No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2003-02-27n 1 ^ TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD SISN-IN SHEET docamJ^ yj\\\ saiAl\\^i Z,oo3. DATE: Thursday, February 27, 2(X)3 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE />/?JA/rADDRESS/AFFrLIATION km J J J J FEBRUARY 28, 2003 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING APPROVED APRIL 7, 2003 Special Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board ' Thursday, February 28, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York THOSE PRESENT: Supervisor Valentino, Councilwoman Russell, Councilwoman Grigorov, Councilman Klein, Councilman Lesser, Councilman Burbank, Councilman Niederkom, Planning Board Chair Fred Wilcox STAFF PRESENT: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk OTHERS PRESENT: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Ryan Berryann, Eagle Broadcast CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. and Supervisor Valentino led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 - Discussion of Amendment to the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance regarding Low Density Residentiai Provisions: and Consider Referral of the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Board {Attachement #t - Codes and Ordinance Resoiution Nos. 1 and 2 of January 24, 2003. Attachment #2 - February 4, 2003 Memo to the Town Board from Councilwoman Russell.) The Board began its discussion by clarifying the issue before them. At the January 24, 2003 Codes and Ordinance Committee meeting the Committee resolved to amend "Section 809 of the April 24, 2002 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance...by eliminating the requirement for three- acre minimum lot size if public sewer facilities are not available, and returning to the current R-30 Residence District lot size minimum requirement of 30,000 square feet for all parcels in the Low Density Residential zone in the updated Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance" (from Codes and Ordinance Committee Resolution No. 1 - January 24, 2003). This motion was carried by a vote of 5 affirmative, 2 negative. Supervisor Valentino stated that two members of the Town Board who are also members of the Codes and Ordinance Committee have concerns about deleting the 3-acre component of the Low Density Residential Zone. Supervisor Valentino stated the reasons for having rescheduled discussion of referring the ordinance to the Planning Board from the regular February meeting to this special meeting was two-fold: 1) the absence of Codes and Ordinance Committee Chair David Klein from the regular February meeting, and 2) it has been a long-standing informal policy of the Town Board to try very hard to acknowledge the work of the Town Committees and try to move their work forward. Supervisor Valentino stated this latter reason is one of the reasons the Town has been so successful in having so many willing to serve on Town committees. The Town Board takes their recommendations extremely seriously and to over-ride their ^ recommendation is something that warrants serious discussion. Supervisor Valentino identified herself. Bill Lesser, and Will Burbank as three people who have not been totally in the loop because they do not serve on the Codes and Ordinance Committee stating they i probably needed the most help in "understanding the positions of where people are". i ^ Councilman Klein explained to the Board that the issue hinges on whether the Town proceeds with the Codes and Ordinances Committee's recommendation to return to the 1 FEBRUARY 28, 2003 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING APPROVED APRIL 7, 2003 30,000 square feet minimum lot size requirement, makes that change to the Draft Zoning Ordinance, and works to get the Zoning Ordinance passed this year; or, takes a major step ! back to study the issue and defers moving the ordinance fonward. Councilwoman Grigorov stated the Board did not have to defer action, they could move the Draft Zoning Ordinance forward as it was prior to the Codes and Ordinances Committee recommendation. She felt the issue was whether or not to leave the Draft Ordinance as it is and refer it to the Planning Board or make the recommended change. Councilwoman Russell stated this was a third choice. Councilwoman Grigorov stated the issue of the low- density residential lot size needed more study. Supervisor Valentino recapped stating, it's either accept the resolution of the Codes and Ordinance Committee and move forward to the Planning Board; or, the other option is to not refer it to the Planning Board and send it back for more revisions on the proposed 3-acre low- density or transitional zone. Her understanding from the people working on the ordinance is that will take a considerable amount of time, so we will be delaying the process. The other point is that we could move it forward with this resolution with an additional flag to the Planning Board that this is a very high priority item for them to look at. Attorney Barney explained the three options stating the Board could leave the Ordinance as it was drafted prior to the Codes and Ordinances Committee adopting its resolution, leaving it as 30,000 square feet in sewered areas and 3-acres in non-sewered areas, and transmit it to « the Planning Board for their review. The Board could forward the ordinance on to the : Planning Board with the Codes and Ordinances Committee recommendation. The third ' option is to send it back to Codes and Ordinances