HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1991-02-19r-
•
0
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 19, 1991
RUD
TOWN OF
►. I 3 i .
i
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, February 19, 1991, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, Virginia
Langhans, William Lesser, Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann,
Judith Aronson, George R. Frantz (Acting Town Planner),
Daniel R. Walker (Town Engineer), Peter Grossman (Town
Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Carl Sgrecci, William Seldin, Esq., David C. Auble,
James C. Rogan, Julie Rogan, Jim Rogan's son, Lawrence
P. Fabbroni, P.E., Robert Boehlecke, Architect, William
Kerry.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35
p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on February 11, 1991, and February 14, 1991,
respectively, together with the Clerk's Affidavit of Service by Mail
of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties
under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the City of
Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon
the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on February 11, 1991.
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.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
There were no persons to be heard. Chairperson Grigorov closed
this segment of the meeting.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 21000 + /- SQ. FT.
BUILDING FOR STELLAR STEREO, TO BE LOCATED AT 702 ELMIRA ROAD, TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6 -33 -2 -6.21 AND -6.22, BUSINESS DISTRICT
"C". WILLIAM AND PATRICIA KERRY, OWNERS; ROBERT A. BOEHLECKE JR.,
ARCHITECT /AGENT.
Chairperson
Grigorov opened
the
discussion on the above -noted
matter and
read
maintain his
aloud
house as
from the
Agenda
as noted above.
Robert Boehlecke Jr. addressed the Board and appended a map to
the bulletin board.
Mr.
Boehlecke
stated that Mr. Kerry wants to
maintain his
existing
house as
a residential property, and wishes
to construct a
to building
on the lot
to house his retail business. Mr.
Kerry will
keep the
residential character of the property. Mr.
Boehlecke said
,
Planning Board
• that there are no
Planner George
proposed building
property.
-2-
February 19, 1991
problems
with maintaining setbacks.
Acting
Town
Frantz
noted that the lot line to
the rear of
the
should
be considered the rear lot
line of
the
Board Member Robert Kenerson asked about the water and sewer
arrangements. Mr. Boehlecke responded that there is an existing
septic system and there is an existing well. Mr. Boehlecke said that
Mr. Kerry has been working with the Health Department in that Mr.
Kerry is trying to secure a variance to get a pump from the bathroom
in the new building to be pumped up to the current septic system as
an interim measure until the new sewer and water is available. Mr.
Boehlecke stated that the present septic system is to the rear of the
existing house, adding that the new building would have one commode
and one sink. Mr. Kenerson wondered if the proposed building would
be on a slab. Mr. B,oehlecke responded that about 2/3 of it would be
on a slab; where the grade drops off and at the lower end there will
be a partial basement to house mechanical equipment.
Board Member Lesser asked if the parking lot would be paved or
gravelled. Mr. Boehlecke replied that, initially, it will be
gravelled with a coating at a later date. Mr. Boehlecke offered that
there would be ten parking spaces.
Chairperson Grigorov announced, for the record, that Robert
Kenerson, Eva Hoffmann, and herself, visited the site in question.
• Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any other comments.
There being none, Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the
Sketch Plan Review for Stellar Stereo duly closed at 8:19 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 2.9 +/- ACRES FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
NO. 6 -27 -1 -11.2, 133.'5 ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED AT 1138 TRUMANSBURG ROAD,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. RICHARD AND JO PERRY, OWNERS; CARL
SGRECCI, AGENT.
Chairperson
Grigorov declared the
Public
Hearing in
the
above -noted matter
Notice of Public Hearings
duly opened at 8:20 p.m.
as posted and published
and read
aloud from
and as noted above.
the
Carl Sgrecci
addressed the Board and
stated
that his request
is
for a transfer of
Mary Louise Perry
title to approximately 2.9
to Carl and Marilyn Sgrecci.
acres
from Richard
and
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson
Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the
Board for discussion. .
Board Member Eva Hoffmann
Perry's land. Mr. Sgrecci
acres. Chairperson Grigorov
Council had reviewed this
asked
about
the
total acreage of Mr.
replied
that
this area was about 41.7
said
that
the
Conservation Advisory
matter
and
they
had
some questions
about
Planning Board -3- February 19, 1991
• the possibility of another driveway being put in, if the land was
subdivided. Mr. Sgrecci stated that they certainly have no such
plans. Eva Hoffmann stated that the concern the CAC had was that if
the lot becomes consolidated it becomes 7.6 acres, and if it were
if
subdivided there should be a condition that there would be no more
curb cuts on Trumansburg Road. Robert Kenerson responded that that
could not be done anyway without subdivision approval. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that the Environmental Assessment Form has been reviewed by
the sub - committee of the CAC.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion.
