Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1990-12-04• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 4, 1990 TOLWN of ITHACA Clwk The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, December 4, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James Baker, William Lesser, Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, George R. Frantz (Acting Town Planner) , Daniel R. Walker, P.E. (Town Engineer), John C. Barney, Esq. (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Harrison Rue, Bill Farrell, Mary Turner DePalma, Robert D. Sweet, Betsy Darlington, Ruth Johnson, Roger M. Battistella, Laura F. Marks, Richard Fischer, John Whitcomb, Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:40 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATIONS TO BOUNDARY LINES FOR "TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR TURNAROUND" ON LOTS 50 AND 51, AND RELOCATION OF "TEMPORARY 20 -FOOT -WIDE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT" FROM LOT 17 TO LOTS 81 9, 14, AND 15, IN PHASE I OF THE "CHASE FARM" SUBDIVISION. • Chairman Grigorov declared discussion of the above -noted matter duly, opened at 7 :41 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above. Mr. Harrison Rue was present. George Frantz, Acting Town Planner, addressed the Board, reviewing the modification of the two temporary easements required as conditions of the Final Subdivision Approval of Phase I granted on October 18, 1988, and noting that no "subdivision" is involved. Mr. Rue stated that the easement has been in place since before the road was constructed and was approved by the Town Engineer and Town Planner about a year and a half ago when the road was built, adding that one easement is for a temporary turn - around for snowplows and the second is for access by emergency vehicles to a portion of.Chase Lane. Chairman Grigorov asked for questions or comments from the Board. Mrs. Hoffmann asked if this were just a temporary easement, with Mr. Rue responding, yes, and stating that when Chase Lane is completed through Phase II, they will be removed. Messrs. Rue and Ken erson disucssed the easement for the temporary drive for emergency vehicles currently located along the southerly edge of Lot #17 and formally relocating the easement to a previously cut roadway from East King Road onto Mr. Rue's property. Town Engineer Walker stated that the Town Highway Superintendent has reviewed and approved the new location. Mr. Frantz stated that this does require environmental assessment, noting that it is an Unlisted action, and offering amoral • assessment. Mr. Frantz stated that the original environmental assessment on the property resulted in a negative determination of environmental significance by the Board. Based on his inspection Planning Board -2- December 4, 1990 • today, and the information before the Board, Mr. Frantz recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made by the Board for this action. Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further comments. There being none, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer motions with respect to SEQR and the request for modification. MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS, Chase Farm Associates has requested a modification of the final site plan approval for Chase Farm Subdivision Phase I relocating certain temporary easements to the locations shown on two maps, one entitled "Map Showing Temporary Easement for Turn - Around ", dated 11 -27 -1990, and the other entitled "Map Showing Temporary Easement for Construction Vehicles ", dated 9 -14 -1990, both maps being made by George C. Schlecht, P.E., L.S., and WHEREAS, this is an Unlisted action for which Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance; NOW, THEREF Board finds that environment and • significance for There being ORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Planning the proposal will have no significant effect upon the makes a negative determination of environmental this action. no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Robert Kenerson, seconded by Mr. James Baker: WHEREAS, Chase Farm Associates has requested a modification of the final site plan approval for Chase Farm Subdivision Phase I relocating certain temporary easements to the locations shown on two maps, one entitled "Map Showing Temporary Easement for Turn - Around", dated 11 -27 -1990, and the other entitled "Map Showing Temporary Easement for Construction Vehicles", dated 9 -14 -1990, both maps being made by George C. Schlecht, P.E., L.S., and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has found no significant environmental impact of the proposal, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the modifications of the Chase Farm site plan relocating slightly the temporary easement for a turnaround and relocating the temporary access easement as proposed be and the same are hereby is approved, and it is further RESOLVED, that all other conditions and requirements relating to Planning Board -3- December 4, 1990 • the previous final approval of Phase I remain in full force and effect. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the modifications of the Chase Farm site plan relocating the temporary easement for a turnaround and relocating the temporary access easement duly closed at 7:56 p.m. RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THREE (3) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING T0: 10 EXEMPTING SUBDIVISIONS FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN FILL PERMITS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; 2. PROVIDING FOR THE AMORTIZATION OF NON - CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANC 3. RELATING Chairman matters duly • noted above, #1. Y USES; TO OCCUPANCY OF MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICTS. Grigorov declared the discussion of the above -noted opened at 7:57 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as and indicated that discussion would commence with item Mr. Frantz stated that the proposed amendments were covering