FINAL APPROVED COPY YATES COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2006 PRESENT: Jim Ritter, Kevin North, Cubby Graves, Jerry Stape, Lane Clute, Paul Estro, and Loretta Henrie. Others in Attendance: Peg Thompson, Reporter; Chris Wilson, County Planner; and Karen Phillips, Recording Secretary. Members Excused: Pidge Bower, David Healy, Chuck Mitchell, and Dave Christiansen. Members Absent: Marilyn Scharf. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Estro made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 26th meeting. Mr. Graves seconded the motion. All in favor. CONSIDER GML 239 REFERRALS: Mr. Wilson reported that from this time on, whenever he receives any subdivisions of any size, he would like to have Soil and Water review these prior to our meetings so they can look at erosion and water run-off, etc. They would like to see it at least at this level because they are concerned about water quality and erosion control. As of now, there is no formal process where it meets their review until it reaches the Yates County Planning Board. 2006-5 – Donald and Sandra Schuck, 4536 Putnam Road, Dundee, Town of Starkey. Special use permit to subdivide parcel into three lots with the center lot containing no more than five acres. Mr. North made a motion that the Yates County Planning Board has determined that this proposed action only has considerations which are of significance to the Town of Starkey. This action appears to have no significant countywide or inter-community impact. Mr. Stape seconded the motion. 6 members were in favor of the motion. Mr. Ritter abstained from the deliberation and the vote. 2006-6 – Francis Bercume, 3556 Route 54A, Branchport, Town of Jerusalem. Area Variance to add two additions (12’ wide by 40’ long) on each side of an existing pole barn. The existing pole barn was built in 2003 meeting the required 40 foot side yard setbacks. Mr. Wilson showed an aerial view of the area in question; however, the barn was built after the aerial was taken. Mr. Wilson indicated that no adjacent neighbors had complained. Mr. North made a motion that the Yates County Planning Board has determined that this proposed action only has considerations which are of significance to the Town of Jerusalem. This action appears to have no significant countywide or intercommunity impact. Mr. Graves seconded the motion. All in favor. 2006-7 – Village of Rushville, zoning text amendment for open burning and emissions of hazardous smoke. Mr. Wilson stated that we have to review this because it is a zoning text amendment. Any new definitions or changes in law for any zoning text need to be reviewed at the county level. Mr. Ritter said they are also worried about barbecues and outdoor campfires. Mr. Wilson said they are making an exception to that, where they say that home barbecues or church or municipally fundraisers are permitted. Mr. Ritter said that it reads that they are okay as long as the smoke isn’t a nuisance to the neighbors, so if your neighbor doesn’t like smoke and calls you in, you are in trouble. He noted this will be hard to enforce. Mr. Wilson noted that the planning boards’ role is to give them another set of ears and eyes about what we think is practical or what can be enforced. He said that if we feel like we want to give them some guidance or add some text to the deliberation, we can do that. Mr. Wilson then asked members if their villages or towns have anything this strict in this County. Mr. Ritter said that in the Village of Dundee, you can’t have campfires, but they haven’t outlawed wood furnaces or coal furnaces, like what is being proposed in Rushville. Mr. Estro stated they (Dundee) are working on it though; they want to outlaw those. Mr. Wilson said that it would have been nice if there was some text talking about how they got to this point and what were the issues, but all they included was the SEQR document and our form. Mr. Graves asked what the difference was between a home barbecue and a fire department barbecue. Churches, fire departments and municipalities should go by the same rules if the smoke should bother neighbors, but it isn’t stated there. Mr. Clute said that outside wood burning furnaces are not allowed, but if you build a woodstove in your house, apparently that is allowed. Mr. Wilson stated it depends on what you burn in it; as long as you burn the proper fuel. Mr. Stape noted that sometimes furnaces that are run by fuel can get fowl when the furnaces need to be cleaned, and that smell is worse than wood. Mr. Graves made a motion that this be denied and sent back for more information and explanation. Mr. Estro seconded the motion. All in favor. 2006-8 – Karen Vogt Gorton, 37 South Main Street, Village of Rushville. Special Use Permit to allow conversion of a single family home into three apartments. Mr. North reported that we received this because it is 500 ft. from the state highway boundary, Rte. 247. Mr. Stape noted the only question he has is with the parking. Mr. North indicated that by looking at the site plan, there will be parking in two different spots. Mr. Wilson asked if many applications have come in to convert single family units to multi-units from Rushville. Mr. Ritter couldn’t recall any since he has been here, so it was probably done without coming to us. Mr. Wilson said that one of the issues for this Board is that since we are not a regulatory group, we can only review what they have submitted. All we can do is review what they are sending us at this time. Mr. North said this is the first we have seen from the Town of Rushville in a long