HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1991-02-05FKM
TOWN OF ITHACA
OUmA
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Date IV
• %I Clerk 4ddft )n
FEBRUARY 5, 1991
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, February 5, 1991, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov,'llWilliam Lesser, Stephen
Smith, Eva Hoffmann, Judith Aronson, Virginia Langhans,
Robert Kenerson, George Frantz (Acting Town Planner), John
C. Barney (Town Attorney), Darin Walker (Town Engineer).
ALSO PRESENT: Bill Hilker, Jim Hilker,, Robert Cotts, Betsy
Darlington, Laura Marks, ! Ron Simpson, Bill Farrell.
Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov opened the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD:
James Hilker, of 255 Burns Road, addressed the Board and
proceeded to read a letter addressed to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, from the Town of Ithaca Taxpayers Association, dated February
5, 1991. (Letter attached hereto as Exhibit #1).
Robert Cotts, of 115 NorthviewlLRoad, appeared before the Board
• and read a letter addressed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
from Robert and Barbara Cotts, dated February 5, 1991. (Letter
attached hereto as Exhibit #2). 1 11
There appearing to be no one else ;from the public present who
wished to speak, Chairperson Grigorov closed the segment of the
meeting on "PERSONS TO BE HEARD ".
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF THE "CONSERVATION DISTRICT" AND "BUFFER
ZONE" CONCEPTS RECOMMENDED BY THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL IN
ITS REPORT "SIX -MILE CREEK: A HERITAGE TO PRESERVE ".
Chairperson Grigorov wondered if thlie Overlay Zone was considered
to be an alternative to a Conservation Zone. Acting Town Planner
George Frantz responded that some people have proposed an Overlay
District as an alternative, adding that the Overlay District concept
was considered very early -on in the process. Mr. Frantz stated that
he thought the Overlay District is 'a very good land use management
tool for protecting fairly finite areas';of land such as steep slopes,
ravines, wetlands, and other environmentally sensitive areas. Mr.
Frantz, referring to an Overlay District in this case, felt that it
would not be adequate. Mr. Frantz said that it is proposed to really
go beyond simply protecting the inner -c{ore of Six Mile Creek gorge
from over - development, commenting that preserving rural character of
areas.through the Conservation District is also being looked at. Mr.
Frantz mentioned economizing on the'H extension of water and sewer,
trying to reduce traffic congestion in the City by, again, trying to
direct development away from the periphery and in toward the center.
planning Board -2- February 5, 1991
Mr. Frantz noted that there are a number of objectives that the
Conservation District is meant to fulfill that an Overlay District,
in his mind, cannot do. Mr. Frantz said that the whole concept of an
Overlay District is that the existing zoning, the underlying zoning,
remains in place except for certain exceptions where, because of the
environmental sensitivity of an area, the existing zoning should not
apply, then there should be an extra level of review or reduction in
density, or something like that. Mr. Frantz said that his problem
with an Overlay District over an R -30 Zoning District is the fact
that the R -30 District allows so many uses that are not compatible
with rural character and not compatible with the objectives, the
purposes, of a proposed Conservation District. Mr. Frantz said it
would require such a radical reduction in the number of uses allowed
in the existing R -30 regulations, that, in his mind, there might well
be a different zoning district. Board Member Lesser wondered if
there was thinking about possibly °having conservation area zoning
which would have certain characteristics, adding that the
justification for that would be some unique areas, rural character,
and traffic congestion. Mr. Frantz responded, yes, rural character,
agricultural uses, large areas of 1 1 existing contiguous open space,
that is one of the purposes outlined at the beginning of the
Conservation District, one, to protect environmentally sensitive
areas within the Town, and two, to preserve existing areas of
contiguous open space, prevent unnecessary destruction of woodland
areas, and preserve potential agricultural land, and, third to
prevent undesirable development densities or inappropriate land uses
• of rural areas. Mr. Frantz said that, right now, a large chunk of
the Town of Ithaca is currently served by infrastructure that is not
being used. Mr. Frantz said that congestion on local streets is a
problem, and a major source of congestion is the suburban
single - family detached home that turns!! out ten vehicle trips per
day. Mr. Frantz said that if development could be directed away from
areas of the Town where people are going to have to use a car day in
and day out to areas in the Town ''where there would be a range of
options, including their car, including public transit, including a
pedestrianway, then that would help cut down on, or at least reduce,
future congestion. William Lesser wondered if this plan would
accomplish that, or would it push development farther away. Mr.
