Finding Ulysses

TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
12/13/05
Approved December 27th 2005

Present: Interim Chairperson David Tyler, Planning Board Members: Margot Chiuten,
David Means, and John Wertis, Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun.

Excused: Rose Hilbert, Rod Porter, and Darien Simon.

Applicants: Rich Hayward representing Kim Lanphear
Joseph Hucko and Matthew Moore representing Washington St. Partners

A quorum is present at the meeting; Mr. Tyler called the meeting to order at 7:37 pm.

Minutes:

Mr. Tyler submitted revisions to the minutes of 11/29/05. Members reviewed the revisions. Mr. Wertis offered a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes. Mr. Means SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor – MOTION APPROVED.

Ulysses Square Subdivision

Mr. Rachun stated this parcel went from a business district, with the northernmost end of it being a residential district. Once the Zoning Ordinance (August 30, 2005) change took place all of it with the exception of the actual building and parcel A directly north of the building on parcel B were zoned business; a corner of Parcel A is zoned as hamlet. The person who would like to purchase the property wanted to build a house on it but is unable because single family homes are not allowed in a business district.

Mr. Tyler asked if the parcel A is actually half hamlet and half business, he stated to the best of his knowledge this could not be done.

Mr. Hayward introduced himself; he is a Sales Associate with RE/MAX and represents
Kim Lanphear who currently owns the property. He also worked for Babcock and is very familiar with the property. He indicated on the map the parcels that were changed from business to residential in 1986-this led the corner of parcel A to being zoned as residential.

Mr. Rachun stated that they did not use lot lines to designate these zoning boundaries.
If you examine the Zoning Map property lines delineate the rest of the Town Ulysses. But in this particular case it is not, it is cut off from the back and the side. This is another item for the technical problems list.

Mr. Wertis asked what is actually being expected from this review. They cannot build residential in a business district; can the Planning Board make a zoning change.

Mr. Rachun stated this Board cannot do a zoning change it would be a Town Board issue; however based on the problems of the map it might be approachable due to the technical aspect.

Mr. Tyler clarified that the lot is currently one parcel. After reviewing the map he verified that there is underground gas and electric on all the parcels. He asked if there is public water-there is a public water supply. He noted there is no septic on parcel C. The map indicated a shared driveway between parcel B and C. He asked Mr. Rachun what the minimum frontage on a lot in this area.

Mr. Rachun stated that the minimum is 50 feet for a hamlet district.

Mr. Tyler asked whom the attorney working with the developer.

Mr. Hayward stated there is no developer because they have not closed on the property. The purchaser’s attorney is Anna Holmberg and the seller’s attorney is David Clark.

Mr. Tyler noted the shared drive between parcel B and C; creating a joint driveway creates legal complications. He questioned if it would not be smarter to have the driveway on one parcel and give the other parcel right of way. It is not an issue now but once it is sold off there could be issues to be dealt with. He questioned why they aren’t looking at a subdivision of parcel A and the rest of the land, why are they looking at B and C.

Mr. Hayward indicated Ms Lanphear has a land contract on parcel B.

Mr. Rachun noted that the large Babcock building is being sold currently on a land contract. It is being utilized as a used furniture retail space.

Mr. Tyler questioned if is a land contract what are they using as the lot lines. A land contract usually has a legal description – this map was updated on 11/10/05.

Mr. Hayward stated he is unclear if it is an actual land contract or a rent to own contract.

Mr. Tyler noted that before the Board approves it he does not have a problem with parcel A but does see potential problems between B and C. But if the applicant does not want to do it there is nothing the Board can do.

Mr. Hayward asked if this would have a bearing on the subdivision.

Mr. Tyler indicated it would, if there is a contract the lines would have to correlate with what is on the map. He is pretty sure the land contract predated the map in front of the Planning Board.

Mr. Rachun offered that if the map were approved, the land contract would follow the lot lines. These are conforming lots according to the Zoning Ordinance. He has dealt with Ms Lanphear in the past and she is very on top of things and has probably thought this out.