to have an area specifically designated on a map for a 3-acre zone as opposed to the 30,0000 square feet. This third option will take some time. Councilwoman Grigorov and Councilman Klein agreed that the issue needed further study and revision, but no one wants the Town Board to delay the ordinance. In light of this, Councilwoman Grigorov restated the options as a choice between the Draft Ordinance with or without the Codes and Ordinances recommended change. Councilman Lesser asked if it made sense to pass a document on to the Planning Board that is going to be revised. Mr. Wilcox, planning Board Chair, stated that the Zoning Ordinance would always be revised; you are never done with it. Mr. Wilcox described the problem stating what Codes and Ordinances debated was that they want the 3-acre zone, but do not have enough information to implement it properly. So the question came down to whether, having worked many years on the Zoning Ordinance, do we push it forward to the Town Board with a recommendation to the Planning Board or do we keep it at Codes and Ordinances for another six months, eight months, however long it takes to do the 3-acre zone the way we really want it, the way that it works. For himself, Mr. Wilcox stated Codes and Ordinances Committee had spent a lot of time on the Zoning Ordinance and he'd like to get something implemented.n Returning to Councilman Lessor's earlier question, Mr. Kanter stated keeping the R-30 density means coming up with a new 3-acre zone. Keeping the proposed revision of 30,000 square feet / 3-acre based on sewer / non-sewer means a change once we come up with a FEBRUARY 28, 2003 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING APPROVED APRIL 7, 2003 n6w S-acr© zon© approach. So th© qu©stion r©ally is which chang© is b©tt©r or wors© b©caus© th©y ar© both changos. Councilwoinan Russ©ll r©spond©d stating th© implication of what Councilman L©ss©r was suggosting is that w© wait until th© ordinanc© is compl©t©d. As th© Board has hoard, not ©voryon© is comfortabi© with that, but som© poopi© fool as though it is mor© complot© with th© 3-acr© zon© in thor© than without it, and thoy don't really find it to b© a tonabi© ordinanc© without that transition zon©. In rospons© to Councilman Niodorkorn, Mr. Kantor described th© low-density zon© as recommended by th© Codes and Ordinances Committee and as it exists in th© Draft Zoning Ordinanc© unchanged by th© committee recommendation. Th© April 2002 draft of th© Zoning Ordinanc© had th© new LDR zone, which has a provision if sewer is available to serve parcels those parcels would have a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet. Where public sewer is not available to serve those parcels they would have a minimum lot size of 3 acres and basically, operationally the way that would work, and that would not be fixed in stone, it would become a determination of whether sewer could serve that parcel. If it could and did then that lot would have a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet. Basically the way that would work, during the subdivision approval process, the Planning Board would have to have assistance from the Engineering Department to make a determination of whether sewer feasibly could service that property. Now that could mean a developer might have the finances to serve the property with a thousand foot extension or a two thousand foot extension of the sewer. The Town wouldn't pay for it but the developer could do that if he had the resources. So from what you might have thought would have been a 3-acre zone provision actually turns into a 30,000 square foot one if you can provide the sewer. So again remember that was not fixed in stone at the time of the map, can sewer serve the property. What our current R30 zone does and what Codes and Ordinances committee is proposing we do is go back to the R30 density of 30,0000 square feet across the board throughout, regardless of the presence of sewer, with the contingency that lot size would also be subject to Health Department consideration and approval depending on the onsite conditions for septic systems if sewer could not be provided, and that often results in an actual lot size of 1 Va maybe 2 acres sometimes even more depending on soil and slope conditions. That was actually part of the Codes Committees resolution that actually refers to a section in the proposed zoning that says any provision in this ordinance is also subject to whatever the County Health Department regulations require. In actuality this new concept of the LDR zone as evidenced by the new Codes and Ordinances Committee's resolution basically acknowledges that lots won't always have 30,000 square feet, it would depend on what the Health Department requirements are. That's operationally how that would work. At the same time this wouldn't be going back to the R-30 zone that we have now because we also made other changes to that zone that are not in the existing ordinance. Things like making farm types of uses more clearly defined as permitted, things like equestrian uses, special approval. Kind of increasing the concept that farming is okay in low-density residential zones more so than we do in our R30 zone, and some other changes, probably nothing too major in that. Councilman Burbank asked if we have any sense of what percentage of the lots would be non-conforming if we went to the 3-acre zone. FEBRUARY 28, 2003 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING APPROVED APRIL 7, 2003 Mr. Kanter could not give him a