HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-12-05 s
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date O
• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk
DECEMBER 5 , 1989
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , December 5 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov , Robert Miller , Virginia
Langhans , James Baker , Stephen Smith , Montgomery May , Robert
Kenerson , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Susan C . Beeners
( Town Planner ) , Erik Whitney ( Acting Town Engineer ) , George
Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Rose Gostanian Monkemeyer , Herbert N . Monkemeyer , Jim
Ainslie , Karl Niklas , Ed Cobb , Kinga Gergely , Myrtle
and John Whitcomb , John Novarr , Douglas Look , Thomas D .
Hoard , Margo Yntema , Matthew Hastie , Evan Monkemeyer ,
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 00
p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerks ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on November 27 , 1989 , and November 30 , 1989 ,
respectively , together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail
of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the property under
• discussion , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the
City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and
upon the applicant and / or agent , as appropriate , on November 28 , 1989 .
Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled , as required by the New York State Department of State ,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control .
AGENDA ITEM : CONSIDERATION OF FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN
BOARD ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING REVIEW PROJECT AND ON RECOMMENDED
FURTHER WORK ,
Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted
matter at 7 : 05 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above .
Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that an opportunity has to be
made , not only to have some additional time to review Mr . Brand ' s
recommendations , but also there are a number of publications that
should be reviewed . Virginia Langhans commented that a sub - committee
is definitely needed . Ms . Beeners noted that in the long - range it
might be a good practice to have a once - a -month Planning Board
comprehensive planning session , and she sees three committees as
possibilities , but it is all assuming there would be some adequate
support for it , adding , that a once - a - month Planning Board meeting
would be when work by those sub - committees / committees would be brought
for review by the Planning Board . Ms . Beeners remarked that she was
• talking about a ( CPS ) Comprehensive Planning Sub - committee , a ( CAC )
Conservation Advisory Council , and a ( C & 0 ) Codes and Ordinances
Committee , which did exist in the past , but has always been rather
Planning Board - 2 - December 5 , 1989
• hampered by the: work load of its participants . Ms . Beeners commented
that the second Planning Board meeting of the month would be for
developers to come before the Board .
Ms . Beeners noted that the Planning Department would be hiring a
planning technician , hopefully by mid - January 1990 .
11
Ms . Beeners stated that Larry Salmi , of the Town Highway
Department , and the planning staff , have been working on the
pre - Census review , and which has to be in by January 5 , 1990 , adding
that the work involves the completion of a parcel by parcel
identification .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Stephen Smith :
WHEREAS :
The Planning Board , on December 5 , 1989 , has reviewed and
discussed the record of public comment received by Stuart I . Brown
Associates following the November 14 , 1989 Public Hearing on the
Comprehensive Planning Review Project , the Addendum prepared by the
Consultants foljlowing that meeting , and the recommendations on further
• work prepared b,y the Town Planner ,
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the . Planning Board recommends to the Town Board the
following
a . Acceptance of the Addendum prepared by the Consultants .
b . Recommendations made by the Consultants in their Report ,
Executive Summary , and Addendum should be further reviewed
during the definition of further comprehensive planning
improvement work , along with other documents and records
related to the comprehensive plan review program .
c . Continuance of an intensified comprehensive planning
improvement program should be a Town priority . Such program
and effort should consist of prioritized improvements to
address current as well as future needs .
d . Authorization of appropriate levels of funding and the
settling of other commitments , including increased public
participation , staffing , establishment of committees , and
other' facilities , to conduct such a program .
2 . That the Planning Board further recommends that the general scope
• of work for further comprehensive planning improvements include
the following :
Planning Board - 3 - December 5 , 1989
• a . The development of an initial , strategic action plan for
further comprehensive planning work , such action plan to be
revised on a periodic basis during the process of
comprehensive planning improvements .
b . Improvement of procedures related to land use review ,
administration , and enforcement .
c . Development of a Statement of Goals and Objectives ,
initially as a policy guideline to guide the comprehensive
planning improvement program Action Plan , with such
Statement subject to further modification and development
during a process of public review and further information
review and analysis .
d . Implementation of legislative amendments in a phased program
coordinated with other comprehensive planning program
improvements .
e . Development of a Master Plan Document in an appropriate
format so as to be further defined .
3 . That the Planning Board further recommends that the work effort
for comprehensive planning improvements include the following :
• a . A substantial part of the current work effort and work
schedule of the Planning Department and the Planning Board
should be dedicated to the comprehensive planning
improvement program .
b . Assistance from other departments of the Town government
should be given to the program .
c . A consultant or consultants should be retained to assist
Town staff and boards in the program . The further
definition of work scope for such consultant or consultants
should receive priority attention . The consultant or
consultants could assist in guiding the program , in the
evaluation of information , or in the conducting of special
studies .
d . An appropriate level of intermunicipal cooperation and
participation should be defined with respect to
intermunicipal or interagency comprehensive planning issues .
e . An appropriate level of effort and funding should be
committed to the development of a geographic information
system , coordinated with other local agencies .
f . Committees or subcommittees should be established for
specific functions , as described below , provided that an
• appropriate level of support is provided for their operation
and maximum effectiveness .
