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.