time. Mr. Ritter indicated that from what he read, they may want to get a special use permit, but they may want to look at their zoning for them to do it, because if you do one, everyone is going to want to. Mr. Wilson again noted that this is an opportunity to give them some guidance. They want a second set of ears and eyes and our recommendations can be helpful. A lot of the municipalities are looking for our guidance to buffer their existing zoning laws. Mr. Ritter stated he feels that this is the Village of Rushville’s problem, but it needs to be stated that they need to look at their zoning and make an amendment. Mr. Graves said that if we wind up allowing the special use permit, we know that there will be some more coming eventually. Mr. Wilson then said he can do a record search to find out if it was submitted in 1997 and if it was, we may have given them some guidance at that time. Mr. Ritter and Mr. North both noted that they don’t recall this ever coming to Committee. Mr. Stape said that on the other hand, it could go through if more people wanted it. They could go through with the special use, just like we’re doing. Mr. Ritter noted that they deleted all mention of the law, so they need to add that it can be a special use and be required to look at, and maybe that is in their law someplace, but its not in any of these to be changed, but then it said they deleted any reference to multiple structures. It is still up to them. Mr. Ritter asked if anyone would like to make a motion. Mr. North said that we can’t disapprove it, but we do need to comment. Mr. Wilson stated that the Committee has several options: a no action with comment, which means we neither approve nor disapprove a denial with or without comments or we can approve it and give conditions. Mr. Estro made a motion to take no action on this referral; however, asked that we give comments to ask them to clarify the existing zoning law and consider a special use option and confirm with us the action that they took. Ms. Henrie seconded the motion. All in favor. 2006-9 – Albert Romano, Town of Potter. Subdivision review for 28.1 acres to be subdivided into six residential building plots of three or more acres each. This is bounded by Route 364, Friend Road, Italy Valley Rd., and reputedly lands of Robert and Patricia Kuhn. Mr. Wilson noted that this was submitted as a minor subdivision, but he pulled the subdivision regulations for the Town of Potter, which was published in the late ‘90s. They state that the definition for a minor subdivision is “any subdivision of four lots or less fronting on an existing street or a highway, not involving any new streets or highways, nor the creation or extension of municipal facilities or improvement districts and in the opinion of the Planning Board not adversely effecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property and not in conflict with any provision or portion of the comprehensive plan, map, or zoning law in the Town of Potter.” A major subdivision is “any subdivision not classified as a minor subdivision under these regulations”. Mr. Wilson said the issue that a Board member brought up, is that this referral consists of six lots. Mr. Ritter asked what the difference is when you have your own access to the road. Mr. Estro said that by law, anything four or more is a major. Mr. Ritter said there are no different requirements for “major” if you have road access. You’re not putting in private roads for it. With most major subdivisions, you’re putting in private roads and you have to meet the regulations for each one of the lots. He then said that personally he doesn’t see what the difference is between what they call a “minor and a major”, if they have the access, unless they have more restrictions on the “major”. Mr. Wilson said that the Town of Potter deserves a lot of credit for their well thought out definitions. They have a whole litany of steps that you have to take for submitting a minor subdivision and then an additional set of requirements for major subdivisions. It looks like the difference is the type of application; the level of documentation that you supply. Mr. North stated that this is what the Town of Potter has asked for. Mr. Wilson noted that in their definition it says six lots or more, and indicated that his question is – does this submittal represent a minor subdivision submittal or a major subdivision submittal. On the form, we have a site plan and they ask for a subdivision review. Mr. Ritter said that they do not say minor or major anywhere; they just say subdivision review. Mr. Wilson said that the difference may be the type of application submitted. Mr. Ritter noted that normally the only difference is that they have to have access to the road, but they have access to the road; they have everything they need. Mr. Stape said that in a way, that is contradicting what that is saying. Mr. Wilson then went over the process of submitting applications for both minor and major subdivisions. He said that we have the following documents – a map, a SEQR document, and a Planning Board application for a subdivision review. Mr. North noted he feels that this should be sent back to them because they are not going by their own laws. This is a major subdivision. Mr. Wilson said that the major subdivision list of requirements under their own law is six pages long. The minor is about a page and a half. It is a more lengthy process according to their own subdivision regulations. Mr. Graves made a motion to send this referral back to the Town of Potter stating that this meets their criteria for a major subdivision and we are asking them to review it and reapply it according to their own definition of a major definition. Mr. North seconded the motion. 