Planning Board - 4 - December 5 , 1989
• g . Any search for persons to serve on any newly - formed
citizen - involved boards , committees , or subcommittees , as
well as vacancies occurring on existing Boards , should be
widely publicized .
h . A Committee should be established , comparable in form and
function to the 1989 Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee ,
with its general responsibilities to include assistance and
recommendation to the Planning Board and the Town Board on
the format , development , and implementation of a work plan
for comprehensive planning improvements , and with - its
specific responsibilities to include consideration of the
following :
i . The use of a survey to further define land use and
other planning issues , goals , and objectives .
ii . The preparation of a statement of goals and objectives .
iii . The formulation of a " Master Plan " .
iv . The retention of a consultant or consultants to assist
the Town in conducting a comprehensive planning
improvement program .
. i . A Committee should be established to assist the Town boards
and staff in the following :
i . The improvement and implementation of plans and
policies related to environmental management , open
space , natural areas , and agriculture .
ii . The review of development applications in order to make
recommendation to the Town boards on environmental
assessment with respect to open space , natural areas ,
and agriculture .
j . A Committee should be established to assist the Town boards
in the implementation of a program of improvements with
respect to codes , ordinances , and other land use
regulations .
4 . That the Planning Board further recommends as immediate action
items :
a . Completion of a Natural Resource Inventory and development
of a Conservation Plan or Conservation Overlay Map .
b . Coordination of comprehensive planning work with engineering
studies , such as infrastructure inventory and planning .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Kenerson , Miller , Smith .
Planning Board - 5 - December 5 , 1989
• Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of
Further Recommendations to the Town Board on the Comprehensive
Planning Review Project and on Recommended Further Work duly closed at
9 : 00 P . M .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE
PLAN FOR COLLEGE CIRCLE , LOCATED AT 1031 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 43 - 1 - 2 . 21 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT , PREVIOUSLY
KNOWN AS " DANBY ROAD HOUSING " AND ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
BOARD ON NOVEMBER 15 , 1988 , WITH SUCH MODIFICATIONS TO INCLUDE A
REDISTRIBUTION OF DWELLING UNITS AND A MODIFICATION OF BUILDING
FOOTPRINTS .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 01 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as - noted above .
Maps were appended to the bulletin board .
Mr . Thomas Hoard , of Novarr - Mackesey Development Co . , approached
the Board and stated that the Planning Board had approved the
• site plan back in November of 1988 . Mr . Hoard pointed out that at the
time of the preliminary site plan there was no indication of what
feasibility was represented in terms of numbers of units . Mr . Hoard
said that the final approval had set the limit of 150 apartments , and
set a limit of 600 tenants .
Mr . Hoard stated that the only thing that has changed is that the
developer has gone from 150 apartments to the new plan of 149
apartments , and a management office in Building # 1 . Mr . Hoard stated
that there are 21 two - story buildings .
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak .
Herbert Monkemeyer , of 1058 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that his family owns property to the east of the project ,
adding that he was particularly interested if this would change the
road situation as it is laid out up to this point . Mr . Novarr
answered that " this " building to the north is a few feet longer making
" this " road a " few feet longer . Mr . Monkemeyer wondered about the
roads to the east , with Mr . Novarr responding that everthing else is
the same as the prior plan . Mr . Monkemeyer asked if any provision had
been made for the sewer going up the hill . Mr . Novarr replied that he
has conformed to all the requirements . Town Planner Susan Beeners
stated that the project had been approved as a private utilities
project . Mr . Novarr stated that there was a provision for making one
• sewer larger to accommodate development above the College Circle
project . Mr . Novarr said that he has an approved sewer plan that
accommodates Mr . Monkemeyer ' s concern .
Planning Board - 6 - December 5 , 1989
• Mr . Karl Niklas , of 1005 Danby Road , approached the Board and
read from a prepared statement . [ Statement attached hereto as Exhibit
1 . ]
Myrtle Whitcomb , of 233 Troy Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that she represents some of the public who support her being at
the meeting . Ms . Whitcomb remarked that she comes to the meetings and
sees presentations and , as a member of the public , she takes the
presentations seriously . Ms . Whitcomb noted that she takes the
Planning Board approval , the plan , and the project as a promise , as a
contract , then when changes are made , somehow , inadvertently , without
anyone ' s knowledge , and certainly without her knowledge as a member of
the public , then she thinks that is a breach , that is a broken
promise , and that is a breach of a contract . Ms . Whitcomb stated that
she agreed with Mr . Niklas , in that there should be some kind of a
process put into place so that these kinds of things do not happen ,
and they do not come back to be the Planning Board ' s responsibility ,
and her responsibility as a member of the public . Mr . Novarr
responded that he did not breach any contract ; he contacted the Town
of Ithaca and asked if some changes could be made that were , in his
mind , minor . Mr . Novarr stated that he received a list of what were
considered to be minor changes , which he made , and which were not done
without anybody ' s knowledge , but were obviously done without the
knowledge of Ms . Whitcomb . Mr . Novarr stated that no one from his end
made any attempt to put anything over on anybody .
• Evan Monkemeyer , of 123 E . King Road , spoke from the floor and
commented to the Planning Board that he thought any development is not
a perfect science , and construction is not a perfect science .