percentage but stated a conservative estimate would be at least 260 non-conforming if we went to the 3-acre zone. I Councilwoman Russell questioned Mr. Burbank's concern. Mr. Burbank stated that the Town would presumably be spending a lot more time if property owners wanted to do alterations, or whatever, because the lots will be non-conforming. Councilwoman Russell responded stating we could deal with that with a further softening provision, something other municipalities have done. Councilman Niederkorn stated he had gotten a sense at the Codes and Ordinances Committee meeting that in this LDR zone even if somebody decided they wanted to do, as Jon said, extend the sewers a thousand feet or something like that the 3-acre minimum lot size would still apply. Mr. Klein responded stating, if they wanted to extend the sewer the density would drop to R30. Councilwoman Russell stated she thought she was always pretty clear that there was a possibility of sewer creep. That was what she didn't like about the compromise they had come to. Councilman Klein felt it would be a mistake to defer the whole ordinance stating you can always keep working and massaging things and if you held it up every time there was some thought to make an amendment we'd never get to any stage. The question is what provision do we leave in temporarily? Do we leave in the 3-acre or do we leave in the 30,000 square feet? The Board discussed the work ahead of the Planning Department In creating the 3-acre zone. Mr. Kanter stated the bottom line of the staff's recommendation on it is not that a 3-acre provision is a good or a bad thing. It wasn't a judgment call on the 3-acre density. It was basically that in looking at the mapping we found some major inconsistencies and discrepancies in the mapping pattern of the LDR sewer or non-sewer approach. Basically one of the ideas was that this should promote the rural residential concept in the comprehensive plan, but the two concepts, the rural residential and the sewer / non-sewer approach in that zoning draft really did not coincide very well from the staff's perspective and you end up with a kind of hodge-podge of patterns where you would have 3-acre zoning and not necessarily in places where, if we sat down looking at criteria for a transitional lower density zone, that might actually end up. Councilwoman Grigorov stated people also felt that we needed to go out and look at this, to do some more fieldwork. We've looked forward to a big study of this going on, so there's going to be a long study about this zoning no matter which way we pass it. Councilman Klein stated if we leave it at the R30 there will be less flip flop, because for the most part it keeps the R30 zones where they are now. If we go to the 3-acre lot size they're going to change from where they are now and they'll probably change again. Councilwoman Russell disagreed stating she thinks that there are areas that are about to be zoned 7-acres that might be more appropriately zoned to be in a residential transition area, maybe 3-acres, some areas on West Hill as well as areas in Inlet Valley that might be more appropriately zoned 3-acres. There's going to be flip flopping either way. FEBRUARY 28, 2003 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING APPROVED APRIL 7, 2003 n Councilman Burbank stated the great virtue of going with the 3-acre model is that it buys us time in the sense that once land is developed it's hard to un-develop, but express concern regarding the creation of a lot of non-conforming lots. Attorney Barney stated if you have a non-conforming lot, if you create that, and it's an undeveloped lot, you're limited to what you can put on the lot to a single-family house. Whereas any other lot in the Town may take a two-family house so that you're impacting the landowner. To the extent that you have buildings already on the lots, they're allowed to stay the way they are, but if you create a non-conforming lot and again somebody wants now to put an apartment in subsequent to that, they can't do it without getting approval from the Town. Depending on what they may want to do with their property in terms of enlarging, if you're enlarging what is a non-conforming use that usually also requires approval from the Town. Of those 260 lots non-constructed or non-developed lots you've got a limitation of what you can put on it that you wouldn't otherwise have. With respect to the ones that you have development on already, you'd have limitations on what you could do with that property in the future. Mr. Bamey didn't have any idea what the number is, how many are developed and how many are not developed, but he felt the real ramification of unilaterally adopting a 3- acre zone without going and doing the analysis, which is what he thought the planning staff is recommending, would be the creation of a significant number of non-conforming lots. In response to questions from Councilman Burbank regarding citing sewer. Attorney Barney stated to the extent that these lots are subdivided lots and have gotten subdivision approval, i you can assume that they got Health Department approval and there's a precondition against any kind of a significant subdivision so they've been approved at this juncture for separate individual septic systems to the extent that it's a lot that's not part of a subdivision. The real question in Attomey Barney's mind from a legal standpoint is does the Town want to throw 260 lot owners into a non-conforming status as an interim measure while the Town