PB Meeting 6/28/12

Approved Copy – Planning Board Meeting, 6/28/12.

Meeting was called to order at 7:04 by Tom B who filled in as temporary Chairperson. All present except Bill Squires and Linda M (who attended later).

The minutes to the previous meeting were accepted – motion made by Todd H, seconded by Phil K.

We addressed a revision of the March 22 minutes concerning suggestions made by Jeff Hogue (ZBA chair) about our definition of “structures.” It was agreed that I (Barry S) would contact Jeff and make sure that the minutes correctly reflect his statements.

The purpose of our meeting was to address items compiled previously in a five point agenda. These included checking on regulations and procedures regarding the issuing of special use permits; review of the code concerning dog kennels, breeding, etc.; developing zoning code regulations concerning Planned Unit Development; reviewing the issue of nonpublic schools; and the allowance or regulation of hydraulic fracturing.

We discussed the hydrofracking issue and determined that we need to develop our code beyond that which already exists under gas wells. However, this is going to take some time and we would like to see how other towns are handling the situation. We do not want to be reactive but proactive, so we will deal with this issue in the near future.

An area that we do need to deal with immediately is P.U. D.’s. We do not believe our wording in the current code covers this sufficiently. It was recommended that we call for a moratorium on the issue. The following motion was made by Tom B – “The PB recommends that the TB initiate a six month moratorium for the purpose of developing appropriate zoning code for Public Unit Development.” The motion was seconded by Linda M and supported by all. It was further determined that each member be assigned a geographical area in the state to find definitions and zoning regulations concerning P.U. D.’s covered in other towns. We will begin work on this at the next meeting.

We briefly discussed current code on dog breeding, boarding, etc. facilities. We believe the code is sufficient; however, members will review it for the next meeting and address changes if deemed necessary.

We are also still concerned about procedures involving special use permits, setbacks, and area variances. We believe the code may not quite be sufficient and are concerned that our procedure stands by current state and local code. We feel that we handled the Verizon Cell Tower permit properly, but we want to make any future issues of this nature to run more smoothly. Therefore, we are going to investigate section 404.2 and 3 in our code and check state and town laws concerning regulations and responsibilities of all those involved in granting permits and dealing with variance issues.

We did not discuss the nonpublic school issue in depth. We realize this is an area we need to research and discuss further. It is still an item on our agenda.

Jenny McWhorter, a peace officer with the Seneca County S.P.C.A, was present at our meeting. She informed us of her desire to purchase land from Carl Stuck near the corner of Yale Station Rd and Rt. 96a for a facility to house and care for rescued animals (usually dogs or cats). We informed her that the current property would not meet setbacks if a new building were constructed. She should contact appropriate authorities to determine the exact measurements of the parcel. If she wants to proceed with the purchase she needs to apply for a special use permit. That procedure will include a review by the ZBA concerning the setbacks. She seemed to be pleased by our suggestions and will proceed with the advice given.

Todd Horton suggested that we contact the TB about two issues. First, was a special use permit granted to Verizon for constructing their cell tower; second, was the town resolution made in February concerning this issue ever rescinded. We were able to address the TB immediately. A permit was granted and presented to Verizon on June 8. The resolution has yet to be rescinded but will be in the near future.

We set up the following agenda to begin at our next meeting; 1) Deal with any strengthening of the code concerning dog kennels, etc. 2) Begin work on the P.U. D. aspect of the code, 3)If time allows, review regulations and procedures for special use permits, 4)Develop zoning policy concerning nonpublic schools, 5) Develop zoning requirements for hydrofracking.

Our next meeting will be on July 26, 2012.

A motion was made to adjourn by Linda M, seconded by Tom B. Meeting closed at 9:23 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Barry Somerville, secretary

Minues August 23, 2012

Varick Planning Board
August 23, 2012

Called to order 7:10 pm

Present: Squires, Horton, Knapp, Björkman
Absent: Mastellar, Somerville
Resigned: Larzelere

Substitute secretary: Björkman

Tabled minute approval to next time, when at least 4 members from last month are present.