At this point , Chairperson Grigorov stated that she had received
a telephone call from Mrs . Pech , of 1021 Danby Road . Chairperson
Grigorov commented that Mrs . Pech had expressed a concern about having
more students breathing down her neck . Mr . Novarr remarked that the
number of students have not changed .
Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone had any comments on the
actual effect of the changes .
Herbert Monkemeyer , of 1058 Danby Road , approached the Board and
asked where the possible connection from the project would be to
Ithaca College , Mr . Hoard pointed out the location on the appended
map . Mr . Monkemeyer wondered if the location would be affected in any
way by the proposed change . Mr . Hoard replied , " no . Mr . Monkemeyer
wondered about parkland . Mr . Novarr responded that he did not think
parkland was being offered . Attorney Barney offered that Mr . Novarr ' s
development is zoned MR , which is different from Residential .
Mr . Novarr stated that he has reason to believe that the City bus
service would shortly service Route 96B .
• There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing
at 9 : 50 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Planning Board = 7 - December 5 , 1989
There being no further discussion , Chairperson Grigorov asked if
• anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of proposed Modifications to the
Site Plan for " College Circle " , located at 1031 Danby Road , Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 2 . 2 , previously known as " Danby
Road Housing " and originally approved by the Planning Board on
November 15 , 1988 , with such modifications to include a
redistribution of dwelling units and a modification of building
footprints .
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency , and for which the
Town Planner has recommended a negative declaration of
environmental significance .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental
review , make and hereby does make a negative declaration of
environmental significance for this Type I action .
• At this point , Ms . Beeners referred to the SEQR , Part I . Page 3
Be PROJECT DESCRIPTION , li , which states : " Dimensions ( in feet ) of
largest proposed structure 25 - 33 ' pitched roofs on 2 - story buildings
height : 50 width ; 245 length . " Ms . Bee ners stated that the height
should be changed to 25 - 301
.
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Kenerson , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of proposed Modifications to the
Site Plan for " College Circle " , located at 1031 Danby Road , Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 2 . 2 , previously known as " Danby
Road Housing " and originally approved by the Planning Board on
November 15 , 1988 , with such modifications to include a
redistribution of dwelling units and a modification of building
footprints .
• 2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board , acting as
Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on December 5 , 1989 ,
made a negative declaration of environmental significance .
Planning Board - 8 - December 5 , 1989
• 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on December 5 , 1989 , has
reviewed the revised Alternate Site Plan 1 , as revised through
December 4 , 1989 , and other materials .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant approval of
the proposed modifications from the Site Plan approved by the Planning
Board on November 15 , 1988 , such modifications being shown on a Site
Plan prepared by HOLT Architects , entitled " ' College Circus ' ,
1033 / 1035 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca , New York " , dated March 7 , 1989 ,
revised April 14 , 1989 , and November 29 , 1989 , and further denominated
" Alternate Site Plan 1 " , dated 4 December 1989 , and such modifications
being the following :
a . BLDGS . 1 - 4 :
Increased footprint from 38 ' x 50 ' to 43111 " x 5018 " .
Decreased west setback by 10 ' on each building .
Replacement of Apt . lA with Office .
b . BLDGS . 20 - 24 :
Change in number of dwelling units and bedrooms to eight
3 -bedroom units and two 5 - bedroom units .
Revised footprint measuring 17218 " x 391
.
• c . BLDGS . 28 - 31 :
Change in number of dwelling units to 8 dwelling units with
3 bedrooms each .
Revised footprint measuring 122 ' x 391
.
Revised north side yard setback from 100 ' to 931
.
Reduced west yard setback from 89 ' to 881
.
d . BLDGS . 32 - 37 :
Change in number of dwelling units to eight 4 - bedroom units
and four 5 - bedroom units .
Revised footprint measuring 245 ' x 4514 " .
Reduced north side yard setback from 80 ' to 45 ' .
Reduced parking lot north setback from 65 ' to 491
.
e . BLDGS . 66 - 68 ; 69 - 71 :
Change from 21 - story to 2 - story buildings .
f . BLDGS . 55 - 57 :
Reduced north side yard from 40 ' to 351
.
East yard changed from 75 ' to 701
.
g . Other building footprint modifications as shown on the
revised plan .
h . Extension of the northwest segment of the roadway / parking
area approximately 16 feet to the north .
• With such grant of modifications subject to the following conditions
and requirements :
Planning Board - 9 - December 5 , 1989
• 1 . All buildings shall conform to Town zoning requirements with
respect to height .
2 . Approval of final , revised site working drawings for each Phase
by the Town Engineer and Town Planner prior to the issuance of
building permits for buildings within each Phase , with no further
deviation from the revised site plan without approval by the
Planning Board , except that minor deviations ( defined as a change
in footprint size or any dimension of any building by not more
than 2 % or a movement of any building from its location on the
site plan by no more than four feet ) may be approved by the Town
Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , Town Planner , and
Town Planning Board Chairwoman by a written statement of such
approval , signed by all three , with such approval of such
deviation to be reported to the Planning Board at its next
regularly scheduled meeting .