MOTION by Mr. Robet Kenerson, seconded by Mr. William Lesser.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of 2.9 +/- acres from Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6- 27 -1,1 -11.2, 133.5 acres total, located at 1138
Trumansburg Road, Residence District R -15.
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on February 19, 1991, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and an
environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared by the
Acting Town Planner, a plat entitled "Survey for Richard and Mary
Louise Perry, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New
York ", prepared by George Schlecht, P.E., L.S. and dated October
21 1990, and other application materials.
4. The Acting Town Planner has recommended a negative determination
of environmental significance.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed.
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.
MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by Judith Aronson:
• WHEREAS.
1
. Planning Board -4000 February 19, 1991
• 1. This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of 2.9 +/- acres from Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6 -27 -1 -11.2, 133.5 acres total, located at 1138
Trumansburg Road, Residence District R -15.
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
February 19, 1991, made a negative determination of environmental
significance.
3. The Planning
Board, at Public Hearing on
February 19, 1991,
has
reviewed the
Short Environmental Assessment
Form and
an
environmental
assessment of the proposed
action prepared by
the
Acting Town Planner,
a plat entitled "Survey
for Richard and
Mary
Louise Perry,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, State of
New
York ", prepared
by;George Schlecht, P.E., L.S.
and dated October
2, 1990,
and other
application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for!IPreliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board.
2. That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as
shown
on a plat
entitled
Ithaca,
Schlecht,
that the
6 -27 -1 -11.2
"Survey for Richard and Mary Louise
Tompkins County, State of New York ",
P.E., L.1S. and dated October 2, 1990,
2.9 +/- acre parcel being subdivided from
be combined with Tax Parcel No. 6 -26
Perry,
prepared
upon
Tax
-1 -11.1.
Town of
by George
condition
Parcel No.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of
Final Subdivision Approval for the Carl Sgrecci /Richard and Jo Perry
one -Lot subdivision duly closed at 8:28 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,048 + /- SQ. FT. BUILDING WITH BASEMENT,
TO BE LOCATED AT ROGAN'S CORNER, 825 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO. 6- 40 -4 -2, BUSINESS DISTRICT "A ". JAMES C. ROGAN,
• OWNER /APPLICANT.
Planning Board
-5-
February 19, 1991
• Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 8:29 p.m.
Chairperson Grigorov announced, for the record, that Robert
Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, William Lesser, Eva Hoffmann, and
herself, had visited the site.
Attorney William Seldin approached the Board and stated that he
was representing Mr. Rogan.
Attorney Seldin noted that, with respect to hardship, it is
important to take a look at the history of the parcel. Attorney
Seldin said that when Mr. Rogan purchased the property in 1983 it
consisted of a house and three shacks. Mr. Rogan restructured the
premises. Attorney ,Seldin stated that, at that time, the Zoning
Board of Appeals unanimously granted Mr. Rogan's appeal, and, in so
doing, the ZBA noted and defined unnecessary hardship as his
inability to meet the needs of the property based on the uses that
are permitted in Business District "A ". Attorney Seldin said that
Mr. Rogan has appeared before the Board on a number of occasions, one
of the most recent !being in 1987 when he sought a variance for the
creation of the second building which was to house, in part, a pizza
facility and also to be used as a laundromat. Attorney Seldin stated
that the second building did not furnish enough square footage to
house both a pizza parlor and a laundromat, adding, in the past five
years this particularplocation has experienced an enormous amount of
• usage from both the' residents in that area as well as the College
students; the College pstudents are probably 30% to 400, and the
residents in that area take up the other 50% or 60 %. Attorney Seldin
said that this has alI been taken into account by Larry Fabbroni and
his traffic study, commenting that one of the principal concerns was
the element of traffic'. Mr. Fabbroni's report makes a statement that
even if the peak hour of traffic increased by 50% and they all
decided to use the exit by the Coddington Road driveway to Rte. 96B,
the Coddington Road' intersection with State Rte. 96B would continue
to operate safely andat a level of what Mr. Fabbroni terms service
"A ", which is defined as the highest and least congestive level,
adding that this is further confirmed by the State in which they
indicate no additional requirements from their end would need to be
made to accommodate the situation. Attorney Seldin stated that the
new building would; be, aesthetically consistent with the other
existing buildings. Attorney Seldin said that he was pleased to note
that Mr. Frantz had given a recommendation that indicated there would
be no significant adverse environmental impact resulting from the
project. Attorney (Seldin stated that the adjacent property owner,
Ted Fish, has offered,his favor and support of the proposed project,
adding that Mr. Fish has agreed to provide ten parking spaces to Mr.
Rogan for a sum of money, which is renewable.
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson
• Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the
Board for discussion.
Planning Board
-6-
February 19, 1991
• Board Member William Lesser asked, if the plans are developed as
resented, what is the "'
p coverage of the property? Mr. Frantz answered
that the total lot coverage is approximately 1 acre out of 114 acres.
