Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1978-05-02 TOWN OF ITHACA JOINT MEETING TOWN BOARD , PLANNING BOARD , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 2 , 1978 O A Joint Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Town Board , Planning Board , and Zoning Board of Appeals was held on May 2 , 1978 , in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ( second floor ) , Ithaca , NY , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT % Supervisor Noel Desch , Councilman Andrew McElwee , Councilman Robert Powers , Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger , Councilman Victor DelRosso - - Town Board . Chairman Peter Francese , Member Edward Austen , Member Joan Reuning - - Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairwoman Liese Bronfenbrenner , Member Henry Aron , Member James Baker , Member Bernard Stanton , Member Patrick Mackesey , Member Carolyn Grigorov , Member Montgomery May - - Planning . Board . Lawrence Fabbroni , Town Engineer , Robert Bonnell , Assistant to the Engineer , Barbara Restaino , Planner - - Town Staff , ALSO PRESENT : Joe Gentili , County Planning Department . Beverly Livesay , County Board of Representatives . John Barney , Town Attorney . Joel Meltzer , WTKO . DISCUSSION - PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE : THE DIRECTION AND BASIC PRINCIPLES THEREOF . Supervisor Desch stated that the members of the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee are : Robert Powers , Chairman Victor DelRosso Liese Bronfenbrenner Peter Francese Lawrence Fabbroni Barbara Restaino , and stated that this Committee wishes to arrive at a consensus as to the direction in which the Town is to go with the revision of or amendments to the zoning ordinance . He noted that the Committee , at this point in their deliberations , needs a :_ clear direction as to their responsibility . He stated that the basic question is : Shall we pursue the so - called " 1976 Draft " ? Supervisor Desch pointed out that the 1976 draft preserves the R - 15 and R- 30 ( residential ) zones and incorporates a lot of the zone changes that are now required by law in terms of making provision for mobile home parks . Councilman Powers referred to the question of R- 9 ( residential ) and asked - - should it be in or not ? He stated that the feeling of the Committee is that with the cost of housing increasing , cost of municipal services , etc . , now is not the time to say we must have bigger lots . We , i . e . , the Committee , are recommending that R- 9 go back in the zoning ordinance . Supervisor Desch stated that there appeared to be a consensus that ' Joint Meeting - 2 - May 2 , 1978 the Committee go forward with the 111976 Draft " . ® Councilman DelRosso agreed and spoke briefly on the matters of variable density , agricultural zone district , mobile homes , B - 0 , B - 13 B - 2 ( Business ) and pointed out that a lot of the ground work has been laid . He drew to everyone ' s attention the " preface " that had been evolved by the Planning Board during its work on the matter of a new zoning ordinance . Some members did not have one handy and the secretary was directed to see that more are distributed . Supervisor Desch moved on to the matter of proceeding on detail development in order , as follows : 1 . Agricultural Zone District 2 . Mobile Home Park District 3 . Institutional Use District 4 . Special Flood Hazard District 5 . Industrial Districts 6 . Business Districts 7 . Residential Districts Councilman Powers pointed out that the State of New York and various other governing bodies from Tompkins County to the Federal Government issue edicts from time to time and probably most of such edicts will be in the area of residential development requirements . He stated that the order of development of the ordinance noted by Supervisor Desch was carefully decided upon in order to get the least controversial portions out of the way first and get them to the Town Attorney and have them done . ® Supervisor Desch commented that the " Intent " section would probably be done last . Councilman Powers agreed that that is the way the Committee sees it now . Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Francese stated that several sections of the draft ordinance should be virtually untouched . Mr . Francese had been the planning consultant during the years of the development of the proposed ordinance . Councilman DelRosso agreed as did Councilman Powers . Councilman Powers turned to the matter of " proportional density " or " percentage density scaling " as it is sometimes called . The proposed ordinance sets a number of 30% multiple residences of the total resi - dential units in a " neighborhood " ( defined ) . Councilman Powers noted that this is a controversial area of discussion . Mr . Francese explained how the density percentage was arrived at . In essence it is a population ratio . He stated that the Planning Board arrived at 307o after much consideration and calculation of services , population , costs , etc . He commented that the Northeast neighborhood , for example , is already around 307o multiple . The concept of the neighborhood was questioned and Mr . Francese described the manner of definition of neighborhoods to . .. the Boards ' satisfaction . Councilman Powers noted that there is proposed a " floating zone " - multi - family . He pointed out that another approach is to draw multiple residence districts on the official zoning map and state - - " That is where they are and that is where they will remain . " Mr . Powers advised Joint Meeting - 3 - May 2 , 1978 those present that at this point in time the Committee is not so much interested in the " boundaries " of the neighborhoods as the concept of the ® density . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that it seems to her that the " 30% " limits more the type of housing rather than limiting density . Mr . Francese described the concept in terms of , say , 10 acres of land to be developed wherein three of every ten units may be multi - family . Mrs . Raffensperger continued and said that on , - say , ten acres in East Ithaca , she could see a reason to limit density , i . e . , number per acre , but , why is it more desirable to have 40 units of cluster rather than rows of single family homes ? Mr . Francese pointed out that " his " proposal does not say that . It merely recognizes that a small number of multi - family units on a large tract is not economically feasible - - desirability is not the point , economics is . Supervisor Desch stated that it appears that the consensus is that the best approach in this area is the continuation of the floating zone concept with a method of density scaling vs . putting each use on the map . Most of those present agreed . Councilman Powers questioned if Mr . Desch were suggesting allowing a certain number of single family dwellings to rise before a particular formula applies ? Mr . Desch said he was suggesting a formula which would set a percentage at the early stage and then once the area develops at a certain percentage you then apply another percentage . Mrs . Raffensperger expanded on this to point out that if the final percentage were 307o in an area you would have 100 single family units and 30 multiple - - but , at the beginning of the development that percentage could be something else - maybe 80% , maybe 120% . Mr . Francese commented that the Planning Board in its years of deliberations did try several formulae and it is his recollection that there would be a nightmare of administrative tasks . Mr . Desch reflected that that is really not realistic where it applies to very sparsely developed areas . In this connection , Mr . Powers cited West Hill . Mr . Francese cited the judgmental processes and pointed out that the " 307o " was a guideline . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out one of the problems he sees and that is that there are a lot of cycles in development , whether multiple or single family . When the lending rate is up , you have a big demand for multi - family . One approach could be , for example on South Hill , the first developer in with 100 units of multiple is approved and the next one is denied . Mr . Fabbroni also suggested dividing the neighborhood , maybe take half of a neighborhood and load it up with single family and multi - family . IsSupervisor Desch said that that would be a way of achieving the basis for the percentage and the concept . Again , there appeared to be a consensus that the Committee go with the floating zone concept with some definition of mix which limits the growth of multiple housing within a given neighborhood . ' Joint Meeting - 4 - May 2 , 1978 Planning Board Member Stanton stated that if he were hearing correctly , his impression is that after neighborhoods are defined , you ® could have a " real " number . Mr . Fabbroni agreed . Mr . Desch tossed in one - quarter South Hill and one - quarter West Hill as a way of pinpointing division of neighborhoods . Mr . Francese noted that the pace of development at the time of the writing of the proposed ordinance was much greater than it is now and stated that this fact should be considered here and now . He stated that studies show that there will be a 40% decline in the number of 18 - year old high school graduates in the next 15 years . Those present found this piece of information highly interesting and noteworthy . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that some areas of the Town will feel more pressure for multiple residence than others and felt that this will probably continue . Turning to the " preface " , Supervisor Desch asked if those present agreed with the Committee that it makes sense to do further work on the preface and intent . It was so agreed . As to the method of outside review and timetable , Supervisor Desch stated that there is a question of whether or not this revision is of sufficient magnitude to require an environmental assessment statement to be written , and , there is also a question of whether it is significant enough to be submitted to County Planning Board review . ® Councilman DelRosso was of the firm opinion that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca can and should amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and that ' s it . Supervisor Desch pointed out that the Environmental Assessment State - ment for the sewer project cost $ 20 , 000 . 00 and THAT was a very simple one . Several of those present wondered if an environmental assessment statement would be called for if there were an increase in density from that of the prior ordinance . Councilman Powers commented that the ordinance we now have is pretty good . Town Attorney Barney stated that an environmental assessment state - ment should be considered all along - - from the conservative point of view . Attorney Barney also suggested that the Board can work with the ordinance now in force and amend a particular section if required . Supervisor Desch suggested , for discussion purposes , that a section be written for addition to the present ordinance , add it and have it subject to an EAS and then add another and so on . Mr . Barney noted that the law refers - . to " significant " revision - - this is the word . Mr . Barney suggested adding one section and if it turns out that there should have been an EAS then you only have one section to cover instead of a whole , entire , rewritten document . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that all of the existing ordinance is incorporated in the 1976 draft and that the Committee is working with Is basically the document presently in force and amending it . It was pointed out that Noel Desch , Larry Fabbroni and Barbara Restaino could write the Town ' s own EAS . J4oint Meeting - 5 - May 2 , 1978 Turning to the matter of a timetable for the producing of the ordinance , Supervisor Desch stated that we have been talking about Septem - ber -, . l , 1978 . Councilman Powers suggested that we stop talking about September 1st . He stated that this is not a realistic date . in view of the quantity of Town Board meetings . He said that the earliest we should talk about , is January 1 , 1979 . Councilman DelRosso pointed out that the Committee has the thing rolling now and should schedule regular meetings and just keep . moving along . Mr . Powers felt that we should be careful not to have a document that is engraved in bronze and suggested a mimeographed type set - up into which amendments may be inserted from time to time . Mr . Fabbroni referred again to all the discussion about the change in family - size , the change