3 . Approval of revised landscape plans and installation schedules by
the Town Planner , with such revisions to include modifications to
the work limit lines to minimize areas of site disturbance , and
modifications to proposed plantings within site buffer areas , and
with the approval of modified work limit lines to occur prior to
the issuance of building permits for buildings within each phase ,
and with the approval of final landscaping plans to occur prior
to the issuance of certificates of compliance for buildings
• within each phase .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Kenerson , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of proposed
Modifications to the Site Plan for College Circle duly closed at 10 : 10
p . m .
AGENDA ITEM : " AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION GUIDELINES " - -
PRESENTATION BY MATTHEW HASTIE , GRADUATE STUDENT , CITY AND REGIONAL
PLANNING , CORNELL UNIVERSITY ( FOR CRP 558 - FIELD WORK ) ,
Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted
matter at 10 : 15 p . m .
Maps were appended on the bulletin board .
Matthew Hastie addressed the Board and stated that his
presentation was the result of his taking a course taught by Prof .
Stuart Stein , Mr . Hastie pointed out the legally constituted Ag
Districts .
• Mr . Hastie offered that , basically , his project for the course
was to work for , and with , the Town Planning staff .
Planning Board - 10 - December 5 , 1989 .
• At this point , Mr . Hastie referred to , and explained to those
present , the document prepared by him . [ FARMLAND PROTECTION IN THE
TOWN OF ITHACA - Potential Policies and Related Planning Issues ,
attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . ]
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz mentioned property taxes in
the Ag District , in that , in a report by Senator Kuhl , one of the big
problems with New York agriculture is that New York farmers usually
pay a lot more property tax per acre , per assessed value , than farmers
in neighboring states . Mr . Hastie commented that New York State does '
not have any inheritance tax benefits .
Town Planner Susan Beeners indicated that one small change should
be made in the presented document - Page 12 , East Hill " Recently
approved projects which may be developed on actively farmed land or in
Tompkins County Agricultural Districts include : " Ms . Beeners stated
that the above should be changed to read " Recently proposed projects
involving either actively farmed land or land located in Tompkins
County Agricultural Districts include : " .
At this time , Mr . Jim Ainslie , of 245 Hayts Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that he represents agriculture on the Economic
Advisory Board , Mr . Ainslie wondered how many active farmers there
are to work the Ag District land in the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Hastie
responded that he had talked with Monica Crispin , and was given some
• names , but was unable to contact them .
Mr . Ainslie offered that Board Member James Baker had noted that
on West Hill , with the exception of Eastern Breeders , there are four
active farms . Mr . Ainslie said that the average age of a dairyman in
Tompkins County , or in the State , is 55 years of age .
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any other comments .
There being none , Chairperson Grigorov declared the discussion on the
above - noted matter duly closed at 10 : 45 p . m .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairperson Grigorov declared the December 5 , 19891F
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 47
Pam *
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•
• To : Members of the Town o n Planning Board
and Town Staff
From : Karl Niklas
Subject : Protocol for Site Plan Modifications
The process dealing with site plan modifications should ensure that
residents are not subjected to significant deviations from the plan or that
they have an opportunity to comment on modifications before the Town ' s
staff approves them . The process should ensure that developers are not
subjected to ambiguous or conflicting instructions for proceeding with site
plan modifications . And the process must ensure that members of the Town
Planning Board are informed of all significant modifications or deviations
from the plan they initially approved. These three features of the process
are minimal . Residents and Board Members cannot afford the time or the
money to be constantly investigating each n every, ase of each and every
development . Clearly the circumstances �`r$iodifications of the
College Circle site plan indicate that the process is flawed and has failed
the residents , the developer , and the Town Planning Board . It failed
residents because we were never informed that modifications of building
• " footprints " were approved . We found out because we were diligent . Had we
not been so , one wonders what would have happened. The process failed the
developer who now comes before the Town Planning Board and most probably
must spend extra money to satisfy the Town and the Community . The
process also failed the Town Board who now has to invest more time and
effort in reviewing not just the site plan modifications but the
circumstances leading to this meeting . We can no longer afford to indulge in
wasting time , effort and money. Nor can we run the risk of subjecting each
other to legal action , We must come to the painful recognition that we have
a process that simply does not work .
The circumstances leading to this meeting can be put to good use , They
teach us where and how the process has failed and how to modify the
process to improve it . It is suggested that four changes be made in the
Town ' s protocol in dealing with site plan approval :
( 1 ) Architectural drawings should be required when a final site plan is
considered. These should be made public before the public meeting of
the Town Planning Board . Residents and the Town have the right and
the obligation to know in detail what a development will look like
when it is finished .
• ( 2 ) We must define specific guidelines for the Town ' s staff indicating
what represents minor modifications of a site plan . It is suggested
that these guidelines be drafted in terms of each specific site plan and
in terms of each site plan ' s Compliance Form ,
EXHIBIT 1
� . ( 3 ) The Town' s Compliance forms are much too general and need to be
redrafted to be site specific . The Compliance forms should be drafted
when the final site plan resolution comes before the Town Planning
Board.
( 4) We must determine who has responsibility to sign - off a project before
a building permit or a certificate of occupancy is issued . It is
suggested that no permit or certificate is issued unless the following
staff sign - off ( in writing ) ( a ) the Town Engineer, ( b ) the Town
planner, ( c ) the Zoning Officer/ Building Inspector, and ( d ) the Chair of
the Town Planning Board.