studies 3- acre zones. Councilman Lesser stated in addition to the issue that John raises, it concerned him that a number of landowners whose properties are currently zoned 30,000 square feet will for some period of time be zoned 3-acres. In which case he could see a real burden on some individual who either planned to develop their land, not being sure whether its going to be 3- acres or 30,000 square feet, or should they be in a position where they need to sell, the value of the land could be substantially less at 3-acres than 30,000 square feet, while the Board makes their decision. But more fundamentally than that, as much as Mr. Lesser enjoys the rural character in much of the Town, he also appreciates the fact that the Town is a very mixed community. He likes where he lives because there are people of different income levels who live all around him. He thinks that makes for a richer community, and a good place to raise children. He expressed concern that if we take big areas and make them ^ substantially more expensive by making them 3 acre minimum lots then we are going to price out a lot of the people that presently can live in the Town. They are no longer going to be —I able to do so and we're going to have a change in the character of the Town. I _ Councilwoman Grigorov stated she has always worried about large lots only, but there was always an assumption that there would be cluster. If you put 3-acre zoning in, they are not FEBRUARY 28, 2003 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING APPROVED APRIL 7, 2003 supposed to put one house on 3 acres. The Planning Board can mandate that they put the O houses closer together so it wouldn't have to be expensive housing. !closer together so it wouldn't have to be expensive housing Councilman Lesser replied that somebody still has to pay for the three acres Councilman Klein stated the issue when you are clustering at the lower density and whether or not sewer Is available or not is when you cluster, you're still going to wind up with fairly large lots because each lot is going to be subject to the provisions of the Health Department, you will have a quasi-clustered area. The soils are so lousy you're never going to get an unsewered area like a Deer Run where you can have the houses much closer, or even the Commonland that really does rely on public infrastructure. Councilwoman Russell stated she did not think they would find much difference in price between the one and half acre lot and a three-acre lot. They've looked at lot prices throughout the Town in conjunction with the preservation of agricultural land and land prices are pretty cheap. She did not feel it would make a substantial difference. Councilman Lesser did not agree, especially if one looked ten years into the future. Councilwoman Russell spoke of the Town trying to focus development around the City. Councilman Lesser and Councilman Klein stated it would focus development out, leap-frogging out of the Town. Councilman Niederkorn stated he felt comfortable with the resolution passed by the Codes and Ordinances Committee for several reasons. First of all, we don't have a plan as to where we ought to or ought not to provide sewers. So we don't know areas that we really want to preserve in a much lower density. Secondly, the Heath Department regulations will in fact * provide for lower density even though the Zoning Ordinance does not. It may be not three acres, but its going to be somewhere between half that and three acres. So until we are able to solve this problem. Councilman Niederkorn stated he didn't have any real problems with using the 30,000 square feet where sewers are available and letting the Health Department set the density where they are not. It seems like a reasonable way to approach it at this point understanding that we're going to look at it further. Councilman Niederkorn stated he would also like to hear what the Planning Board has to say about this. They are the people who are responsible for planning and the way things should happen and to get their reaction to something like this might be illuminating as well. Supervisor Valentino agreed, stating the only way we'll really hear from the Planning Board is if the Board sends something to them. She also felt it was important to get this in front of the public soon in order to get feedback from them. Supervisor Valentino asked the board members to state their position. Councilman Burbank - I think I am inclined to go back to the earlier zone with this uneasiness ^ because I don't want to create (inaudible)... I do feel a more conservative course. Yet, it will create problems (inaudible) to slow down the pace of inappropriate development. Councilman Lesser - I agree with Tom. | FEBRUARY 28, 2003 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING APPROVED APRIL 7, 2003 Councilman Lesser - I agree with Tom and Bill and as I did at the Codes and Ordinances. One of the reasons, I do think R30 will provide us adequate protection, and I also feel they'll be less flipping back and forth. Councilwoman Grigorov -1 agree with Will. Councilwoman Russell -1 agree with Will. I don't find it to be a tenable ordinance without this zone. Fred Wilcox -1 agree with Tom and Bill. Jonathan Kanter - We will go with whichever way the Town Board decides it is most appropriate to go. Dan Walker - We can put sewer anyplace you want it, so I recommend you look at what you want to do for land use density and just set it. Supervisor Valentino — I agree with Tom and Bill and David. I'm going to say the reason that I do is I think the resolution that was passed by the Codes and Ordinances Committee, and they put a lot of time and a lot of effort into this, I think that it does move it forward in a more consistent and cleaner way than the other approach. I think that what Cali and Mary have been saying are very important things that need to go into the record and to be considered, but I feel very strongly that the way to keep the process moving forward smoothly and getting it in front of the public for their input is for us to accept the resolution that the Codes and Ordinances Committee has put forward and I would move that resolution. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-023 - Accepting the Recommendation of the Codes and Ordinances Committee Regarding the Proposed Zoning Ordinance RESOLVED that the Town Board accept the recommendation of the Codes and Ordinances Committee regarding the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and hereby refers the ordinance to the Planning Board for review and a recommendation to this Board regarding formal adoption. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Niederkorn VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, nay; Councilwoman Grigorov, nay; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, nay; Councilman Niederkorn, aye. Motion Carried. Councilman Lesser asked that there be an opportunity for more detailed and more specific comments. He has questions about the waterfront zoning and how the Town's proposed regulations interact with existing DEC and Army Corps of Engineer's regulations. FEBRUARY 28, 2003 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING APPROVED APRIL 7, 20O3 n Adiournment i On motion by Councilwoman Russell, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. ^ Respectfully submitted, Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk NEXT REGULAR MEETING - March 10, 2003 n P 8 ' \TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN BOARD FROM: JONATHAN KANTER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING RE: REFERRAL OF DRAFT REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP TO PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2003 At its meeting of January 24, 2003, the Codes and Ordinance Committee voted to accept the revised draft of the Zoning Ordinance (Jan. 15,2003) and Map (Nov. 26, 2002) to send to the Town Board for consideration. Attached are materials related to this effort, including the full revised draft Zoning Ordinance (Jan. 15, 2003), comparison copy pages prepared by John Barney showing changes from the April 24, 2002 draft and from another j ^ revised draft dated Oct. 15,2002 (as well as an additional comparison page regarding the deletion of Section 1404 inadvertently omitted by John Barney), and a revised version of the proposed Zoning Map (Nov. 26, 2002) in color. The next step, if acceptable to the Town Board, would be to send the revised draft Zoning Ordinance and Map to the Planning Board for a recommendation. This is the action before the Board for consideration at the February lO"* meeting. If so referred, the Planning Board would be requested to hold a public hearing in March (possibly at their March 4, 2003 meeting) to obtain further comments from the public and to consider their recommendation on the proposed Zoning revisions. If accepted by the Town Board for referral to the Planning Board, staff would prepare revised documents for the website. Planning staff continues to work on the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Zoning revisions and hopes to have a draft of the EIS ready around the end of February. Also attached for the Board's information is an updated timetable for completion of the Zoning revisions (Jan. 14, 2003) that was discussed with the Codes and Ordinances Committee for the Board's information. Please refer back lo previous Zoning materials that were distributed in April 2002 (e.g.. there was an Executive Summary describing the major changes from the current Zoning Ordinance and Map). To assist in highlighting further revisions that were incorporated into the Jan. 15, 2003 draft, please refer to the comparison pages (April 24 - Oct. 15, 2002 drafts and Oct. 15 - Jan. 15, 2003 drafts) all under the title page, " Comparison Pages ^ Highlighting Changes from April 24, 2002 and Oct. 15, 2002 Drafts, Town of Ithaca Draft ' Revised Zoning Ordinance, January 15, 2003." Also to assist in highlighting those changes made in the revised text and map is the following brief summary (note: this summary does not include all of the changes): Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance (Jan. 15,2003): • Clarification of definition of "adult care facility" (Section 302) • New definition of "mining" (Section 302) • New special approval provisions to allow "mining" only in the Agricultural zone, whereas mining is currently regulated anywhere in the Town as a fill/excavation permit activity (Section 604) • Deletion of the hours of operation provision in the Neighborhood Commercial zone (formerly Section 1404 in the April 24"* draft) • New definitions of "domestic animals" and "household pets" (Section 302) • New provisions allowing the keeping of household pets in residential zones (various sections) • Revised provisions for the keeping of domestic animals in the Medium Density Residential zone (Section 904) • Deletion of the proposed Low Density Residential (LDR) provision that would have required three-acre minimum lot area if public sewer facilities are not available (Section 809), and just keeping the 30,000 square foot minimum lot size * ^ * [The deletion of the three-acre lot size provision relating to the availability of public ^ sewer was debated for three meetings of the Codes and Ordinances Committee, and the vote of the Committee to delete that provision in the Jan. 15, 2003 draft was 5 in favor, 2 opposed. The vote included the Committee's commitment to set as a high priority the further study of a lower density transitional zone as a follow-up to the revised Zoning draft, but not to hold up the enactment process of the revised Zoning on this basis. This will be a consideration for the Town Board at the February 10"' meeting.] Draft Revised Zoning Map (Nov. 26. 