in energy costs , the change in the population , the change in the birth rate itself , and asked - - are these kinds of things to be considered in the individual changes in the individual sec - tions , or not ? In response to this , the question was put that the Town cannot really deal with those , but that should be our most important basis for change . Councilman Powers now referred to the " selective communities plan " which appears to be a way to avoid hop , skip and jump development and encourages development where there are already services available and keeps ® your communities compacted , and pointed out that if the Town uses that approach it is taking care of the matters that Mr . Fabbroni is talking about . He recalled the great number of complaints he has heard over the years from persons who have purchased a one - , two - , or three - acre lot and when the Town Board comes to consider a development of some sort in that person ' s neighborhood , they hear - - " I moved out here because I wanted to get away from all of this ! " Mr . Powers noted that the Board has said that there is nothing they can do about it , and the inference is that for persons who want to be isolated they should be prepared to purchase large parcels of land to surround themselves by . Mr . Powers pointed out that the selective communities concept speaks to this question and says that development is going to be encouraged in areas where services are available and leave the open land for those who want it . An example of this approach would be to bring back the " R - 9 " zone into the new ordinance . Planning Board Chairwoman Liese Bronfenbrenner felt strongly that the matter of the R- 9 zone had . . not been discussed enough and pointed out that the 111976 " version basically supports large lots . She asked if the Boards are willing to support small lots on an over - all basis ? Supervisor Desch put the question to those present and asked if it could be agreed that there is a need for the R - 9 zone . It appeared that there was agreement that the R - 9 concept should be a part of any proposal . Councilman Powers continued in this vain and asked if the Committee should move in the direction of " zero " lot lines - row houses , town houses . He asked if the Town should encourage such developmental approaches . There appeared to be no reluctance on the part of those present to following up on such zoning approaches . Mr . Stanton asked if the Committee would want to show just the present R - 9s on the zoning map or add some in particular areas for the future ? Joint Meeting - 6 - May 2 , 1978 It was agreed that only those R- 9 zones presently existing would ® be delineated on the map but that there would be provision for R - 9s to be developed in the future . Mr . Fabbroni noted that lot sizes in the present zoning ordinance are very specifically described as to size , e . g . , 100 ' x 1501 , not square footage . Supervisor Desch asked the Committee Chairman if he felt that he had had some points clarified to his satisfaction and that the Committee now had a clearer direction ? Councilman Powers stated that he did . After discussion , it was agreed that the zoning ordinance Committee would meet on Tuesday , May 30 , 1978 , at 5 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary Planning Board Zoning Board of Appeals April 1978 ® REPORT OF CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE TO : TOWN BOARD FROM : Mr . Robert Powers , Chairman ; Mr . Victor Del Rosso , Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner , Mr . Peter Francese , Members ; Mr . Lawrence Fabbroni , Ms . Barbara Restaino , Staff Members After careful consideration , the Codes and Ordinances Committee feels that the issues which have arisen pertaining to the revision of the Zoning Ordinance should be brought to the attention of the Town Board . The current Zoning Ordinance , adopted in 1968 , has withstood the test of time , but it does not address the present change in social and economic patterns . The 1976 proposal is now the basis for the revised ordinance . Mr . Powers has outlined several reasons why the Committee is using the 1976 draft : 1 . The 1968 ordinance was the basis of the 1976 proposal , which reflects amendments , changes of minds , and changed economic and living patterns . 2 . Substantial amounts of time and money were invested in the document and decisions by the Town and Planning Boards were given considerable thought . 3 . Definitions are more precise . 4 . There is no indication that the 1976 proposal ignores the lessons learned from the 1968 ordinance . Most members of the Committee agree that several important factors have become obvious since the drafting of the 1976 ordinance and that the basis of the Town ' s new ordinance should be re - evaluated . Mr . Fran cese has pointed out several trends which appear to have long range implications and which were not taken into account in the 1976 draft . The first is the change in demographic patterns in New York State . According to the latest Bureau of Census popula - tion estimates and projections , employment and population - growth in the State is below the national average , with an increase of 1 . 9 % as compared to 4 . 8 % for the nation . This indicates that the Town will not grow at the rates experienced during the 60 ' s and early 70 ' s . Secondly , families are becoming smaller and household size is diminishing , with 50 % of all households consisting of either one or two persons . There are fewer children and more elderly people , young couples without children and single people who maintain their a ® - 2 - own households . The age profile will change over the next five to ten years , the largest group being 25 to 35 year olds . This age group will increase 15 % by 1980 , while the proportion of elderly people will increase somewhat . These factors indicate that there will be a growing demand for smaller homes and dwel - ling units such as two - family homes , apartments , condominiums and townhouses . The large student population in the Ithaca area adds to the demand for multiple dwelling units . The change in the economic situation and the . housing market has also influenced the type of housing which is needed . Few people , particularly young people , can now afford the cost of a conventional single - family home . The cost of building a new home in Tompkins County has risen 62 % in the past five years . In addition , Mr . Francese has stated that property taxes have become burdensome and the new ordinance should give careful con - sideration to ways of making the Town a less expensive place to live . