No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-01-06 G Page One of Two Sandra J. Roberts 185 Jersey Hill Roan Ithaca , N . Y .. 14850 J'anuar_ y 6 ,. 1977 Danby Town Planning Board Danby ,. N . y . • Here are some of my ideas for changing parts of the new proposed Danby Zoning Ordinance . I realize that zoning rules will never please every - o ne , but they should not be so strict as to make the towns ' people • hostile . They should just be good workable rules and guidelines design - e d for the small township of Danby . . The biggest change that Danby needs is to control the number of neonle living in a residense . Maybe we• should have people units ; People units per sq . ft . or per bath rooms or per rooms in the house . Please give this some thought . Sec . 213 - Schedule of Fees - Special permit fee of $ 50 . 00 is too high . Change this to apnrox . $ 25000 or less . People in the conservation ( cc ) district should not have to pay $ 50 . 00 for special permits , They should not be • subject to special permits . • S ec . 701 Art , VII - Special Permits Applicability - 1 . Add : except in • Agricultural District when combined with conservation district . Farmers and those in the Agricultural District should not have to nay • $ 50 . 00 for a special permit every time they wish to build something . The way it is now proposed means : All facilities and activities allowed in combining districts ( in Art . VS ) need a Special Permit which is $ 50 . 00 . Article VI - Sec 601 , 7 clearly states : Residential Buildings , ( HOMES ) ; ; Sec 601 . 8 - Agricultural Activities , etc . We in the Agricultural District worked hard to get in the Agricultural D istrict to Protect our Agricultural areas and keen them rural and low density in development , It gives us financial relief from water and sewer line taxes per sq . ft . etc . Do you realize these new pronosed zoning rules will now mean additional and very strict rules for the Agricultural District farmers that will wipe out all we ' ve all worked so hard to get ? If you all read the new proposed zoning rules very carefully , it is all stated there in various parts in black and white The way the new proposed zoning ordinance is written means : $ 50 . 00 and a Special Permit for a home , a corn crib , a tractor shed , for small and large animal shelters , tool sheds , etc . etc . All facilities & activities : Read sec . 701 , 601 . 7 , 601 . 8 , 600 P lease read Art . VII , Sec . 700 and on carefully . It definately needs careful study and changing . S ec . _418 . 2 - 1 . 000 so . ft . renui. rement f. or a residential building . I believe this square footage should he changed to 750 or. 800 sq . ft . This would help the retired and low income people and also the young ' people just ' starting out to build homes in Danby . Sec . 426 - Animal Units Delete for ' all areas except dense development areas along Danby Rd . , Gunderman Rd . , Ridgecrest Rd . , etc . Or , just h ave animal units apply to people owning on acre or less of land . Then animal units would be of some help . continued - A . • • ' Propose Zoning Changes - continued - Sec . 427 - Keening of Animals : Reaulations # 5 , is too strict : pee Possibly change to : No animals are allowed to be kept in a front yard in tightly populated area where housing and build - ings are very close together . You could cite a distince . The wording n eeds work . Some houses are set way back and want their animals in the f ront to keep track of them . Front , back , what ' s the difference , as long as it is not a nuisance - then it ' s a civil matter , a health dent matter . S ec . 429 . 8. Non Conformance as to Keening of Animals - Delete Entirely : : Two years or any amount of years is still undue hardship to the owner w ho would have to move barns or buildings , maybe worth $ 4 , 000 . 00 or $ 6 , 000 . 00 and fencing enclosures worth hundreds of dollars plus all of the labor involved in the original buildings , etc . , plus moving labor . It is totally unfair to ask people that are peacefully situated now to tear things down and move them to become into conformance because of a n ew zoning ordinance that states that after it ' s adoption these people with their buildings and fences are now Non - conformers . N ew zon :ina revisions should only effect new buildinas and new activities w hich are begun after adoption of the new reaulati_ ons ' ' ' ' ' " S ec . 600 - District Regulations , Combini_ nci District Regulations . The additional control ( quote ) over development should not apply to the Agricultural District , Agricultural District rules should take first priority over and supersede any other rules . This should be stated as a rule . Include it in the ordinance . It ' s not stated as so now . End