Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2013-05-28 F f Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board J,,,, Tuesday, May 28, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. g� 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca,NY 14850 Minutes Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor; Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, and Rod Howe Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Dan Tasman, Planner Mr. Engman called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m. Consider Notice of Claims designation Mr. Engman explained the new legislation and our option to register with the Secretary of State so we receive our portion of the fee they will charge. TB Resolution No. 2013 —081: Approval to Certify the Secretary of State as a Receiver of Notice of Claims WHEREAS,New York State passed a new law effective June 2013, entitled"Uniform Notice of Claim Act", which allows notice of claims to be served on the secretary of state instead of directly on the municipality at a fee of$250; and WHEREAS, a municipality must file a certificate designating the secretary of state as an agent who may be served with a notice of claim, and which includes to whom and to where the notice of claim is to be sent; and WHEREAS, failure to file the certificate causes a municipality to forfeit its right to receive a portion of the notice of claim filing fees; Now, therefore, be it, RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby certifies the secretary of state to receive notice of claims for the Town of Ithaca; and be it further RESOLVED, that the secretary of state shall notify the Town Clerk of any notice of claim by sending notice to Town of Ithaca Town Clerk, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca,NY 14850. MOVED: Pat Leary SECONDED: Eric Levine VOTE: Ayes—Leary, Levine, Hunter, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe and Engman 1 Adopted 6-10-2013 Consider Approval of April 22, 2013 Minutes Ms. Terwilliger explained that she listened to the recording again and expanded the notes on the discussion of the Comprehensive Plan noting all changes, even minor ones. TB Resolution No. 2013 - 082 : Approval of Minutes of April 22, 2013 Whereas, the draft minutes of the April 22, 2013 meeting of the Town Board have been submitted for review and approval; Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes as the final minutes of the April 23, 2013 meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Rod Howe Vote: Ayes Engman, Goodman, Hunter, Levine, Leary, DePaolo and Howe Board Comments Ms. Hunter requested a special meeting regarding long term debt and projections. Mr. Engman responded that the Budget Committee is meeting tomorrow and they could report on the status of long-term borrowing and capital projects at the next meeting in more detail. Mr. DePaolo and Ms. Hunter requested a spreadsheet and/or materials prior to the meeting. Continue Review of the draft Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3 Future Land Use Plan Page 45 —Mr. Engman thought this page simply set out the sections and terminology as an overview. Mr. Goodman started a conversation about the idea of the Plan and the Future Land Use Map as a guide and he has always thought of it as something more general which would get more specific and defined through the re-zoning process. He stated that many of the comments he gets are from people who see this and think it is set in stone and maybe there is a way to clarify that this is an approximation and through zoning the boundaries would be set. He went on to say that although is says in the next paragraph about the edges being more fluid or un-defined, maybe we could find a way to make that clearer. Mr. Tasman responded that by not having parcel lines shown, the map is intentionally trying to say that these areas are approximate and the vast majority of the zones and land use districts will be based along parcel lines. Mr. Engman thought maybe there is a mixed message in the beginning of the second paragraph that could be helped by removing "and should be closely adhered to"which implies it is set in stone. Board agreed. Mr. DePaolo also wanted to change the last sentence talking about the differences in comprehensive planning and zoning processes because it was confusing. He suggested replacing it with"parcel lines are intentionally not shown, as geographic boundaries of character districts are not fully delineated." Mr. Tasman felt that that would make the paragraph 2 Adopted 6-10-2013 lose the idea that the comprehensive plan is implemented through the zoning code and people are confused. Discussion followed. Mr. Tasman suggested that he work on alternate wording and present it at the next meeting. Ms. Hunter thought that although the map is different it is still the basis for the Plan and the zoning shouldn't deviate substantially from it. It will get more detailed, but it is supposed to be the basis for the Plan. Ms. Leary thought the changes made it less clear; she wanted to leave it the way it was. The Board decided to leave it as it was. Reserve Areas Mr. DePaolo wanted to know if the phrase semi natural state implies current and not something we are saying we will create or recreate. Mr. Levine stated that it was not, it was meant as preserve what is there. Mr. Goodman wanted the word"recreational" added to the uses listed in the "Purpose"paragraph. Ms. Hunter asked if we have high-impact recreational somewhere that necessitated the phrase "low-impact" and Mr. Tasman stated that he put that in there to make sure people didn't think basketball courts, tennis courts, ATV trails, etc. Residential Density Mr. Goodman