Town of Varick Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Date of meeting: May 22nd , 2008
Meeting called to order: 7:05pm
¨ Attendees: Bob Kayser(Chairman ), Thomas Bjorkman, Phil Knapp, Frankie Long, Bill Larzelere, Susan Ottenweller, Kevin Swartley , Miles Persing(Code Enforcement Officer)
A quorum was present.
¨ Public Comment: 10 members of the public
Bob McCann from 5168 E. Lake Rd. thanked the Board for putting together a thorough and comprehensive Dog ordinance and presenting it to the Town Board.
Others thanked Thomas Bjorkman for representing the issue to the board in a professional manner.
Others raised the concern if this dog ordinance was the time to address “puppy mills” noting Town of Romulus moratorium on them.
Rick Conley- Complained that he was issued a “stop work order” for putting in his dock and renovating a deck on his lakefront property. Wanted to know why? Felt as though it should be “grandfathered”
¨ April. 24 Meeting minutes approved- With change to spelling of member of public(Denise) Townley, April. 24 minutes approved- TB moved- PK seconded- Voted Unanimous to accept
¨ Planning Board Chair Report
Bob Kayser :
Had been in contact with the DEC about Seawall construction in the Lake zones and was informed that they wanted to know about any seawall construction or renovation and that a permit was required for this work.
DEC was supportive of our code for 720sq ft. maximum size for lake zone docks.
DEC described a method for easy determination of “Mean High Water Mark” to make it easier for Code Enforcement Officer to measure dock square footage.
¨ Zoning Code Enforcement Officer Report
Miles Persing.
Noted that he and Bob Kayser had visited Rick Conley’s disputed dock and deck renovation site and determined that the dock was significantly over the 720 sg ft. size (900 sq. ft total)
Owner- Felt as though it should be “grandfathered”
After discussion on that day, Rick agreed to get the required $25 permit.
During planning board meeting, when pressed by Conley as to why one was needed, Chairman Kayser said the code was clear and that he had taken Rick’s word that he would get the required permit. When he did not, the “stop work order” was issued by Code Enforcement officer.
Rick Conleys objections will go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Todd Engles, from the public, wanted clarification on what was meant by the codes requirement for a foundation to frostline for a mobile home. Was informed of method of pouring monolithic cement pad with supporting stone to frostline.
Bert Ingersoll of Rt. 89 had a permit denied for a deck on his house and a vertical extension of his roofline. The issue is scheduled for the Zoning Board of Appeals.
A representative for the Pleasant Valley Mobile Home Park (?name) asked the Board about replacing a 50 foot unit with a 56 foot mobile home as 50 footers are not available . The 56 unit would not meet rear setback requirements. Discussion followed about “grandfathering” and determined that this would not be acceptable. K. Swartley and T. Bjorkman suggested moving unit closer to the internal roadway to maintain required side and rear setbacks. Representative was not satisfied with this and the board suggested that since more units would need to be replaced in the future that he consider coming up with a new layout plan for the park allowing for the larger units. It also needs to be determined if the Mobile Home park is in the Hamlet Zone. The representative agreed to do a new layout and determine if park is in Hamlet Zone.
¨ Dog Control Ordinance Discussion
Chairman Kayser had revised the draft Animal Control Ordinance in response to a request by the Town Board to make it only for dogs and eliminate references to farm animals and cats.
Veterinarian Dr. Art Sherman – attending as a member of public with expertise in Dog Control issues passed out information to Board that was from Article 7 and Article 26 of NYS Ag and Markets Law dealing with control and definitions of animals. Article 26 deals with responsibilities of a “Dog Control Officer” and Shelter Construction” This law is the basis of what is used for animal control in the state.
It was noted by Chairman Kayser that our code was based on this language as well as other Town’s laws and was intended to condense , identify, and clarify issues for Dog control in our Town. Town law can be more strict and specific than Ag and Market law.
Dr. Sherman noted that even though we were talking about dogs, it is required by the State that cats be vaccinated for rabies.
This large portion of the meeting -was devoted to a line by line review of the revised ordinance and its acceptance to be referred to Town of Varick Town Board for discussion, changes, and possible formal acceptance as Town Law.
The main revisions were :
¨ removal of any reference to “animals”, “farm animals” or “pets” and change to “dogs”.
¨ John Vincent will be identified as (Dog Contol Officer) not animal.
¨ Dangerous Dog definition description of “public property” and “rights of way” to verify when a dog “crosses the line” to threaten someone or another dog.
¨ Wild Animal Definition to include coyote, wolves and coy dogs.
¨ Town Board wanted any dog cruelty to be reported to SPCA
¨ Removed any regulation of “farm animals”.
¨ Dr. Sherman questioned construction of dog shelters and noted that this was described in Article 26 353-B of Ag and markets law.
Discussion about Dog Control Officers rights when accessing private property to investigate a complaint or to check dog licenses. If access is denied by the property owner, then DCO retreats and gets a Search Warrant from a Town Judge.
¨ Section 8-B dealing with euthanizing of dangerous dogs that this would be done as a last resort and not a first .
¨ Public comment- that taxpayers should not be financially responsible for fees accumulated during confinement of a dog deemed as dangerous.
¨ It was the consensus of the Planning Board that the comprehensive law be forwarded to the Town Board instead of trying to reduce it and make it simpler. It was noted that this hopefully will minimize the misinterpretation of the laws’s intention in as many cases as possible.
Thomas Bjorkman made a motion that the revised Dog Contol Law be forwarded to the Varick Town Board for their consideration. Phil Knapp seconded the motion. The vote of the Varick Planning Board was to accept the motion unanimously.