2002): • Minor modifications to two Conservation zone boundaries on South Hill (one involving Ithaca College property, the other next to the Eldridge Preserve) • Addition of a new Conservation zone area in the Inlet Valley corridor, adding State properties acquired (or to be acquired) for the Black Diamond Trail and other permanently protected natural areas • Returning the Axiohm building and developed area back to the Industrial zone (as it is currently zoned) and limiting the area of the new Office Park zone on Danby Road 10 the undeveloped portion of the Axiohm property and the adjacent Ithaca College parcel • Adjustments in the zoning of the Auble site (Danby and West King Road) to reflect the recent acquisition of a large portion of the property by State Parks as an ' addition to Buttermilk Falls State Park (now proposed as Conservation zone) and ^ addition of a section of the site as MR Multiple Residence ' i \ f \ I \ • Extension of relevant zones over the waters of Cayuga Lake within the Town of Ithaca in order to implement the new regulations regarding off-shore structures (e.g., docks, piers, etc.) in the Lakefront Residential zone In addition to the LDR/transitional zone follow-up mentioned above, the Committee will be looking at several other possible work priorities that came out of the public information meetings held last May and public comments that were received, including the following: - A new educational/institutional zone - Parking lot landscaping standards/guidelines - Tree preservation/tree cutting regulations Requirements for sidewalks/walkways in new developments The Committee will be discussing work plan priorities for 2003 and beyond at their meeting of February 19,2003. Meanwhile, please feel free to let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter. Att. cc: ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Regarding Low Density Residential Provision in April 24,2002 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee Resolution No. 1 - January 24,2003 Motion made by Tom Niederkom, seconded by Fred Wilcox. RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee hereby amends Section 809 of the April 24,2002 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance (and subsequent internal drafts) by eliminating the requirement for three-acre minimum lot size if public sewer facilities are not available, and returning to the current R-30 Residence District lot size minimum requirement of 30,000 square feet for all parcels in the Low Density Residential zone in the updated Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance (to be dated January 15,2003); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee hereby acknowledges that the 30,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement is further subject to the rules and regulations of the Tompkins County Health Department under the terms of the County Sanitary Code, and that Section 2709 of the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance already includes this reference; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That it will be a very high priority of the Codes and Ordinances Committee in its work plan, after the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance is adopted, to study the possibility of a lower density/transitional zone based upon an evaluation of the Low Density Residential, Agricultural and Conservation zones and their proximity to higher density zones. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Hoffmann, Klein, Niederkom, Sigel, Wilcox. NAYS: Grigorov, Russell. The motion was declared to be carried by a vote of 5 affirmative, 2 negative. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning Town of Ithaca ! \ ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Acceptance of January 15,2003 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance, as Amended Regarding Section 809 of the Low Density Residential Zone Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee Resolution No. 2 - January 24,2003 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee hereby accepts the January 15,2003 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance, as amended by Resolution No. 1 - January 24,2003, with regard to Section 809 of the Low Density Residential Zone, eliminating the requirement for three-acre minimum lot size if public sewer facilities are not available, and returning to the current R-30 Residence District lot size minimum requirement of 30,000 square feet for all parcels in the Low Density Residential zone; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee hereby forwards the January 15, 2003 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance, as amended above, to the Town Board for its consideration regarding adoption. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Hoffmann, Klein, Niederkom, Sigel, Wilcox. NAYS: Grigorov, Russell. The motion was declared to be carried by a vote of 5 affirmative, 2 negative. Jonath2in Kanter, AICP Director of Planning Town of Ithaca / \ MEMORANDUM \ TO: Town Board Members FROM: Mary Russell DATE: February 4, 2003 RE: Amendment of Proposed Zoning Ordinance to Eliminate 3 Acre Lots in the Low Density Residential Zone regarding Town Board agenda #9 At the Codes and Ordinances Committee on January 24'**, the committee in a split vote, passed a resolution amending the proposed Zoning Ordinance, which we have all been presenting to the public for many months, to eliminate the 3 acre lot requirement in the non-sewered areas of the Low Density Residential Zone. I was one of the nay votes on this resolution. This memo will explain my reasons for being in opposition to this resolution. This matter will come before the Town Board at its February 10th meeting when the Town Board is asked to refer the Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Board. The COG was acting based on a recommendation of Planning Staff who had encountered difficulties with mapping the Low Density Zone sewered vs. non-sewered f ^ areas during their GEIS analysis as outlined in a memo from Jon Kanter dated 12-12-02. This important policy issued had been discussed for many months in both the former Planning Committee and the COC. I was a member of both conunittees during these discussions and so was Cali Grigorov . Some of the important Comprehensive Plan objectives which the policy makers were addressing during our discussions of the Low Density Zone, in addition to protecting open space, were avoiding sprawl (III - 4) focusing the Town's growth around the city border, focusing major development in areas where adequate infrastructure and facilities already exist (III - 8) and limiting water and sewer extensions into areas not designated for intensive development (III - 25). We were also trying to protect and maintain the Town's present character (III - 4) in rural areas of the To\vn, such as my neighborhood along Coddington Road. An important piece of our discussion was the fact that the Health Dept. requirements were the minimum amount -as a result of developer pressure—for a lot and did not in any way assure a municipality that expensive infrastructure would not need to be extended to serve those lots in the future if the Health Dept. requirements (approx. 1 Vi acres) were not adequate to provide areas for future replacement septic fields. We were also addressing the goal of providing a transition zone between the very different land uses allowed in an R-30 sewered area (1 2-family home on every 30,000 sq. ft. lot) and more rural areas of our county where farming is the primary use (III - 4). ^ The Town of Perinton and Town of Ogden provide examples of well-balanced zoning , ordinances which provide for a range of densities. Both of these Towns use the ( \availability of water and/or sewer to differentiate the size of the lot required for ^ subdivision to take place. (I have provided these to the COC.) In the Town of Ogden ' densities range from 20 acres in the Rural Agriculture zone, to 2 acres in the Rural Residential zone where water is available and 5 acres where it is not, to 3 acres in the Residential Transition zone where no water or sewer is available, 1 acre with water or sewer only and Yi acre with both water and sewer. The single family zone lot size is 20, 000 sq. fl. The Town of Perinton has 2 levels of Residential Transition zones with lot size varying from 1-5 acres in one and from 2-5 acres in the other depending on infrastructure availability. Given the complexity of the issue and the sometimes contradictory goals of the comprehensive plan, the extensive discussions of the policy makers involved resulted in the sewered/non-sewered differentiation in the Low Density zone. While 1 agree that the 3 acre zoning should probably be applied to additional areas, probably areas we are about to zone as 7 acre density Agriculture Zone, 1 do not feel that this is a good reason for the elimination of 3 acre zoning in the current proposal. In either case we will be changing the zoning of land which will then be changed again. The issue, 1 believe, will involve going back and revisiting the Comprehensive Plan and trying to sort out and at least prioritizing the goals. This is a process that could take years given past history. Removing the protection the 3 acre zone provides to areas such as my neighborhood and to areas proposed for conservation zoning, also a lengthy process, does not make sense to me. It also results in an ordinance with a huge gap between 30,000 sq. ft. - 1 1/2 acre lots and 7 acre density. ' ^ There are many other issues that need to be readdressed- not enough dense R-15, multiple family or affordable housing, no regulation of Lakefront Commercial docks, no educational zone. If we leave the 3 acre zoning in place, at least these areas will have some protection while we reassess the low density zone issue as well. As for the staff having difficulty deciding what properties are served (the mapped sewer lines in some cases being inconsistent with the benefit assessment rolls for sewer)—1 believe we should let the sewer benefit assessment role define this—^we are, after all, charging a very different benefit assessment rate to owners of served vs. unserved lots based on this roll. This is an issue which needs to be cleaned up in any case. r) f \ \