an aspect of previous revisions of Section 70 of the Zoning Ordinance that the Codes and Ordinances Committee proposed that would regulate the dumping of fill in the Town of Ithaca, which they would like the Planning Board to review and make a recommendation to the Town Board, Ms. Hoffmann expressed a concern about not having the previous law to compare with this new one. Mr. Walker stated that that has been the basis for a number of discussions where steep slopes are involved and there are difficult construction conditions, especially where maximum development is required on site. Attorney Barney stated, in response to Ms. Hoffmann, that this amendment only takes effect in those circumstances where construction plans show in sufficient detail the proposed deposit and /or removal of fill and were submitted to this Board and approved by the Town Engineer in conjunction with a subdivision approval, adding that, if the plans do not show that, then this exception would not apply. Mr. Lesser stated that the new regulations would only apply to new subdivision construction in instances where the plans are sufficiently detailed. Mr. Walker stated that, in relationship, we have had two -lot subdivisions come before the Board where large acreage is being split and, in those cases, the acreage is big enough so that there is not a major problem with the subdivision, but, when construction plans are made for actually putting something on one of those lots, then they would still • be required to prepare plans and go through the process. Attorney Barney noted that Section 38 of. the Subdivision Regulations requires fairly detailed construction plans for improvements. Planning Board -4- December 4, 1990 • Chairman Grigorov asked if there were There appearing to be none, Chairman Grigorov prepared to offer a motion of recommendation to any further comments. asked if anyone were the Town Board. MOTION by Mr. Stephen Smith, seconded by Mrs. Eva Hoffmann: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Exempting Subdivisions from the Requirement to Obtain Fill Permits under Certain Circumstances, as the same is attached hereto. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. [Secretary's Note: The referenced local law is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.] With respect to item #2, "Providing for the Amortization of Non - Conforming Residential Occupany Uses ", Attorney Barney stated that this is an amendment in reaction to the Court of Appeals' decision several years ago ruling that you cannot regulate occupancy of • dwellings by the number of unrelated persons living there, and by so ruling the Court of Appeals threw out about 90% of the zoning ordinances in the State of New York, including Ithaca's, adding that two or three years later the Court of Appeals considered the matter again and, in spite of the hopes of many municipal attorneys, including this one, that they do the opposite, reconfirmed it and made it even stronger. Attorney Barney stated that, as a result, we have amended our ordinance to remove unrelated persons as a test for occupancy and, about a year and a half ago, came up with a plan where you had to be acting as a family and there was a mechanism you had to go through with the Zoning Board of Appeals if there were a question of your being a family or not. Attorney Barney noted that, however, it left our ordinance for a period of time where, if someone had moved six unrelated persons into an apartment or a dwelling and had continued without abandoning it, that situation may have picked up a valid non - conforming nature. Attorney Barney stated that, because there is a concern about occupancy overall, this section is a mechanism to say that if you did that you have 15 years to earn or pay back whatever cost you incurred and after that time it will not be considered a valid non - conforming entity unless you can justify financially why it should be extended. Attorney Barney offered that this is designed to talk about an occupancy in residential districts that is a non - conforming use and one that is non - conforming by reason of it being in existence at a time when our ordinance was being amended or adopted and which created a non - conforming use. Attorney • Barney pointed out that if it is non - conforming by reason of a variance, having gone through the variance procedure, this, section does not apply, adding that it is only in those circumstances where no Planning Board -5- December 4, 1990 variance was ever obtained, and further adding that there is a fair amount of controversy over this, even within the Town staff, but this amendment comes to the Board with the recommendation of the Codes and Ordinances Committee for its adoption, and commenting that there was some controversy that the Town may be going a bit overboard in attempting to regulate somebody's property. Mr. Lesser inquired if there were any long- standing grandfathered situations. Attorney Barney stated that he did not think there was any one that goes back to 1954 when our first zoning ordinance went into effect. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it seemed to her that if there were people who had problems with not being able to rent the house to a larger number of people, and if they have good reason to rent it to a larger number of people, and if they have a large house that is suitable for a large group of people to live in, they could always appeal to the Zoning Board, and if they can fit into what we have written up as a family, then they can do that. Ms. Hoffmann noted that it is not as if it is not possible at all to have larger groups of people live in homes that are suitable. Attorney Barney agreed with Ms. Hoffmann, adding that if they can establish the financial hardship they could get a variance and if property changes hands it is a continuation of a non - conforming use which goes with the land until it is abandoned for one year. Ms. Hoffmann, referencing Mr. Frantz's November 29, 1990 memo [attached hereto as Exhibit 2], asked what the "certain special land use districts" are. Attorney Barney responded • that some of our special land use districts do allow residential occupancy, adding that it is geared to those which authorize residential occupancies that would be covered by this as well. Ms. Hoffmann questioned the language of the proposed law, on page 2, #51 part iv -- "the detriment caused by the non - conforming uses ", and asked to whom is the detriment caused. Attorney Barney responded that he felt it was implicit to balancing the rights of the landowner because we are talking about a circumstance where it is the detriment caused by the non - conforming use and the person trying to extend it is the person that has the non - conforming use. Ms. Hoffmann noted the very last sentence, "If the extension is granted, the Board of Appeals shall set a fixed additional period for the extension of time before the non - conforming use must be terminated. ", and asked if the second to the last sentence, "...improve or enlarge a non - conforming property, incurred after March 1, 1991. ", should not say "on or after March 1, 1991" as it does on the first page, "on or after March 1, 2006 ". Attorney Barney offered that he felt that was not a necessary addition because he could not conceive that we would be sitting here ten years from now wondering whether an expense occured on March 1st or March 2nd, 1991. There appearing to be no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Mr. Stephen Smith, seconded by Mrs. Eva Hoffmann: • RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Providing for Planning Board • the Amortization of attached hereto. -6- Certain Non - Conforming Uses, December 4, 1990 as the same is There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. [Secretary's Note: The referenced local law is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.] With respect to item #3, "Relating to Occupancy of Mobile Home Park Districts ", Attorney Barney stated that there was no limitation on the occupancy of a mobile home in Mobile Home Park Districts, and it was felt that it would be wise to adopt, essentially, the single family requirements, that is, those requirements similar to what is found in R -15 and R -30 zones, although in both of these zones you can have two - family dwellings. Attorney Barney stated that, after discussions, it was felt that in a mobile home park a limit of one family per mobile home or one family plus no more than two boarders, roomers, lodgers, or other occupants, should be recommended. Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a • motion. MOTION by Mrs. Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Mr. Robert Kenerson: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to Occupancy of Mobile Home Park Districts, as the same is attached hereto. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. [Secretary's Note: The referenced local law is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.] Chairman Grigorov declared the discussion of the three proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance duly closed at 8:25 p.m. DISCUSSION OF DATE FOR JANUARY 1991 MEETING Chairman Grigorov asked for discussion of the January meeting • because the first Tuesday in January 1991 is January 1 -- a holiday. After discussion, the Board decided to hold only one meeting in January 1991, January 15, 1991. It was noted that Cornell will likely Planning Board -7- December 4, 1990 • be making a formal presentation of the details on the G /EIS from their consultant. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Lesser reported that the Nominating Committee should be making its report at the next meeting, adding that there are two issues being addressed: one, consideration of rotating the chairmanship, two, the length of some of the meetings. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Approval of Minutes - April 17, 1990 MOTION by Mr. Robert Kenerson, seconded by Mr. William Lesser: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of April 17, 1990 be and hereby are approved as presented. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Approval of Minutes - May 15, 1990 • MOTION by Mr. James Baker, seconded by Mr. Robert Kenerson: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of May 15, 1990 be and hereby are approved as presented. Aye - Grigorov, Nay - None. Abstain - Smith. CARRIED. Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Hoffmann, PRESENTATION OF A REPORT BY THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY, AND, A PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER ON THE PROPOSED CODDINGTON ROAD WATER AND SEWER SERVICE EXTENSIONS. Chairman Grigorov declared the discussion of the above -noted matters duly opened at 8:45 p.m. Ms. Laura Marks, Chair of the Parks, Natural Areas, and Stream Corridors Committee of the Town Conservation Advisory Council was present. The Board members had before them a two -page document, plus a title page delineating the document as "Executive Summary ", "Six -Mile Creek Valley: A Heritage to Preserve ", "A report to the Town of Ithaca from The Conservation Advisory Council prepared by The Parks, Natural Areas, & Stream Corridors Committee ", dated November 13, 1990. [Said document is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.1 Maps were appended to the bulletin board. • The Board discussed a Memorandum dated December 3, 1990 which was hand - delivered to Chairman Grigorov, with copies for the Board Planning Board -8- December 4, 1990 • members, from Willis S. Hilker, 277 Burns Road, requesting that the presentation be delayed so that those affected may have time to absorb the Report for a clear understanding of its impact on him and his neighbors. [The referenced Memo is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.] Chairman Grigorov led a discussion regarding when to hold a Public Hearing to present the Report to the public, it being decided that the presentation would take place on January 15, 1991. Chairman Grigorov asked Ms. Laura Marks to address the Board. Ms. Marks stated that this Report is a Town proposal and, even though input was