New Business Discussion
Phil Knapp Asked that his assignment of a Noise Ordinance be postponed till the next meeting. All agreed.
Subdivisions-
Chairman Kayser - described a proposed subdivision of a Rt. 89 property know as “Schwietzer-Trombino-Keegan” With Schweitzer selling his property to Keegan and Trombino who would split it between them and create green space between them.
Subdivision was approved unanimously.
Bill Larzelere described a Subdivision, using a survey map drawn by Charles Carroll. The subdivision was requested by Barbara Hammond on Rt 89 which would have a housing lot conferred to a daughter(present at meeting) on the west side of Rt 89 and a 55 foot lot on the east(lake) side for lake access. It was noted that the 55 foot of frontage was too small (100 feet required by code) Reason for 100 foot was to discourage postage stamp sized lots being built on.
Discussion followed with Daughter making the point that there were many small lots less than 100 feet, and they required access to the lake to make the development worthwhile.
Thomas Bjorkman commented that the small lots were all done before 1977 when the Subdivision code was established. He suggested that the 55 foot lot be taken out of the Subdivision request and the lake access negotiated separately with her Mother. This was acceptable and Bill Larzelere will advertize a public hearing for the June 26th Planning Board meeting to formally approve this.
Zoning Code Definitions-
Chairman Kayser- passed out several definitions clarifying language used in the Zoning Code.
Definition of Dock- For the purposes of this code, a DOCK is any structure whether permanent or temporary that extends from the land into the water to provide additional lake access to boats, swimming or any other purpose.
Beginning of Dock- For purposes of measuring square foot area of a dock – any dock constructed shall be determined to begin at the Mean High Water mark as defined by the NYS Department of Environmental Services.
Compliance with County Code with respect to Structures- In keeping with the requirements of Seneca County, all structures whose size is equal to or greater than 144 square feet, whether attached to a home or in the Lake District or elsewhere in the Town shall be subject to a Building Permit.
Seawalls- Provided that appropriate permission has been received from the NYS DEC and Army Corps of Engineers if needed, seawalls shall be permitted in the Town of Varick. Any repair or replacement of seawalls is subject to a building permit and requires approval of the NYS DEC.
After discussion these definition revisions were unanimously approved for use in the Town of Varick Zoning Code.
Next Meeting: (one month) All meetings will be monthly until further notice.
Our next regular meeting will be June 26th at 7:00pm in the Varick Firehall.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted,
Bill Larzelere- Secretary
June 03, 2008
May 06, 2008
Approved Minutes to April 24, 2008 Meeting
Town of Varick Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Date of meeting: April 24th , 2008
Meeting called to order: 7:05pm
¨ Attendees: Bob Kayser(Chairman ), Thomas Bjorkman, Phil Knapp, Frankie Long, Bill Larzelere, Susan Ottenweller, Kevin Swartley , Miles Persing(Code Enforcement Officer), Jeff Case (Town of Varick Town Board)
A quorum was present.
¨ Susan Ottenweller was introduced and welcomed as a new Planning Board member. Her contact information is a follows:
Susan Ottenweller
4816 Rt. 89
Romulus, N.Y. 14541
Phone: 315-549-8463
Email: sottenweller@ruralinc.org
¨ Public Comment: 9 members of the public
Bob McCann from 5168 E. Lake rd. read a statement (statement attached) expressing his opinion about the need for a new Dog Control ordinance.
Dan and Shelley Fletcher of E. Lake rd. added their concern that the increased population density required a new dog ordinance to protect people and pets.
Denise Townley of E. Lake Rd. offered a proposed Dog Control ordinance she put together
Chairman Kayser thanked the public for their comments and concern and assured them that our Board would be working on a new Animal Control Ordinance in this meeting that it would forward to our Town Board for its consideration.
David and Linda Bolluck of 4572 E. Lake rd. presented a letter and documentation from the Sunset Bay Homeowners Association asking questions and expressing concerns about the future of the farmland owned by Howard Smith as he has passed away. The main question being the boards opinion of what would be acceptable housing development of this property when it is sold. (Cover letter attached).
Discussion with the board centered around the status of the property being in the Ag district. The Planning Board referred the Association to the County Ag. Board and to the parts of the new Zoning Code that addressed their concerns for development in the Lake District.
Meeting minutes approved- Feb. 25 minutes approved- TB moved- PK seconded- Voted Unanimous to accept. Feb 28th Minutes approved with Phil Knapps E-Mail corrected. PK moved, TB seconded – Voted Unanimous to accept
¨ Zoning Code Enforcement Officer Report
Miles Persing said permit request activity was strong with 6 approved permits since last meeting and several that were rejected and required work to comply to code.
Discussion centered around docks needing permits and what was acceptable. Miles has had several “issues” with Lakeshore District buildings being outside code and being referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals as per procedure in the Code.
Miles asked for clarification on the where the square footage for docks starts and was informed that it was the Mean High Water mark.
Miles thanked all for their continued help in working through the issues being raised and noted that the new code has increased the public’s awareness and requests for his assistance.
¨ Planning Board Chair Report
Bob Kayser noted required educational opportunities for Planning Board members and commented on the positive experience of the recent training attended in Seneca Falls Rec Center.
Informed the Board that the Sessler Group has asked for another 90 day extension on submitting its plans for Depot development.
¨ Animal Control Ordinance Discussion
Chairman Kayser had authored a Draft Animal Control Ordinance in response to a need recognized by the Planning Board and expressed strongly by the public.