Mr. Hayward questioned the difference between land contract and rent to own.

Mr. Tyler explained the differences.

Mr. Hayward stated that this is what they have in place. They are not concerned with the driveway issues. Ms. Lanphear has been adamant about retaining a portion of the parking lot and the driveway.

Mr. Tyler asked if any members had any other issues.

Ms. Chiuten asked for clarification regarding driveway width and future expansion.

Mr. Tyler offered the explanation of future growth.
Mr. Rachun offered that an updated map should be provided indicating the septic for parcel C should be submitted.

Mr. Hayward submitted a fax letter with drawing from the Tompkins County Environmental Health office-indicating placement of the septic on parcel C.

Mr. Tyler noted that TG Millers would not update the map per the Environmental Health Office; this needs to be done and noted in the comments section on the map by TG Miller.

Mr. Wertis asked if they could approve pending receipt of the updated map.
The issue of the driveway could also be addressed and reviewed by the owner/buyer.

Mr. Tyler stated this could be done. But he definitely feels a corrected map should be in place.

Mr. Means MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Wertis

WHEREAS, Rich Hayward representing Kim Lanphear, have requested approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of the parcel known as Ulysses Square, Route 96, Trumansburg, NY from the Town of Ulysses Planning Board.

WHEREAS, the division between Parcel A and B, the Town of Ulysses Planning Board approves the MINOR SUBDIVISION as indicated on the map submitted this date 12/13/05 as prepared by TG Millers.

WHEREAS, the division between Parcel B and C, the Town of Ulysses Planning Board is to be approved conditioned upon receipt of an updated map done by the surveyor to reflect the septic location on the parcel C.
The Town of Ulysses Planning Board refers for reconsideration to the applicant and their attorney the dividing line between the parcel B and C in respect to the asphalt parking lot and driveway. This would be a shared driveway and parking lot and offer this could lead to legal complexities.

THEREFORE, be it resolved the Town of Ulysses Planning Board does hereby approve the application for a MINOR SUBDIVISION contingent on the following:

• Updated Surveyor map indicating septic on Parcel C
• Applicant/attorney review the dividing line creating a shared driveway
of Parcel B and C.

Mr. Tyler called the vote:
Ms. Chiuten aye
Mr. Means aye
Mr. Tyler aye
Mr. Wertis aye

ADOPTED
The Board presented their findings as follows:

1. It conforms to the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Tyler noted that Mr. Hayward should get the updated map back to Mr. Rachun before the end of the year, as he will no longer be on the Board as of December 31, 2005.

Ms Carlisle Peck asked if the resolution would be contingent on the minutes being approved. Since the next meeting may not be until January this could be problematic.

Mr. Rachun stated the minutes would have to be filed with the map when the County Clerk processes it.

Ms Carlisle Peck stated she could email the drafts to the members; they can make any corrections and give her approval by email. Once the Minutes have been approved she will email a copy to Mr. Hayward.

All members agreed this would be an effective way to manage this particular project due to mitigating factors.

Washington Street Partners

Mr. Tyler announced he would turn this portion of the meeting over to Mr. Means, as he is the designated Chairperson. He asked the applicants to introduce themselves.

Mr. Joe Hucko and Mr. Matthew Moore are the applicants representing Washington Street Partners. The project name is Trumansburg Commons.

Mr. Means stated the applicants had submitted the following documents earlier for the proposed Commons Project:

• 2 large sized revised Site Plans stamped by the architect.
• 9 complete packets of submissions for the Planning Board, each
packet comprised of 1 binder and 1 set of 11×17 inch illustrations.

The plan consists of only 1275 square foot retail building; there will be no gas pumps on the site. The engineers are completing the water quantity and quality section. They will have this and the accompanying diagrams ready for submission within the next few days.

Mr. Means noted they all have the newly submitted documents, he stated they all have to be careful and remember this is a new submittal and not compare to what went before this.

Mr. Tyler stated he would be interested in hearing why they are here, what was the impetus or the catalyst to bring them to this point.

