HomeMy WebLinkAboutDiane Campbell Letter.pdfVia email to Planning Board Members
September 25, 2012
Cayuga Heights Planning Board
836 Hanshaw Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Planning Board Members:
I attended the Planning Board meeting with my husband and a neighbor on September 24. We hoped
to find out what the next steps would be with the proposed Comprehensive Plan. I was struck by
several points. I understand that there was not to be a public hearing or discussion during that portion
of the meeting, so am responding in writing to the issues that I feel were not addressed or about which I
have questions.
I am pleased to note that the so-called R2 zoning proposal appears to have been abandoned, or at least
tabled. However I am concerned, and not a little chagrined, at the notion that somehow the public
reception was negative because the public did not understand the proposal and that the proposal was
merely presented poorly. While I agree that the proposal was poorly presented, I disagree that the
public did not understand the proposal. We understood its implications very clearly, perhaps in greater
depth than was demonstrated at the Planning Board meeting last evening.
Mr. Cowett mentioned at the meeting that residents had asked, essentially, “who benefits?” and “why
do we need greater density?”, and that no one had given an answer. The question was left hanging;
there still has been no answer. Mr. Richardson vaguely noted the “pressures” from Tompkins County, or
Dryden, or Lansing, but there was no actual discussion of why we need to change our low-density
housing to higher density. So I ask again, who benefits? Why do we need greater density? What are
these mysterious pressures to which our Board of Trustees is responding? Who thinks it is a good idea?
Why?
Although the proposed zoning changes have been removed from the plan for now, there was much
discussion regarding the future need to revisit zoning for higher density. Both Brent Cross and the
planner (whose name I don’t know) repeatedly stressed that the proposed R2 zoning does not
significantly increase the potential for higher density, because the zoning code already permits two
family dwellings on the lots in question. This argument is naïve at best, specious at worst. The
argument goes something like this: we propose changing minimum lot size from 18,000 square feet to
8,000 square feet, so the net result of two single family homes versus the already-permissible two family
dwelling is not significantly greater density.
This argument falls apart when the lot is larger than the 18,000 square foot minimum now permitted. A
lot, like mine, which is approximately eight tenths of an acre (32,000 square feet) could under the
proposed R2 zoning have four dwellings built on it. My lot is not among the larger ones in the village.
Many of the lots in the former “orange zone” would be very attractive to developers, not because they
could put two houses where one was in the past, but because they could put five single-family units per
acre under the proposed R2 code. This could result in significantly greater density and alter the
character of the village considerably. Mr. Cross stated that it is unlikely that a developer would be
motivated to purchase adjacent single family lots and subdivide such lots into high-density housing. In
fact, the changes proposed would make such development very likely. A developer would have to
purchase only a couple of lots at current fair-market values and build high-density housing; most likely
the surrounding lots could be had for a song after the process starts. In this regard, the notion that
rezoning need not significantly affect density is simply wrong.
At the discussion at the Fire Hall in August as well as at last night’s meeting there was some cryptic (to
me) discussion that we simply can’t be an island when development is going on all around us. I asked
“why” and was properly disregarded, since that was not the time for public discussion. However, I now
again ask, why? Why do we have to increase density, contribute to suburban sprawl, and further
Lansingify Cayuga Heights? Our village, as has been noted, is built out. We can, in fact, be an island of
low density housing in a larger setting of urban and suburban development. There are villages on Long
Island which decades ago refused to participate in the larger trend toward density, traffic, and strip
malls. They are now seen as prescient oases, charming destinations for tourists. There are villages
within urban settings which have declined to build high-rise structures and higher-density housing.
Once again, these areas are charming oases. I am thinking specifically of Greenwich Village in
Manhattan and Clapham Common in London, among other such places. Why is it impossible for Cayuga
Heights to follow that model? This question is not rhetorical: I really am curious as to why we can’t
envision our village as an island in a sea of out-of-control development.
There was some discussion that Kendall is currently under some restriction as to how it can develop its
open land, but it was suggested that in the future a “pro-development” Board of Trustees might rescind
the restrictions. I’m not sure how that “in the future” argument is supposed to be convincing to anyone,
but it is not a good argument for higher-density zoning in any event. It is my understanding that
currently Kendall’s open land is zoned to require an 18,000 square foot lot to build a house, if the
restrictions were not in place. Changing that minimum lot size to 8,000 square feet is obviously
meaningless if Kendall continues to be restricted from developing the land. In the event that a “pro-
development” Board of Trustees is elected in the future, if the minimum lot size has already been
established at 8,000 square feet or even smaller, the property will be developed accordingly. I don’t
understand what is lost by maintaining the status quo.
Finally, the deer. You didn’t really think you could get a letter that didn’t mention the deer, did you?
We have a built-out village with a tremendously pressured deer herd. Since I have lived in the village I
have seen the pressure on the deer increase as development increases. It is not as if humans have no
part in this, and it seems to me that we have a duty to act responsibly. The deer just do what they do—
they can’t help it. The widening of Triphammer Road in Lansing has increased the pressure on the herd,
as has the monstrous development of Warren Real Estate’s property next door to the Marcham Hall.
Other buildings around Community Corners have been rebuilt and enlarged and formerly wooded lots
on Upland Road have been cleared, perhaps to enhance marketability. Since I live near this
development, my neighborhood now serves as home to the displaced deer. We’ve seen an uptick in
raccoons and skunks as well. Until the deer population has been successfully managed, it is folly to
propose increasing human density in our village. “Managing” does not have to mean “obliterating”;
there should be some recognition among those responsible for planning that human activity necessarily
impacts village wildlife as well.
To recap: I think the attitude that the public just didn’t understand the rezoning portions of the
proposed comprehensive plan is condescending at best. I agree that the plan was poorly presented.
The argument that the proposed (and now apparently abandoned) plan to rezone will not significantly
increase density is wrong, and can be demonstrated to be wrong. I believe Mr. Cross underestimates
the likelihood of developers purchasing adjacent lots and subdividing them, especially as land becomes
more difficult to obtain. The Planning Board appears to believe that greater density is inevitable, and
we should plan for it. Why it is inevitable and who benefits from greater density are not clear to me. I
believe that the public uses Kendall’s open space at Kendall’s sufferance, and I understand that
restrictions keep the land undeveloped at this time. Finally, I think it prudent for the Planning Board to
consider the impact of higher density housing on other aspects of life in Cayuga Heights, including but
not limited to increased pressure on our deer herd.
I repeat that my questions are not merely rhetorical. Having lived on Long Island, in Los Angeles and in
the suburbs of San Francisco, I am familiar with housing density issues and think it imperative that the
low-density character of our village be maintained.
Very truly yours,
Diane L. Campbell
117 Texas Lane