This large portion of the meeting was devoted to a line by line review of the proposed ordinance and its acceptance to be referred to Town of Varick Town Board for discussion, changes, and possible formal acceptance as Town Law. Town Board member Jeff Cases participation and suggestions were very helpful and appreciated.
The proposed ordinance will be posted on the Varick Planning Board web site.
New Business Discussion
Phil Knapp had researched other local town Noise Ordinances and passed out copies of the Town of Romulus and Town of Geneva codes. These will be reviewed by Board members and discussed at the next meeting.
Fine tuning of new Zoning Code
It was noted that the new Zoning Code has language that needs to be clarified and will be done over the next several meetings. When completed, it will all be presented to the Town Board for Public hearing and approval.
Examples being: (not all inclusive)
Beginning of Docks- (Mean High water mark)
Structure for living space- 2 feet above 100 year flood level (but not docks and decks)
Seawall- construction language
Deck size - language
Next Meeting: (one month) All meetings will be monthly until further notice.
Our next regular meeting will be May 22th at 7:00pm in the Varick Firehall.
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted,
Bill Larzelere- Secretary
Date of meeting: April 24th , 2008
Meeting called to order: 7:05pm
¨ Attendees: Bob Kayser(Chairman ), Thomas Bjorkman, Phil Knapp, Frankie Long, Bill Larzelere, Susan Ottenweller, Kevin Swartley , Miles Persing(Code Enforcement Officer), Jeff Case (Town of Varick Town Board)
A quorum was present.
¨ Susan Ottenweller was introduced and welcomed as a new Planning Board member. Her contact information is a follows:
Susan Ottenweller
4816 Rt. 89
Romulus, N.Y. 14541
Phone: 315-549-8463
Email: sottenweller@ruralinc.org
¨ Public Comment: 9 members of the public
Bob McCann from 5168 E. Lake rd. read a statement (statement attached) expressing his opinion about the need for a new Dog Control ordinance.
Dan and Shelley Fletcher of E. Lake rd. added their concern that the increased population density required a new dog ordinance to protect people and pets.
Denise Townley of E. Lake Rd. offered a proposed Dog Control ordinance she put together
Chairman Kayser thanked the public for their comments and concern and assured them that our Board would be working on a new Animal Control Ordinance in this meeting that it would forward to our Town Board for its consideration.
David and Linda Bolluck of 4572 E. Lake rd. presented a letter and documentation from the Sunset Bay Homeowners Association asking questions and expressing concerns about the future of the farmland owned by Howard Smith as he has passed away. The main question being the boards opinion of what would be acceptable housing development of this property when it is sold. (Cover letter attached).
Discussion with the board centered around the status of the property being in the Ag district. The Planning Board referred the Association to the County Ag. Board and to the parts of the new Zoning Code that addressed their concerns for development in the Lake District.
Meeting minutes approved- Feb. 25 minutes approved- TB moved- PK seconded- Voted Unanimous to accept. Feb 28th Minutes approved with Phil Knapps E-Mail corrected. PK moved, TB seconded – Voted Unanimous to accept
¨ Zoning Code Enforcement Officer Report
Miles Persing said permit request activity was strong with 6 approved permits since last meeting and several that were rejected and required work to comply to code.
Discussion centered around docks needing permits and what was acceptable. Miles has had several “issues” with Lakeshore District buildings being outside code and being referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals as per procedure in the Code.
Miles asked for clarification on the where the square footage for docks starts and was informed that it was the Mean High Water mark.
Miles thanked all for their continued help in working through the issues being raised and noted that the new code has increased the public’s awareness and requests for his assistance.
¨ Planning Board Chair Report
Bob Kayser noted required educational opportunities for Planning Board members and commented on the positive experience of the recent training attended in Seneca Falls Rec Center.
Informed the Board that the Sessler Group has asked for another 90 day extension on submitting its plans for Depot development.
¨ Animal Control Ordinance Discussion
Chairman Kayser had authored a Draft Animal Control Ordinance in response to a need recognized by the Planning Board and expressed strongly by the public.
This large portion of the meeting was devoted to a line by line review of the proposed ordinance and its acceptance to be referred to Town of Varick Town Board for discussion, changes, and possible formal acceptance as Town Law. Town Board member Jeff Cases participation and suggestions were very helpful and appreciated.
The proposed ordinance will be posted on the Varick Planning Board web site.
New Business Discussion
Phil Knapp had researched other local town Noise Ordinances and passed out copies of the Town of Romulus and Town of Geneva codes. These will be reviewed by Board members and discussed at the next meeting.
Fine tuning of new Zoning Code
It was noted that the new Zoning Code has language that needs to be clarified and will be done over the next several meetings. When completed, it will all be presented to the Town Board for Public hearing and approval.
Examples being: (not all inclusive)
Beginning of Docks- (Mean High water mark)
Structure for living space- 2 feet above 100 year flood level (but not docks and decks)
Seawall- construction language
Deck size - language
Next Meeting: (one month) All meetings will be monthly until further notice.
Our next regular meeting will be May 22th at 7:00pm in the Varick Firehall.
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted,
Bill Larzelere- Secretary
April 25, 2008
Proposed Dog Law
Residents have recently been asking the town for a local law that is more effective for dealing with dogs that are causing disruption. (See minutes for July 2007)
At the April 24, 2008 regular meeting the Planning Board developed a draft for a new local law to meet that request. The text is available as a PDF file: Proposed Dog Law.