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner is also concerned with the changing demographic patterns and the: broad category of social issues which relate to the new Zoning Ordinance . A basic principle ' which needs discussion is responsibility of the Town to institute a zoning ordinance which considers housing and service needs of all population groups . Does the Town wish to deal with such issues as group homes , day - care centers , elderly housing , public transportation , etc . ? At the Annual Meeting of the Association of Towns during February , the trend toward State control in the area of land use was brought up by several speakers . Since these problems are region - al in nature , the State already has State -wide land use regulations ; fresh water wetlands regulations , flood insurance program , agricul - tural district law , mined land reclamation law , and the State Environ - mental Quality Review Act . The State or County may intervene in areas of critical concern such as the provision of adequate low and moderate income housing . In the future , localities may be held accountable for regional needs and the general welfare . Recently , Ms . Restaino has had conversations with Mr . Richard Boos of the Division of Community Affairs , State Department , and has been advised that the Town ' s zoning powers would not be questioned unless there were excessive restrictions on the various types of housing for the different economic groups . She . received information that it was not the State ' s intention to usurp local zoning control . ® - 3 - . An additional consideration is the need for economy in the expansion of municipal services . Mr . Powers has introduced the suggestion that new development occur along established utility lines and near community facilities . According to a recent study , the cost of " sprawl " is the most expensive .form of resident develop - ment in terms of economic costs , environmental costs , natural re - source consumption and many types of personal costs such as the inaccessibility of neighborhood services . Planned development at higher densities can reduce total capital costs borne by local government as much as 62 % because the costs of roads and public utilities are lowered . Total per dwelling unit capital costs ( including residential , open space/ recreation , schools , roads , utilities and land ) range from $ 48 , 900 for single - family conventional housing at two units per acre , to $ 20 , 700 for high - rise apartments at ten units per acre . The amount of land required is substantially less for higher density development . In addition , less woodland would be cleared , minimizing adverse im - pacts on the environment and more open space would be preserved . The 1976 document eliminates the R- 9 district completely , and it stipulates a 30 % ceiling on high density development in ® each neighborhood . This may prevent growth near established utilities , shopping and community facilities , while encouraging growth in outlying areas of the Town . The current trend . toward . " suburban sprawl " is documented in the Tompkins County Department of Planning Comprehensive Plan Studies . The " Selective Communities Plan " is an alternative to the sprawl pattern and emphasizes that growth occurs where utilities and neighborhood services are avail - able , while leaving open space and rural areas undeveloped . Clustering and reducing the minimum frontage requirements in areas which have sewer and water presents a more economical method of development and also saves open space . More compact housing such as zero lot line duplexes and townhouses use less land and services for the amountlof people accommodated , while offering an affordable type of housing . Small commercial areas which serve immediate neighborhood needs and are located away from main highways are an alternative to strip development . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner has introduced some legal matters which the new Zoning Ordinance must address . It must be based upon a comprehensive plan and must be reviewed by the County . The recent State Environmental Quality Review Act requires that a major zoning revision be accompanied by an environmental review , and that new policies consider environmental values . In addition , State codes governing energy efficient construction may have to be dealt - 4 - with . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner also feels that it is important to go to the public with the " purpose and intent " section of the Zoning Ordinance after the Town and Planning Boards have dis - cussed these matters . Mr . Del Rosso believes that the Committee has misconstrued its task and is looking at the principles underlying the whole Zoning Ordinance , rather than amending small areas . He does not see any glaring oversights in the 1976 document and feels that it addresses many of the Committee ' s current concerns . The Committee intends to proceed with the areas of the 1976 draft which present the least apparent difficulties . As the specific districts are finished , these sections will be given to the Town Board , Planning Board and Town Attorney for review and comment . This process seems preferable to waiting until the entire document is completed . The information will be presented in the following sequence . 1 . Agricultural Zone District 2 . Mobile Home Park District 3 . Institutional Use District 4 . Special Flood Hazard District 5 . Industrial Districts 6 . Business Districts 7 . Residential Districts As requested by the Supervisor , the Committee is aiming to complete work on the new Zoning Ordinance by September 1 , 1978 . At this time , the Committee is seeking direction from the Board and requests its opinion on the issues which have been discussed . A re - evaluation of some of the basic principles underlying the new Zoning Ordinance may be necessary and may take additional time . Comments from the Board , both individually and collectively are welcomed . r