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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Linda.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry Somerville, secretary