It was forwarded to the Town Board for consideration at their May 6 meeting with the following note from Chairman Bob Kayser:
The Planning Board met last night and did a line by line review of the draft document sent to all of you previously. Jeff Case attended the meeting and was very helpful in guiding our work. We made some modifications to the draft to enhance language, provide further protections to residents, and give clear direction to the Judge on his/her options with particular regard to vicious (dangerous) dogs. What you have here is a document whose language has come from laws already in effect in communities across the state, so rather than re-inventing the wheel, we have taken the best language we could find to meet our needs, and adopted it. It is sent to you with the unanimous recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board.
I am sorry that I will be out of the country for your May Board meeting, and therefore unable to attend to answer your questions at that time. I am hopeful that a Planning Board member and perhaps Jeff Case can assume that role if needed. We believe this proposed Law gives balanced protection to residents, pet owners and pets alike. Its contents have been tested in other communities and found legal and defensible. Most of all, it eliminates ambiguity about what types of behaviors are expected of pet owners, prohibited by pets, and available to the Animal Control Officer and the Judge. We urge you to thoughtfully review it, make modifications if you feel they need to be made and adopt it for the protection of the Community.
May meeting
Th Planning Board has more business than anticipated earlier. Therefore, a regular meeting will be held on Thursday May 22, 2008.
April 08, 2008
Meetings for 2008
For 2008 the Planning Board will hold regular meetings every other month. Meetings will still be on the fourth Thursday at 7 pm in the conference room of the Varick Fire Hall. The next regular meeting will be April 24.
March 19, 2008
Varick Planning Board Draft meeting Minutes from Feb. 28, 2008
Town of Varick Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Date of meeting: February 28, 2008
Meeting called to order: 7:10pm
Attendees: Bob Kayser(Chairman ), Thomas Bjorkman, Phil Knapp, Bill Larzelere, Kevin Swartley , Miles Persing(Code Enforcement Officer)
Absent: Frankie Long
The December meeting minutes were approved as reported T.B. moved to accept, B.L. seconded
The January meeting minutes were approved as reported T.B. moved to accept, K.S. seconded.
¨ No public Comment
¨ Phil Knapp was introduced as a new Planning Board member. His reason for wanting to be a board member is to protect the rural community way of life we have and not allow development that would threaten that. His e-mail- PKKnapp@FLTG.net
¨ Miles Persing was introduced as the new Zoning Code Enforcement Officer- His e-mail- Persing@rochrr.com
¨ Chairman Kayser noted that the “Sessler Project” had been pulled back by the Sessler group for a minimum of 90 days. Our Board will not discuss any action until it has been resubmitted to the Seneca County IDA and referred to us.
IDA-DEC-VPB Meeting Discussion
¨ Bill Larzelere noted that the best things that came out of the joint meeting was opening the lines of communication, identifying a DEC contact for permitting concerns (Lisa Porter) and the willingness of the DEC to prioritize its wetland remapping project of the Depot property to review areas identified by the IDA that should be done to move development projects along. The whole remapping project does not have to be completed before development proceeds in the remapped areas. Also noted was the willingness of the DEC to accept (after review) third party wetland remapping investigation. Board Discussion continued with reservations about the worth of third party investigation on improvement of turnaround time and who would pay for this third party.
¨ Board discussed the perceived effect of wetland remapping on ability of affected farmers to farm their land. Kevin Swartley thinking there may be significant impacts and Thomas Bjorkman thinking the effects would be minimal and be able to be negotiated with DEC.
¨ The discussion on choosing SEQR Lead Agency status was very informative and enlightening.
Zonining Code Enforcement Officer Report
Miles Persing thanked the Board for it’s support of him in his new position and agreed to attend our Planning Board meetings in the future.
¨ Two recent Building Permits have been denied because setbacks do not meet the new code regulations. One project is on the lakefront on Seneca Lake East Lake Road. The second is on Rt. 89 and is also on the lakefront (Cayuga). Miles noted that both residents were easy to work with and willing to work with the system. Both have been scheduled to come up to the Zoning Board of Appeals in its March 17th meeting.
¨ Bob Kayser commented this was a good start and thanked Miles for his diligence. He expressed hope that local contractors in the area who would take up projects would be as willing to cooperate with the new code.
Docks and Moorings Committee Report
Bob Kayser reported that the scope has changed a couple times in reference to whether the committee would try to harmonize the docks and moorings code on both lakes or do one and then the other. Originally it was both lakes, then it was just Cayuga , now it is both lakes. The next meeting will be March 26th and he is looking for a Seneca Lake volunteer to represent the Town of Varick.
Planning Agenda for 2008
¨ Revised Code Issue Clarifications: Thomas Bjorkman reported that the Town Board had decided to take no immediate action on the Code revision “issues” identified that our Board agreed to work on to find acceptable language. They would like to let the new code work “as is” for the time being and see if the identified issues become concerns that really need to be addressed.
¨ Town Broadband access: Finger Lakes Technology offered at some point in the future to be able to supply “Wi Fi” to the area. Kevin Swartley offered to ask for clarification from his contacts in FLT.
¨ Wind Power : Bob and Bill discussed the need for studying a code to protect residents from any big wind development issues without being too restrictive to local implementation by residents. It was noted that we are a rural area that could benefit from “small wind” power production.
¨ Noise ordinance: It was noted that both Fayette and Romulus have noise ordinances and would be in our interest to do similar. To do: next meeting look at these two towns ordinances.
¨ Bob Kayser will ask Bob Hayssen: If there are any planning concerns his Board would like to see us work on in 2008.
Next Meeting:
Bob Kayser noted that our Planning Board meetings had been monthly for the past several years to accomplish big goals. Since these have been met, he would like to go back to every other month meetings unless any special concerns arise. It was agreed that this would be the new schedule.
