HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1982-11-09 • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 9 , 1982
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met, in regular session on
Tuesday , November 9 , 1982 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m . , it being that the first Tuesday of
the month of November 1982 was Election Day ,
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Edward Mazza , Barbara Schultz ,
James Baker , Virginia Langhans , Carolyn Grigorov , David
Klein , James V . Buyoucos ( Town Attorney ) , Peter M . Lovi
( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT . Ferris Hage , Dan Peterson , Craig Mack , Henry Aron ,
Robert Marion , Kay Marion , Person ( name
illegible ) , Pat LaForge ( Cornell Sun ) , Duncan
Davie ( WTKO ) , A . Bradbrooke ( WICB - TV ) , Hollie
Hemstreet ( WICB - TV ) .
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 41 p . m .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 13 , 1982
MOTION by Mr . James Baker , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
' Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Meeting of April 13 , 1982 , be and hereby are approved as
written , except for one change on page 3 thereof , 5th paragraph ,
last sentence - change " moved " to " extended " .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Grigorov , Mazza , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
REPORT OF THE; TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR - LEWIS D . CARTEE
Mr . Cartee ' s report , which the Board members had received in
the mail with their Agenda , showed that for the month of October
1982 five ( 5 ) building permits were issued for $ 108 , 300 . 00 in
improvements , as compared to twenty - two ( 22 ) permits issued in
October 1981 for $ 605 , 095 . 00 in improvements .
REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD - CAROLYN GRIGOROV
iMrs . Grigorov stated that she had been unable to attend the
October 13 , 1982 meeting of the County Planning Board , however ,
Planning Board 2 November 9 , 1982
. Mrs . Fuller had mailed each member a copy of the Minutes of that
meeting with their Agenda .
EXPIRATION OF TERM - PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Chairman May stated that the terms of appointment to the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board of two of its members expire on
December 31 , 1982 - - Mrs . Schultz ( 7 - year term ) and Mr . Baker
( 5 - year term ) .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend
and hereby does recommend to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca
the re - appointment of Mrs . Barbara Schultz to the Planning Board
for a seven - year term commencing January 1 , 1983 , and , the
re - appointment of Mr . James Baker to the Planning Board for a
five - year term commencing January 1 , 1983 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Grigorov , Mazza , Klein .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER - PETER M . LOVI
Mr . Lovi reported that the fire station location study is
proceeding . He stated that the matter is very rudimentary at
this point , however , he is working with the City and , in
particular , the City Planner , Jon Meigs . Mr . - Lovi noted that
Chief Tuckerman has been helpful in providing data .
Mr . Lovi reported that most of his time spent is related to
what the Board is going to be discussing tonight . He stated that
a great deal of time has been taken up with the Commonland
proposal and with the cluster criteria .
REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER - LAWRENCE P . FABBRONI
Mr . Fab:broni was unable to attend the meeting due to another
Town commitment .
ADJOURNED 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 `.DOWN LAW SHALL BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN
OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO BE CONCURRENTLY AMENDED .
( ADJOURNED FROM OCTOBER 19 , 1982s )
Planning Board 3 November 9 , 1982
i
• Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 50 p . m . and accepted for the
record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the
Notice of Adjourned Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca
Journal on November 1 , 1982 and November 4 , 1982 , respectively .
Mr . May stated that each Board member had a copy of the
proposed rules and regulations setting forth the criteria for
cluster dated November 4 , 1982 , adding that this is the draft
document which reflects the results of the Codes and Ordinances
Committee mE! eting . Mr . May asked Mr . Lovi for comment .
Mr . Lovi pointed out that the document is somewhat longer
than the one previously reviewed by the Planning Board on October
19th because what came out of Codes and Ordinances was a great
deal of detail as a result of nailing down the loose ends and
ambiguities . Mr . Lovi noted that in the general regulations he
had subdivided a couple of the sections , e . g . , # 2 became # 3 and
# 4 . Mr . Lovi suggested that public comment might be appropriate
at this time .
Chairman May asked if there were any questions , comments , or
discussion from the public .
Mr . Robert Marion , 1463 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town ,
stated from -the floor that the comment was made that the meeting
• was duly posted and he would like to have clarification as to
what duly posted means . The Secretary described the posting
procedure , being . the Town Clerk ' s Bulletin Board , the notice
box outside the front door of Town Hall , and the affixing of the
notice to the! outside of the Town Hall Meeting Room door .