from a wide range of people, only Town staff met with the Committee to write the recommendations. Ms. Marks reviewed the steps once it left the Planning Board and came to the 'Conservation Advisory Council, noting that the CAC referred it to the Parks, Natural Areas, and Stream Corridors Committee to meet with the City and decide whether to spend time on it at this point in time. Ms. Marks stated that the Parks, Natural Areas, and Stream Corridors Committee met with the City a few times and reviewed it with the CAC, adding that it was the CAC's unanimous decision that Six Mile Creek was important, had development pressures, and that it would be a good learning experience for the CAC as a whole to come up with protection measures that it could then suggest Townwide. Ms. Marks, commenting that at all the meetings they had with the City they wanted to offer apologies for the way they approached the Six Mile Creek area for protection two years ago, stated that she felt the apologies were • sincere and that the recommendations in the Report were concrete ways that the City can be working with the Town's residents and be protecting their watershed without anyone's rights being damaged. Ms. Marks stated that the Town of Ithaca was concerned about Six Mile Creek as a valuable natural resource and, in laying out the document, they put that natural resource as the thing they wanted to protect. Ms. Marks pointed out Map 1, a map of the entire watershed, and commented on the concern as to why the City has approached the Town to look at the Six Mile Creek Valley when only 7% of the water originates from the Town, adding that the City's long -term plan is to go into Caroline and Dryden, working at a County -wide level with Mr. Frank Proto of the County Board of Representatives, to come up with a uniform comprehensive way to protect all of the water that enters the • Six Mile Creek reservoir. Ms. Marks noted that after the Comprehensive Plan is completed the Town will have to be looking at the tributaries of Six Mile Creek because there is untreated sewage which is quite evident, adding that if you walk along the railroad bed you can smell it. Dr. Richard Fischer, a member of the PNASCC, addressed the Board to review the natural area description of the Six Mile Creek Valley, noting that it is one of the most unusual valley's in the Northeast United States, and adding that if one wanted to see the kinds of animals and the wealth of plant life that one can find in the Six Mile Creek Valley, one would have to go to the Great Smokey Mountains in • Tennessee. Dr. Fischer stated that the Valley has alkaline soils and a few, literally a few, feet away soils that are acid, adding that there are plants that can grow in acid soil and some that cannot grow Planning Board -9- 1 December 4, 1990 • in acid soils present. Dr. Fischer noted that in the alkaline soils of the Valley one can find plants like trilium, jack -in- the - pulpit, spring beauties, etc., and in soils that are acidic, one finds plants like wild blueberry, etc., adding that, along with this mixture of plants, there is a variety of insects that depend upon these plants, and birds that depend upon the insects. Dr. Fischer stated that he felt it our obligation to do anything that can be done to protect the Six Mile Creek area. Acting Town Planner George Frantz, who wrote most of the topography and hydrology sections of the Report, was asked to address the Board by Ms. Marks, Mr. Frantz reviewed the terrain of the Valley with the Board using the maps, stating that the steep slopes in especially the core of the Six Mile Creek Valley are major concerns as far as development and potential impacts of development in the area are concerned. Mr. Frantz, commenting that many of the soils, especially those south of the Creek, are unsuitable for on -lot septic systems, reviewed development constraints within the Valley due to the soils and the topography of the core of the Valley. Mr. Frantz pointed out that much of the Valley is woodland and provides an excellent habitat for wildlife. Ms. Marks noted again that the Valley is simply beautiful and reiterated that her Committee is hoping that it can preserve it by the recommendations in the Report. Ms. Marks, recalling the first • recommendation -- working at a County -wide level to come up with uniformity in protections for water quality, reaffirmed that her Committee would like to continue to work with the City as it looks at a wider scale, and pointed out the second recommendation, Section A. which is looking at how the City might spend the $200,000.00 that it has allocated for land protection in the Six Mile Creek Valley, Ms. Marks then reviewed the Conservation Advisory Council's recommendations to the Town of Ithaca as outlined in the Executive Summary, adding the comment that there is the Report, available to the public for $3.00, and then there is the Executive Summary which is free. When asked what kind of recreation the City is planning for this area Ms. Marks stated that there is dicussion of developing a path from the Coddington Road Recreation Way [South Hill Recreation Way] to the 30 -foot reservoir which will be similar to what the City has already within their boundaries. Chairman Grigorov noted that if the City owns land in the Town, it is subject to Town zoning regulations, just as the Town is subject to City zoning for property the Town owns in the City. Mr. Frantz indicated that he thought he had heard that the City had dropped these plans. Discussion of keeping the Six Mile Creek area as it is without recreational facilities followed. Referring to conservation easements, Mr. Frantz explained that a conservation easement is an agreement in which a private landowner voluntarily agrees not to do certain things to their land, adding that • it may be in exchange for compensation or it can be in exchange for no compensation. Mr. Frantz explained that if one has 50 acres worth "X" dollars because the County Assessment Department thinks it is U • CJ Planning Board -10- December 4, 1990 eminately developable if sold, a conservation