Our next regular meeting will be April 24th,2008 at 7:00pm in the Varick Firehall.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted,
Bill Larzelere- Secretary
Date of meeting: February 28, 2008
Meeting called to order: 7:10pm
Attendees: Bob Kayser(Chairman ), Thomas Bjorkman, Phil Knapp, Bill Larzelere, Kevin Swartley , Miles Persing(Code Enforcement Officer)
Absent: Frankie Long
The December meeting minutes were approved as reported T.B. moved to accept, B.L. seconded
The January meeting minutes were approved as reported T.B. moved to accept, K.S. seconded.
¨ No public Comment
¨ Phil Knapp was introduced as a new Planning Board member. His reason for wanting to be a board member is to protect the rural community way of life we have and not allow development that would threaten that. His e-mail- PKKnapp@FLTG.net
¨ Miles Persing was introduced as the new Zoning Code Enforcement Officer- His e-mail- Persing@rochrr.com
¨ Chairman Kayser noted that the “Sessler Project” had been pulled back by the Sessler group for a minimum of 90 days. Our Board will not discuss any action until it has been resubmitted to the Seneca County IDA and referred to us.
IDA-DEC-VPB Meeting Discussion
¨ Bill Larzelere noted that the best things that came out of the joint meeting was opening the lines of communication, identifying a DEC contact for permitting concerns (Lisa Porter) and the willingness of the DEC to prioritize its wetland remapping project of the Depot property to review areas identified by the IDA that should be done to move development projects along. The whole remapping project does not have to be completed before development proceeds in the remapped areas. Also noted was the willingness of the DEC to accept (after review) third party wetland remapping investigation. Board Discussion continued with reservations about the worth of third party investigation on improvement of turnaround time and who would pay for this third party.
¨ Board discussed the perceived effect of wetland remapping on ability of affected farmers to farm their land. Kevin Swartley thinking there may be significant impacts and Thomas Bjorkman thinking the effects would be minimal and be able to be negotiated with DEC.
¨ The discussion on choosing SEQR Lead Agency status was very informative and enlightening.
Zonining Code Enforcement Officer Report
Miles Persing thanked the Board for it’s support of him in his new position and agreed to attend our Planning Board meetings in the future.
¨ Two recent Building Permits have been denied because setbacks do not meet the new code regulations. One project is on the lakefront on Seneca Lake East Lake Road. The second is on Rt. 89 and is also on the lakefront (Cayuga). Miles noted that both residents were easy to work with and willing to work with the system. Both have been scheduled to come up to the Zoning Board of Appeals in its March 17th meeting.
¨ Bob Kayser commented this was a good start and thanked Miles for his diligence. He expressed hope that local contractors in the area who would take up projects would be as willing to cooperate with the new code.
Docks and Moorings Committee Report
Bob Kayser reported that the scope has changed a couple times in reference to whether the committee would try to harmonize the docks and moorings code on both lakes or do one and then the other. Originally it was both lakes, then it was just Cayuga , now it is both lakes. The next meeting will be March 26th and he is looking for a Seneca Lake volunteer to represent the Town of Varick.
Planning Agenda for 2008
¨ Revised Code Issue Clarifications: Thomas Bjorkman reported that the Town Board had decided to take no immediate action on the Code revision “issues” identified that our Board agreed to work on to find acceptable language. They would like to let the new code work “as is” for the time being and see if the identified issues become concerns that really need to be addressed.
¨ Town Broadband access: Finger Lakes Technology offered at some point in the future to be able to supply “Wi Fi” to the area. Kevin Swartley offered to ask for clarification from his contacts in FLT.
¨ Wind Power : Bob and Bill discussed the need for studying a code to protect residents from any big wind development issues without being too restrictive to local implementation by residents. It was noted that we are a rural area that could benefit from “small wind” power production.
¨ Noise ordinance: It was noted that both Fayette and Romulus have noise ordinances and would be in our interest to do similar. To do: next meeting look at these two towns ordinances.
¨ Bob Kayser will ask Bob Hayssen: If there are any planning concerns his Board would like to see us work on in 2008.
Next Meeting:
Bob Kayser noted that our Planning Board meetings had been monthly for the past several years to accomplish big goals. Since these have been met, he would like to go back to every other month meetings unless any special concerns arise. It was agreed that this would be the new schedule.
Our next regular meeting will be April 24th,2008 at 7:00pm in the Varick Firehall.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted,
Bill Larzelere- Secretary
March 04, 2008
Draft Minutes to Special Feb 25th Meeting VPB-IDA-DEC
Town of Varick Planning Board/NYS DEC/ Seneca County IDA Meeting Minutes
Date of meeting: February 25, 2008
Meeting called to order: 7:05pm
Location: Heroes Conference room, Seneca County office building
Attendees:
Varick Planning Board: Bob Kayser (VPBchairman), Thomas Bjorkman , Phil Knapp, Bill Larzelere, Kevin Swartley
NYS DEC Region 8 office: Paul D’Amato, Peter Lent, Randy Nemecek, Lisa Porter
Seneca County IDA: Steven Dennis, Patricia Jones
o Guests at meeting: Four members of the public
A sign up sheet was passed around that identified the participants by name, who they represented and contact information. This included the members of the public.
VPB Chairman Bob Kayser called the meeting to order at 7:05pm thanking all for attending. He described the meeting as a “get acquainted and informational” meeting to discuss, history, common interests, concerns, and roles of parties in going forward in future development of the former Seneca Army Depot. Bob noted that no specific projects would be discussed in this meeting.