Lesser said that, obviously, there are certain areas which are going
to be less dense than they would likely be otherwise, but wondered
if, for example, in this case, that people are just going to move a
little farther out Coddington Road and build in Danby or Dryden. Mr.
Frantz answered that one thing the Town1has to make sure of is that
if density is reduced in one area of the Town, then make sure there
is room elsewhere in the Town to accommodate needed future growth.
Mr. Frantz offered that the Town cannot afford to push development
out of the Town of Ithaca, adding that „ if the Conservation District
concept resulted in people being pushed out of the Town of Ithaca
then it would be a failure, because there is still going to be
traffic. William Lesser wondered if it was an important part of the
plan to think about not only where development might not be, but also
where it might be. Mr. Frantz responded, yes. Board Member Eva
Hoffmann commented that West Hill is where most of the prime
agricultural lands are. Mr. Frantz commented, yes, to the west of
planning Board -3- February 5, 1991
• West Haven Road, but to the
as good for agricultural
Conservation District would
zoning district and apply
Grigorov offered that it is
Acting Town Planner Geor
seven acre lots in the area
east of West Haven Road the land is not
uses. Mr. Frantz stated that the proposed
be a zoning district like any other
to certain areas of the Town. Chairperson
just one zone among all the other zones.
ge Frantz mentioned the minimum of perhaps
of Six Mile Creek.
Eva Hoffmann offered that she understood that the Six Mile Creek
Valley is a really unique area in many ways when it comes to plants
and animals and the general ecology, adding, not only in Tompkins
County, but in the whole eastern :,part of the United States. Ms.
Hoffmann noted that maybe the Town should think about the area as a
Special District with special very' unique features, rather than
thinking of a Conservation District inugeneral for that area. Mr.
Lesser said that if one did that, how would one define what the
boundaries of Six Mile Creek were. Ms': Hoffmann responded that that
is a problem. Chairperson Grigorov commented that maybe the Town
should try to get the other number of things that need to be
determined. Board Member Stephen Smith stated that he thought the
Town needs to determine whether they, want to preserve the land,
preserve the environment, or whether it is also being looked at to
preserve open space, rural character, etc. Mr. Smith said that if
the Town narrows themselves to protecting the gorge environment and
things like that, then the Town can come up with some good ordinances
that would do that. Mr. Lesser ,mentioned that if the principal
characteristics of the possible new zone would be seven acre minimum
lots, it seemed to him that what would happen would be that all the
development would be between Coddington Road and the railroad track.
Mr. Frantz said that the buffer zones kicks in when a landowner
approaches the Town for permission to subdivide. Mr. Frantz said
that a buffer zone, in effect, is similar to an Overlay District,
Mr. Frantz said that the whole concept'lof the buffer zone is that, if
somebody were to come in with a proposal to subdivide and develop a
parcel, then the Planning Board would simply say, yes, you may
develop your land, however, you have to acknowledge this land, and
you have to pull the development out of this buffer zone.
Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that he thought a buffer zone,
from a technical standpoint, and environmental standpoint, is talking
about legislation to legislate land use, and there are some very
specific processes that one has to go; through. Mr. Walker said that
the first step is to identify why the area is important. Mr. Walker
said that there is a level in legislation, because if one legislates
a Conservation District, or a preservation area, one is basically
coming close to a taking of the land. Mr. Walker said there are two
ways to take the land, one being buy it as a park, e.g. Taughannock
Falls State Park or Treman Park. Mr. Walker noted he was not
suggesting another park is needed, but when the public legislates a
land use and it is owned by private ownership one is,.basically, into
a taking situation. Mr. Frantz interjected that nothing in the
proposal calls for the taking of land for public use. Mr. Walker
responded that he was not talking about this particular proposal; he
was talking about identifying an area. Mr. Walker stated that there
planning Board -4- February 5, 1991
• is already an identified public use where Six Mile Creek is
concerned, such as the reservoir; that land was a taking by the City
they bought the land. The City now controls it and they can do
what they want with it. Mr. Walker noted that its best use is a
reservoir system. Mr. Walker said that a buffer zone is determined
by what protection is needed for a reservoir system, and what
protection is needed to preserve the wildlife in the gorge.
