Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.25.2011 Planning Board MinutesMeeting #20 Planning Board April 25, 2011 Page 1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #20 Monday, April 25, 2011 Marcham Hall – 7:00pm Minutes Present: Chair M. Harms, H. Richardson, G. Gillespie, F. Cowett, and S. Cunningham Absent: M. Morris Others: VCH Deputy Clerk A. Korbel, Village Superintendent B. Cross, Attorney K. Rothman (attending for Attorney Elena Flash), and Attorney K. Gutenberger, Trustee B. Szekely Guests: (See attached sign in sheet) Item 1 – Meeting called to order Called to order by Chair M. Harms at 7:01 pm. Item 2 – Add Alternate as voting member Motion: G. Gillespie Second: F. Cowett RESOLUTION No. 62 AUTHORIZING ALTERNATE MEMBER TO VOTE AT TONIGHT’S MEEING RESOLVE, that the Alternate member, Sean Cunningham, is hereby authorized to vote at tonight’s meeting. Aye votes – All in favor Opposed- None Item 3- Review and approval of March Minutes Motion: S. Cunningham Second: F. Cowett RESOLUTION No. 63 APPROVING MINUTES OF MARCH 7, 2011 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of March 7, 2011 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – All in favor Meeting #20 Planning Board April 25, 2011 Page 2 Opposed- None Item 4- Public Comment J. Rusten: Expressed concern revolving around the Upland Road project. His concern lies in the clearing of vegetation for water and sewer lines and how this will affect the surrounding properties. Mr. Rusden also expressed concern as to how the driveways will be installed. Superintendent B. Cross: Replied that the water and sewer lines will run through the bed of the proposed road. Any clearing of vegetation will be a result of the laying of the road. Trees will only be removed to add infrastructure. B. Eden: Informed the board he is the Village of Cayuga Heights representative to the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council and is interested in collaborating with the board. He is particularly interested in alternative energy issues. Chair M. Harms closed Public Comment. Item5- Upland Road Subdivision Superintendent B. Cross: Previously emailed the board a draft of the list of conditions for final plat approval along with a resolution written by Attorney K. Rothman regarding the subdivision. (See attached.) F. Cowett: Mentioned the wetland onsite has yet to be delineated and that plat boundaries may change subject to that delineation. He questioned why the board is being asked to vote on final plat approval prior to the wetland delineation and stated a preference for having as much information as possible in making a final decision. Superintendent B. Cross: Stated that final plat approval subject to meeting conditions such as US Army Corps of Engineers acceptance of the site’s wetland delineation and any wetland mitigation plan that might be required was within the Planning Board’s authority and is commonly done by other Planning Boards. Attorney K. Rothman: Confirmed to the board it is common to make a decision on final plat approval subject to conditions being met G. Gillespie: Asked about ways in which the process of final plat approval subject to conditions could be delayed. Superintendent B. Cross: Explained to the board he verifies that conditions have been met with counsel before a construction permit is issued. Triggers are built into the system that could delay the process. Chair Harm: Asked Attorney K. Rothman if the resolution wording must be used verbatim. Meeting #20 Planning Board April 25, 2011 Page 3 Attorney K. Rothman suggested the board review the resolution and Superintendent B. Cross suggested the board review the draft of conditions. The resolution and conditions were reviewed. K. Medeiros: Stated to the board she would like project contractors to be aware that several young children reside in the neighborhood and that they need to be appropriately careful. It was noted that there is a lettering correction in the resolution. The letters F & G were used twice and have since been corrected to read F, G, H, I, J. The board would like to add to the end of resolution items I & J “and inspected and approved by authorities having jurisdiction.” Item I will now read “Lots 7 and 8 may not be conveyed by Upland Road Estates until the storm water retention pond has been completely constructed and inspected and approved by authorities having jurisdiction.” Item J will now read “Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 may not be conveyed by Upland Road Estates until the entire storm water facility, the private access road and the water sewer lines for the entire subdivision have been completely constructed and inspected and approved by authorities having jurisdiction.” Motion: G. Gillespie Second: H. Richardson RESOLUTION No. 64 APPROVING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF THE UPLAND ROAD SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO RESOLUTION AMENDMENTS. RESOLVE, that the Final Plat Plan Approval for the Upland Road Subdivision is hereby approved. Aye votes – All in favor Opposed- None Item 6- Heights Café Sign Application Superintendent B. Cross: Shared with the board drawings of Department of Transportation (DOT) signs which would direct tourists to the café. Superintendent B. Cross informed the board that worst case scenario the DOT may require 3 signs to be installed. The café owner, J. Larounis, stated he would like to add his signs to pre-existing roadside signs in the Village. K. Gutenberger: Read Local Law 5 of 2011 conditions regarding signs for the board to consider. J. Larounis stated he will request that the DOT use the fewest number of signs possible. Meeting #20 Planning Board April 25, 2011 Page 4 Motion: S. Cunningham Second: H. Richardson RESOLUTION No. 65 APPROVING SIGN APPLICATION FOR THE HEIGHT’S CAFÉ RESOLVE, that the sign application for the Height’s Café is hereby approved. Aye votes – All in favor Opposed- None Item 7- Pleasant Grove Subdivision Superintendent B. Cross: Explained to the board there are 2 types of subdivisions; 1) Minor: One lot is divided into two. The board need not review this type of subdivision. 