DEC’s Region 8 Director Paul D’Amato began discussion with an overview of Wetland Remapping in the State, Key points follow:
¨ Wetland mapping is a normal responsibility of his office and noted there are no hidden agendas in the remapping of former SAD.
¨ More priority placed on remapping States wetlands with added staff since Elliot Spitzer administration took over.
¨ Actual redrawing of maps has not begun, but aerial inspection and GIS maps have been used to identify possible increases to the SAD and surrounding areas wetlands. The process would continue with actual “boots on the ground” inspections of the identified areas when spring weather broke.
¨ Inspections and analysis could conclude that the wetlands may be controlled by the Federal government in which case the regulating body will be the Army Corps of Engineers.
¨ DEC criteria for a “wetland” is based on area of more than 12.4 acres, vegetation types and location of streams, ponds, lakes, whereas the Federal criteria can be less than 12.4 acres and based more on the presence and location of “hydric” soils.
¨ Lisa Porter of the DEC Region 8 office will be the DEC contact person for SAD Wetland remapping and permitting for any Depot development initiatives.
Discussion continued with questions to the DEC about the SEQR process and specifically regarding how the DEC sees themselves as the Lead Agency. Key Points follow:
¨ Lead Agency would normally be a permitting authority and be the best suited for the SEQR investigation.
¨ Part 617 section 5 of DEC Document 6NYCRR State Environmental Quality Review defines the process of determining which involved agency will be Lead Agency if there is a dispute among the involved agencies.
¨ The DEC Commissioner will resolve the dispute and use the following criteria as defined in the code sited above.
o “ (a) whether the anticipated impacts of the action being considered are primarily of statewide, regional, or local significance(i.e., if such impacts are of primarily local significance, all other considerations being equal, the local agency involved will be lead agency.”
o “(b) which agency has the broadest governmental powers for investigation of the impact(s) of the proposed action; and”
o “(c) which agency has the greatest capability for providing the most thorough environmental assessment of the proposed action.”
¨ Paul D’Amato stated that the SAD does exhibit unique issues and potentials for bad things to happen to the environment if not managed properly.
Chairman Kayser turned the discussion to the Seneca County IDA role in SAD development, asking IDA Executive Director Steven Dennis to comment.
Following are key points:
¨ The IDA took over responsibility of the SAD by default when no other local or government organizations would when the Army announced the base closure in 1995.
¨ The IDA is a voluntary Board in Seneca County that works hard to make the best choices for development of new businesses in all of Seneca County.
¨ In 1996, the IDA designated 7500 acres in the approximate middle of the Depot as the Conservation/Recreation area. It was thought and discussed that the DEC would take over responsibility of this area but declined to do it.
¨ In 2003 negotiations and agreements were made between the Army and IDA with the Army agreeing to:
o supply security for the Depot until 2012
o maintain the fence until 2012
o manage the wildlife according to the Army’s Wildlife management Plan until 2012
o manage the annual deer hunt until 2012.
¨ Because of delays in the environmental cleanup of the Depot, the above agreements are now pushed to 2015. (The Army still has control of about 800 acres that is under remediation.)
¨ Paul D’Amato (DEC)asked Steve if they could get a copy of the Army’s Wildlife Plan and Steve said yes and would be done.
Steve then handed off to Patricia Jones who has overseen the Depot turnover form an early point in the process. Patricia made the following points:
¨ She started with history of several studies that have been done over the years including the Jeff Donohue Report in 2005 and the Erin Crotty report in 2006. These reports were an attempt to define the best uses for the depot land and facilities and resulted in mapping several areas which would best support the defined uses.
¨ She noted that there was significant opportunity for public input in developing these studies.
¨ The areas were not to be individually fenced but would try to be developed with businesses “collocating” .
¨ Each business would have to agree to uphold and use the Wildlife Management Plan.
¨ The IDA has funds set aside and will contract to have a Wildlife Management Plan done. A proposed plan to be done by Cornell University was too expensive.
¨ The goal is to have the plan done in 2008. Pat asked DEC if they could help in any way and they said they definitely could and supplied the DEC contact.
Question from audience about who owned what property on the Depot.
Pat Jones replied:
¨ IDA ~8000acres , Army~800 acres(includes Airport), Airport will be turned over soon to IDA Prison, Coastguard, SC Prison, Waterdistict ~2000 acres. Hillside property is on a 10 year lease which will more than likely be transferred to Hillside when the lease expires.
Question was asked of Steve(IDA) of the process they follow when a company submits a business plan including the SEQR process. Steve Answered:
¨ The IDA is HIGHLY regulated in performing permitting and SEQR process. There is MUCH oversight from the State. The basic process usually is as follows:
o Application accepted and approved from a client. (This is a process)
o IDA will usually take Lead Agency Role for SEQR because historically, no one else wants it.
o Sends out notification of intent to take Lead Agency to “involved agencies”
o Agencies have 30 days to respond and ask if they can be(if they want to)
o These 30 days are also when Involved Agencies can voice comments or raise concerns about the proposed project.
o IDA will usually grant Lead Agency to a requesting Involved Agency
Steve Dennis asked DEC how the Wetland Remapping will be done and when it would start as this new requirement is holding up development plans for a number of projects.
Paul D’Amato replied that it will be handled internally from their office and will be done as quickly as possible. Spring weather is needed to start the “boots on the ground” process of investigation.
Paul offered to prioritize the mapping process based on which properties were most important to the IDA to have done. He reiterated that development cannot start until the mapping of the wetland for the proposed land is complete.