Chairperson Grigorov offered that a buffer zone would apply to places
that have already been established as valuable. Mr. Walker said that
the important area has to be defined first, then figure out what kind
of buffer is needed to protect that and maintain it in the condition
one wants to preserve it in.
Laura Marks, member of the Conservation Advisory Council,
appeared before the Board and stated that when the Six Mile Creek
buffer zone specific comes to mind one thinks about the placement of
the sewer line, as the sewer line is not in place on the Coddington
Road side and the railroad bed is the logical place to put it, and
the Town should be working at preventing future pumping stations.
Ms. Marks stated that Mr. Walker is a big advocate on not getting
more pumping stations into our system. Ms. Marks said that if
development could be kept above the sewer lines to prevent pumping
stations she thought that would be a big plus for the Town. Ms.
Marks commented that they were also looking at a lot of the things
Mr. Walker mentioned, such as: wildlife, water quality, preservation
of the steep slopes and gorges. Chairperson Grigorov commented that
• buffers are needed if there is already a Conservation Zone. Mr.
Walker noted that the point he was trying to make was that to
determine what the buffer zone is one has to go in, specifically,
with what they are trying to protect and what measures are required
to protect that, adding that, basically, the land forms, the
vegetation, the slopes, the watershed areas, have to be taken into
account with this buffer zone. Mr. Walker said that this
determination has to be made and put out for public review. Mr.
Lesser wondered what the interaction was between buffer zones and
Conservation Districts, Attorney Barney responded that what has been
proposed is a Conservation District, iiand within that Conservation
District there is an area designated a buffer zone, which translated
could be a super Conservation Over" lay District, and in that
circumstance it would require clustering and some other things that
would not be necessarily required in the periphery of the
Conservation Zone. Attorney Barney said that a buffer is normally
thought of in the context of a transition zone from residential to
commercial or from commercial to industrial.
Board Member Judith Aronson commented that she felt it would not
be conceivable to have a Conservation District without the concept of
some sort of buffer area. Attorney Barney responded. supposing that
the limitations in the Conservation District are as proposed for the
buffer zone, then a separate buffer zone would not be needed on top
of it; there can be a District and within that District, establish
the
regulations.
Attorney
Barney said
that
if one is
satisfied
that
• those
regulatons
are adequate
throughout
the
entire
area
of
the
District, a buffer zone would not be needed, so there is nothing
planning Board -5- February 5, 1991
• requiring a dual type of protection. Mr. Frantz stated that the
Conservation District could stand alone without the buffer zone; the
Conservation District establishes the density allowed in the area;
the buffer zone is a measure of further protection in that it is
saying: you cannot build in this area; you can build in this area.
Mr. Frantz said that the buffer zone would work if it is R -30. Mr.
Frantz noted that the buffer zone and the Conservation Zone are two
separate concepts and they cant work independently, if the
Conservation District were not in place, but if the buffer zone was
in place it would still work under R -30 as a protective measure.
Attorney Barney said that a buffer zone is really an overlay because
it is creating additional requirements that apply to portions, in
this instance, a Conservation District, so it is really a more
restrictive overlay which is probably the best way to define it.