asked about the description and the word"primary" in parenthesis and Mr. Tasman explained that it means "main dwelling" as opposed to an"accessory building" and Mr. DePaolo suggested putting (primary) after the word"unit"before the slash. Board agreed. Rural/Agricultural Page 47. Mr. DePaolo wanted to change the picture because it is right next to comments on CAFOs and that is the only CAFO in the Town. Mr. Goodman asked if this meant that we want to discourage the existing farm. A lengthy discussion followed and Ms. Leary and Mr. Engman explained that the Committee was hard-pressed to go as mild as "discouraged" and the intent is new CAFOs. The suggestion was made to add the word"new"to clarify the intent. Mr. Howe asked about the density issue and how we came up with the numbers and what the intent was. Ms. Hunter stated that we don't want to see parcels hacked out of farmland and Mr. Goodman noted that at one of the public hearings we heard that there was a lot of confusion and worked with the Agricultural Committee to explain the formula and the intent and the Committee seems to understand it now. They understand that we were not saying you have to have one house with 15 acres, but the number of houses allowed at 1/15 could be clustered or grouped but no others would be allowed through deed restrictions. Mr. Engman added that there is always this tension in farming between when a farmer wants to farm the land and when the farmer wants to sell the land and he has said to the Ag Committee that when somebody wants to sell land for housing they become a developer, not a farmer anymore. That is not popular but that is the reality. Once the land is sold it is a development. Mr. Howe stated that some concerns he has heard were things like not being able to subdivide for 2 or 3 children and give them their own lot and Mr. Tasman agreed to an extent noting that in planning and zoning you have to think about the use not he user. Someone with 6 children 3 Adopted 6-10-2013 should not have an advantage over someone with 2 and you also get into the scenario where that child or their child doesn't want to farm anymore and sells it so it is essentially a frontage subdivision. Mr. Howe just thought we should be able to say how we came up with those numbers. Mr. Goodman stated that Mr. Smith had researched this pretty thoroughly and we can get that information. The same comments came up when looking at the Coy Glen area and the Conservation Zone. Some discussion followed. Mr. Levine was concerned because it significantly devalues the land. Ms. Ritter noted that it depends on the Ag Zone and whether it is for ag use or not and it is confusing. The Board asked that someone research where the original 7 acre figure came from and what the rational was for increasing it to 15 acres and discuss this again with that information. Mr. Engman noted that the idea is to protect the land and keep parcels together because farmers do not want to haul their equipment down the road to piecemeal acreage and if we don't keep it feasible, the farmers won't farm and we will become a suburb with no farms. He added that this I a quid-pro-quo because farmers do get some societal breaks; they don't pay sales tax for their equipment or gas, they get a reduced assessment on their land for both school and local taxes so this is some way for us to say you get these benefits and in return we want these benefits. Mr. Goodman asked if there were areas along Route 96 that are zoned Agricultural and have water and sewer and Ms. Ritter thought the sewer stops around the hospital and water goes further. She did not think the majority of the land has sewer or water. Uses—Mr. DePaolo asked what sparse means and thought that under Zoning districts with similar characteristics; LDR and PDZ should be removed because the number allowed under an LDR can be quite a lot and PDZs can be so different and are generally made for a specific project so that also doesn't fit. Board agreed. Neighborhood Areas Mr. Goodman suggested the word"work"be added to the first sentence because we want to encourage home based businesses. Purpose Mr. DePaolo had a question about the last sentence "...where utilities and more frequent public transit may be available" and how that agrees with the basic idea in the Plan that development happen where utilities are available and wondered if it opens the door to putting water and sewer wherever you want development? Ms. Ritter responded that the idea is we are not bringing it to it,but that it is already there. Mr. DePaolo suggested changing "may be" to "are"then. Ms. Leary thought that would be a very substantial change because that would say we are limiting development to where utilities are available and stop there. Mr. DePaolo responded that he is concerned about what the Plan is aiming to do and it was his understanding the Plan was going to prioritize in-fill development. That pre-existing water and sewer infrastructure was going to determine,to a large degree, where development was going to happen and you are saying no limit. Ms. Leary agreed saying that she does not want to freeze development to only those areas and she wants the flexibility to expand utilities. Discussion followed with various word changes 4 Adopted 6-10-2013 being discussed with the basic core argument being whether the idea is to expand water and sewer to accommodate development. In the second sentence, changing the coma to a semi-colon changes some of the focus of the rest of the sentence and this was discussed. Ms. Hunter felt we should zone where utilities are in existence. Mr. Goodman asked if we should be matching the text to the map or vice versa because the larger lots is sprawl