PB minutes 11/21/13

Draft Copy PB Minutes 11/21/13

Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm, all members present.

Previous meeting minutes approved – motion made by Dave, second by Tom.

Old business – Todd updated us about last meeting for depot rezoning. He forwarded to PB an email from Barbara Johnston containing aerial view photos, a revised map of proposed zoning districts, and a list of proposed zoning districts and outline of proposed uses. Barbara also included her next steps for the project.

Tom suggested contacting Derek Simmonds (economic developer with Seneca county, 539-9251, dcs285@cornell.edu) to give us a land use perspective.

A question was raised concerning the maps of the area in Steve Absalom’s office. The town might like to claim ownership. What would be the procedure for acquiring them?

We then returned to work on PUD language for our zoning code. We discussed adding a sentence concerning how a PUD will contribute to the aesthetic profile of the community. We want to be sure that such developments enhance the appearance of the area. This will be included as item 8 under section 311.18 part E.

A question was also raised about height restrictions. This is likely covered under the current code.

We returned to section 404.2 and worked on Special Use Permit language. We are forwarding to Harriet some questions about the possibility of the PB having sole authority to handle area variances with the special use permit for PUD’s.

 The requirement in this section for a public hearing within 30 days of receiving a special permit was discussed. This led to a consideration of having a pre-application meeting to help applicants be sure they have all necessary information to submit a special use application that will not be rejected. It seems we should devise a step by step procedure that will be mandatory for special use applications. We will ask Harriet for information on what these steps should be as well as check other town codes. Bill read part of the procedure used by the town of Windsor.

We worked on language for section 311.18, D. Elements of Approval, part 3. We discussed the approval process for PUD’s that contain phases of development; the possibility of deadlines and transferability. We agreed that such plans be approved for a five year period. If significant progress is being made the permit will be extended for another five years. We also discussed what should happen if the original contractor is unable to complete the plan – can the permit be transferred to a new contractor. We agreed this was allowable because it is the plan being approved rather than the contractor. However, it will be necessary to review paperwork and be sure that the original special use be complied with. Any significant changes would require a new special use permit.

We left off working on this section. We also agreed to reconsider terminology in section E, number 8 that we added in the meeting.

Next meeting will be Dec. 19. Adjournment moved by Hershey, seconded by Linda.

Respectfully submitted,

Barry Somerville, secretary