easement that takes away the right to develop that land, or portions of it, does reduce the value of that land and, thus, there should be some reduction in the assessed value of that land. Ms. Betsy Darlington, Chair, City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, spoke from the floor and, asking to make comment on that, stated that the situation in Tompkins County right now is the tax assessors have taken a position that they have to tax the entire bundle of rights and that entire bundle still exists. Ms. Darlington stated that she did not agree because when you give a conservation easement you esentially give that away to an organization which cannot exercise those, adding that in other places in the State some tax assessors have taken the view that yes, indeed, that has lowered the value of the land and they are re- assessing the properties and lowering the assessments, however, there is nothing in State law that requires them to take into account conservation easements. Ms. Darlington stated that Marty Luster, local State Assemblyman, is trying to get that changed so that it is at least permissible for them to take it into account and, maybe, even require them to take it into account. Ms. Darlington offered that it is unfair when property owners give up substantial rights to their property and they still have to pay taxes on the entire bundle of rights. Ms. Darlington suggested that this may come to something if the Town got involved and talked to the assessors and tried to persuade them. Town Attorney Barney offered that he thought he understood from Donald Franklin, the Director of the Tompkins County Assessment Department, that there are State programs where they take conservation easements and they will do that in that circumstance. Ms. Marks stated that the CAC recommends that the Town start thinking about allocating money for land acquisition itself, adding that as the CAC starts developing an open space index and targeting areas that are most precious and most needed for preservation, it will be looking at a number of protective measures, among them being the hope that there will be some outright, feasible acquisitions to start the park system as well as nature preserves. Ms. Marks stated that the CAC has worked with Town Engineer Daniel Walker to come up with recommendations regarding soil loss and good farming practice for the few farms that are in the area, such as the Six Mile Creek Vineyard and the Walker property, so that there are protection measures for agriculture. Ms. Marks spoke about the advantages of the Coddington Road sewer line, pointing out, however, that the problem, if the Town goes with a conservation district, unless there is financial support, the number of residences will never be built to support the sewer system. Ms. Marks recommended that an alternative system be considered to what Town Engineer Daniel Walker is recommending. Mr. Walker stated that whether or not there is a definite health and water concern the relative cost of a certain amount of sewer probably can be supported now with the residences that exist now, based on the replacement cost of higher -grade septic and on -site septic disposal systems which are very expensive. Mr. Walker noted that that economic analysis has not been completed and there will be a very thorough economic analysis if the Town Board decides to go ahead with the proposed Coddington Road Planning Board -11- December 4, 1990 • sewer extension. Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone had come to this meeting to hear about the Agenda item with respect to the Coddington Road Water and' Sewer Service Extensions. There being some, Mr. Walker briefly reviewed the topography maps pertaining to the proposal. Discussion followed with respect to costs to the Town and to the property owners. Mr. Frantz discussed what he termed the most far - reaching recommendation in the Report, that being the establishment of a "Conservation District ", as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, and the rezoning of a portion of the Valley. Ms. Betsy Darlington, 204 Fairmount Avenue, Chair of the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, commented that studies over the last few years show that residential zoning is actually quite costly and that one could end up paying higher taxes by developing. Mr. Roger Battistella, 1553 Slaterville Road, owner of the Six Mile Creek Vineyard, complimented the people who worked on the Report and stated that he felt there was more than one objective of the presentation. He said there were two more -- first, water quality; second, to maintain open space areas -- therefore, there are really three objectives to be dealt with. Ms. Marks stated that it is hoped that the critical environmental • area and buffer zone can be implemented as quickly as possible, adding that it was her understanding that the Planning Board can make that decision immediately and have that be its policy. Ms. Marks stated that the CAC is asking the Planning Board to recommend to the Town Board that the critical environmental area be established. Mr. Frantz reviewed the buffer zone map for the Board. Mr. Battistella asked if the option has been explored for the City to tie into-Bolton Point which it seems, in terms of efficiency and? cost ramifications, would be a savings to the Town. Ms. Marks responded that the option has been explored and stated that the City wished to remain independent of Bolton Point, adding that it is a back -up system in case Bolton Point fails -- and vice versa, and further adding that diversity is a benefit to everyone and it would be a mistake to cut the option. Mr. Frantz commented that the City's system is not that old. Attorney Barney offered that the reason Bolton Point exists now is because the City told the Town they could not develop any more, adding that they said it by saying that they were not going to give the Town any more water connections, and further adding that the Town administration said the City could not control, by the use of water connections, what the Town can or cannot do or they would find another water system and so they went out and joined forces with four other municipalities. Attorney Barney commented that Bolton Point is a fairly modern facility -- 1976 with a fair amount of capacity and the City is feeling the pressure of the cost of. running its own plant. Mr. Walker stated that, from an • engineering standpoint, the City reservoir system will probably be maintained perpetually, as long as the water quality is there, because of the economies of gravity fill since 80 per cent of the City can be Planning Board -12- I December 4, 1990 served without pumping, adding that the Bolton Point system has the capacity to handle the City's full water flow now if they wanted to increase production capacity but there would be a large expense incurred to pump water from Bolton Point to the higher elevations. Mr.