amount for Mr. Frantz’s future consultancy services, there would remain a positive balance of $67.740. Including a $4,000 contingency (charrette $2,500; comprehensive plan completion $1,500), the amount that needs to be raised from private sources to cover the charrette costs is $12,500. The Board agreed this was a reasonable goal. Chairman Harms requested the charrette steering committee to put together a charrette preparation plan based on Mr. Dennis’s proposal and to get the advertising for the charrette started. Member Gillespie presented an outline of what is needed for the charrette and recommended members participation in each segment of the process. As members of the steering committee, both Carole Schiffman and Diana Riesman will help with the publicity for the charrette. Depending on the availability of space and Mr. Dennis’s availability of time, the Board set October 21, 2010 through October 25, 2010 for the charrette itself. This time frame includes residents’ input and advertising of the event that will be critical to charette results. The Board discussed possible spaces in the Village that are large enough to accommodate 50 – 75 people and ways to get residents to attend and become involved with the process. The steering committee will work on the details and e-mail the board their findings and recommendations as they become known. Chair Harms requested Mr. Young to describe his concerns about the current Village residential occupancy law. Mr. Young stated that the wording of the law was ambiguous, in particular an interpretation of the word “residence” that had historically allowed four unrelated people to reside in a single family dwelling and eight unrelated people in a two family dwelling. He considers this to be excessive and expressed concern that, since his house is adjacent to the multiple resident district and the size of the homes in his neighborhood are large, developers may view these homes as potential student housing. They could buy these homes, rent to eight unrelated people, and take the lawns and plantings out to make adequate off street parking for the tenants. This would completely change the character of one of the oldest sections of the Village. He also commented that since the definition of “family” in the Village‘s ordinances is open-ended in terms of numbers, this allows for an even greater number of occupants in a single house. He requested the Board to consider recommending to the Village Board of Trustees an amendment to the present local law. Chair Harms asked the Board if this was an issue they would agree to take on outside of the comprehensive plan process. Attorney DuBow stated that drafting a local law on this topic would be fairly straightforward, but, before considering a change to the present ordinance, the Board should proceed with caution. Attorney DuBow further stated there is much case law on defining “family” and that he would recommend reviewing them thoroughly before proposing an amendment to the Village’s current law. If it is the consensus of the Board to take on this issue, Chair Harms recommended that it be tabled to the next meeting or to schedule a special meeting. Member Gillespie requested that Code Enforcement Officer Cross attend the meeting to explain his interpretation of the present Village Law and the impact of NYS building code on the enforcement of the Village law. Mr. Young, from his observations of the number of possible ownership transitions in his neighborhood and due to the legal process of amending local laws, requested the Board to make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees as soon as possible. If possible, he would like this Board to have a recommendation to present at the Board of Trustees upcoming July 19, 2010 meeting. The Board requested Attorney DuBow to prepare a draft local law to amend the current ordinance that would legally change and clarify the wording of this ordinance. It was the consensus of the Board to schedule a special meeting on July 16, 2010 at 11:00 AM to discuss this issue with Code Enforcement Officer Cross, to possibly recommend a local law amending the wording of the occupancy ordinance, and to finalize their recommended amendment to allow temporary deer fencing. The Board requested Attorney DuBow to also attend this meeting. On a motion by Cunningham, seconded by Cowett the following was unanimously passed: RESOLUTION NO. 37 ADJOURNING MEETING RESOLVE, that this meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Mary Jane Neff Planning Board Secretary