Mr . Dan Peterson , Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee , 110
Dey Street , Ithaca City , spoke from the floor and stated that he
read the document with something missing , that is , judgment of
the Planning Board , about determining density as specifically
restricted by the density as stated in the present zoning
ordinance . He spoke of R- 15 as " x " number of square feet with an
extra in the basement or one - half the size . He stated that it
seemed to him. that this document would allow the Planning Board
at their discretion to double one unit per 15 , 000 square feet ;
just allow them to double that because the Zoning Board has had a
long history of granting variances . Mr . Peterson stated that
this is a procedure to usurp the authority of the Zoning Board
which has to have a hearing and they determine doubling ,
therefore , the residents lose their right to appear before the
Zoning Board .
Mrs . Grigorov suggested to Mr . Peterson that the definition
of cluster , item # 4 on page 2 , covered his question .
Mr . Peterson re - read the referenced definition and stated
that it does not say that the unit is limited to the basement or
one - half the size .
Planning Board 4 November 9 , 1982
• Mr . Lovi stated that the current zoning ordinance of the
Town of Ithaca permits two dwelling units in one structure on a
minimum size lot in a residential zone . Mr . Lovi stated that , in
clustering , although you are allowed to rearrange the location of
dwelling units permitted within the developable area , the number
of dwelling units remains unchanged .
Mr . Peterson stated that in the previous document he
reviewed it specifically said that you could double the density
of R - 15 - - up and down , side by side .
Mr . Mazza pointed out that the number of people is the same .
Mr . Lovi stated that there are no overall size restrictions
in the zoning ordinance , pointing out that you can have a house
of any size ,, and adding that density refers to persons .
Mr . Peterson reiterated - - in one - half sized units .
Chairman May thanked Mr . Peterson for his comments and asked
if there were any additional comments from the public present .
Mr . Robert Marion , 1463 Slaterville Road , Ithaca Town , spoke
from the floor and noted that the document talks about 30 feet
between dwellings . Mr . Marion stated that he and Mrs . Marion
raised the issue to Mr . Lovi about what they are going to clarify
• about roads , about the buffer . He added , what they are going to
allow near their property , not specifically a parking lot on the
drawing five feet from the boundary . Mr . Marion stated that this
will have to be clarified and removed to take into effect the new
boundary stipulations clarified in this document .
Mr . May stated that the Board is reviewing here tonight
rules and regulations relating to residential clustering ; the
Board is not. talking about any specific development .
Mr . Marion stated that that was right , the Board is talking
about a buffer and certain areas of the boundaries . Mr . May
stated that that was correct and asked what Mr . Marion had a
problem with .
Mr . Marion stated that it was what can be built and what
cannot be built and maps in the Town of Ithaca not in compliance
with these rules and regulations . Mr . Marion stated that as it
exists today it is in non - compliance .
Mr . Buyoucos inquired as to what Mr . Marion meant by " it " .
Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Marion what " it " is . Mr . Marion replied ,
Commonland , and asked if they are going to comply .
Mr . Buyoucos stated that the Town Board has directed the
• Planning Board to adopt rules and regulations setting forth the
criteria pursuant to which the Planning Board may modify the
zoning ordinance . Mr . Buyoucos noted that when the Board comes
Planning Board 5 November 9 , 1982
• to approving a specific proposal or disapproving a specific
proposal , it should keep these in mind . He stated that the Board
can be more restrictive ; the Board can be less restrictive . Mr .
Buyoucos repeated that these are criteria , not official rules and
regulations in the judicial sense , which set the review for any
particular application . Mr . Buyoucos stated that if Mr . Marion
has some question about that , he thought Mr . May should respond
to that , however , it should be made clear to Mr . Marion that
these are criteria only . Mr . Buyoucos noted that when it comes
to application to a specific project the Board can be more or
less restrictive on how a particular application is treated
depending ori the facts in that case .
Mr . May asked Mr . Marion if Mr . Buyoucos ' statements had
helped . Mr ,. Marion replied that they had somewhat , however , he
still had not been told whether they will be applied or not . Mr .
Peterson suggested to Mr . Marion that he use the word ,
retroactively . Mr . Buyoucos responded that that is for a court
to decide if there is a law suit .
Mr . Marion read item # 10 on page 8 and stated that we are
talking about the edge of the pavement on public highways and the
existing boundary line to existing property . Mr . May pointed out
to Mr . Marion that he left out the word " may " in his reading of
the proposed section . Mr . Marion continued and pointed out that
after the pavement you may have shoulders , a ditch , etc . , adding ,
' if you take up shoulder , ditch , with an additional amount of
room , you have more than 40 feet .
Mr . Lovi stated that he did not understand why one should be
subtracting a ditch . Mr . Lovi described the buffer as a buffer
zone in which there may be no buildings , nothing permanent . Mr .