Board Member Stephen Smith commented that a buffer zone is sort of a
confined kind of area that has very specific criteria to set the
boundary. Mr. Frantz agreed with Mr. Smith, and stated that maybe
Attorney Barney is right in saying that overlay is a better word for
it. Mr. Frantz said that the limitation of the Overlay District is
that it is not something that can be used to protect the rural
character of an area. Town Engineer Dan Walker offered that what is
being talked about is a zoning action that is going to result from a
great deal of study that is going into the Comprehensive Plan, and a
great deal of input from the Conservation Advisory Council, and a
number of sources. Mr. Walker stated that he thought what has to be
looked at is the mechanics of how a zone is developed. Mr. Walker
• said that in the past the current zoning limitations were basically
the availability of public services (water and sewer), commenting
that that is the major difference between R -15 and R -30 on the
current zoning situation. Mr. Walker said that the Agrigultural
zoning was primarily because that was intensively farming. Mr.
Walker commented that, if the Town wants to create zones based on
environmental, or topographical, or demographic ideas, then those
goals need to be specifically laid down within the Comprehensive
Planning process; the criteria for the different types of zones,
whether it is areas with unique flora and fauna, areas of certain
slopes, areas of unique geologic importance, then those criteria have
to be established, then take the land use inventory mapping and
specifically identify those areas, and then identify the ones that
are critical and deemed critical, then go from there and say, okay,
to maintain this we want to buffer the area around this to protect
this so we should zone, if it is the 'gorge, an area that is 500 feet
wide. Continuing, Mr. Walker suggested setting the geographic limits
of the unique natural area, then draw a line that is 500 feet outside
of that and zone it differently, make a "buffer zone" that would
allow some development but only to a certain extent, with a lot of
very careful site plan approval processes, and make the area of
unique natural space out of bounds for any development or any use.
Mr. Walker stated that a developer would have to go through the legal
process, the environmental review and everything, that set that zone
up, then everyone knows exactly what is happening and if anyone has a
• problem with that, then through the legal process they can address it
during creation of the zoning. Mr. Walker felt that the whole
Comprehensive Planning process is critical. Mr. Frantz stated that
planning Board -6- February 5, 1991
• the basic question that the Town is facing with the Comprehensive
Plan is, of course, where growth should occur. Mr. Frantz said that
the proposed Conservation District is seen as one of the mechanisms
that the Town can use to direct growth away from areas in the Town
where it should not be happening, to areas within the Town where it
should occur.
•
I�
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any other comments.
There being none, Chairperson Grigorov declared the Discussion of the
"Conservation District" and "Buffer „Zone" with respect to "Six -Mile
Creek: A Heritage to Preserve" duly closed.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD
WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION IN
VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE TOWN.
Chairperson
Grigorov
opened the
discussion
on the above -noted
matter and read
aloud from
the Agenda as
noted
above.
Town Attorney John Barney opened the discussion by stating that
this is a proposal that has been generated through the activities of
the Codes and Ordinances Committee, adding that the purpose of is to
make consistent the provisions relating to Special Approval
processes and those circumstances which the Town currently requires
in the Zoning Ordinance,
Continuing, Attorney Barney stated that basically what is being
done is confirming that no Special Approval will be granted, unless
there is a site plan approval requirement, that there will not be any
Special Approval granted unless the Planning Board affirmatively
decides that a site plan is okay, commenting that the structure of
the proposed local law is that the Planning Board has to grant
approval of at least a preliminary site plan before the matter will
even go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the determination of
whether Special Approval will be granted. Attorney Barney said that
it creates a situation where, if the Planning Board says the site
plan is not okay, then it never gets to the ZBA. Attorney Barney
stated that, in going through and looking at the residential zones,
the requirement that one gets site plan approval for certain uses was
said two, three, or four different ways in the current Zoning
Ordinance. Attorney Barney stated that there has been an attempt to
lump them all together and say, e.g., in Paragraph 2, (a) through (h)
certain uses require a Special Approval in accordance with the
Special Approval procedure. Attorney Barney added that that same
type of amendment is made in all four of the residential zones.
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Virginia Langhans:
1
planning Board -7- February 5, 1991
• 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 Requiring Site
Plan Approval for Certain Construction in Various Residential
Districts of the Town, as the same is attached hereto as Exhibit #3.
•
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye. - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann,
Aronson.