Mr. Hucko said he would speculate that from a Planning Board perspective it would be an improvement. It is a reduction in building and the removal of the gas dispensing area.

Ms. Chiuten noted that there were changes in the driveway configuration. She asked what changed there and why.

Mr. Hucko and Mr. Moore presented a display of the site. Mr. Moore stated they shifted the main driveway to the North; this gave them a straight exit, and moving the driveway over to eliminate an issue with the swale.

Mr. Hucko stated some of this was driven by comments from DOT. They do not have the report from the plans presented here tonight.

Mr. Wertis noted the original was reversed. His recollection is the entrance to the northern most ends would be a one-way entrance; this was related to the fact that the cars would be making right hand turns. The grade off Route 96 is a steep grade.

Mr. Hucko replied there would be some revision however there would still be a grade to the entrance into the driveway.

Mr. Wertis stated the other side is more level to the road. With cars coming out of the double drive will spin their way out on a winter’s day.

Mr. Hucko stated they have enough room to bring the drive back and temper the grade back to a reasonable point.

Mr. Tyler stated if Mr. Auble is retaining land, if the lot he is retaining keeps the building as indicated on the plan then the setback would not be in compliance with current zoning.

Mr. Rachun indicated the Zoning Ordinance requires a setback of 15 feet.

Mr. Hucko stated that he believed Mr. Auble has complied with removal of the encroaching portion of the building. There is a stipulation in the contract that does require he comply with any regulations to achieve the Site Plan approval.

Mr. Tyler stated that this should not come back to Mr. Rachun as a Code Enforcement issue. It should be part of the approval process, it is Mr. Auble’s property and he has authorized Washington Street Partners to act as their agent. He questioned if the Board had received the letter from Mr. Auble authorizing the applicants to act on his behalf.

Mr. Hucko stated he had to respectfully disagree with the Mr. Tyler’s position; Washington St. Partners are the applicants not Mr. Auble. If they pull their application then the approval goes with them. They are an equity stakeholder but virtue of the purchase contract; under no uncertain terms they are the applicants; not Mr. Auble, they are not his agent.

Mr. Tyler noted that they are acting as his agent because they are applying for something that relates to his land.

Mr. Hucko stated that if they purchase this property, and Mr. Auble encroaches onto their property, he does not want it to be this approval’s process problem. It should be the Town’s issue with the property owner.

Mr. Tyler stated he disagreed; you are creating a subdivision and if it creates a non-conforming lot then it will not be allowed under the subdivision. Mr. Auble can obtain a variance but it would have to be done before subdivision approval is granted.

Mr. Wertis asked if the property should be subdivided. Mr. Auble would have to submit the subdivision plan while Washington Street Partners submit the Site Plan.

Mr. Hucko noted that it was their legal interpretation that a legal subdivision was not necessary-therefore they were purchasing a parcel of land that did not require any formal approval. He does not know if the game has changed-they were cognizant of the Planning Board right to build approval, but not for the transfer of the piece of real estate.

Mr. Rachun clarified that the Town Attorney had advised the Board they had to review all applications under the Zoning Ordinance (August 30, 2005). The current ordinance does require a simple subdivision, which this would be. Since, it is on a collector road so it has to have formal approval by the Planning Board.

Mr. Hucko asked what additional information would have to be submitted for the subdivision.

Mr. Rachun stated he could not speak on behalf of the Planning Board; but once the Site Plan is approved subdivision approval would be a condition to be met. Then the applicant would have the subdivision application prepared and come before the Planning Board.

Mr. Hucko stated they were working under the former ordinance; what is the simple subdivision process.

Mr. Rachun answered under the prior ordinance he had reviewed them. The new ordinance states since it is on a collector road the subdivision has to be reviewed by the Planning Board.

Mr. Hucko stated he would like to have the subdivision process approved as part of the Site Plan review.

Mr. Rachun stated there is a formal application for subdivision. The subdivision map must show the whole property- it will need to show all utilities, septic and buildings that exist, not just the parcel Washington Street Partners intends to develop.