Lovi stated that the reason he used the term pavement rather than
right of way is that then you could have a buffer of 30 feet .
Mr . Lovi pointed out that you are taking away space not usable ,
just a cordon , and thus you have less useful open space which
goes against the very reason for cluster which is to protect open
space . Mr . Lovi noted that in a standard subdivision , there are
yards , etc .
Mr . Marion asked Mr . Lovi why he used the term buffer then
when he is not buffering anything . Mr . Marion commented that a
highway does the same as a building in that there are lights ,
noise , travel . Mr . Marion stated that the idea of a buffer ,
adding if he knows what a buffer and probably he does not , is to
allow the fact that there is a road there , that is , a road from
which the area should be protected .
Mr . Klein asked Mr . Marion how many feet he would consider
an adequate buffer , to which Mr . Marion replied that for his own
personal preference he would much rather see 50 feet for a
• figure . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Marion had indicated that at
the last meeting on this issue when the figure was 30 feet to
Planning Board 6 November 9 , 1982
• which Mr . Marion objected and it was increased to 40 feet in
response to his objection .
Mr . Marion inquired as to how many dwellings in the Town of
Ithaca have a State Highway in their front yard and are going to
be facing another road in the back . Mr . Marion stated that he
was talking about the fact of how things relate to one another in
the terms of the fact that they have got a sandwich .
Mr . Lovi stated to Mr . Marion that he could appreciate his
particular situation , however , the Board is talking about the
drafting of general criteria . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the
Planning Board has the opportunity to set even more stringent
requirements as the case may warrant .
Mr . Klein noted that the term used is " at least forty feet " .
Mr . Peterson stated that the Town lawyer says something
about these -are only guidelines . Mr . May noted that the attorney
referenced the rules and regulations as criteria . Mr . Peterson
stated that sometimes there is " shall " , sometimes " may " , for
example , " may " also require landscaping , in item # 10 . Mr .
Peterson asked if the " shalls " are hard numbers or are they
guidelines which can move in any direction . Mr . Lovi stated that
when he drafted this document , he saw " shall " as mandatory and
" may " as permissive . Mr . Peterson stated that , however the
' Planning Board in its determinations uses this as a guideline for
itself , it was brought up tonight that it may not be mandatory .
Mr . Buyoucos stated , no , that was not brought up tonight .
Mr . Buyoucos , referencing item # 10 , stated that " shall " at least
means what it says , as does " may " . Mr . Buyoucos stated to the
Board that if they want it " shall " or " may " they should change
it .
Chairman May asked if there were any further comments from
the public . There were none . Chairman May declared the Public
Hearing duly closed at 8 : 20 p . m . and asked for Board discussion .
Mr . Mazza , referring to item # 3 on page 2 - - Buffer Area - -
noted that it says " no permanent structures " . He stated that it
could be that parking is allowed there which he thought not ,
suggesting that the words be clarified to mean no parking . Mr .
Buyoucos stated that he thought it better to clearly indicate no
parking because parking is an activity . Mr . Lovi suggested
adding the following : A parking lot shall be considered a
structure for the purpose of this definition . Mr . Mazza wondered
if it should be in the general regulations . Mr . Klein agreed .
Mr . Buyoucos , referring to item # 10 on page 8 in the general
regulations section , noted by way of one of the criteria , the
Board wants the buffer area to be kept clear of things that would
• be harmful to the appearance and to the environment . It was
agreed that a sentence having to do with no parking should be
added to item # 10 .
Planning Board 7 November 9 , 1982
Mr . Mazza , referencing item # 7 on page 7 , suggested the
addition of " and / " before " or similar document " , commenting that
the Board may want to put them in at certain cases .
Mrs . Langhans , referring to item # 8 on page 8 , asked if
there were any restriction for height as to chimneys , antennae ,
lightning rods . Mr . Buyoucos stated that that was a good point
and noted that when clustering a density of structures is
created , as opposed to a conventional grid where there may be a
lot of open space up in the air between the antennae which may be
sticking up which may be permissible . He commented that under
the present set - up when clustering one does not want the property
to look like a substation . He stated that he did think that the
Board might set up a criterion pursuant to its power which gives
the Board the discretion to regulate the height of antennae and
things of that sort , adding that he was responding to Mrs .
Langhan ' s point . Mr . Buyoucos said that he thought the members
of the Board ought to sort out in their minds what. might be okay
for an agricultural zone and what might be alright in a closely
packed area , adding that they could set that up as a criterion
giving the Board some discretion in the matter which could be
exercised to preserve appearance and amenities .