Nay. - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov closed the Consideration of a recommendation
to the Town Board with respect to proposed local law amending the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM.
SET
brief
1991 CALENDAR OF
discussion, the
PLANNING
following
BOARD
action
MEETINGS
was taken.
After a
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Virginia Langhans:
RESOLVED, that the Town of
Ithaca
Planning Board
adopt and hereby
does adopt the following as its
Schedule
of Meetings
for the year
1991. All meetings will be on
Tuesday,'
commencing at
7:30 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
January 15, 1991
February 5, 1991
March 5, 1991
April 2, 1991
May 7, 1991
June 4, 1991
July 2, 1991
August 6, 1991
September 3, 1991
October 1, 1991
November 5, 1991
• December 3, 1991
There being no further discussion,
SECOND MEETING
February 19, 1991
March 19, 1991
April 16, 1991
May 21, 1991
June 18, 1991
July 16, 1991
September 17, 1991
October 15, 1991
November 19, 1991
December 17, 1991
the Chair called for a vote.
•
•
planning Board
Aye: Grigorov,
Nay: None.
-8- February 5,
Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann,
1991
Aronson.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS
Board Member Robert Kenerson wondered if there were any thoughts
that the Comprehensive Plan and all of,i.ts studies were going to come
in with a change in or a whole new Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Barney
responded that he would think the Comprehensive Plan is the first
step and once that is reviewed, and adopted, then the Zoning
ordinance has to be looked at to implement whatever recommendations
are needed, and it may entail a completely new Zoning Ordinance from
top to bottom. Attorney Barney commented that a new Zoning Ordinance
has been in the works since 1978, and it is still being worked on in
1991.
Mr. Kenerson wondered about the
Comprehensive Plan. Acting Town Planner
planning staff meeting was held February 4,
a Draft will be completed by mid -June 1991.
schedule regarding the
George Frantz stated that a
1991 and the hope is that
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the February
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning',Board duly adjourned
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Bryant, Recording Secretary,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
5, 1991,
at 9:35
I
•
•
U
To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board
(To be presented at the
February. 5, 1991 meeting)
From: Town of Ithaca Taxpayers Association
Bill Farrell,. President
581 E. Miller Road.
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Re: Conservation Zoning
Buffer Zoning
Six Mile Creek Valley
This memorandum is presented as a follow -up to the position
paper presented at the January 15.1991 meeting of the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board. The Town of Ithaca Taxpayers
Association is infull agreement with the premise that the
unique characteristics of the Ithaca area be maintained.
However, the determining of what is unique and the means by
which preservation should be implemented is where the
conflict lies.
The City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca, and the surrounding
towns and villages have attracted people who love the -area,
partly because of its predominately hilly terrain with water
coursing through ravines, over falls and into Cayuga Lake.
In order to provide future generations with the ability to
walk through some of these gorges, the State of New York has
purchased Treman Park, Taughannock Park, and Buttermilk
Park. These areas of beauty are now available to the
public for only five months per year. The spring, fall, and
winter displays are not open to the public.
That portion of the Six Mile Creek Valley, owned by the City
of Ithaca, was closed to the public until the recent opening
of the Mulholland Nature Trail, however, this trail opens
only a fraction of the area to public use.
The point is, that the ability to walk through the natural
areas is not the unique quality which attracts people to the
Ithaca area. Ithaca is built upon hills_ and gorges. The
proposed zoning would prohibit the construction of homes on
sites along streams, ravines and steep slopes. The unique
characteristic which the Ithaca area does have is the
ability of landowners.to construct homes in those out of the
way places which provide a bit of privacy for some,,
panoramic views for others, and a flavor of European living
with climbing, winding roads.
`il00AVO /
• vn
The Conservation Zoning is a totally necessary exercise
since the areas which are purported to need protection
already are in municipal hands, under State of New York
control, or controlled by Cornell University for protection
and research.