Steve Dennis asked if the IDA could have Wetland mapping done by a third party and submit to DEC for approval. D’Amato said yes and this would be helpful, but would like to know who would be doing the work.
A question was asked, of DEC, about how the Wetland remapping would affect farming in the area. A couple farms have been notified that they have land (some of which is being actively farmed) that will possibly be declared wetland. Perception is that this land could not be farmed or additional drainage installed and would reduce their income as well as property value.
Paul D’Amato(DEC) replied that the particular farm in question would be notified that they would be “grandfathered” and that if land is being actively farmed it would also be grandfathered. They would not necessarily allow additional “wetlands” to be drained to permit more land being put into farming. It is a question that they are sensitive to and will work with particular situations as they arise.
Bob Kayser then asked Thomas Bjorkman to discuss the Town of Varick’s role in Depot development and any concerns. Thomas has been the VPD Chairman for several years and has been the driving force in the 2005 joint Fayette/Varick Comprehensive Plan and the 2007 revision to the Varick Zoning code accepted by the Varick Town Board on December 27, 2007.
Bjorkman’s key points follow:
¨ The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning code revisions were difficult tasks and received much public input. Both the Plan and the Code reflect the public wishes.
¨ A residents Survey was done as part of the Comprehensive Plan and some of the public sentiments were as follows:
o 63% favored outdoor recreation and tourism, and tourism support business
o 40% supported Agriculture support business in the Town of Varick.
o 30% supported some form of Industrial development for tax base improvement
¨ The intent of the Green Energy zone on the Depot property is for :
o low environmental impact and protection of the wildlife and habitat
o development of renewable energy sources of solar, wind and biomass as well as development of new natural gas exploration.
o these energies would be in support of any development that would require power
¨ He then went to the Zoning Code land use chart and cited many of the public service uses that would be supported on the Depot property as well as campus style business developments, citing the new FingerLakes Technology Data Storage business as a great example of what Varick would like to see developed
¨ Thomas noted that the IDA and Varick code have very similar delineation of property and similar use goals
The meeting seemed to be winding down and Bob Kayser commented on the value of communication meetings such as this one and wanting to keep the lines open. He also thanked everyone including the public for participating.
Paul D’Amato thanked everyone again and asked to be personally informed when viable Depot projects are brought forth so they can plan to quickly get their mapping done.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:05pm
Minutes Respectfully Submitted,
Bill Larzelere VPB Secretary
Date of meeting: February 25, 2008
Meeting called to order: 7:05pm
Location: Heroes Conference room, Seneca County office building
Attendees:
Varick Planning Board: Bob Kayser (VPBchairman), Thomas Bjorkman , Phil Knapp, Bill Larzelere, Kevin Swartley
NYS DEC Region 8 office: Paul D’Amato, Peter Lent, Randy Nemecek, Lisa Porter
Seneca County IDA: Steven Dennis, Patricia Jones
o Guests at meeting: Four members of the public
A sign up sheet was passed around that identified the participants by name, who they represented and contact information. This included the members of the public.
VPB Chairman Bob Kayser called the meeting to order at 7:05pm thanking all for attending. He described the meeting as a “get acquainted and informational” meeting to discuss, history, common interests, concerns, and roles of parties in going forward in future development of the former Seneca Army Depot. Bob noted that no specific projects would be discussed in this meeting.
DEC’s Region 8 Director Paul D’Amato began discussion with an overview of Wetland Remapping in the State, Key points follow:
¨ Wetland mapping is a normal responsibility of his office and noted there are no hidden agendas in the remapping of former SAD.
¨ More priority placed on remapping States wetlands with added staff since Elliot Spitzer administration took over.
¨ Actual redrawing of maps has not begun, but aerial inspection and GIS maps have been used to identify possible increases to the SAD and surrounding areas wetlands. The process would continue with actual “boots on the ground” inspections of the identified areas when spring weather broke.
¨ Inspections and analysis could conclude that the wetlands may be controlled by the Federal government in which case the regulating body will be the Army Corps of Engineers.
¨ DEC criteria for a “wetland” is based on area of more than 12.4 acres, vegetation types and location of streams, ponds, lakes, whereas the Federal criteria can be less than 12.4 acres and based more on the presence and location of “hydric” soils.
¨ Lisa Porter of the DEC Region 8 office will be the DEC contact person for SAD Wetland remapping and permitting for any Depot development initiatives.
Discussion continued with questions to the DEC about the SEQR process and specifically regarding how the DEC sees themselves as the Lead Agency. Key Points follow:
¨ Lead Agency would normally be a permitting authority and be the best suited for the SEQR investigation.
¨ Part 617 section 5 of DEC Document 6NYCRR State Environmental Quality Review defines the process of determining which involved agency will be Lead Agency if there is a dispute among the involved agencies.
¨ The DEC Commissioner will resolve the dispute and use the following criteria as defined in the code sited above.
o “ (a) whether the anticipated impacts of the action being considered are primarily of statewide, regional, or local significance(i.e., if such impacts are of primarily local significance, all other considerations being equal, the local agency involved will be lead agency.”
o “(b) which agency has the broadest governmental powers for investigation of the impact(s) of the proposed action; and”
o “(c) which agency has the greatest capability for providing the most thorough environmental assessment of the proposed action.”
¨ Paul D’Amato stated that the SAD does exhibit unique issues and potentials for bad things to happen to the environment if not managed properly.
Chairman Kayser turned the discussion to the Seneca County IDA role in SAD development, asking IDA Executive Director Steven Dennis to comment.
Following are key points:
¨ The IDA took over responsibility of the SAD by default when no other local or government organizations would when the Army announced the base closure in 1995.