At this point, Town Attorney Grossman asked Attorney Seldin to
give a history of variances for the property. Attorney Seldin said
that in 1983 a variance was granted to install one self- service
gasoline pump island with two pumps, and at that time a site plan was
produced - a site plan that incorporated all of the usage with the
exception of the two buildings that followed. The site plan was
approved subject to various conditions; it came back in 1984,
specifically on May 16! 1984, and, at that time, the application was
for on- premises consumption of pizza, sandwiches, etc., and for a
convenience store. At that time, the approval was granted for the
proposed extension of use, i.e., the consumption of on- premises food
goods such as pizza, sandwiches, ice - cream, delivery of same from
said site, and approval of site plan. Attorney Seldin stated that
the only other one that bears any relevancy to tonight's proceeding
was on June 24, 1987 and that was the laundromat and pizza parlor.
Bill Lesser questioned Mr. Fabbroni regarding traffic and
circulation. Mr. Fabb)roni said that there would not be any kind of
appreciable impact on adjacent roads.
Virginia Langhansiasked about the number of employees. Mr. Rogan
responded that there are three or four different shifts for a total
�. of 30, probably 15 on the premises at one time.
Mr. Kenerson wondered about any future expansion. Mr. Rogan
responded that this was it. Attorney Grossman asked about the
orientation of _the building. Attorney Seldin responded that the
requested location has'I the best view.
Mr. Frantz stated'' that, as he understood it, the additional
variances are essentially for the building's front yard set -back
which is, indicating on map, "this" area right "here ", 30' back from
the right of way Mine, and, of course, parking in the front yard
set -back in "this" area right "here" which is already existing. Mr.
Frantz offered that the site plan was approved on 2/16/87. Mr.
Frantz stated that heljunderstood that, at the time the building was
proposed, there was some resistance on the part of the Planning Board
to a third building at that time. Mr. Rogan responded that it was
withdrawn as there was no purpose for a third building. Attorney
Seldin stated that, at the present time, what the applicant is
suggesting, with the third building, is that it is consistent with
the orderly growth that has taken place in the area, and it does not
impact adversely by,, way of the environmental recommendations, or by
way of traffic studies, or anything else; it only provides a service
that was envisionedi and encouraged at the outset. Attorney Seldin
noted that there is a need for this building for the service it
provides, just as there is a need for the laundromat and the store.
• Chairperson Grigorov rioted that Mr. Frantz's point is that it does
not need to be in the front yard set -back. Mr. Frantz commented that
if there is a demonstrated need for this, then,the appropriate route
•
Planning Board -7- February 19, 1991
would be for the Town to consider zoning additional land for
commercial use. Attorney Seldin said that there would be no more
development after this request is granted. Mr. Frantz said that
there is no question about the quality of the whole Rogan's Corner
complex. Mr. Frantz noted that the reasons put forth for this
building have been increased business, and a million dollar view,
adding, in his mind) as a planner, it has not been touched upon how
that relates directly to the requirement of the New York State Zoning
Law to demonstrate a practical difficulty, or economic hardship to
justify building said building within the set - backs.
Chairperson Grigorov stated that it is a matter of the set - back..
Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the set -back could be moved back so
that it is legal, and complies with the 30 -foot requirement.
Attorney Seldin said that if the building were located any
differently it would impede the flow of interior traffic, especially
because of the location of the gas pumps. Attorney Seldin stated
that several parking spaces would be lost if the building were
rearranged on the lot.'
At this point, Mr'. Kenerson asked about site lighting. Mr. Rogan
answered that there are already lights on the premises. Mr. Kenerson
wondered about solid' I waste, noting that there is one dumpster. Mr.
Rogan responded that it is an eight -cubic -yard dumpster and felt that
it is adequate. Mr. Kenerson asked about sewer and water.
replied that the sewer line runs right in front of the building.
Kenerson wondered about the construction timetable. Attorney
responded that it is planned to break ground in the Spring
it completed by August;jl5, 1991.
There appearing too be no
asked if anyone were prepared
MOTION by William !Lesser,
Mr.
Rogan
Mr.
Seldin
and
have
further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
to make a motion.
seconded by Stephen Smith.
RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the Public
Hearing in the matter of the consideration of Site Plan Approval for
the proposed construction of a 2,048 + /- sq. ft. building with
basement to be located at Rogan's Corner, 825 Danby Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.116- 40 -4 -2, Business District "A ", be and hereby
is adjourned to March 5, 1991 in order for the applicant to make a
good faith effort, in addition to the plan presently before the
Board, to present an alternative plan, or plans, which comply with
the zoning setback requirements and, secondarily, in order for the
exemptions which have been granted to be clarified in terms of the
side setback and the parking in the front yard setback.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay - None. ii
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Planning Board
-8-
February 19, 1991
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Consideration of Site Plan
Approval for the proposed construction of a new building at Rogan's
Corner duly adjourned until March 5, 19910
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES STATEMENTS AS
PREPARED BY THE TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR
THE TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
The document under discussion is attached hereto as Exhibit #1.