`Walker stated that he has great hopes, with cooperation from the City on a number of projects, that the politicians will start to listen to the technical people, and that the Six Mile Creek water and sewer extension is an integral part in the overall intermunicipal agreements. Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further questions or comments. There being none, Chairman Grigorov closed the discussion at 10:30 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Frantz spoke of the proposed Ina M. Baker one -lot subdivision at 1409 Slaterville Road coming up for review on the 18th of December and noted that there may be a subdivision review, also on the 18th, for the Heffron parcel on the corner of Coddington Road and Burns Road which the City is negotiating to buy. Mr. Frantz commented that the Auble /Metropolis Group has discussed selling a piece of land to the Cornell Plantations, Chairman Grigorov announced that there are four new applicants for the open Planning Board position -- Candace Cornell, E. Pete • Scala, Jonathan Milne, and Mrs. Judith Aronson from Forest Home. Discussion followed as to the interviewing process. Ms. Hoffmann suggested that, perhaps, the Personnel Committee would be able to assist. Further discussion ensued with respect to the procedure to be used in seeking a new Board member. • ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairman Grigorov declared the December 4, 1990 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. • • • Subdiv.11, Ith. 11/1/901 4:00 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO, OF THE YEAR 19 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE EXEMPTING SUBDIVISIONS FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN FILL PERMITS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows: The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended and revised effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows: 1. Article XIII, Section 70, is hereby amended by adding a new.subdivision 5 in the list of exceptions reading as follows: "5. Removal or deposit of construction of roads and other approved in accordance with the Ithaca Planning Board provided, fill in connection with facilities in a subdivision requirements of the Town of however, that (a) plans for such construction showing in sufficient detail .the proposed removal and /or deposit of fill were submitted to the Planning Board and approved by the Town Engineer in conjunction with the subdivision approval, or (b) the Planning Board expressly waived the requirement of submission of such drawings and the total amount of material to be either deposited or removed is less than 500 cubic yards. In any event the exception granted by this subparagraph shall not apply to any construction which occurs more than three years after granting of final subdivision approval by the Town Planning Board." 2. This local law shall take effect upon its publication as required by law. ,fx rr10i r z .. rV TOWN OF ITHACA • dJ' 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y., 14850 TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1736 PLANNING 273 -1736 ZONING 273 -1747 T0: Planning Board members FROM: George R. Frantz, Acting Town Planner G DATE: November 29, 1990 RE: Notes on Planning Board Agenda Items. Modifications to Chase Farm easements. Two temporary easements were required as conditions of the Final Subdivision Approval granted by the Planning Board to Phase I of the Chase Farm project. One is for a temporary turnaround for snowplows on Lots 50 and 51 at the end of Chase Lane. The other is for a temporary roadway to serve as a secondary access for • emergency vehicles to that portion of Chase Lane which extends beyond the 1,000 ft. maximum cul -de -sac length limit. The temporary turnaround must be shifted because NYSEG and the telephone company have installed their residential service equipment within the easement area. The location of the easement is thus proposed to be shifted wholly onto Lot 51. Its size is also proposed to be reduced. Both the shift in location and reduction in size have been reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Superintendent. The easement for the temporary drive for emergency vehicles is currently located along the southerly edge of Lot 17, and connects Chase Lane with Ridgecrest Rd. via Chase Farm Associates property at 108 Ridgecrest Rd. Chase Farm Associates has for some time been using a previously cut roadway from East King Road onto their property for this purpose, and would like to formally relocate the easement to this roadway. According to Harrison Rue of Chase Farm Associates, this relocation was approved last year by Sally Olsen and Susan Beeners. Because these modifications to the easements are in effect modifications to the subdivision plat approved by the Planning Board on October 18, 1988, the Town Attorney has recommended that they be reviewed by the Planning Board. is Draft resolutions for the above modifications will be handed out at the meeting. EyH/sir • The Codes and Ordinances Committee has passed on for consideration three amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Board has requested Planning Board review of th, amendments prior to its