2) Major: One lot is divided into more than two lots. This requires board review. Superintendent B. Cross expressed the need for the board to schedule a public hearing and showed the board drawings of the proposed subdivision. J. Sokoloff: (Owner/Developer of the proposed subdivision) discussed with the board his plans for the subdivision. He is looking to divide the property into three lots and sell the house currently on the premises. Mr. Sokoloff mentioned that several of the properties on Pleasant Grove Lane were originally multiple lots that were combined into single lots. Superintendent B. Cross: Informed the board that J. Sokoloff would need to become a member of the Pleasant Grove Home Owner’s Association (HOA) since one of the parcels would need road frontage on Pleasant Grove Lane. Superintendent B. Cross also informed the board that the proposed lots meet minimum Village standards for lot size. Beth Ganem: Questioned the determination made by Superintendent B. Cross with regard to road frontage for the proposed Pleasant Grove Lane lot. Superintendent B. Cross: Stated that the proposed Pleasant Grove Lane lot had at least 75 feet of road frontage. P. Browning: Expressed concern that the plat for the proposed Pleasant Grove Lane lot could reduce the area for the cul-de-sac and leave insufficient room for trucks to turn around. Superintendent B. Cross: Stated that any modification of the cul-de-sac by J. Sokoloff would need to meet Pleasant Grove HOA regulations and would be subject to an agreement by him with the HOA to become a member of the HOA. Beth Ganem: Stated that the Pleasant Grove Home Owner’s Association pays for the upkeep of Pleasant Grove Lane; she is concerned over possible damage that might be caused by the Meeting #20 Planning Board April 25, 2011 Page 5 subdivision to Pleasant Grove Lane and also that the subdivision may cause problems with storm water drainage. Superintendent B. Cross: The HOA may charge the developer a fee to join the HOA and make him responsible for any damage to the road, but the road is not the responsibility of the Village. Superintendent B. Cross stated he does not believe there will be an issue with storm water drainage. J. Sokoloff was asked how the house on Parcel A will obtain utility access. He stated he has not considered this yet. Superintendent B. Cross: Stated the homeowner needs to provide a plan for utilities and reach an agreement with the HOA. Superintendent B. Cross suggested the attorney and board review such an agreement to ensure parcels have proper road access. K. Segal: Questioned the board whether S. Cunningham, an alternate serving on the board and who is also the President of the Pleasant Grove HOA, should take part in any voting or discussions regarding the subdivision. Attorney K. Gutenberger: S. Cunningham would have to make the decision to recuse himself. He can not be forced to do so. Bruce Ganem: Informed the board that J. Sokoloff has attempted to contact the HOA. Mr. Ganem also stated that a public hearing should not be scheduled until an agreement has been reached between J. Sokoloff and the HOA. Trustee B. Szekely: Raised the question whether it was an issue of ethics and a conflict of interest for S. Cunningham to participate in the discussion and to vote. Trustee B. Szekely also mentioned the Village’s ethics policy and NYS Village law that say a conflict of interest exists when there is also a financial interest. This would be the case with S. Cunningham serving on the board as well as being president of the HOA. S. Cunningham: Stated he will take part in the discussions, but would most likely recuse himself from voting on the issue. Attorney K. Gutenberger: Told the board she would speak with Attorney Marcus about the matter. The board discussed adding a preliminary Public Hearing to next month’s agenda. If no progress is made between Mr. Sokoloff and the HOA, the hearing would be tabled. Discussion between Attorney K. Gutenberger and Superintendent B. Cross whether a Public Hearing should be scheduled before or after the SEQR process. Superintendent B. Cross believes a Public Hearing should come before the SEQR process. Meeting #20 Planning Board April 25, 2011 Page 6 Attorney K. Gutenberger: According to Village Law, an application is not complete until the SEQR determination has been made and only then may a Public Hearing be scheduled. Attorney K. Gutenberger advised scheduling the SEQR determination first for the next meeting. The applicant must complete the short form and submit to the board. The board agreed to hold the SEQR determination at the next meeting. Item 8- Comprehensive Plan G. Frantz provided a written status update as he was unable to attend the meeting. (See attached). The update included a proposed revised timeline. G. Gillespie suggested G. Frantz touch base with the board regarding his recommendations as to where he thinks the board is. Chair M. Harms will touch base with G. Frantz. Item 9- New business Board members should try to gain a better understanding on the signage issue by next meeting. Item 10- Adjourn Motion: F. Cowett Second: G. Gillespie RESOLUTION No. 66 ADJOURN MEETING RESOLVE, that this meeting was adjourned at 9:40 PM. Aye votes – All in favor Opposed- None