6 members were in favor of the motion. Mr. Ritter was not in favor. COMMUNICATIONS: • Mr. Wilson noted that he has been working very closely with the Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council (G/FLRPC). The Regional Planning Council got a HUD grant where they are going to give out $450,000 over a five year period to a 9county region, with Yates being one of them. That will amount to be $90,000 over five years. Mr. Wilson distributed a packet of a whole list of things they would like to provide to the Towns, through the County. Mr. Wilson indicated that he was asked to ask two Yates County land use board members to attend a task force meeting with G/FLRPC. Dale Hallings from the Town of Milo has been asked already because he is very active and he’s working on a lot of issues. Mr. Wilson noted that he needs two people as part of his task force to attend a half day session probably in Ontario County. Mr. Wilson asked the Committee to keep what he had distributed and take them back to their own municipalities to make them aware of what is happening. Mr. Wilson said that his goal is to bring dollars to Yates County for the towns and villages to use the way they want. Mr. Wilson asked if anyone was interested in attending the meeting the end of March. Mr. Estro stated he would be willing to attend. • Mr. Wilson reported that there is a Keuka Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law that was sent to us as a courtesy. Steuben County Planning Department and the Yates County Planning Department received this from an Attorney in Hammondsport. We are asked to respond with our comments by May 31st on the Uniform Docking and Mooring Law. Mr. Wilson mentioned a list of organizations that was copied on this same mailing. He then noted that he might provide some preliminary comments for the Planning Board’s review at the next meeting to see what everyone thinks. This has been something that has been talked about in the Region for a long time. We should probably participate and at least give comments. Mr. Wilson said that he needs more specifics of the mooring law, which he doesn’t have yet. Mr. Wilson distributed a copy of Rural Futures to those in attendance. • OLD BUSINESS Scenic Views Project: No report. Route 14A Corridor Status Report: Mr. Wilson reported that the final draft for the 14A Corridor is done. He noted that he has the CD and if after the meeting anyone wants to look through it on the power point they are more than welcome to. The committee meeting isn’t scheduled yet, but we are looking at sometime the end of March or beginning of April. Mr. Graves and Mr. Stape are both on the committee and that committee consists of all the political entities, the County entities, the towns, etc. There is about an 18-member committee. They are going to be given this preliminary draft and have two weeks to review it. The data has been updated as best as it could and it has all kinds of recommendations. It looks at economic development, D.O.T. right-of-way issues, planning and zoning. It even has recommendations for funding sources. It is a very comprehensive plan and 14A is the backbone of Yates County. Model Farm and Neighbor Relation Policy Update: Mr. Wilson reported that the agriculture advisory was noted in the local newspapers. Dale Hullings, who came to our Planning Board two months ago, is on the Town Board and it is now a proposed law for the Town Milo. It is a model example on how to resolve conflicts between Ag and Residential uses before they become a legal entanglement. Mr. Wilson noted that he hopes when this shows up in our minutes, that people will take notice and call the Town of Milo and get copies of the law. MEMBER REPORTS Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council Training Conference Update: Mr. Wilson distributed a power point packet of what was distributed at the training conference in November regarding open meetings laws. These are general laws for any kind of open meeting, so this can be used in municipalities or townships. Mr. Wilson also provided some good information on Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA is a very important part of our local land use mechanism because the ZBA is an appellate court. Zoning Board of Appeals members are not required to get any training, yet they make decisions on land use. Mr. Wilson noted that when we get training opportunities for our Board, he would like to have the Town and Villages invited to participate in our training. He then stated that in the next few months he will have the D.O.T. Region 6 come to our Planning Board meeting to talk about the application process for Department of Transportation. All of the Towns and Villages will be made aware of this and we will meet in the auditorium. Mr. Wilson stated that when we go to training opportunities we can report back to this forum and ultimately provide more training for the planning board. NEW BUSINESS Member Information Updates: Mr. Wilson reported that Dave Christiansen is now, by resolution, a member of the Yates County Planning Board. He will be at next month’s meeting. Meeting Schedule: Mr. Wilson distributed a copy of the 2006 Meeting Schedule, which is also on the Yates County website. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Graves made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Stape seconded the motion. All in favor.
Pages to are hidden for
"1960"Please download to view full document