Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.23.2016 Planning Board Minutes.pdf1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #62 Monday, May 23, 2016 Marcham Hall – 7:00 pm Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, D. Hay, M. McMurry, R. Segelken, and Alternate J. Leijonhufvud Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, Trustee J. Marshall Members of the Public Item 1 – Meeting called to order Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:02 pm. Item 2 – April 25, 2016 Minutes Chair F. Cowett appointed J. Leijonhufvud as a full voting member for the purpose of reviewing and approving the minutes of the April 25, 2016 Board meeting. Motion: G. Gillespie Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 183 APPROVING MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2016 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the April 25, 2016 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, R. Segelken, J. Leijonhufvud Abstained- D. Hay, M. McMurry Opposed- None Item 3 – Public Comment N. Hicks, 125 E. Remington Road, stated her opposition to the proposed minor subdivision at 1001 Highland Road; she believes the subdivision is more in keeping with Levitttown than with the special character of Cayuga Heights and that preserving green space is important. 2 Item 4 – Continuation of Site Plan Review – 1001 Highland Road Minor Subdivision Chair F. Cowett stated that, at the Board’s April 25th meeting, the Board reviewed the proposed subdivision in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), found that the subdivision would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, and scheduled a public hearing for its May meeting. The public hearing commenced. L. Fenwick, 915 Highland Road, submitted a letter opposed to the subdivision and also stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for twenty years, values its green space, and believes the subdivision will change the character of the neighborhood and make it more suburban. She also complained about the lack of adequate notice of the public hearing, having received the Village’s notification letter on Friday May 20. 3 Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross acknowledged the lack of timely receipt of the Village’s notification letters, but did not know whether this was due to a delay in the mailing or delivery of the letters. Attorney R. Marcus stated that the public hearing was advertised with sufficient advance notice in the Ithaca Journal, but the five day requirement for advance notice by letter to neighboring property owners of the public hearing did not appear to have been met. The Board discussed whether to continue the public hearing and decided to continue hearing from those members of the public in attendance who wished to speak. 4 M. Hostetler, 124 E. Remington Road, stated his strong opposition to the subdivision, has lived in the neighborhood for twenty-four years in a house built in 1963 which is the last house built on the block, bought the property because of the parklike setting of his backyard, and is very concerned about the potential loss of trees and privacy, construction noise, and change in the character of the neighborhood due to the subdivision. W. Fenwick, 915 Highland Road, stated his opposition to the subdivision and agreement with the previous comments, wants to preserve the unique character of Cayuga Heights, doesn’t want it to become like Belle Sherman, and is worried about the potential loss of privacy. K. Rassnick, 121 E. Remington Road, stated his concern for the lack of sufficient advance notice and knows of neighbors opposed to the subdivision who were unable to attend the public hearing due to insufficient advance notice. D. Lennox, the applicant, responding to the previous comments, stated that he wants to be a good neighbor and shares his neighbors’ concerns for the quality and character of the neighborhood, but believes that the proposed subdivision will not have a huge impact for the following reasons: The size of any house built on the lot will be small because it is limited by the zoning restriction of 12% lot coverage; The size of the proposed new lot is not completely out of character with the neighborhood as it wouldn’t be the smallest lot on the block and the neighborhood is already a mix of home and lot sizes; Only a few trees would be lost to construction as most of the buildable area not contained within the new lot’s setbacks contains grass and not trees. D. Lennox further stated that the proposed subdivision is environmentally beneficial because it is an infill project and could reduce commuting and that it would benefit the Village by increasing the Village’s tax base with little increase to the Village in cost. M. Hostetler replied that in his opinion more than a few trees would need to be removed in order to build a new house and stated his concern for the close proximity of any new house to his house and the potential loss of privacy. L. Fenwick stated her concern, in addition to the late notice, about a lack of transparency in the process since the neighbors only learned of the subdivision on receiving letters from the Village and the applicant had never mentioned it to them. D. Lennox replied that this was the third Planning Board meeting he had attended regarding the subdivision and, because the minutes for those meetings were available online and there would be at least two more Village hearings on the matter, he did not feel there was a lack of transparency in the process. As no additional members of the public wished to speak, the Board discussed how to proceed with the public hearing and site plan review. 