Mr . Klein stated that it was conceivable that a cluster
might have a " center " to which could be added a receiving dish
which could have a detrimental effect .
• Mrs . Grigorov wondered if some general appearance criteria
would be wanted . Mr . Lovi pointed out that item # 11 on page 9
reflects general appearance , reading : " The Planning Board may ,
in the course of subdivision plat review , regulate the exterior
characteristics of any proposed structures in order that the
development shall be , in the judgment of the Planning Board ,
compatible with the surrounding community . "
Mr . May suggested taking out " antennae " and including it in
# 1 . Mr . Klein reiterated that the suggestion was to take
" antennae " out of item # 8 on page 8 , adding that height would be
in the definition , the question being what is meant by height .
Mr . Mazza wondered what " similar appendages " are , and added ,
that height is described in the document as the lowest point at
grade to the highest point . Mr . Buyoucos commented that it is
pretty standard in zoning ordinances to use terms such as
" similar appendages " . Speaking to Mr . Klein , Mr . Buyoucos
indicated that he thought that what Mr . Klein thought we should
have is the point of the top of the building , perhaps peak or
median . Mr . Buyoucos suggested using the " state of the
industry " , adding that it does not have to be put in here and
commenting that situations change such that antennae may some day
be a thimble . Mr . Buyoucos said that he thought Mr . Klein ' s
point was to reference the highest point .
Planning Board 8 November 9 , 1982
' Mr . Mazza thought the Board might want to make a restriction
before any antennae may be put up . Mrs . Grigorov said that she
thought it ought to be under item # 11 .
Mr . Buyoucos explained that these are criteria , the Board
can set any number of conditions if it has a reasonable basis for
them . Mr . Buyoucos pointed out that if you have a condition that
says that antennae shall be of such height as may be permitted by
the zoning ordinance , the only trouble is what are the standards .
Mr . Buyoucos noted that the new zoning ordinance is going to have
restriction : on the antennae , however , the Board may put some
standards in this document not too unreasonably high .
Mr . Mal, felt that a necessary standard would be that such an
appendage not fall on another person ' s property . Mr . Buyoucos
stated that this is what the planner can now do and suggested
that the Board make their thoughts clear .
Mr . Lovi stated to the Board that if a site plan is
presented , the Board has the power to say - - 1 ) we do not want to
see antennaE! all over the place ; 2 ) use cable ; 3 ) use a master
dish ; 4 ) do not have individual stalks all over the place .
Mrs . Langhans wondered about what happens after a person
buys a home . Mr . Buyoucos suggested that if there is a specific
height limitation the person be required to obtain a building
• permit . Mr . Klein commented that sometime a height regulation is
arbitrary .
Mr . LOVi stated that another point on which he needed
guidance is solar collectors , for example - - on the roof with a
certain profile ; supplemental solar collector ; another panel -
five feet over the roof , and so on . Mr . Lovi wondered if it were
regulated by " similar appendages " . Mr . May stated that
personally he thought it best under the regulations . Mr . Lovi
suggested that perhaps it should be under item # 11 - - solar
collectors .
It was agreed that item # 8 on page 8 should indicate that
any building shall be no more than three storeys or thirty ( 30 )
feet in height and height should be in the definitions describing
from where to where . A discussion of " similar appendages "
followed with Mr . Buyoucos commenting that it is a useful phrase .
Mr . Mazza indicated that he still had a problem with it . Mr .
Klein said that he felt that the items out of # 8 belong in # 11 .
It appeared that " similar appendages " and antennae may be moved
into # 11 .
Mr . Buyoucos pointed out to the Board that considering this
document for adoption tonight would be difficult since changes
are being made .