Without these safe guards , we will continue to have a planning process
that lacks adequate attention to detail ; we will continue to have residents
subjected to unforeseen and totally unnecessary meetings ; and we will
continue to subject our Town' s staff and Board Members to unnecessary
criticism and possible litigation. The changes in our Town ' s policy dealing
with development suggested here would ultimately save the Town money and
time .
EXHIBIT 1
•
FARMLAND PROTECTION IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA
Potential Policies and � 'Related Planning Issues
Matthew Hastie
• Prepared for the Town of Ithaca Planning Department
Presented to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
December 5 , 1989
i
EXHIBIT 2
OPENING REMARKS
This presentation and the accompanying outline are the result
of taking a fieldwork course taught by Stu Stein in Cornell' s
department of City and Regional Planning . My project for the course
was to work with the Ithaca Town Planner, Susan Beeners, and the
Assistant Town Planner, George Frantz, to comes up with a list of
possible mechanisms that could be used to protect agricultural land
within the Town of Ithaca, and to do some inventorying of
agricultural lands within the Town .
I came up with this list through researching written materials
on farmland protection ; soliciting advice and guidance from Cornell
professors interested in farmland protection and local planning
issues , telephone conservations ' with Gary Evans and Monika Crispin
of. Tompkins County; and of course lots of help from Susan. and
George, and guidance from Doug Foster, who is a Teaching Assistant
• for Stu 's course . I am presenting . this list of mechanisms along with
other. information and issues that are important to consider in
developing ' a farmland protection policy.
These mechanisms and issues should. be further reviewed for
. their appropriateness for the Town of Ithaca and it' s more general
goals of land use - management, including housing, transportation ,
recreation, open space and development considerations . For those of
you who want to pursue this information I am providing a list of
references (annotated) that I used in coming up with this outline and
a list of sample protection programs which will, be available through
the Town Planning Office .
- 1 -
TABLE OF :CONTENTS •
Se=
i
Opening Remarks 1
Goals and Objectives - 2 .,
u
Programs g Currently in Place 4
Lands to be Protected 6
Protection Mechanisms 7
Other Planning Considerations and Measures 1 - 1
Sample Protection Programs and Ordinances 14
Reference Sources 16
•
EXHIBIT 2
• Goals and Objectives
A . Statement of the need for protection of Agricultural Land
1 . Agricultural Land is a valuable resource
a . Prime agricultural soils cannot be easily reclaimed for
future use
b . As prime Agricultural Land decreases in the United States
and the demand for farm products increases, farming . of
lands in this part of the e country may become increasingly
economically attractive
c. The loss of Agricultural Land is also a loss of land with
desirable open space and aesthetics characteristics
d . The loss of Agricultural land leads to a loss of the farming
community that supports it, a -- loss of jobs in the
community, and a loss of the rural character of the
community which is an intangible but never-the-less
valuable asset of the town
• 2 . Farmers and farmland face. development pressures from :
a . Tax burdens
b . ' Conflict with surrounding non -Agricultural land users
c . The Uncertainty Principle : farmers are less willing to
make needed large capital expenditures if they are
uncertain as to whether or not farming their land will be
viable in the future.
.d . Critical mass : a certain amount of farm business is
necessary to sustain farm related businesses, such as
equipment and supply dealers that farmers in turn
depend on to make farming viable.
e . Lack of farming continuation by younger family members
Be The Town must clarify the objectives of Agricultural Land
Protection measures such as :
1 . Protection of . faIrmland as a future resource
2 . Protection of LaLmLine& as an existing and future industry
3 . Protection of farmland as . openspace .
• 4 . A combination of some or all of the above
- 2 -
EXHIBIT 2
C Protection measures should be designed with these goals and
objectives in mind
- 3 -
• Programs Currently in Place ,
W
A . State level
- u a�
1 . A statedolic '
p y ( agricultural district creation declaration of
intent, article 25AA, section 300) to "conserve, protect, and
encourage the development and improvement of its
agricultural land for production 'of food and other
ag {ricultural products " and. '' to conserve and protect
agricultural lands . as valued natural and ecological resources
which provide needed . open spaces for clean air sheds as
well as for aesthetic purposes'- , which can be used to . help
legally support a town plan
2 . Legislation enabling the . ;formation of county - Agricultural
Districts (Chapter 25AA)
3 . General Municipal Law ( Chapter 16A; See. 247) which
provides for acquisition of lands for open ` space uses
4 . Real Property Tax Law . gives tax exemptions to ' new farm
buildings (Chapter 50, Article 4, Sec, 483 )
5 . SEAR. regulations exempt some . agricultural activities , such as
farm buildings and structures from environmental review
permit requirements {
6 . Study bill being introduced into the legislature for 1990 by .