5 D. Hay stated that the Village’s apparent failure to give five day’s advance notice by letter of the public hearing to neighboring property owners needs to be remedied. M. McMurry agreed and suggested that the public hearing be adjourned until the Board’s next meeting in June. Chair F. Cowett stated that, if the public hearing was adjourned until June, the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals could in the interim consider at its June 6 meeting the applicant’s request for an area variance. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that he believed there was room in the ZBA’s June 6 meeting agenda to consider an area variance for this project and also enough time to provide public notice of the project’s consideration by the ZBA, but asked whether there would be any problem with the ordering of project review if the ZBA was to consider the applicant’s request for an area variance prior to the Planning Board concluding its site plan review. Attorney R. Marcus stated that no statutory requirement exists such that one board should consider and make a finding for a project prior to another board and that, because the Planning Board had already reviewed the project for SEQRA and made a SEQRA finding, potential segmentation of SEQRA review had been avoided and the ZBA could review the project for an area variance at its June 6 meeting if it chose to do so. G. Gillespie recommended that, if there is any question regarding sufficient public notice, action should be taken to remove that question. Motion: G. Gillespie Second: M. McMurry RESOLUTION No. 184 TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING RESOLVED, that the public hearing regarding the site plan review for the proposed Minor Subdivision at 1001 Highland Road be adjourned until June 27, 2016 at 7:10 p.m. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, D. Hay, M. McMurry, R. Segelken Opposed- None Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that he would issue new letters advising neighboring property owners about the public hearing in advance of the Board’s June 27 meeting, apologized to the applicant for the delay, and noted for the record that under current Village zoning a public hearing is not required for site plan review by the Village’s Planning Board for a minor subdivision in the Village’s Residence zoning district. 6 Item 5 –Site Plan Review – 1010 Triphammer Road Minor Subdivision Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross explained the reasons for the site plan review; the applicant received approval from the Planning Board in 2013 for a minor subdivision at her property, but had not filed a map of the subdivision with the Tompkins County clerk’s office in a timely fashion; therefore, the Board’s approval had expired and the applicant must go through the entire site plan review process again to receive Board approval for the subdivision. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross further noted that the proposed new lot and the remaining existing lot are fully compliant with the Village’s zoning requirements. W. Kimble-Dugan, the applicant, told the Board that she is pursuing the subdivision to afford the opportunity to build herself a house on the proposed new lot that would be smaller than the house currently on the remaining existing lot. Motion: D. Hay Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 185 TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 1010 TRIPHAMMER ROAD AS A MINOR SUBDIVISION RESOLVED, that the Planning Board accepts the proposed project at 1010 Triphammer Road as a Minor Subdivision. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, D. Hay, M. McMurry, R. Segelken Opposed- None Chair F. Cowett advised the Board that although the Board had previously made a SEQRA finding for the proposed subdivision in 2013, the Board is required to make a new SEQRA finding pursuant to the current site plan review; additionally, the SEQRA form had changed since 2013 and the applicant has filled out and submitted to the Board Part 1 of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form. The Board discussed the project in relation to SEQRA and whether to categorize the project as a Type 1, Type 2, or Unlisted SEQRA action. 7 Motion: M. McMurry Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 186 SEQRA REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 1010 TRIPHAMMER ROAD RESOLVED, that the Planning Board declares itself lead agency for SEQRA review of the proposed Minor Subdivision at 1010 Triphammer Road which the Board categorizes as an Unlisted SEQRA action. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, D. Hay, M. McMurry, R. Segelken Opposed- None The Board reviewed Part 1 of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the applicant. Chair F. Cowett noted that the NYS DEC’s EAF Mapper returns a “yes” response to Question 13a -- “Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contains wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency?” -- and explained to the Board that, while the site does not contain any wetlands or waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency, it does contain along its northern boundary a small wetland and small intermittent stream that terminates in a storm water inlet on Klinewoods Road. 8 9 10 11 12 The Board reviewed Parts 2 and 3 of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form. 13 14 Motion: R. Segelken Second: M. McMurry RESOLUTION No. 187 TO DETERMINE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN AN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RESOLVED, that the Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board has determined that the proposed minor subdivision at 1010 Triphammer Road will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, D. Hay, M. McMurry, R. Segelken Opposed- None The Board discussed whether to hold a public hearing as part of the site plan review process. G. Gillespie noted that the Board has scheduled public hearings for its previous two site plan reviews of minor subdivisions in the Village’s Residence zoning district and recommends following suit and scheduling a public hearing for this project. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that to his knowledge the Village’s Planning Board has not scheduled a public hearing for a minor subdivision site plan review unless the subdivision also required an area variance, reflective of the potential for increased public concern due to the need for a variance. M. McMurry stated that creation of a non-conforming lot pursuant to a subdivision triggers an additional level of scrutiny, but, since an area variance is not required for this subdivision, an additional level of scrutiny is not as necessary in this case. Attorney R. Marcus stated that as a matter of context it is not uncommon for municipalities in New York State, when a proposed subdivision does not require a variance, to handle subdivision approval administratively without requiring Planning Board site plan review. R. Segelken stated that, in light of the concerns expressed by neighbors to the proposed minor subdivision at 1001 Highland Road, it is better to err on the side of caution and provide the opportunity for public feedback since the public might make the Board aware of concerns that the Board had not considered. W. Kimble-Dugan, the applicant, told the Board she is not certain a house will be built on the proposed new lot, but believes that any house she would build on the lot would have minimal impact on the neighborhood, and questioned the need for a public hearing. G. Gillespie reiterated his support for a public hearing to afford consideration by the Board of any concerns the public might have regarding this subdivision. 15 Chair F. Cowett agreed with G. Gillespie and stated that, although a public hearing is not required currently for any minor subdivision in the Village’s Residence zoning district, there is value in hearing from the public and making site plan review as transparent a process as possible. The Board asked Attorney R. Marcus whether the Board’s SEQRA finding could be reopened if a public hearing made new information available to the Board. Attorney R. Marcus replied that the Board is able to reopen SEQRA on the basis of obtaining relevant new information. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross asked the applicant if the lot was originally two lots subsequently consolidated as one lot. W. Kimble-Dugan, the applicant, replied that the lot was originally one lot; she added that, should the Board schedule a public hearing, she would be unable to attend a hearing in June, but could attend one in July. Motion: D. Hay Second: G. Gillespie RESOLUTION No. 188 TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 1010 TRIPHAMMER ROAD RESOLVED, that a public hearing will be held on July 25, 2016 at 7:10 p.m. regarding the site plan review for the proposed Minor Subdivision at 1010 Triphammer Road. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, D. Hay, R. Segelken Abstained- M. McMurry Opposed- None Item 6- Other Business Chair F. Cowett, in the context of parking lot utilization for the proposed Corners Community Shopping Center Medical Office Building, discussed “perceived parking utilization” in which a goal of at least ten percent parking vacancy is considered ideal for off-street lots and, if an off-street lot has less availability, it is effectively at its functional capacity and drivers perceive parking problems. G. Gillespie disagreed with this concept, stating that current design practice seeks to minimize the impervious paving associated with parking lots. J. Leijonhufvud agreed with G. Gillespie, adding that reducing the size of parking lots is desirable to mitigate storm water runoff. 16 Chair F. Cowett asked the Board whether it would like to post the Board’s SEQRA findings to the Board’s Village webpage in advance of their inclusion in the minutes for the meeting in which the findings are made. The Board decided that the Board’s SEQRA findings for a project should be posted to the Board’s Village webpage prior to their inclusion in meeting minutes. Item 7 – Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 8:47 pm.