¨ The IDA is a voluntary Board in Seneca County that works hard to make the best choices for development of new businesses in all of Seneca County.
¨ In 1996, the IDA designated 7500 acres in the approximate middle of the Depot as the Conservation/Recreation area. It was thought and discussed that the DEC would take over responsibility of this area but declined to do it.
¨ In 2003 negotiations and agreements were made between the Army and IDA with the Army agreeing to:
o supply security for the Depot until 2012
o maintain the fence until 2012
o manage the wildlife according to the Army’s Wildlife management Plan until 2012
o manage the annual deer hunt until 2012.
¨ Because of delays in the environmental cleanup of the Depot, the above agreements are now pushed to 2015. (The Army still has control of about 800 acres that is under remediation.)
¨ Paul D’Amato (DEC)asked Steve if they could get a copy of the Army’s Wildlife Plan and Steve said yes and would be done.
Steve then handed off to Patricia Jones who has overseen the Depot turnover form an early point in the process. Patricia made the following points:
¨ She started with history of several studies that have been done over the years including the Jeff Donohue Report in 2005 and the Erin Crotty report in 2006. These reports were an attempt to define the best uses for the depot land and facilities and resulted in mapping several areas which would best support the defined uses.
¨ She noted that there was significant opportunity for public input in developing these studies.
¨ The areas were not to be individually fenced but would try to be developed with businesses “collocating” .
¨ Each business would have to agree to uphold and use the Wildlife Management Plan.
¨ The IDA has funds set aside and will contract to have a Wildlife Management Plan done. A proposed plan to be done by Cornell University was too expensive.
¨ The goal is to have the plan done in 2008. Pat asked DEC if they could help in any way and they said they definitely could and supplied the DEC contact.
Question from audience about who owned what property on the Depot.
Pat Jones replied:
¨ IDA ~8000acres , Army~800 acres(includes Airport), Airport will be turned over soon to IDA Prison, Coastguard, SC Prison, Waterdistict ~2000 acres. Hillside property is on a 10 year lease which will more than likely be transferred to Hillside when the lease expires.
Question was asked of Steve(IDA) of the process they follow when a company submits a business plan including the SEQR process. Steve Answered:
¨ The IDA is HIGHLY regulated in performing permitting and SEQR process. There is MUCH oversight from the State. The basic process usually is as follows:
o Application accepted and approved from a client. (This is a process)
o IDA will usually take Lead Agency Role for SEQR because historically, no one else wants it.
o Sends out notification of intent to take Lead Agency to “involved agencies”
o Agencies have 30 days to respond and ask if they can be(if they want to)
o These 30 days are also when Involved Agencies can voice comments or raise concerns about the proposed project.
o IDA will usually grant Lead Agency to a requesting Involved Agency
Steve Dennis asked DEC how the Wetland Remapping will be done and when it would start as this new requirement is holding up development plans for a number of projects.
Paul D’Amato replied that it will be handled internally from their office and will be done as quickly as possible. Spring weather is needed to start the “boots on the ground” process of investigation.
Paul offered to prioritize the mapping process based on which properties were most important to the IDA to have done. He reiterated that development cannot start until the mapping of the wetland for the proposed land is complete.
Steve Dennis asked if the IDA could have Wetland mapping done by a third party and submit to DEC for approval. D’Amato said yes and this would be helpful, but would like to know who would be doing the work.
A question was asked, of DEC, about how the Wetland remapping would affect farming in the area. A couple farms have been notified that they have land (some of which is being actively farmed) that will possibly be declared wetland. Perception is that this land could not be farmed or additional drainage installed and would reduce their income as well as property value.
Paul D’Amato(DEC) replied that the particular farm in question would be notified that they would be “grandfathered” and that if land is being actively farmed it would also be grandfathered. They would not necessarily allow additional “wetlands” to be drained to permit more land being put into farming. It is a question that they are sensitive to and will work with particular situations as they arise.
Bob Kayser then asked Thomas Bjorkman to discuss the Town of Varick’s role in Depot development and any concerns. Thomas has been the VPD Chairman for several years and has been the driving force in the 2005 joint Fayette/Varick Comprehensive Plan and the 2007 revision to the Varick Zoning code accepted by the Varick Town Board on December 27, 2007.
Bjorkman’s key points follow:
¨ The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning code revisions were difficult tasks and received much public input. Both the Plan and the Code reflect the public wishes.
¨ A residents Survey was done as part of the Comprehensive Plan and some of the public sentiments were as follows:
o 63% favored outdoor recreation and tourism, and tourism support business
o 40% supported Agriculture support business in the Town of Varick.
o 30% supported some form of Industrial development for tax base improvement
¨ The intent of the Green Energy zone on the Depot property is for :
o low environmental impact and protection of the wildlife and habitat
o development of renewable energy sources of solar, wind and biomass as well as development of new natural gas exploration.
o these energies would be in support of any development that would require power
¨ He then went to the Zoning Code land use chart and cited many of the public service uses that would be supported on the Depot property as well as campus style business developments, citing the new FingerLakes Technology Data Storage business as a great example of what Varick would like to see developed
¨ Thomas noted that the IDA and Varick code have very similar delineation of property and similar use goals
The meeting seemed to be winding down and Bob Kayser commented on the value of communication meetings such as this one and wanting to keep the lines open. He also thanked everyone including the public for participating.
Paul D’Amato thanked everyone again and asked to be personally informed when viable Depot projects are brought forth so they can plan to quickly get their mapping done.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:05pm
Minutes Respectfully Submitted,
Bill Larzelere VPB Secretary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)