Senator Kuhl providing measures to strengthen the states
farmland .protection mechanisms including ;
a . Further tax reductions (income taxes) for agricultural
land {
b . Prohibitions against certain nuisance laws . which would
apply to farming , activities . '
c. Amendment of a Dti ,l Property Tax Law to include
agricultural land and structures in the Homestead Clause
d . Creation of county farmland protection boards (which
could among other things , attempt to buy or lease
development rights from viable farm operations . )
e . More protection against local regulation
- 4 - ,
EXHIBIT 2
I
f
i
f. Authorization . for, . counties .to . create farmland protection
funds
B. County level - Agricultural Districts
I . Establishes provisions for agricultural evaluation assessment
of property taxes
2 . Protection against . local regulation
3 . Eminent Domain :protection
4 . Restriction on public funds - for- projects benefitting non -
Agricultural users (eg : -sewer and ' water facilities )
5 . Instruct State agencies to encourage 'farming
{ 6 . Limit . special service tax assessments on farmland (eg :
sewer, water, landfill , non -farm drainage levies )
C. Town level
1 . Agricultural Zones
a . Allows agricultural uses and Residence District R30 uses
b . Includes 30 feet exterior height ., restrictions for non -
Agricultural buildings
c. Farm buildings have no height restrictions
2 . R30 restrictions •
a . Agricultural lands fall under R30 lot size (30,000 sq ft if
sewer and water lines . are available; one acre if no sewer
or water lines are available), yard , sign , etc . regulations
b. Subdivision regulations also .apply ..
j - approval of Planning Board -for subdivision
- exempts from � subdivision regulations lots over 5 acres
used solely for agriculture
environmental review requirements
• recreational : open space requirements
- clustered subdivision requirements
I
i
i
i
- 5 -
u
• Lands to ' be Protected
3
A . Which lands to protect depends upon objectives ie : protection
of � current farming industry, ' protection of land as a future
resource , and preservation of open space are different
objectives and the choice of using a certain combination of
them n will affect the -quantity of lands protected eg : if one
objec11
tive of the town's protection measures is to protect
poten`tiat (but currently inactive) land as a ' future agricultural
resource, inactive lands with good soil might fall under the
protection measures
Be, Overlay maps have been made showing the following :
1 . Land use / Land cover based on maps made in 1986
updated from 1984 aerial photography and a Fall 1989
( windshield) survey of Active and Inactive Agricultural
Lands
2 . Prime Agricultural soils
• 3 . . . Areas currently in Town Agricultural Zones and Tompkins
County Agricultural Districts
G Thesell "
maps can assist in the decision making process regarding
the selection of lands for protection
D. Should also consider viability and practicality "of farming
particular parcel ; ie : protect both large farms and smaller
diversified farms; needs •of smaller sustainable ` agricultural
11
businesses often not addressed .
- 6 -
EXHIBIT 2
i Protection Mechanisms
I
A . Revision of the Town' s current A ricuWiral Zoning regulations
j and rezoning of any additional lands desired to fall under
zoning regulations which could .include one or more of the
following :
1 . Large lot . size requirements
' 2 . Quarter/quarter zoning requirements
i
3 . Sliding scale subdivision requirements
4 . Conditional use regulations
5 . Exclusive use regulations
6 . Adapt existing zoning policies to agricultural uses
a . Consider existing local farm related businesses in revising
zoning , ego farmstands
b . . Actually mandate . clustering in a way . that results in the
conservation or maintenance of agricultural land use
7 . Advantages
a . Low cost after regulations are put into effect .
b . Zoning is usually a fairly effective regulatory mechanism
c. Should be legally defensible ,
8 . Disadvantages
a . Farmers are traditionally notreceptive to zoning
regulations
b . Rezoning or revision of zoning- ; regulations can be an
involved and difficult process
c. Large lot size regulations have been known to backfire by
cutting up farmland and exacerbating the problem .
Sliding scale regulations are subject to a lesser degree to
the same problem .
B. Creation of an Agricultural Overlay Zone_
1 . Description
a . Land covered by overlay zone has same permissible uses
. as defined by underlying zone plus added restrictions
b . Further possible restrictions
heightened site review process
- .restrictions against non - farm buildings S
- " non development " restrictions
2 . Advantages
a . Does not require changing existing zoning regulations or
delineations
b . Has been used in other areas and should be legally
defensible
3 . Disadvantages
a . Farmers not receptive to zoning
b . Possible higher . future costs than (A) for increased review
process
C . Will require modification of current map or creation of
new overlay zoning map
C Transfer of Developme_ n=gam
1 . 'Description
a . Agricultural area designated as . sending area and
landowners receive compensation for development rights
transferred
to receiving area -
b .
reab . Property owner in receiving area - acquires (purchases )
• transferred development rights and is allowed to raise
normal density allowances for development
c . Some cap is put on density allowances
2 . Advantages
a . Farmer is not simply restricted from . some uses ' of his/her
land but is compensated for - this restriction
b . This method ,is relatively inexpensive for the town
relative to the purchase of development rights or the
land itself
3 . Disadvantages
a . For process to work, there must be a strong market for
development rights which may not be the case in the
Town of Ithaca at this. time
b'. Although this mechanism has been allowed in other
municipalities , it has not been frequently k used and is an
uncertain method froma legal or feasibility standpoint
c . This . mechanism is complex and requires professional
• administration
- R -
EXHIBIT 2
i
I
D. Public Conservation Easements
1 . The town can purchase a conservation easement (essentially
1
purchasing the developmentrights ) from the landowner
2 . Advantages
a . The farmer is in some way compensated for the
restriction of his land use
b . This is a fairly strong method of protection if it ends up
being legally defensible in the long run
c. Tax burdens for farmers can be reduced - land without
development rights is fairly well guaranteed lower tax
rates regardless of adjacent development
3 . Disadvantages
i a . This method is fairly expensive, although less expensive
j than paying fee simple for the land
b . Conservation easements are also not well tested legally
especially in the long term and there is some question
about the courts willingness to uphold them on a long
term basis (eg in, response to a legal challenge 20 years
down the road) due to "some legal baggage that
i
accompanies them .