The creation of Buffer Zones serves no purpose, other than to
prohibit the development of the type'of housing which has
made the area unique in the first place. It has not been
shown by any evidence that the areas surrounding the gorges
or primitive swamps have produced any degradation of the
environment. On the contrary, water quality has become
better in the creeks as more people own homesites in close
proximity to them. For instance, as homes are built, soils
are stabilized, and sod cover minimizes silt washing into
the creek. With adequate sewer lines, there is no septic
pollution and no phosphates.
If there is a need for open space as the reports indicate,
why is the need more in some areas than in others? Is the
open space for visual appreciation from the roadways ?
Why then are areas not adjacent to roads being proposed for
open space and not those areas next to roads.
• The most desirable building sites are those which lend a
little something extra such as a nearby creek, a view, or
seclusion. This is why the residents of the Town of Ithaca
have chosen the South and East sides.of the Town for the
majority of homesites. This is why Forest Home was among
the first areas to be developed. This is why the Ellis
Hollow Creek area is in such demand.
The present R -30 and R -15 zoning has not been shown to be
detrimental to any area in the.Town "including those areas
which are projected as needing a buffer zone designation.
There are no benefits to be derived from a buffer zone that
are not already available with the present R -30 zoning and
the requirements of the Tompkins County Health Department.
As for the requirement of seven acre lots, we feel that this
requirement would be totally unrealistic and a deprivation
of property rights without compensation. Some of the most
beautiful local areas (Forest Home, Cayuga Heights, Ellis -
Hollow) have small, well - planned lots, all in accordance
with current, adequate zoning restrictions.
In our position paper, presented to the Planning Board
January 15,1991, we requested evidence of need for these two
proposed zones -none has been given. "We asked for evidence
• of damage to the environment due to the present zoning -none
has been given. We asked for the rationale to support
EX-4. .apt/
t.
• 7 -acre zoning -none has been given.
We asked why more open space would be necessary in an area
where at least 20% of the land is now controlled as open
space. There have been no reasons given,
•
I 1
u
We, as residents of the whole town, realize that the report
"Six Mile Creek Valley: A Heritage to!lPreserve" is a
proposal which would be extended to other areas should it be
implemented.
The Town of Ithaca Taxpayers Association renews its
objections to the creation of either a Conservation Zone or
a Buffer Zone.
The Town of Ithaca Taxpayers Association renews its
objections to the implementation of any of the
recommendations proposed in the report "Six -Mile Creek: A
Heritage to Preserve ".
JExh. Ar/
A
46
To: Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
February 5, 1991
We are nleased that the Town of Ithaca is considering establishment of A Con-
..
servation District between Coddington Road and Slatervialle Road.
Our main interest lies in the Cordington Roiad half of the proposal and we speak
to it in this communication to :;ou.
,v.e have lived on ITorthview Road since 196o, hiked, walked our dogs, and
skied in,the winter when the =now is good "on the ,track" as ?:Te all call the abandoned
railroad bed behind Northview, the railroad bed scheduled to become a Recreation Trail
from the city to the town line, all those gears. Our four children and their many
neighborhood friends grew up pla-. ing, hiking, and camping there. Every spring the
wildflowers bloom -- violets, geraniums, trilliums, bloodroot, mayapple, trout lilies,
•
and many more. In early :lnril Tie go down to the track at dusk to hear and sometimes
see Z oodcocks just behind ??orthv�_ew Road. ' igrating 'A?arblers are plentiful and easy
to srot on stretches where the track sits high above the base of the trees on either
side, We've taken exrerienced birders to Smith's field to see Grasshopper Sparrows to
ii
add to their life lists. " , 1 e come across Ruffed Grouse hiking through the woods, have
heard the tinter Wren (haven't seen him yet:), and 'Ithe resident Pileated Woodpeckers
sometimes come up to our Northview Road gardens, In summer we've nicked wild straw-
berries and later raspberries and blackberries. I hick queen Anne's Lace for jelly and
oink wild roses for pot pourri.