SPCA update: Prospective applicant went to the ZBA, which gave them good advice about getting accurate information for the application. There were discrepancies, which we also noted to applicant, on the actual dimensions of the lot.

Board communications. We want to make sure we improve our communication to the Town Board and ZBA so they know what we are up to from month to month. It helps avoid surprises.
We can email our draft minutes (even though they are on the web) to the Town Board members and the ZBA chair. Our minutes are on the web (http://varickpb.blogspot.com/) as a record, but an email with the contents will be seen in time to help.

Town Attorney: We wish John Sipos a speedy recovery.

Planned action items. From June, our priorities were to request a 6-month moratorium on PUDs to allow us to write a good code. Second, work on 403.1 and 404.2, on the proper way to issue Special Use Permits.   Thereafter, revisit school restrictions, and pay attention to hydrofracking.

Regarding hydrofracking, we have no regulation now. It is worth waiting a little before beginning work to get more clarity on what responsibility falls to towns. We may be outside the relevant area because the Marcellus is too shallow here for this process. Furthermore, the governor is expected to issue some base rules in the coming month.

Special uses and area variances. We discussed the process for special use permits. The planning board properly has the authority to issue special use permits under 274-b (2) of NYS Town Law. However, where the application clearly fails to comply with a quantitative or absolute requirement, an area variance may be needed. The area variance is issued by the ZBA as a separate action. Our Telecom tower and Mobile Home Park special use requirements are unclear on that point. Some towns have the ZBA act first, after the ZCEO determines that an area variance is required.  We should at least modify the code so that the parts involved with an area variance are separated from the ones for the special usepermit (i.e. use variance).

In our summary of the code, describe more simply and clearly what the PB, ZBA, ZCEO and resident duties are. This could be on the website (when it returns) and as a preamble to the code.

Planned Unit Developments.

We reported on our research of other codes.
Knapp provided PUD code from Fayette, Mendon, Canandaigua, Victor and Perinton. He also had an excellent book on doing PUD approvals from Mt.Vernon, WA.
Björkman provided Saratoga and Forestburg.
Horton provided Aurelius, which has similar mix of lake, town and agriculture. 

We discussed creating a new zoning district for each PUD, as is done in the Town of Forestburg, and decided it would not be appropriate for Varick.
On Planned Unit Developments, we need to specify where they are to be permitted. We agreed that PUDs should be a Special Use in the ARR district, and not permitted in the others.

For next time, start with Aurelius and Fayette as frameworks. They may be fairly close to what we want.
Aurelius (Article 6): http://www.co.cayuga.ny.us/aurelius/government/laws/pdffiles/zoning.pdf
Fayette (Section 832):
http://townoffayetteny.com/final land use  regs.pdf

Squires moved to adjourn, Horton seconded.
Adjourned 8:42 pm

Approved Copy PB minutes 5/24/12

Draft Copy PB minutes 5/24/12

Meeting called to order at 7:02. Bill L. and Tom B. were absent.

Minutes from previous meeting were approved – motion made by Todd H., seconded by Phil K.

An update of the May 1, 2012 ZBA meeting concerning the Verizon cell tower was presented by Barry S.

The ZBA agreed to hear Verizon’s presentation but no decisions have been forwarded to the PB. We are aware that the VTB extended the shot clock to June 2, 2012. If a hearing is scheduled it will need to be in that time frame. At this point the PB is not aware of a need for further involvement. We are all in agreement that this was a valuable learning experience for us. In the future, the process of granting permits and determining areas of jurisdiction will definitely improve.

There was brief discussion of areas that the ZB needs to consider at future meetings outlined in our March meeting. An agenda will be set up for the next meeting to begin dealing with these issues. Our goal is to review all issues we are aware of, make necessary changes, and present them at one public hearing.

The board decided to begin meeting on a monthly basis, partially to fulfill the requirement to approve the minutes within thirty days and partially to keep abreast of issues that need to be addressed. Linda M made a motion to hold monthly meetings, seconded by Todd H, motion approved.

