HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_0123_Planning Board Minutes.pdf1
Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board
Meeting #69
Monday, January 23, 2017
Village Hall – 7:00 pm
Minutes
Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Milder, R. Segelken, and
Alternate E. Quaroni
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.
• Chair F. Cowett appointed Alternate E. Quaroni a full voting member of the Board for
the meeting.
Item 2 – November 28, 2016 Minutes
• The Board reviewed the minutes of the November 28, 2016 meeting.
Motion: R. Segelken
Second: G. Gillespie
RESOLUTION No. 207
APPROVING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2016
RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the November 28, 2016
meeting are hereby approved.
Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, R. Segelken, E. Quaroni
Abstained- J. Milder
Opposed- None
Item 3 – Public Comment
• J. Barr, 4 Triphammer Lane, asked Board members to introduce themselves.
• Board members introduced themselves to the public.
2
Item 4 –Site Plan Review – 1010 Triphammer Road
• Chair F. Cowett reviewed the status of the project, a proposed minor subdivision at
1010 Triphammer Road in the Village’s Residence zoning district; the applicant
received approval from the Planning Board on August 26, 2013 for a minor
subdivision at her property, but did not file a map of the subdivision with the
Tompkins County clerk’s office in a timely fashion; therefore, Board approval for the
subdivision expired and the applicant was required to go through the site plan review
process again; at the Board’s May 23, 2016 meeting, the Board accepted the project for
site plan review, declared itself lead agency for SEQRA review, categorized the
project as an unlisted action under SEQRA, conducted a SEQRA review, and made a
negative declaration of adverse environmental impact; the Board then scheduled a
public hearing for the project at the Board’s July 25, 2016 meeting, but the public
hearing was postponed at the applicant’s request; because of the Board’s subsequent
focus on the proposed Corners Community Medical Office Building (CCMOB)
project, the applicant agreed to postpone further the public hearing for the project;
the Board reached a decision on the CCMOB at its November 28, 2016 meeting and
the public hearing for the project was scheduled at that meeting for this meeting.
• J. Barr asked why it was necessary for the Board to hold a public hearing for the
proposed subdivision.
• Chair F. Cowett replied that the Village’s current zoning ordinance does not require a
public hearing for a minor subdivision in the Village’s Residence zoning district;
however, the Board believes that a public hearing has value because it gives the public
an opportunity to make the Board aware of concerns about the project that the Board
might not have otherwise considered.
• Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross also replied that providing notice of a public
hearing is often the way in which the public and owners of properties located within
two hundred feet of an applicant’s property become aware of a project.
• The public hearing commenced at 7:15 pm.
• M. Nelson, 1018 Triphammer Road, expressed concern about the impact of
construction associated with the proposed minor subdivision on an intermittent
stream and small wetland area located in the northern portion of the applicant’s
property, both of which are also located in part on his property; he is concerned about
any plans for stream channelization, increased drainage onto his property, and the
loss of bird and wildlife habitat.
• Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that, notwithstanding symbols contained
on the parcel map associated with the Zoning Officer’s Report for the project, the wet
area associated with the intermittent stream is not a formally delineated wetland;
additionally, the Village’s current zoning ordinance does not make any provision for a
streamside buffer for an intermittent stream; however, the Board can impose
3
conditions associated with project approval to address the impact of building location
and construction on the stream, wet area, and drainage.
• The applicant, W. Kimble-Dugan, stated that she has no intention to build in the wet
area or to channelize the intermittent stream and offered not to build a house within
seventy-five feet of the parcel’s northern boundary.
• E. Quaroni stated that a setback from the wet area would make sense and suggested
that a fifty foot setback would not interfere with the building of a house.
• J. Milder stated that allowing the stream to meander without impediment and not
building in the wet area would be good practices to avoid flooding; he suggested as a
possible conditions of project approval delineation of the wet area and a buffer and
avoidance of construction in both.
• Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated his concern about the cost to the applicant
of hiring a wetland scientist to delineate the wet area and a buffer; he believes the
offer made by the applicant to not build within seventy-five feet of the parcel’s
northern boundary would be sufficient to avoid impacting the wet area and stream.
• J. Milder stated that imposing a condition to not build a house within seventy-five
feet of the parcel’s northern boundary might unnecessarily restrict building location
and might not lead to the best building placement.
• Chair F. Cowett stated as a possible condition of project approval that, prior to the
issuance of a building permit, the location of any building would need to be staked on
site and the Board would need to inspect and approve its location.
• J. Milder stated agreement with such a condition, but suggested that the limit of work
and construction should be staked in the field as well.
• Chair F. Cowett read into the record an email received from K. Hopkins, 107 Midway
Road:
“We are currently out of town and will be unable to attend the Public Hearing
meeting Jan 23rd. As owners of 107 Midway Road, Carl and Kathryn Hopkins have
no objection to this subdivision as it conforms to current lot size.”
Motion: G. Gillespie
Second: R. Segelken
RESOLUTION No. 208
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
RESOLVED, that the public hearing regarding the site plan review for the proposed minor
subdivision at 1010 Triphammer Road be closed.
Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Milder, R. Segelken, E. Quaroni
Opposed- None
4
• The Board discussed Article IX Section 24, III, 2, factors to be considered by the Board
in Site Plan Review for minor subdivisions in the Village’s Residence Zoning District,
and found the following:
o a. Effect of the proposed subdivision on traffic and so traffic safety:
Increased car trip generation is likely to be slight due to the limited impact of
adding one single family home on overall traffic counts. Existing sight lines on
Triphammer Road are adequate for the safe addition of a driveway at the new
lot. Therefore, the effect of the proposed subdivision on traffic and traffic
safety can be expected to be minor.
o b. Effect of the proposed subdivision on the environment:
There will likely be some loss of trees and an increase in impervious surface
and stormwater runoff due to future construction. There is also a small wet
area and an intermittent stream in the parcel’s northwest corner. This area
supports existing drainage and flora and fauna. Construction associated with
the proposed subdivision has the potential to negatively affect drainage and
stormwater management in this area. The Board believes that conditions
imposed by the Board can mitigate the potential for negative impact.
o c. Any other factors reasonably related to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community:
The new lot created by the proposed action will increase population density
and intensity of land use in the neighborhood, but these increases will be
minor. Additionally, the new lot created by the subdivision complies with
existing zoning requirements and is of sufficient size to permit the building of
a single family home in character with the neighborhood.
Motion: G. Gillespie
Second: R. Segelken
RESOLUTION No. 209
TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THE PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION
AT 1010 TRIPHAMMER ROAD
RESOLVED, that, based upon the findings made by the Planning Board in consideration
Article IX Section 24, III, 2, the proposed minor subdivision at 1010 Triphammer Road is
hereby approved subject to the conditions for Board approval of (1) a site plan showing the
locations of any improvements on the new lot and (2) physical delineation of these
improvements on site, for the purpose of protecting the intermittent stream and wet area
located in the parcel’s northwest corner and their environmental values, prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Milder, R. Segelken, E. Quaroni
5
Opposed- None
• W. Kimble-Dugan stated concern about the cost of the site plan required by the Board
as a condition of approval.
• Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that T.G. Miller should be able for a very
small cost to add to the existing parcel map the locations of any improvements; he
further stated that once the parcel map showing the proposed subdivision and listing
the conditions imposed by the Board is signed by the Board’s Chair, the map must be
filed with the Tompkins County clerk’s office in a timely fashion.
Item 5 – Other Business
• The next meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for February 27, 2017.
Item 6 – Adjourn
• Meeting adjourned at 8:29 pm.