to him. One house every 5 acres is sprawl. Ms. Ritter noted that the intent is for this to be a transitional area between rural and established areas. Mr. Engman thought you would define the area and then put it on the map not look at the map first and develop an area around that. Ms. Leary thought the definition was deliberately broad to allow for the existing neighborhoods and what this paragraph is doing is allowing for both large lots without closing off the possibility of extending water and sewer a short distance if needed. Mr. Levine did not want to limit the possibility of extending it if needed. Mr. Goodman thought we would want to allow water and sewer to clustered development but not necessarily to large lot single houses and if the justification is to allow for service to clusters, that is not a semi-rural characteristic. Discussion followed with Ms. Leary stating that the second paragraph ties into the first and delineated that talking about water and sewer is the first paragraph is about cluster development scenarios. Mr. Tasman thought the message was that we don't want to see land cut up into small parcels and we prefer to see something clustered. Mr. Engman asked for a specific suggestion. Mr. DePaolo moved adding a semi colon to read open space; and clustered development" and eliminate the coma after area in the last sentence and change it to read"and developed areas where utilities exist and more frequent public transit Discussion on the motion Ms. Leary did not agree thinking that the change limits us and Mr. DePaolo asked if the second paragraph where it says "public sewer and water should be limited to cluster development" means the extension of service and that might clarify both issues if that is spelt out. Mr. Goodman thought that any clustered development in the Semi-Rural Neighborhood should only be where existing service is and that would be paid for by the developer. Ms. Leary thought the way to fix both is to say"prioritized" instead of"limited to"which leaves the door open a crack but still lets us allow it to clusters. Ms. Hunter suggested putting a period after"areas"because the second paragraph addresses the utilities. Right now they are contradicting each other. Mr. DePaolo suggested changing the order of the sentence in the second paragraph to "Clustered development should be limited to areas with existing public sewer and water service close to urbanizing..." Ms. Leary talked about financing of water and sewer and she felt strongly that providing it was a basic function of a municipality and should be paid for by the municipality and if this is saying the developer must pay for it, she was against it. She felt it goes to affordability of housing. Mr. Goodman responded that the area on West Hill that we are talking about have access to water and sewer and that is the area we should be prioritizing before putting water and sewer 5 Adopted 6-10-2013 somewhere it isn't and if someone chooses to put a cluster somewhere it isn't, then they should be thinking of more appropriate places. Ms. Leary again said she wants to leave some flexibility. More discussion focusing on sewer and water service. Mr. Levine noted that it is not only developers who built houses, his is over 100 years old and the community grew up over the years but not by developers. There was a question about the actual definition of extending; for example Southwoods paid for the hook up to the main line so is anyone wanting to hook up at their cost would not be an extension? Ms. Ritter said water is more the limiting factor because of the pressure needed. Mr. Engman called for a vote on the motion because it sounds like nothing will be agreed upon by consensus. (restated) Mr. Engman asked for a specific suggestion. Mr. DePaolo moved adding a semi colon to read open space; and clustered development" and eliminate the coma after develops area in the last sentence and change it to read "and developed areas where utilities exist and more frequent public transit ....." Mr. Goodman seconded. Vote : Ayes—DePaolo, Goodman, Howe and Hunter Nays—Engman, Leary and Levine Motion passed 4 to 3. Criteria Mr. DePaolo would like to remove "the zoning has already been defined, or"because we modify zoning all the time; preexisting zoning should not bind us to any particular future designation because zoning is always in flux and always has been so the statement is not accurate. We are saying that because something was zoned such and such it has to remain that. Mr. DePaolo moved and Ms. Hunter seconded. Unanimous. TB Resolution No. 2013 - 083: Town of Ithaca Abstract Whereas, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and Whereas, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it Resolved, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 3716 - 3807 General Fund Town wide 112,167.47 General Fund Part Town 35,516.33 Highway Fund Part Town 164,296.35 6 Adopted 6-10-2013 Water Fund 57,560.26 Sewer Fund 238,057.76 Danby Road Water Tank Replacement 345.00 Town Hall Parking Lot Improvement 28.58 Fire Protection Fund 264,792.00 Forest Home Lighting District 150.99 Glenside Lighting District 39.77 Renwick Heights Lighting District 57.12 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 142.78 Clover Lane Lighting District 16.49 Winner's Circle Lighting District 56.35 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 55.97 West Haven Road Lighting District 167.27 Coddington Road Lighting District 99.85 TOTAL 873,550.34 Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Bill Goodman Vote: Ayes - Goodman, Howe, DePaolo, Hunter, Leary, Levine and Engman Meeting adjourned at 6:30p.m. Submitted Paulette Terwiiliger, Town Clerk Adopted 6-10-2013