Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1982-10-19 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 19 , 1982 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , October 19 , 1982 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , Edward Mazza , Virginia Langhans , Carolyn Grigorov , David Klein , Bernard Stanton ( arriving at 8 : 00 p . m . ) , Lawrence P . Fa.bbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Edna Clausen , Doris Marion , Carolyn Peterson , Dan Peterson , Jeff Coleman , David C . - Ludington , Robert E . Marion , Kay Marion , Ann Prince Rivkin , Lawrence S . Rivkin , Town Supervisor Noel Desch , Town Councilwoman Shirley . Raffensperger , Town Councilwoman Dooley Kiefer , Town Councilman George Kugler , Donald , Odell , Planner , NYS Department of State , James ' Coon , Principal Attorney , NYS Department of State , Jessica R . Ettinger ( WTKO News ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 07 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF RULES AND REGULATIONS SETTING FORTH THE CRITERIA PURSUANT TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 16 , SECTION 281 , OF THE TOWN LAW SHALL BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS , AS AMENDED , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 08 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of . Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 12 , 1982 and October 14 , 1982 , respectively . Chairman May read aloud the Notice as above and asked Mr . Lovi to speak to the matter . Mr . Lovi stated that on June 28 , 1982 the Legislature amended a section of Town Law , specifically Section 281 , commonly known as " the cluster law " , adding that the amendment of importance to the Board is specifically the following . Mr . Lovi read from Chapter 412 of the Laws of New York , Section 1 , § 281 , ( a ) : " . . . Provided , however , that in granting such authorization to the planning board , the town board may also authorize it to require the owner to submit an application which reflects such modification ; in such case , the town board shall also require the planning board to adopt rules and regulations setting forth the • criteria pursuant to which such an application may be required . " Mr . Lovi pointed out that this is the important change in the law from before June of 1982 to the present , adding that in the past ti Planning Board 2 October 19 , 1982 the Planning Board had the power to approve cluster subdivisions in the Town of Ithaca and what the legislature did is beef up that power , He noted that the Board not only has the power to approve a cluster , but also the power to mandate it , Mr . Lovi commented that one can see that the legislators want to see clustering . Mr . Lovi again read Section 1 , § 281 , ( a ) , noting in particular "' in such case , the town board shall also require the planning board to adopt rules and regulations setting forth the criteria . . . " Mr . Lovi stated that on October 41 1982 , in order to bring this Planning Board up to the full power of the enabling legislation , the Town Board passed a resolution granting to the Planning Board the full powers of section 281 as amended and , as part of such resolution , required the Board to adopt rules and regulations setting forth criteria . Mr . Lovi stated that staff has drafted the document now before the Planning Board for discussion , commenting that this is a quasi - legislative step . Mr . Lovi noted that the Board members had all received a copy with their agendae . Chairman May asked if there were any comments at this point from the public . Mr . Jeff Coleman , 7A Park Lane , Lansing , N . Y , spoke from the floor and asked for an interpretation of item # 2 in the General Restrictions , adding that it seems unclear . Mr . Coleman stated that the zoning ordinance restricts the use of two - family dwellings ; therefore , it minimizes density and cluster maximizes open space , Mr . Fabbroni stated that the zoning ordinance does not restrict two - families and this item is a further clarification of that , Mr . Fabbroni noted that if one were to own a minimum sized lot in the Town today , one could have one unit plus a second unit half the size , or , were the second unit in the basement - equal size . Mr . Coleman asked what the purpose is of the restriction of the two size! units , in the ordinance . Mr . Fabbroni stated that practically speaking it is not a constraint , adding that there are factors under that that should be understood . He noted that one could have a 3 , 000 sq . ft . /1 , 500 sq . ft . dwelling if one so chose , or , you could have one over the other , 2 , 000 sq . ft . Mr . Fabbroni stated beyond that , since 1975 there has been a draft zoning ordinance that calls for duplexes , He noted that the Board of Appeals has granted duplexes as variances . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Board of Appeals is the reviewing body for him as Building Inspector or Mr . Cartee as Building Inspector if someone were to disagree with the interpretation . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the fact is every duplex , as we know it - side by side , • equal units - that has been applied for has been granted over the last seven years . Mr . Fabbroni stated , referring back to Mr . ;r s Planning Board 3 October 19 , 1982 Coleman ' s o :Ciginal question , that there has practically speaking been no restriction even on duplexes . Mr . Darn Peterson , 110 Dey Street , Ithaca City , spoke from the floor and asked if those duplexes that have been allowed have been on minimum lots or on larger ones . Mr . Fabbroni and Mr . May responded , both . Mr . Peterson stated that one could see stretching of the requirements by the Zoning Board if a lot were over - sized . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the clear intent of the proposed ordinance , though not officially adopted , is that duplexes be allowed even on minimum lots . Mr . Fabbroni commented that at one time prior to 1975 larger lots for duplexes was proposed with that concept rejected . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the intent of all Town officials has been to allow duplexes . Mr . Fabbroni noted that this casts a clearer light on the whole question . Mr . Fabbroni conunented that , first of all , as to how we look at it presently , today , a house that has one unit over the other of equal size , if the Board of Appeals has been looking at a duplex side - by - side as acceptable , then certainly up- and - down is acceptable . He added that there is virtually no distinction between the two . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this is not the contrived formula that some are thinking or saying . • Mr . Coleman stated that he would still like to hear from the Planning Board members . Mr . Peterson , speaking to Mr . Fabbroni , stated that he ( Fabbroni ) had said something about the intent of something that was not adopted yet . Mr . Fabbroni responded that he spoke of the draft ordinance in existence since 1975 . Mr . Robert E . Marion , 1463 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town , spoke from the floor and asked what R9 is . Mr . Fabbroni described the R9 zoning designation , noting that the minimum lot size in an R9 district is 9 , 000 sq . ft . , and adding that there are a few R9 districts in the Town such as the Pennsylvania Avenue , Kendall Avenue , and Five Mile Drive areas . Mr . Marion asked if there are any that have not been developed . Mr . Fabbroni stated that most have been developed , adding that they are scattered over the Town and there may be some undeveloped . Mr . Lovi stated that in all areas of the Town , regardless , two units are permitted in all residential districts , adding that the important thing is that the number of unrelated persons permitted does not change , it being that no more than three unrelated people may be living in a one - family or two - family structure . He stated that in a sense it is immaterial whether unit " A " or unit " B " is 500 of the other , adding that just because one house is bigger it does not mean more unrelated people . Mr . Lovi commented that in a sense it is a moot point and wondered what the problem is . • Professor Ludington , 1456 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town , spoke from the floor and asked how long cluster has been y Planning Board 4 October 19 , 1982 • permitted in the Town . Mr . May responded , since November 3 , 1955 . Professor Ludington inquired why it is not in the zoning ordinance , adding that it would be helpful to explain this to people , it would be helpful when someone is going to purchase a piece of land . Professor Ludington stated that even more difficult is the fact that the ordinance does not say that the Town policy has been to pro forma rezone from R30 to R15 if there are utilities . He stated that in the ordinance the R30 section tells him that it is low density , i . e . , minimum lot size 30 , 000 sq . ft . but , now , because we have utilities then the Town Board says R30 is R15 . Professor Ludington wondered if there does not have to be public hearing on that . Mr . Fabbroni responded , yes , there does . Professor Ludington inquired , then why the pro forma ? Mr . Fabbroni stated that pro forma was obviously a poor choice of words , adding that an attorney did not write it , he did . Mr . May pointed out that the matter before the Board was the authority to mandate cluster . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Town Board can give authority to the Planning Board to mandate cluster . Professor Lugington stated that he thought cluster housing is great , but when you cluster it to the maximum , it is a different matter . Professor Ludington stated that he would go • back to his whole concept of what zoning was for - - low here and high there , but as soon as utilities are available the whole Town can be high density housing . Mr . Fabbroni asked Professor Ludington what his definition of high density housing is . Professor Ludington replied , a duplex on every lot of 15 , 000 sq . ft . Mr . Fabbroni described the other considerations , noting as an example that the ordinance allows a lot of 30 , 000 sq . ft . in R30 , but the Health Department requires one acre . Professor Ludington commented that the ball game has changed significantly in that when you buy something there is no hint of the changes , sewage is pumped up , maximum density on R30 / R15 . He stated that it is unfortunate . Mr . Lovi stated that in the new zoning law which has been worked on for many years , a good deal of the ambiguities Mr . Ludington speaks of will be alleviated . Mr . Mazza pointed out that the zoning ordinance can be changed by the Town Board , so there is no real security . Mr . Klein pointed out that in the Town there is a floating multiple - family zone that could have , conceivably , been placed on the now Commonland parcel . Mr . Fabb :roni stated that , to be fair about it , it is a much more stringent process to get rezoned to multiple - family than to • exercise the cluster option . 'r Planning Board 5 October 19 , 1982 Mr . Robert E . Marion asked where the materials are available that do describe cluster housing and the four descriptions of cluster housing stated in item # 2 - - meaning detached , semi - detached , attached , and multi - story . Mr . Marion asked if that were explained anywhere . Mr . Lovi responded that that is taken right out of Section 281 , sub - paragraph ( c ) . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that Mr . Marion read item # 4 of the proposed rules and regulations which he had in hand . Mr . Marion asked if there were going to be clarification . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that that is what we are reviewing tonight . Mr . Marion agreed , inquiring if there were going to be further restrictions , other restrictions . Mr . Lovi stated that that is precisely what we are doing here tonight , to get input from the public , the Planning Board , the staff . Mr . Marion inquired if on the site the talk is about the lowest point: on 50 acres on the site or the building itself . Mr . Fabbroni replied , the lowest point of the building where it touches the ground and Mr . Lovi added , the lowest point of ground to the highest peak of the roof or highest point of the roof . Mr . Marion wondered about chimneys . Mr . Fabbroni stated that chimneys are not considered . Mr . Marion wondered about antennae . He wondered if antennae were not extensions . Mrs . Edna Clausen , 1421 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town , stated from the floor that she was wondering about the shape of the land available for clustering and if it were length or width that was considered . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that it is proposed that the minimum- sized parcel that may be considered for clustering is five gross acres or more . Mrs . Clausen wondered what would happen if the five acres are stretched out . Mr . Fabbroni responded that that is hard and is controlled more by performance , for example , " open space in no case less than 10 , 000 sq . ft " Mr . Fabbroni stated that it is pretty hard in an odd shaped piece of land to meet all the criteria that are in here . He continued and noted the buffering adjacent to residential properties ; open space minimum , minimum acreage , and added that that all has the effect of answering what Mrs . Clausen was asking but does not. , say , for a parcel of 250 ' x 1 , 250 ' . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the burden is really on the developer if he comes in to make a proposal to meet all these performance criteria . Professor Ludington stated that with regard to the proposed document , in. the conclusion , he was troubled . He stated that this paragraph gives the Board without public hearing the right to change the regulations without Town Board knowledge , this is your authority . Mr . Lovi stated that the resolution passed by the Town Board on October 4th is the authority and gives the scope of delegation of powers . Mr . Ludington asked if it were common for the Planning Board to change rules and regulations . Mr . Fabbroni stated that these rules and regulations are something that the Planning Board can establish on their own , and they become part and parcel of the subdivision regulations by • virtue of the action that they take on the rules and regulations . He stated that it must be recognized that there has to be a public hearing to amend the subdivision regulations . Mr . Planning Board 6 October 19 , 1982 • Fabbroni stated that in the particular case of the Town every time the planning board changes the rules and regulations , even though they chose not to hold a public hearing , the Town Board will hold a public hearing to amend the subdivision regulations . He stated that it is a matter of clarity to tell Mr . Ludington that they could have it , they have it . Mr . Stanton stated that the Planning Board cannot just change these rules and regulations any time they want to . Mr . Peterson stated that if the Board adopts these rules and regulations tonight , this then is an amendment to the Town Zoning Law , Mr . Fabbroni said that that is absolutely not the case and described the zoning ordinance , and the subdivision regulations , and the process for amendment . Mr . Marion stated that it has been mentioned about the fact of building on a site with unbuildable , unusable land , and asked if there is any clarification as to what unbuildable land is . Mr . Fabbroni responded that that portion of the document needs some clarification also . Mr . Fabbroni read from paragraph # 1 of the General Restrictions and stated that he thought something got lost in translation from discussion to wording , however , he explained the • reasoning for the exclusion as being something in the topography as encouraging such exclusion . He noted that certain changes in that paragraph will be made to clarify the intent of the paragraph . Mr . Fabbroni commented that Mr . Marion ' s question is how that exclusion is measured . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the only sure way that we have of saying that certain portions of land are unbuildable is - - wetlands , flood plains , flood hazard zones , conservation zones . He stated that if the property that we are looking at involved any one of those , clearly it is unbuildable . Mr . Fabbroni commented that the matter is admittedly judgmental , adding that a slope of 30o with virgin woodland on .it , at least in his judgment , would be undevelopable , but , a grasp; depression is not necessarily undevelopable . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , as with anything , when you get down to the last dotted " i " or crossed " t " , you are down to some judgmental area . Mr . Lawrence Rivkin , 1450 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town , spoke from the floor about the buffer zones and noted that the buffer areas shall be at least 30 feet from adjacent residential zones and at least 20 feet from adjacent commercial , industrial , etc . Mr . May noted that this does not refer necessarily to between buildings ; it refers to between zones . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the zoning ordinance speaks to side yards and distance between zones ; in cluster , there may be no side yard , per se . Mr . Rivkin wondered where this came from . Mr . Fabbroni stated • that this is the proposed draft regulation . Mr . Rivkin stated that he thought this was kind of close . Mr . Lovi responded that that is why the public hearing is being held . Planning Board 7 October 19 , 1982 • Mr . Ludington , referring to section 4 of the General Restrictions , stated that the part on buffer does not read right . Mr . Lovi agreed . Mr . Marion stated that he was curious about the building description on back line property and in the description how it gets clarified or classified . Mr . May commented that the zoning ordinance does have a requirement for back yard set back . Mr . Marion statE� d that he was talking about the road no closer than " x " number of feet from a house . He said if you are developing a considerable number of acres that is being bordered in front by somebody and then there is a back border , there is a gouging on the building structure from border to border . Mr . May stated that he believed we were talking about that in the buffer zone between the development and a buffer . Mr . Marion indicated that he did not understand Mr . May ' s comment . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Marion , he thought , was talking about the City Watershed , which is a public use . Mr . Ludington indicated that he heard the proposal as saying that the buffer zone is the distance from the lot line to a building . Mr . Fabbroni commented that normally that might well be parking areas , but he thought the intention here is a complete • 20 ' or 301 . Mr . Ludington wondered if it were 30 ' from the paved surfaces and added that he thought an interpretation of buffer zone would bE! appropriate . Mr . Marion stated that what you are buffering has a lot to do with what, you are buffering from , for example , road versus parking lot , or , shrubbery . It was agreed that this section needs further clarification . Mr . Love_ stated that in a buffer zone , his feeling is to allow shrubbE! ry in a buffer zone because a thirty - foot space is better visually and acoustically were trees or shrubs allowed . He indicated that he would feel more comfortable if some landscaping were permitted rather than space only . Mr . Marion stated that that was not necessarily true because we are talking about a hillside . Mr . Lovi stated that he did not want to talk about particular sites ; he wanted to see how people feel about vegetation in a buffer strip . Mr . Rivkin commented that , as Mr . Marion said , it might be best as open space . Mr . Fabbroni suggested having buffer areas of some particular size and then have the matter up to the prerogative of the Planning Board , otherwise you are left in the weak position of having to ask for it . • Mr . Ludington stated that he would like to address the adequacy of the 25 ' between buildings . He stated that he thought i Planning Board 8 October 19 , 1982 . that ought -to be dependent upon the site and whether you have a neighbor next door . Mr . Lovi stated that that is why the proposal is " no less than " 25 ' , noting that the Planning Board at its discretion can make it more . Mr . Ludington commented that if you had a fairly significant road , it should be more than 30 feet , noting that 30 feet might not be enough in any case . Chairman May announced that it was 8 : 00 p . m . and the meeting would have to be adjourned in order for the gentlemen from the State of New York Department of State may make their presentation to the Boards ' members . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza : RESOLVED , that the Public Hearing in the matter of consideration of the adoption by the Planning Board of rules and regulations setting forth the criteria pursuant to which the provisions of § 281 of Town Law shall be applied be and hereby is adjourned , a committee to be formed comprised of Planning Board and Town Board members to return at a future date with further recommendations . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . • Aye - May , Schultz , Mazza , Langhans , Grigorov , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the October 19 , 1982 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8 : 00 p . m . , a Planning Seminar to follow for Board members . JEFF COLEMAN Mr . Coleman appeared before the Board and stated that he got a copy of a building permit today issued to Jerold Weisburd that was clearly against the provisions of R15 / R30 . The Board members indicated that the Planning Board was not the place for questioning the issuance of a building permit , adding that the meeting was adjourned . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he wished to state , for the record , that he , personally , had told Mr . Coleman at the time he requested a copy of the building permit he has just mentioned , that he ( Coleman ) did not have the complete application for the building permit when he ( Coleman ) requested a copy of the form only . • r Planning Board 9 October 19 , 1982 PRESENTATION BY MESSRS . BOOS AND COON OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO TOWN BOARD , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , PLANNING BOARD , Principal Attorney James Coon and Planner Don Odell ( Principal Planner Richard Boos having suffered an injury over the past weekend ) of the Department of State , Division of Local Government and Community Services presented a two -hour seminar , including a question and answer period , to the Board members present . The seminar was comprised of a discussion of the community comprehensive plan as a background for land use regulations , and a discussion of the planning board and its responsibilities , with particular emphasis on its relationship to the local legislative body . All agreed that it was very worthwhile and informative . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .