- By Dan Veaner
- News
Print 
There are two main bones of contention: First is a general loosening of zoning ordinances, especially where commercial uses in residential areas are concerned. Secondly, The Town Board has proposed to use a checklist to determine whether proposals are processed through an in-house site plan review or a full Planning Board review. "What we're tying to do is have a checklist so the zoning officer has a list to go down through," Pinney said. "The main thing here is the items with 'X's that say 'Refer to the Planning Board.'"
"I really think it is a great idea to use this checklist," said Councilman Bud Shattuck. "Changes can be made to it. But I am really comfortable with the idea that when this checklist is done it is not a code enforcement decision. A completed checklist on something simple could be something the Planning Board could sign off on."
Planning Board member Larry Sharpsteen almost agreed, saying that if the Planning Board got a checklist on a simple project it could sign off on it. "If there is a request from the public or some reason to have a public hearing we should be able to make that decision," he said. "With this in hand there is no reason that the Planning Board couldn't do what we usually do when we have all the information -- accept the site plan review and turn it back over to the Code Enforcement Office for execution."
The difference is that the Town Board approach could expedite the process for simple qualifying plans by eliminating the wait for the next Planning Board meeting, currently one meeting per month. That approach sets strict guidelines that, if met, automatically approve a plan. The Planning Board approach would send the checklist to the Planning Board to approve, potentially adding a month to the process depending on the timing of the completed application and checklist.
Attorney Lorraine Moynihan Schmitt suggested two checklist benchmarks to be added to those already proposed that address some concerns that the public has expressed. "If an issue has the potential for controversy it should certainly be before the Planning Board," she said. "Secondly there should be a provision so that adjacent landowners to the proposed project are apprised and can make their thoughts known to the Planning Department or the Planning Board and have the opportunity to request a public hearing."
Planning Board members also noted that the process is often lengthened when applicants don't come prepared. While the issue of who approves the checklist is in contention, the idea of using one seemed to be agreeable to most, if only as a tool to help applicants with a tangible list of items they need to complete before their plan can be considered. That piece meets the Town Board's goal to expedite the process, while also meeting the Planning Board's desire to have all pertinent information for a review.
The two chairmen kept to an agenda of six items that had 20 minutes allotted to them. Planning Board members spoke at length, and expressed some frustration that Town Board members didn't respond at length. But Pinney explained that he couldn't speak for the board and they would have to meet before coming up with a response to Planning Board comments as a group. "We as a town board need as much feedback from you as possible," Pinney said. "On some things I agree with you, on some things I don't. As a town board we need to sit down again and discuss these items. I can't speak for all of us. We can listen as a group to your comments tonight, then sit down again to discuss them."
To the perception that the Town Board is making unilateral decisions, Pinney said, "As we've been working on this, right from day one we've tried to get the graphs right to the Planning Board and be very open with that. You've had meetings to look at it. Since you got done with the chart and the checklist, this is the first opportunity we've all had to get together. It's not like we've been doing anything behind your back. We've tried to get that information to you as quickly as the board came up with it. That's why we're meeting today. Let's concentrate and try to work together on this."
Planning Board member Viola Miller Mullane asked why, if the Town Board is not pushing its agenda through without input, such quick action was taken on changing the subdivision law last month. Pinney explained that there was a misinterpretation of that law and the changes were made in order to make it legal enforce it the way it had been mistakenly enforced in the past. "We were following the law incorrectly for three years," he explained. "That's why we had to take care of that right away."
Uncharacteristically a Village of Lansing resident attended the meeting with concerns about the process and looser approach to 'allowed uses' in residential areas. Sorrel Gottfried noted that Village residents also pay taxes and vote in the Town. She worried about the legality of changing allowed uses in a zone after the fact, and the impact it might have on properties the Village's northern border. "In the Village some of us have tried to change the zoning after the fact to make it less intense, and we've always been told that would be considered 'a taking,'" she said. "I don't understand why, if you put a business beside a residence, and that resident bought that house when it was not zoned to have a business next door, why that wouldn't be 'a taking' from that resident."
Town Supervisor Scott Pinney (left) and Planning Board Chairman Lin Davidson
Gottfried also expressed concern about possible liability that Town and Village residents might face. "We in the Village are taxpayers," she noted. "We pay a third of the taxes that the Town receives. So if you are liable because one of your very wealthy residents decides to sue you because something was put next door to them and the process was very meager... we'd have to help pay for that liability just the same as everybody else."
While Town officials have said they would like to move the process along, and actually have the authority to pass a law, Pinney says they will consider the Planning Board's objections and recommendations before formulating the final ordinance. Both boards have talked about holding public information sessions in addition to a required public hearing before the ordinance is passed.
----
v4i17