All the gears we've lived here and enjoyed the track and. the land around it,
we've been only vaguelir aware of it-o owns what. For the most part, barring some
Li
*severe abuse of stream beds and woods by snowrmobiles and trail bikes (there should
be aunronriate places for those vehicles for people` to enjoy), people enjoTing the
area have used it wisely. One of our neighbors mows the track behind Northview Road •
surners, raking it pleasant to use and accessible to more people than the rougher
and more olrerg.rown track be, and the 7SEG fence. We and others take small saws and
lopers on walks down the track to clear encroaching "'thorny bushes and to cut away
fallen trees.
In earl r gears, T-e could ti,alk gown there for hours without meeting another
soul. These days it's ver77" rare not to meet others. The track is becoming �lridely
'_mown as a place to h_.ke, jog, and s'si . fact it's Publicized i n the local medi a
as arlace to ski.
Yes, we've taken t:�:is area -or c r^.ntec? for 30 rears. Three of our sons now own
homes of their o- n far from Ithaca. All 1a7re hunted for daces with the chara.cteris-
tics of Northview Road and t'-.e track. If they were looking for a home in this area, •
they
would be
very attracted
to the
'.rind
of
development described
in your
plan.
111ile
there
has been
little "development"
along
Cod.dingtdn
Road in the
30 years
we've
lived
on 'Northview, we've watched other na..rts of the Ithaca area mushroom with areas of housing,
some very beautiful and in keening ynith the unique qualities we have here but much
like any 11rou'd see in other cities the size of Ithaca in the northeast. Tyf and when
the area in your proposed Conservation District does become developed, the planning
in the nroposal should be �rei7r attractive
We urge the town_ of Ithaca to Preserve this splendid area and to care
for it so it is beautiful and safe for all to enjoy.
Robert Cotts
/aW4.L cuc�a. u�- •
Barbara Cotts
115 Northview Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
1yy�.•
fr
f
- YfxW if-. .. - to
`rr` "" `"fix js: 1 a:-� • ,
op J�
k
:oat 'I
N41k Vol
I l
1
y• Ate• •.
7 e•• E rf '.
so
aim 0%
If-
;�
III. ;�• °.'�'O l I . .
.t
' } ,L I • ^\
% i
,4;f ..
. ,
14
it
t �► , r. 1
Jr.
' r 1l •�4� ��:c � it '�
•
•
SPA.LL, Ith, 12/21/90, 9:50 a.m.
TOWN OF ITHACA
I
LOCAL LAW N0. OF THE. YEAR 19
s!,
A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN IOF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE
REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION IN VARIOUS
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE TOWN.
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 .II -A, Section 31I1IC, subdivision 6, is hereby
amended by deleting the last - sentence thereof and inserting
instead the followin
g•
"The application for such approval shall be referred to
the
Planning Board and no -final action by the Board of Appeals
shall be - -_: taken until the "Planning .Board has reviewed . at
least a.preliminary site plan and approved- same. If the
Zoning Board_ of Appeals,-approves same, and if only a
preliminary site plan was.ipproved. by the Planning Board,
the matter shall be returned to the Planning Board,for final
"ite plan.approval. The site plan approval process shall he
as. set forth in Article IX. No building permit shall be
issued unless the proposed, structure is in accordance with
the final site approved by thel;,Planning Board.".
20 Article III, Section 4, is hereby amended by deleting
subdivisions 3, 4, 51 6,. 71 11, ;and 12 and inserting a new
subdivision 3 reading as follows
"The following- uses. but onlyj' upon _receipt of a special
approval for same by the Board-lof Appeal's.in accordance with
the procedures described below:!;
(a) Church or other places of. worship, convent and
parish house.
(b) Public library, public museum, public, parochial
or private school., nursery school, daycare center,
fraternity. or sorority houses, and any institution of
higher learning.including dormitory accommodations.
A614
i
1 ... .
•
C
•
SPA.LL, Ith, 12/21/90, 9:50 a.m.
(c) Publicly owned park or playground including
accessory buildings and improvements.
(d) Fire station or other public building necessary to
the protection of or the servicing of a neighborhood.
(e) Golf course except a driving range, or miniature
golf course.
(f) Hospital, provided that no building so used shall
be within 100 feet of any street or within 150 feet of
the lot line of any adjoining owner.