j E Private Conservation Easements
1 . Development rights can be donated to a land trust
2 .- - Advantages
a . Again , the farmer is in some way compensated for the
restriction of his land use, although benefits are not as
high as with purchase of development rights since
benefits are limited to tax deductions for donation of
development rights
b . same as b . above
c. same as� c . above
d . Land Trust can work faster than government agencies
and gain confidence of farmers more easily
3 . Disadvantages
a . same as b . above
F. . Incentiveks
1 . Most incentives : are tax related ' and mandated at the state •
I
i
• level including :
a . Agricultural property tax evaluation assessment
(;( existing )
b . ,Agricultural evaluation assessment . . for inheritance and
estate taxes (not existing in New York)
c: Protection against nuisance suits
2 . The town can encourage these decisions and can educate
farmers about existing incentives
r
- 10 -
EXHIBIT 2
i
Other Planning Considerations and Measures
A . Farming community involvement
i
1 . Important to get input from farming community before
i
putting forth any formal proposals publicly (especially if one
objective is to protect the existing farming industry)
2 . Methods
i a . Town - wide survey
i
b . Interviews of farming community
c. Committees or task forces to look at land conservation
issues with some members drawn from the farming
i
community such as the Conservation Advisory Council
(being discussed) provided for by NY Law Chapter 16A ,
i
Sec . 237 .
d . One example : Dutchess County (eastern part of N. Y. state)
has created task force with citizen participation to
recommend planning for open. space protection ,
i � •agricultural land protection , and other land use issues ;
j task force includes farmers
B. Existing agricultural markets should -. be encouraged , such as the
,
Ithaca Farmer' s Market
C Agreement with master plan for , Town of Ithaca
1 . A policy for Agricultural Land should be included in any
policy plan , strategic plan , or master . plan
2 . Any Agricultural Land use . and •economy should follow the
policy set out in the above plan
i D. Impact of existing or future development plans on Agricultural
Lands should be considered
1 . Adding water and sewer lines will create large development
pressures for lands adjacent to them.
2 . Rezoning adjacent lands and allowing large developments on
i these lands may also . create development pressures for
Agricultural sands .
No major developments have been built on actively
farmed lands in the last . ten years but there has been some •
i
- 11 -
I
• loss of farmland including pasture and inactive fields with
such developments as:
West Hill
Minor subdivision along Woodgate Lane and Max's Drive
South
Residential development in the vicinity of Troy and E . King
Roads , and along W. King Road near Buttermilk Falls State
Park
East Hill
if
Grandview subdivision , Cornell Equestrian Facility
Recently proposed projects involving either actively
farmed land or located . in Tompkins County Agricultural
Districts include :
Wes_
Indian Creek Retirement Community, West Park Village,
• Rose Hill Development
South Hill
Southwoods Subdivision (on E . King Road, inactive, former
forest )
E Protection measures and incentives must be legally defensible
1 . Must be evenly applied (not in violation of due process
requirements of Constitution )
2 . Must not constitute " taking " under eminent domain clause
ie : must not deprive owner of all reasonable use of land
without just compensation
3 . Must not impinge on possible future Town objectives for
balanced land use including low or moderate income housing
(master plan issue)
4 . Must be allowed by states enabling . legislation
However, this should not be a problem since zoning is
considered part of the police powers delegated by the state
• and will generally stand up to legal challenges as long it has
- 12 -
EXHIBIT 2
I '
' n
•
a reasonable basis and does not violate any of the principles •
listed above. This should be thoroughly researched by a
lawyer before actual protection programs are proposed
I
I
- 13 -
• SAMPLE PROTECTION R R D RDI AN E
71
ORIGIN TYPE OF PRO 7RAMI EGI1I .AT ON
Marion County, OR Exclusive Farm Use Zones
Special Agricultural Zones
Salt Lake City, UT Minimum . Lot Sizes , Permitted Uses
Lancaster County , Model Easement Rules , including Deed
PA Restriction Provisions
. Agricultural Preservation Fund
Agricultural Zoning Provisions , including
Minimum Lot Size Requirements ,
Permitted Uses
• * Eden Township, PA Open Space Zoning Ordinance
* Town of Eden, NY Transfer- . of Development Rights Program
* Town of Perinton , Environmental Protection Overlay District,
Monroe County, NY which includes an Agricultural Zone
Easement Program - Tax Abatements Given
on the Condition that Land Remains
Undeveloped or Primarily Used for
Farming
Pittsford; NY Purchase of Development Rights Program
American Farmland Sample Zoning Regulations for :
Trust, based on the Sliding Scale Zoning
structure ? of a Exclusive Use Zones
Michigan Municipal Quarter/Quarter Zoning
• Ordinance Conditional Use Zones
- 14 -
EXHIBIT 2
;i
i
i
Fingerlakes Land . Private Conservation • Easements -
Trust, American Informational Pamphlets and Articles
Farmland Trust
{
* Included in Stream Corridor Management ,ment , Appendix V , Doug Foster,
i
i
i
i .
i
- 15 -
I •
REFERENCE SOUR + E 4
Ambrus , Katherine . Di r N
s . ew York State Foremost
Economic and Consumer Issue Enterin„g the 1996's? . Report by
Senator ' John R. Kuhl , Chairman New York State Senate Committee
on Agriculture , 1989.