Mr. Tyler stated very candidly that the subdivision process would be Mr. Auble’s.
He is the property owner; he cannot sell the land to the applicant until it is subdivided.

Mr. Hucko stated he does not understand this; the subdivision is contingent on their exercising the purchase contract.

Ms. Chiuten noted that he could assign this over to the applicants.

Mr. Tyler stated that if the setback on the building on the land Mr. Auble is retaining were to close to the line; the decision would impact him. He will have to remove it or he will have to get a variance.

Mr. Rachun stated he would not likely get a variance, as it was known he is creating a non-conforming lot.

Ms Chiuten stated what they have done in other municipalities is to present the preliminary plat. This occurs the same time as Site Plan approval; the information is almost always the same. The filing of the final subdivision plat is the last things to happen-they have acted as the agents on behalf of the property owner. The Site Plan approval is contingent on the subdivision meeting all the requirements of setback, etc. Then the burden is back on them, they get final Site Plan approval once the subdivision is approved.

Mr. Tyler stated the person who owns the land has the authority and power to subdivide, if they are working as the agent that is fine, but a contract vendee cannot do this.

Mr. Hucko stated he is not a lawyer, but he has to respectfully disagree but if they get to the same end line he will do it however they want. But, if they never take possession of the property it does not matter.

Mr. Wertis stated it could be considered as a parallel track. But the subdivision would have to come under Mr. Auble’s signature as the property owner.

Mr. Rachun agreed it would have to, as he owns the land.

Mr. Hucko stated if they are the applicants and they never take title to the property
the application goes away.

Mr. Wertis stated then the subdivision application would also go away.

Mr. Tyler noted by analogy the cases of environmental audits. The audit is done, if something is found it is the owner’s responsibility to fix it. The applicant can really be detrimental to the owner if a problem shows up-the owner has to fix it, often a considerable expense.

Mr. Rachun noted that a Site Plan can be approved on contingency; but a subdivision cannot be approved on contingency. The contingency would be when the subdivision application comes in -the subdivision is done in a way that is conforming to the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Hucko noted they could have the subdivision plat in tomorrow. They are running out of time and they recognize they have been the delaying factor. But until today they were not cognizant of the subdivision process. So, they would like to expedite the process as much as possible.

Mr. Rachun noted that this is a new application and it does require being reviewed under the new ordinance.

Mr. Tyler noted that if they do their homework on the Site Plan, the subdivision approval would be fairly easy. The Site Plan is their major project, the subdivision is a minor subdivision and the answers you provide during Site Plan would come up in subdivision. However, a non-conforming plot cannot be the result of a subdivision. The building as indicated on the maps would create a non-conforming lot due to the setback requirement.

Mr. Means asked where the Board would like to go from here, do they feel this is a complete packet. If not what additional information is needed.

The meeting continued with discussions related to the items that the members felt were needed. Multiple questions were directed to the applicants and were answered. The conclusion of the discussion resulted with additional information needed as follows:

• Complete grading plans-pre construction and post construction.
• Fencing around the dumpsters as well as the pond
• Building dimensions and elevations
• Building materials
• Sidewalks and asphalt – what materials would be used.
• Curbing-no indication if there is curbing
• Copies of correspondence from DOT and DEC

The Town Attorney advised Mr. Rachun that the Planning Board should not deem an application complete/incomplete based on another agency’s determination. He suggested whether or not DOT or DEC have submitted their findings, the Board may want this information, but cannot rule the application incomplete if it has not been received.

Mr. Tyler asked when the consultant engineer information would be available. He is currently working on a case in which the public has requested this information be provided; the Public Hearing has been adjourned upon receipt of the consultant.

Mr. Rachun stated the information has been forwarded to the consultant. As the new information is received from the applicants this will be sent to the consultant as well. Mr. Moore and Mr. Hucko brought the check to cover the consultant charges with them this evening. The payment was given to the Town Board.

Mr. Tyler asked when the engineers would have the results back to the Board.