Our next meeting will be June 28. Linda M moved to adjourn, Phil seconded. Meeting closed at 8:09.

Respectfully submitted,

Barry Somerville

Approved PB minutes 3/22/12

Approved PB meeting 3/22/12

Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm. Members present were Bill S, Bill L, Phil K, Todd H, Tom B, and Barry S. Jeff Hogue from ZBA was also present.

Minutes from the January meeting were reviewed. Bill L moved to accept the minutes, seconded by Todd and approved by all.

The main purpose of our meeting was to present items to place on the agenda for future meetings and to review the progress of approving the Verizon cell tower. The following items were presented as needs to review and discuss at the next meeting:

1) The issue of hydrofracking as it relates to our town. It has been determined by higher courts that townships have a say in whether or not a company may use this procedure. We agreed to do some research into this area to see if it is an issue that needs to be considered by the PB or TB. The farm bureau has been in favor of this process. Is it an issue that we need to address?

2) Review code in regard to kennel regulations. This was raised as a result of a situation in the town of Gorham. The PB dealt with this thoroughly as the code was being prepared, but it might be wise to review it to make sure all areas are properly covered. One question raised was what distinguishes a puppy mill from a genuine breeder.

3) The issue of inspection of cell towers – who has jurisdiction? Currently the county does not have authority to inspect. Bill S thinks this may be an issue of interpretation – they cannot inspect the technical communication equipment on the tower, but what about the foundation and tower itself? The PB will attempt to find out who is supposed to inspect these towers and if the town has any liability in this area.

4) At the end of our meeting Bill S mentioned he wanted us to review setbacks for cell towers to see if we need to revise the code.

We then went on to receive an update on the discussion between members of TB, PB, ZBA and Verizon lawyers at the March TB meeting. Todd H reported the events to the PB and gave a brief review of a separate meeting with Jeff Hogue, myself, and Verizon lawyers. The outcome was an extension of the shot clock for resolution to May 5, 2012 (made by the TB). The ZBA will meet to review the situation and decide whether or not to hear the issue. A public hearing will follow with a decision to grant a setback variance or not. If the ZBA decides not to hear the issue or they decide not to grant a variance, the issue will go to court with Verizon. At this point we do not believe that will happen. However, it may be necessary to extend the shot clock one more time since there have been scheduling problems between Verizon and the ZBA. Target dates for meetings are April 10 and 24.

Jeff Hogue made some suggestions for the PB to review based on two issues his board has had to address. 1) People trying to define or redefine what the code says about structures. Some are trying to take advantage of the code and it may need to be expanded in its definition of “structures.” 2) Landscaping restrictions and infringements – example given of a pillar of rocks 14-20 feet tall equipped with electricity to run a pump for a waterfall and the setting of a permanent pad to store a boat on. Although such structures may be covered under the current code we might want to draft more specific definitions for “structure” and “accessory structure” to aid interpretation and decision making for ZBA cases. This will also help residents not to stretch the code.

It was also suggested that the ZBA and PB meet semiannually to touch base and discuss issues such as those raised above. It would also be wise for the ZBA to make the PB aware of actions they make and for the PB to send their minutes to the ZBA members. All parties believe there needs to be better communication and a closer relationship between the two boards.

A motion was made to adjourn at 8:10 pm by Todd and seconded by Phil. The next meeting will be May 24.

Respectfully submitted,

Barry Somerville, secretary

Approved PB minutes 1/26/12

Approved Copy of PB minutes, 1/26/12:

Meeting was called to order by Bill Squires at 6:55 PM. All members were present.

The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss misunderstandings that have arisen concerning the construction of the Verizon cell tower at the corner of Rts. 336 and 96 with John Sipos, Varick Town Attorney. There is some confusion as to the responsibilities of the Zone Enforcement Officer, the Planning Board, and the Zoning Board of Appeals in regard to the approval of permits, setbacks, and construction site management.

Verizon has written letters to Larry Colton (CEO) and attorney John Sipos concerning their view that the PB issues the special permit, but the ZBA resides over setback variances. Mr. Sipos disagrees and this issue will be resolved through the town at a future date.