consideration of them. Town Board The Town e proposed The fill related amendment is fairly straightforward in that it exempts filling and earthmoving activities ( road construction for instance ) which are reviewed and approved as part of the regular subdivision subdivision approval process. The amendment relating to amortization of certain non- conforming uses is intended to eliminate many non- conforming uses in the R5, R9, R151 R30, Multiple Residence, and certain special land use districts over the next 15 years. Attached for your information is a chapter on non- conforming uses from "All you ever wanted to known about zoning..." by James A. Coons, Esq. and Sheldon W. Damsky, Esq. It may be of use to you as you review this proposed amendment. The final amendment proposed for consideration places occupancy limits on dwellings in Mobile Home parks similar to those in other redidence districts in the Town Six Mile Creek • Laura Marks of the Conservation Advisory Council will give an in- depth presentation of the report "Six -Mile Creek Valley: a Heritage to Preserve ". • Baker Subdivision The Planning Department has received an application for a two -lot subdivision for a 13.2 + /- acre parcel owned by Ina M. Baker at 1409 Slaterville Road. The parcel is immediately west of Commonland and backlot of residences along Slaterville Road. A sketch map is enclosed. Because of its size and proximity to Six-Mile Creek, some concerns about it have already been raised by residents of the area. In case somebody approaches you regarding this matter, Mrs. Baker is proposing to subdivide off the .64 acre lot on which the existing home sits and sell it. She intends to retain ownership of the remaining 12.6 +/- acres. Please call me if you have any questions or comments regarding the above items. Ex1418 7 4Z TOWN OF ITHACA 0 LOCAL LAW N0. OF THE YEAR 19 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE AMORTIZATION OF CERTAIN NON - CONFORMING USES. Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows: The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended and revised effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows: 1. Article XII, Section 52, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 52. Continuation of Existing Lawful Uses. Except as provided in Sections 53, 54, 551. 56, 56A, and 73, any lawful use of land or a building or a part thereof, existing at the time of this ordinance as amended may be continued, although such building or use does not conform to the Provisions thereof." 29 Article XII is amended by adding a new section, to be Section 56A, reading as follows: "Section 56A9 Amortization of Certain Non - Conforming Uses. 1. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Ordinance and in an effort to provide for generally uniform limitations regarding residential occupancy throughout the residential districts of the Town, the non - conforming occupancies referred to in this section shall.be terminated as set forth below. 20 This section shall apply to residential occupancies in residential districts R5, R91 R151 R301 Multiple Residence, and any special land use districts which include occupancy of dwellings as a permitted use. 3. On and after March 1, 2006, notwithstanding whether a valid non - conforming use or occupancy existed at the time of the enactment of this Zoning Ordinance, or at the time of any amendment to this Ordinance limiting occupancy, no dwelling unit shall be occupied except in the manner specifically permitted by the applicable provisions of this Ordinance and any non- conforming occupancy in a. dwelling unit which may have existed prior to the date of the enactment of this section shall be terminated. E)e yiis T 3 V • • 4. The limitations imposed by this section shall not apply to buildings for which variances from the occupancy requirements of this Ordinance have been granted by the Board of Appeals, either before or after the enactment of this section. 5. A non - conforming use due to be terminated pursuant to this section may be extended upon application for a special permit for such extension from the Board of Appeals. Such permit shall not be granted unless the applicant establishes and the Board of Appeals finds that, notwithstanding the fifteen year period for amortizing a non - conforming use provided for in this section, termination of the non - conforming use would cause serious financial harm to the property owner not balanced or justified by the advantage to the public in terms of more complete and effective zoning accruing from the cessation of such use. In making this determination the Board shall consider, among other factors (including the factors set forth elsewhere in this Ordinance relating to the issuance of special permits or approvals), (1) the nature of the non - conforming use; (ii) the cost of converting to a conforming use, (iii) the amount of investment that existed in the property on the date of the enactment of this section; (iv) the detriment caused by the non - conforming use; (v) the character of the neighborhood; (vi) the.ability of the landowner to have amortized the cost of the landowner's investment over the fifteen years provided between the enactment of this section and the required termination of such use; and (vii) whether an additional reasonable amount of time is needed by the owner to amortize the owner's investment. In making its determination the Board shall disregard, as irrelevant, any costs for purchase of a non - conforming building or property or costs to repair, maintain, improve or enlarge a non - conforming property, incurred after March 1, 19910 If the extension is granted, the Board of Appeals shall set a fixed additional period for the extension of time before the non- conforming use must be terminated." 3. This law shall take effect upon its publication as required by law. K EXy/0iT 3 M • • • Mobile.11, Ith. 11/1/901 4:00 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 19 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO OCCUPANCY OF MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICTS. Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows: The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended and revised effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows: 19 Article II -A, Section 3(b), is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "In a mobile home park, there shall be no more than one dwelling unit maintained in each mobile home. In addition, each dwelling unit may be occupied by not more than (a) one family, or (b) one family plus no more than two boarders, roomers, lodgers, or other occupants." 2. This law shall take effect upon its publication as required by law. OCY11100or 4/ • 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A report to the Town of Ithaca from The Conservation Advisory Council prepared by The Parks, Natural Areas, & Stream Corridors Committee November 13, 1990 • Ex #i,vi r .s 0 ... A report to the Town of Ithaca from The Conservation Advisory Council prepared by The Parks, Natural Areas, & Stream Corridors Committee November 13, 1990 • Ex #i,vi r .s 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The fact that Six -Mile Creek Valley is a valuable natural resource to the public is indisputable. There are, however, choices to be made about protecting private property for the public good. This report, Six -Mile Creek Valley: A Heritage to Preserve, prepared by the Parks, Natural Areas, and Stream Corridors Committee of the Town of Ithaca's Conservation Advisory Council, discusses the reasons to protect the area and the critical issues to be addressed as well as recommending ways in which to achieve protection of the resource. The report was generated in response to the Valley's ecological importance, increasing development pressure in the area, and the City of Ithaca's concern with regard to protecting its water supply on Six -Mile Creek. In May of 1989 the Town and City of Ithaca began discussions that focused on protective measures that the Town could adopt to complement the City of Ithaca's landholdings in the Six -Mile Creek Watershed. This dialogue between the Town and City of Ithaca is the first of a series that will involve the other municipalities with jurisdiction in the watershed, namely Tompkins County and the Towns of Dryden and Caroline. • There are many reasons to protect the Six -Mile Creek Valley. For example, it is blessed with many natural attractions. It is the source of clean water for the City of Ithaca and parts of the Town of Ithaca The Creek, its Gorge, and the resident flora and fauna are, important resources. in learning about and understanding our natural environment. The beauty of the area is all the more remarkable and fragile when one considers that urban development is but a short distance away. The Valley also has historical significance to Ithaca and has been a place of recreation for its citizens for decades. The recommendations of this report attempt to balance the private landholder's rights with the public need for a sustainable natural balance in the Valley, a clean water. supply, and continued access to the area for low- impact recreational activities. • ZxHioir ,s -ii- I I The Conservation Advisory Council recommends that the Town of Ithaca: Establish a permanent liaison between the Town and the City of Ithaca and /or other communities on matters concerning Six - Mile Creek and its watershed, including City land purchases. Develop a mechanism through which the Town may accept conservation easements from landholders in the Six -Mile Creek Valley. Encourage the use of sustainable agriculture methods and regulate feedlots, barnyards, and chemically maintained orchards and vineyards in the Valley. Investigate alternatives to the existing septic systems and /or sewer line extensions for residences along Coddington Road. Staff and boards be aware of, and respond to, adverse environmental affects of any land use planning or capital projects decisions in the area of Six -Mile Creek Valley. Monitor, in cooperation with the City of Ithaca, public access to the area for adverse effects to the Valley and take appropriate action when necessary. Establish a "Conservation District" in the Town of Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance and rezone a portion of the Valley. This new zoning district would protect the rural character of the area, its natural resources, and the City's water supply through reduced residential densities and limits on land uses. Designate a buffer zone with severe limitations on development within the environmentally sensitive core of the Valley, and along certain tributaries of Six -Mile Creek. This buffer zone would also be designated a Critical Environmental Area. exoq t*is �T X -iii- m 400, .Oelo , 1 / Y To: Carolyn Gr &gorov, Chair. Town of Ithaca Planning Board From. Willis S. Hilker 277 Burns Rd. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: SIX -MILE CREEK VALLEY report Date: Dec. 3,1990 I am a Town of Ithaca resident who is directly effected by the contents of the report which is scheduled to be presented.Dec. 4,1990. My property is in the area which is part of the watershed most severely impacted by the report "SIX -MILE CREEK VALLEY: A HERITAGE TO PRESERVE ". The letter, which was drafted Noy. 26,19 Dec. 4,1990 Planning Board Discussio afternoon of Nov. 29,1990. The earl obtain a copy of this report was Dec a lengthly document with severe impl residents of the impacted area. 90, n wa Test . 3, icat advising us s received date I was 1990. The ions to us of the on the able to report is as The short time period to obtain the report before presentation to the Board has deprived us of the ability to read and absorb the content for a clear understanding of its impact on us and our neighbors. In addition prior commitments could not be broken, due to the short notice, in order for us to attend the Dec. 4,1990 meeting. I am requesting that the presentation of this report not be heard until the.Dec. 18,1990 meeting so that those of us who have a need to obtain all details of this proposal can be present. Thank you for your consideration of this request. r ExN/a/70 L