A - description of
p pressures . on farmland” and farming; and : a
descriptil'on of a study' bill being 'put forth by Senator Kuhl which
would strengthen the state ' s farmland protection policies.
Bills , Nelson L. . Farmland U e in an Urban Environm nr • Status
_..
Trends and PolicXIsm, Cornell Agricultural Economics Staff
Paper. 'Cornell University, 1988 , '
A report on farmland development trends inurban areas in
New York, including - a description -- of, development pressures on
• urban area farmland :
Boisvert, Richard N. and Nelson L . Bills. Toward a Long,Term.
Strategy fo Farmland ProtPrr; r►;; and 4nil and Wa Pr nnc rvattnn
in New York. A New York 2000 Agriculture Report, 1986.
A description of existing and. ' potential ' strategies forprotection
of farmland and soil A and water conservation in New York.
Us e Value ( Assessment of A riculturalLand in the North East.
Agriculture Experimental Station , ° University of Vermont North
East Regional Research), Bulletin 694, 1987 . `
A des'''cription of agricultural use value assessments in several .
northeastIr
ern states providing comparisons between New York and
other northeastern states .
JL
Cohen , James R . . From Agricultural Districtsh9to Cluc Pr Zoning , rn
Purchase Qf Development Viryhts • An Analysis of Land
Preservation Strategies in Pittsford . New York : Paper resented at
• P P
- 16 -
EXHIBIT 2
r
the 31st Annual Conference of Collegiate Schools of Planning , i
( Portland , OR . ) , October1989 .
A study of farmland protection , measures in the Town of
Pittsford , New York, including strategies used , rationales used in
choosing these strategies, and political conditions -present at the
time of implementation of strategies . . .
Coughlin , Robert E. and John • C. Keene. The Prc)tection of Farmland : •A
Reference Guidebook I for State and Local Governments . A Report
to` the National Agricultural Lands Study. . The Regional Science
Research Institute (Amherst, MA . ) , 1981 .
Comprehensive study of farmland protection programs in the
United States , including detailed case studies , . overview of
particular types of programs used, and recommendations for local
and state governments in developing ; programs .
Hauserman , Timothy R . . Planning . to Retain Agricultural Land in New
York State . Masters Thesis , Cornell University (Ithaca, NY), 1984.
Overview of, potential programs to be used for farmland
•
protection and a survey of attitudes toward farmland protection
issues in the Town of Lansing .
Jacobs, Harvey M. . Equity in Agricultural Land Retention : A Social
and Political Assessment _of . Local and State Policies . Masters
Thesis ; Cornell University (Ithaca, NY) , 1981 .
An analysis of farmland protection programs using the criteria
of social' and economic equity and feasibility, . including
recommendations on developingprograms using . these . .critieria .
Gentili, Joe (editor) , Monika. Crispin . . 1988 Annual Report of the
Tompkins County Economic Advisory Board of Tompkins County,
New York .
Report on the farming economy .in Tompkins County , includinG
revenues , taxes , etc . , and recommendations pertaining to adoption
of protection programs .
i
- 17 -
i
MENNEN
AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION
OfHE
ACA JOURNAL
State of New York , Tompkins County , ss . :
Gail Sullins being duly sworn , deposes and
says , that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that
she/he is Clerk TOWN OF ITA PLANNING
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1989
By direction of the Chairwo-
man of the Planning Board,
Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of which the annexed is a true NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that
a Public Hearing will be held
copy , was published in said paper by the Planning Board of the i*,.
Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, ,l
A December 5, 1989, in Town _
1 \/ C Nf1 bc- r � �Q Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, ''',
Ithaca, NY, at the following `,'
time and on the following '',
matter:
9:00 P. M. Considerationof
proposed Modifications to the
Site Plan for College Circle, !.--
located
ircle, ;;located at 1031 Danby Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
and that the first publication of said notice was on the _36 6-43- 1 -2. 2, Multiple Residence
District, previously known as
day /of I,� hpC� "Danby Road Housing" and
c) VC -. �jc r� 19 v– ~— originally
Pthelanning Board appron November
15, 1988, with such modifica-
^ tions to include a redistribu-
is r`r,CX Z(� � � .rt _ tion of dwelling units and a
modification of building foot
E
Said Planning Board will at
SuLsgribed and sworn to before me , this day said time and said place hear
all persons in support of such
Q� matter or objections thereto.
of 19 D -� y Persons may appear by agent
or in person.
Jean H. Swartwood
Town Clerk
Qz� November 30, 1989 273- 1721
JEAN FOR[�otary Public .
Notary Public, State o. New York
No. 4654410
Qualified in Tompkins County J
remmiscion expires \1a ,
0