(g) Nursing or convalescent home, or medical clinic.
(h) The application for approval of any of the
foregoing uses shall be referred to the Planning Board
and no final action by the Board of Appeals shall be
taken until the Planning Board has reviewed at least a
preliminary site plan and approved same. If the Zoning
Board of Appeals approves. same, and if only a
preliminary site plan was approved by the Planning
Board, the matter shall be returned to the Planning
Board for final site plan approval. The site plan
approval process,shall be as set forth in Article IX.
No building permit shall be issued unless the proposed
structure is in accordance with the final site plan
.approved by the Planning Board. y
15, 30 Article III, Section 41 subdivisions 8, 9,. 10, 13', 14,
16, 17, 18, and 19, are renumbered subdivisions 4, 5, 6, 71
81 91 10, 11, 12, and 13 respectively..
4. Article IV, Section 11, subdivisions 3, 4, 51 6, and 7
are hereby. deleted• and the following new subdivision 3' inserted
as follows:
"The following uses but only upon receipt of a special
approval for same by the Board of Appeals in accordance with
the procedures described - below:.
(a) Church or .other places of worship, convent and
parish house.
(b) Public library, Public museum, public, parochial
and private .schools; daycare center, nursery school,
and any institution. of. higher learning including
dormitory accommodations.
(c) Publicly owned park or playground including
accessory buildings and improvements.
46YO4, 04W?
•
•
n
U
SPA.LL, Ith, 12/21/90, 9:50 a.m.
(d) Fire station or other public building necessary to
the protection of or the servicing of a neighborhood.
(e) Golf course, except a driving range, or miniature
golf course.
(f) The application for approval for any of the
foregoing uses shall be referred to the Planning Board
and no final action by the Board of Appeals shall be
taken until the Planning Board has reviewed at least a
preliminary site plan and approved same. If the Zoning
Board of Appeals approves same, and. if only a
preliminary site plan was approved by the Planning
Board, the matter shall be returned to the Planning
Board- for final site plan approval. The site plan
approval process shall be as set forth in Article IX.
No building permit shall be issued unless the proposed
structure is in accordance with the final site plan
approved by the Planning Board. "
�5. Article IV, Section ill subdivisions 8, 9, 10, 11, and
12 are-renumbered 4, 51 61 7 and 8 respectively.
6. Article V, Section 18, is hereby amended by deleting
_subdivisions 3, 41 51 6; 71 10, and 11 and inserting instead the
following:
"The following uses but only upon receipt of a special
approval for same by the -Board of Appeals in accordance with
the.procedures.described below.
(a) Church or other places. of worship, convent and
parish house.
(b). Public library, public museum, public, parochial
and. private schools, daycare center, nursery school,
and any institution of higher learning including
dormitory accommodations.'
(c) Publicly.-owned park or playground' including
accessory buildings and improvements.
(d) Fire station or.other public building necessary to
the protection of or the servicing of a neighborhood.
(e) Golf course, except a driving range or miniature
golf course.
(f) Hospital, provided that no -building so used shall
be within 100 feet from any street or within 150 feet
of the lot line of any adjoining owner,
.� t. AY1
•
•
SPA.LL, Ith, 12/21/90, 9:50 a.m.
(g) Nursing or convalescent home, or medical clinics.
(h) The application for approval of any of the
foregoing uses shall be referred to the Planning Board
and no' final action by the Board of Appeals shall be
taken until the Planning Board has reviewed at least a
preliminary site plan and approved same. If the Zoning
Board of Appeals approves same, and if only a
preliminary site plan was approved by the Planning
Board, the matter shall be returned to the Planning
Board for final site plan approval. The site plan
approval process shall betas set forth in Article IX.
No building permit shall be issued unless the proposed
structure is in accordance with the final site plan
approved by the Planning Board.
7. Article V, Section 18 X is further amended by renumbering
subdivisions 8, 91 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 171 and 18 to be
subdivisions 4, 5, 61 7, 81 91 lot .11, and 12 respectively.
`80 This local law shall take effect upon its publication as
required by law.
Exh, *3
V