Mr. Rachun stated they already have it in hand; it should be a couple weeks. But at this point in time his impression is the application is incomplete.

Mr. Tyler stated that once the application is deemed complete they could turn the engineer loose and set the Public Hearing within a few weeks. With this time frame they would have the engineer’s report to review for the Public Hearing.

Mr. Hucko stated it was their impression that the engineer had been turned loose subject to payment of the fee. They will prepare the additional items requested and augment the submission as items are received into their offices. They are hopeful that they can run concurrently (the submittal to the Board and the engineer).

Mr. Tyler stated he wanted to make one comment, it is the third time he has mentioned it,
the tab in the submittal does not designate owner’s authorization for Washington St. Partners
to submit the subdivision application. He does not understand their reluctance to speak with Mr. Auble but the document submitted is not going “to fly” as authorization.

Mr. Rachun stated there is a formal application for subdivision; the letter specifically states the owner would like to subdivide their property.

Mr. Hucko replied it is not reluctance, he feels they do comply, but will do whatever is necessary to receive approval. He trusts they can get the subdivision application from Mr. Rachun,
and they will come back with the application. He asked if they could get the Site Plan and the Subdivision together.

Mr. Chiuten noted that they could review a preliminary plat and if the Site Plan changes then the Subdivision would also change. The preliminary would have the needed information; it would be informational only and subject to final Subdivision approval. The Site Plan would be contingent upon Subdivision approval.

Mr. Hucko stated he still did not understand. Can they run these coterminous so that
Site Plan and Subdivision are approved at the same time.

Mr. Tyler replied no-they would be two different procedures. It might be possible to get them done in the same night.

Mr. Hucko requested respectfully to not have to come back and have to initiate the subdivision process.

Mr. Tyler replied the subdivision process usually is done quickly. They reviewed and approved a minor subdivision prior to meeting with Washington Street Partners this evening.

Mr. Hucko noted he had heard the procedure and was hopeful his plans would be approved as well.

Mr. Rachun informed Mr. Hucko he needed to be very careful on the subdivision that it is parcel A; parcel A is the whole parcel. They will be coming in with a subdivision of parcel A and everything on parcel A has to be shown. The buildings, driveway, utilities, etc. he is still concerned over the building that is being left on the property. It will not be a conforming lot and he does not want to have to deal with this situation as a future issue with this owner.

Ms Chiuten noted that it should not be an issue, if it is not fixed then the Site Plan would not be approved and it would not be negotiable.

Mr. Rachun stated it would be forming an illegal lot and they could not get a variance to allow this building to remain as is.

Mr. Means if any members had additional comments.

Mr. Wertis asked when the next meeting would be.

A review of the calendar and information requested from the consultant and applicant would bring the next meeting to be January 3, 2006 at 7:30 pm. Members agreed this would work, Mr. Rachun will inform the secretary if additional information is received and/or new applications are received. The members agreed that the quorum needs to be maintained due to losing one member as of December 31st, 2005. The following was suggested to maintain efficient meetings:

Ms Carlisle Peck will request all members contact her directly prior to the meeting.
If attendance issues arise and we cannot maintain quorum it would be futile to hold the meeting; all members are urged to attend and communicate if they CANNOT to the secretary via one of the following methods: email rjcp019@aol.com or
Home Phone 387-3347 or
Work Phone 273-4166 or
Cell phone number emailed to them individually.

If an attendance issue happens, decision to cancel the meeting will be made upon consulting with the members.

Mr. Tyler asked Mr. Rachun if the Town Board had received any applications for appointment.
of a new Planning Board member.

Mr. Rachun replied they had not.

Mr. Tyler made the MOTION to appoint Mr. Means as Acting Chairperson, SECONDED
By Ms. Chiuten.

Ms Chiuten AYE
Mr. Means Abstained
Mr. Tyler AYE
Mr. Wertis AYE

Ms Chiuten made MOTION to adjourn, Mr. Tyler SECONDED, and meeting adjourned
at 9:28 pm.

Respectfully submitted

Robin Carlisle Peck
12/27/05