Planning Board 9 November 9 , 1982
• Mr . Lovi stated that he would like to mention a couple of
good points which Mr . Buyoucos had made when they discussed the
criteria and which he agreed would be useful , citing item # 8 on
page 3 where a " lot " is defined and stating that he would like to
suggest " a parcel of land or a volume of space which may be
occupied by a principal building . . . " ; citing item # 5 on page 6
and suggesting " The considerations which the Planning Board may
use in order to limit the number of dwelling units or lots which
may be developed in any cluster development include . . . " ; citing
item # 5a and suggesting adding " enjoyment or value . . . " ; citing on
page 7 after- item # g ) and adding another sub - paragraph " h ) will
the density of clustered dwelling units result in a concentration
of residential occupancy or other activities which will affect
the appearance or amenities of open spaces in a neighborhood . "
Mr . Buyoucos commented that Mr . Lovi was referring to what
he ( Buyoucos ) talked about with him ( Lovi ) , adding that he
( Buyoucos ) had thought about it and felt that clustering results
in a concentration of occupancy and use in a particular area of a
parcel . He pointed out that the Board will consider the effect
which the density of such clustered construction and use will
have on the appearance and the amenities of open spaces in a
neighborhood . Mr . Buyoucos stated that he was a little bit leery
of what he had suggested earlier under 5a , commenting that
everybody thinks that when there is development their use ,
enjoyment , and so on , of their property is injured , and they wish
• to retain the pristine virginal condition in which they found the
land . He stated that this is not possible under today ' s social
and economic conditions . Mr . Buyoucos suggested that the Board
may want to put " a " and " h " together , adding that there should be
a recognition somewhere in these criteria that cluster does
cluster . Mr . Buyoucos pointed out to the Board that it has the
right to mandate cluster and suggested that the Board should
consider density , occupation , and use though not in terms of
square feet . He suggested that the Board can look at other
zoning ordinances ; look at criteria for special permits by Boards
of Appeal or Planning Boards . He noted that one example is the
effect of a proposed use on the surrounding land , adding that all
it says is - - consider it , commenting that one house may mean
that the vista is not the same . He suggested that the Board must
ask themselvE! s - what is the effect , material , aesthetic , etc . ,
adding that " a " and " h " might do it in combination , or , maybe
even in two separate sentences .
Mr . Lovi stated that he would like to take that sentence and
put it back in the preamble . Mr . Lovi spoke of the clustering
concept . Mr . Buyoucos suggested putting that in also .
Mr . Klein spoke of unbuildable land and commented that he
thinks of practical , physical reasons for excluding unbuildable
land . Mr . LOVi noted Mr . Klein ' s comment and stated that he
' agreed .
Planning Board 10 November 9 , 1982
• Chairman May asked if there any other areas for comment .
Mr . Lovi pointed out a minor correction on page 7 , item " f ) " ,
line 1 - - correct " or " to " of " .
Mr . Klein stated that he had two more comments - - on page 5 ,
item # 3 , he noted that requiring a grid plan has been inserted
and he wondered if that is in conflict with item # 2 . Mr . Lovi
responded that that was a good point and offered a suggestion
such as - - " in determining . . . the Planning Board shall require the
developer . . . "
Mr . Lovi pointed out to the Board that in item # 1 in the
general regulations ( page 4 ) agricultural zones have been
excluded as an area for clustering at this time even though in
the enabling legislation the Town Board delegated the authority
to cluster in residential and agricultural zones .
Mr . Klein wondered if the Board wanted to discuss buffer
areas . He :Mated that he had no particular problem , indicating
that the use! of the terms " at least " and " may require " gives the
Board a fair amount of discretion . Mr . Klein commented that if a
back yard is facing a road , the Board could respond to that
particular situation . Mr . Klein said that he had wondered about
" edge of the pavement " rather than " right of way " .
Mr . Mav stated that the only question in his mind on
• buffering had to do with the very good point made by Mr . Lovi
when he talked about an awful lot of square footage and really
defeating the purpose of cluster . Mr . May commented that 40 feet
can be an awful lot of land .
Mr . Lovi stated that he had one other question for the Board
which was raised by the Codes and Ordinance Committee regarding a
clubhouse or lodge , a permitted use under the current zoning
ordinance , so many feet from a property line . It was agreed that
Mr . Lovi should respond to the matter of a clubhouse or lodge by
definition and within the general regulations section .
Chairman May inquired of Mr . Lovi what his opinion of the
next step might be . Mr . Lovi replied that it will take him a day
or so to make revisions and confer with Mr . Buyoucos . Mr . Lovi
stated that he thought it reasonable for the Planning Board to
adjourn this meeting . Mr . Buyoucos suggested an adjournment to a
specific date and time . Mr . May stated that the SEQR review of
the rules and regulations will be done at that time . Mr .
Buyoucos reiterated that he thought the Board should adjourn to a
definite date and if , for any reason , the rules and regulations
have not been revised at that time , then with a quorum present ,
the Board may call for further adjournment and report at that
time .
• MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . Edward
Mazza :
Planning Board 11 November 9 , 1982
RESOLVED , that this November 9 , 1982 meeting of the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby is adjourned to Thursday ,
November 11 , 1982 at 4 : 30 p . m . , to be held in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Grigorov , Mazza , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
The motion to adjourn having been duly carried , the Chair
declared the November 9 ; 1982 meeting of the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board adjourned at 9 : 30 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•