Mr. Sipos also raised the question as to who has regulatory authority over cell towers. He cited that they are a special case under state law, but does not know who else is supposed to be responsible. His concern is over possible safety issues.

Another question presented concerns the agent responsible to observe construction of the tower to be sure it complies with building codes and the site plan. We were reminded that the zoning code gives the PB authority to hire someone capable of this oversight. In this case, Verizon would be responsible for remuneration.

Concerns were also voiced over the lack of job description for the CEO and coordination between the PB, ZBA, and town attorney. It is the PB’s desire to clarify the responsibilities of these parties in situations such as approval for special use permits. It is our desire to work respectfully and cooperatively with all involved. The PB has recognized the need to call upon the town attorney whenever possible legal issues or code clarifications may arise.

Mr. Sipos presented the PB with certain educational materials for our consideration. These included Planning Board Rules and Regulations, Site Plan Approval, Procedural Checklist for Town PB, and a Site Development Plan Review. The PB is appreciative of these items and will be carefully considering them in the near future.

It was noted during the course of the meeting that in Section 404.2-1 that "Town Board" is a typo and needs to be changed to Planning Board.

The PB also made a motion to clarify the intent of the resolution concerning the Verizon cell tower special permit in the November meeting. Todd Horton moved to clarify that the intent of the PB resolution for a Verizon special use permit was to leave the issue of variance setbacks to the ZBA. Everything else is to be accepted as written. This was seconded by Bill Lazerlere and adopted unanimously.

Bill Squires then moved to conduct a special meeting at 7:00 pm on February 16, seconded by Todd Horton and approved by all.

Tom Bjorkman moved to adjourn at 8:43 pm, seconded by Linda Mastellar.

Respectfully submitted,

Barry Somerville, secretary

PB meeting, Public Hearing 11/17/11

Bill Squires called for the PB meeting to open at 6:59 pm. All members were present. A motion was made by Tom B to accept the minutes for the 9/22/11 PB meeting. Motion seconded by Todd H. and approved by all.

A motion for adjournment was made by Tom B, seconded by Todd H and approved so we could move forward to the public hearing.

Public hearing was called to order by Bill S. The first order of business concerned the simple subdivision of property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wilkes on Yale Station Rd and E Lake Rd. The parcel needing subdivision is a lot and house formerly owned by Howard Smith. The party interested in buying the parcel wants to refurbish the residence. A motion to subdivide this property was made by Bill L., seconded by Phil Knapp and accepted by all.

The second item of business concerns the proposed Verizon cell tower to be constructed on the corner of Rt. 336 and Rt. 96 in the town of Varick where a radio tower currently exists. Attorney Robert Burgdorf reviewed the intentions of Verizon for the sake of those who were at the hearing. The basic reasons for placing it here is that it is located next to an existing tower and it is the best location for needed coverage. The tower is located 320’ from the residence of Larry and Edith Colton.

The Colton’s had several objections to the placement of a new tower, the main one being that part of their property falls within 300’ of the tower which violates zoning setback limits. Mr. Colton brought a map of the site and claimed that his house was within the setback. However, it was shown that it was actually outside of the setback, although some of his property is within the perimeter. This is Mr. Colton’s main objection to the tower at this location.

Edtih Colton presented a number of concerns as well. She mentioned the change of landscape and the closeness to the tower might devalue their property if resold. She was also concerned about safety issues since this was one of the main reasons for setbacks. She feared damage to their property if the tower happened to fall. Even though it is never supposed to come down, what would happen if it did?

The Colton’s then suggested another possible site adjacent to the property in the Town of Fayette. Mrs. Colton also thought the requested variance was substantial due to these reasons. However, the issue of variance is not the concern of the PB but the Zoning Board of Appeals. She again mentioned the physical and environmental impact upon the area and the problem of resale for their home. She finally mentioned that the alleged difficulty of other sites is self-created. Are there other sites available, such as the one mentioned above. Mrs. Colton was not aware of the tests that were done at the alternate sites suggested by the PB in September.

Richard Olsen also had two concerns. First, how would liabilities associated with the tower falling or something falling off of it be covered? Is Verizon liable for such an event? Also, he urged the PB to follow the town zoning code.

Mr. Burgdorf then addressed the above concerns. He stated that Verizon does not need an easement in regard to Colton’s property. That is not really the issue for our board. He also cited state law that allows for the necessity of public utilities such as cell towers to overrule individual land rights in these cases. The issue of public safety was again addressed – these towers exceed current standards and will not fall down. He stated in the event of such a calamity the current radio tower would come down before the cell tower. In regard to the loss of property value, Mr. Burgdorf said that property near such towers usually increases at the same rate of other property in the area. He also reminded the board that the purpose of this hearing was for a special permit in regard to the setbacks.

Mr. Burgdorf also addressed the issue of liability, Verizon has insurance and any damage would be covered by the company. He also assured us that they were seeking to follow zoning code law by going through the current channel of applying for a special permit.

The Colton’s restated a couple of their concerns but the main one involves the 300’ setback that violates current code. Mr. Colton believes that a special permit should not be granted because of this.

It was again stated that the purpose of our meeting was the issue of a special use permit, not a variance on the zoning code. Tom B explained that the purpose of an easement was to see to it that neighboring landowners could be compensated in situations like this. Since the PB and ZBA might allow a special case, then the neighboring landowners would have some compensation for their loss of protection. In this situation an easement is not really needed, but could be agreed to for the above reason.

A motion was made to close the public hearing by Todd and seconded by Linda M. The motion passed.

We then moved to reopen the regular meeting of the PB. Tom B moved to approve a special permit for Verizon cell tower, but Mr. Burgdorf suggested we make a motion concerning SEQR requirements. Tom rescinded the previous motion and made the following – “I move that the project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.“ The motion was seconded by Barry S, all approved.

A motion was then made by Tom and seconded by Linda to approve a special use permit for Verizon to construct a cell tower at the original site proposed to be forwarded to the ZBA. In discussion, it was cited that a tower of this nature would be a huge benefit to the area. It was agreed that there was no real danger to the Colton house and property in the event that the tower fell, although we understand their concerns. The board realizes the potential negative impact to one family, but the public good seems to outweigh this. The question of forwarding info to the PBA was raised. Bill S will send a copy of all the minutes pertaining to this issue to the chair of the ZBA. All were in favor of the motion.

Bill S said he would send a cover letter to the ZBA regarding our motion and would email a copy to each PB member for feedback. He will also talk to the chair of the ZBA about the above issues.

Phil K motioned to approve the minutes of the 10/13/11 meeting, Bill L seconded and all approved.

A motion to adjourn was made by Tom B at 8:35, seconded by Bill S. The next PB meeting is 1/19/12.

Special PB Meeting 10/13/11

Special Planning Board Meeting, October 13, 2011.

Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm. All board members present as well as representatives for Verizon Wireless.

The purpose of the meeting was to review the information from Verizon concerning alternative sites for a cellular tower. Bill Squires was in favor of calling a public hearing since the two sites suggested at the last meeting are inadequate to cover the area. Bill also inquired about the break mechanism in the tower in case of failure. The representative called attention to section H in the original proposal which gives the engineering specs for the tower. They exceed current standards.

We were informed that the neighbor to the south of the proposed site, Mr. Sensinig, has agreed to put an easement in place if necessary.

A discrepancy was noted in the cell tower coverage maps presented by Verizon reps. They used a water tower near Romulus rather than the one that was suggested in the old army depot near McGrain Rd and Yale Farm Rd. A new map will be sent for review by Nov. 3. The board would prefer a tower in this area since it is already zoned for technology. However, this site may not be the most advantageous for cell coverage either.

A motion was made by Linda Mastellar that the process for building the new cell tower move forward to a public hearing for November 17 pending receipt of information on the possible depot site. The motion was seconded by Todd Horton and passed unanimously.

A motion to adjourn was made by Linda M., seconded by Phil K. Meeting adjourned at 7:37.

Sincerely submitted,

Barry Somerville, secretary