Board Member Virginia Langhans
stated that she
was concerned
about the
comment regarding the limitation
of growth,
adding, not so
much as to
growth, but how much
they were going
to limit it.
Chairperson
Grigorov and Board
Member Stephen Smith noted that
presently it
is just a,,draft document.
Board Member
William Lesser
mentioned controlled growth.
William Lesser wondered if there was going to be a definition
section in the document, because there are a lot of words cited,
e.g., "sprawl ", and that could mean a lot of things. Board Member
Eva Hoffmann wondered if there would be a page that lists all the
different headings. Chairperson Grigorov noted that that would be a
very good idea. Mr. Lesser commented that as he read through the
document he got the 11 feeling that it treats the Town of Ithaca as if
it were on the moon. Mr. Lesser stated that the Town of Ithaca is
part of a larger community and the Town does focus on the City to do
• certain things. Mr. Lesser commented that he thought it is helpful
to say the Town is'' going to do certain things, but it is not all
things to all people, and the City is going to do certain things,
noting that there are other communities that surround the Town which
are going to continue to grow. Mr. Kenerson offered that there needs
to be some simplicity in the document as to what the Town stands for
in ten or less words. Mr. Kenerson agrees with Mr. Lesser in that
the Town is part of a greater community. Acting Town Planner George
Frantz stated that the idea was for individuals to comments the
Planning Board itself, as a body, is not expected to comment. Mr.
Kenerson stated that, he understood this is a Planning Board
responsibility, with Chairperson Grigorov noting that it will be in
the end.
Eva Hoffmann referred to Page 6 of the Draft Statements of Goals
and Objectives, No. 3, "Public Utilities, Services and Community
Facilities ". Ms. Hoffmann wondered what was meant by community
facilities. Mr. Frantz responded that community facilities generally
refer to facilities such as Fire Stations, Dept. of Public Works
facilities. Ms. Hoffmann next referred to 5a on Page 6, Public
Utilities, Ms. Hoffmann wondered what utilities the Town has control
over, adding that she understands water and sewer but what about
power lines or phone lines. Mr. Kenerson responded that the Town
would contract for it, but the definition section would say - What is
a utility? Mr. Frantz noted that the Appendix would have a
• definition section. Mr. Frantz noted that he envisioned the Policy
Statements would reappear as the means of implementing these Goals
and Objectives Statements, and hopefully they will appear in Chapter
. Planning Board
-9-
February 19, 1991
• IV and V of the Plan itself. Mr. Frantz stated that the Agricultural
Committee was very adamant about wanting the Policy Statements
reappearing in the Plan'.
Eva Hoffmann referred to Page 7, #9)(b) "Public Safety ",
"Objectives in seeking this goal ", No. 1. Ms. Hoffmann wondered
what the other public safety services and facilities were. Mr.
Frantz replied that ,they are services, although they may not be
publicly owned, that are expected to be available to the public. Ms.
Hoffmann wondered how the Town can ensure adequate provision. Mr.
Frantz responded that it is an objective; the Town may not be able to
do it, but the idea behind the objectives is that the Town will do
its best to make sure that these services are available. Mr. Frantz
stated that it is expected that a Draft Comprehensive Plan will be
completed by late June '1991 or early July 1991.
Chairperson Grigorov closed the discussion on the draft Goals and
Objectives Statement.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 24, 1990
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Stephen Smith:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of July 24, 1990, be and hereby are approved with the
following addition on page 28 at the end of the sixth paragraph:
• "Attorney Barney notedithat the end result of the resolution being
considered by the Planning Board is a positive determination of
environmental significance. ", and further, with the addition on page
30 at the end of the second paragraph: ", the Board having made a
positive determination of environmental significance for this action
as proposed."
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Keners,on, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Xo6&m*&R, Aronson.
Nay - None.
Abs+* n. Ho.P�'w,a4►n.
The MOTION was declared to be carried y.
OTHER BUSINESS:
The Board held a brief discussion on population figures in the
Town. (See Exhibit #2 attached hereto.)
Chairperson Grigorov announced that there is a seat available on
the Affordable Housing Advisory Board and anyone interested should
contact her as soon as possible.
Chairperson Grigorov, referring to the Special Children's Center
• project, informed the Board of a possible home for disabled adults to
be located in the Town.
Planning Board
-10-
February 19, 1991
• ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the February 19, 1991,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:45
p.m.
•
•
1.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Bryant, Recording Secretary,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
I
•
•
•
DRAFT STATEMENTS OF
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW
PREFACE
COMMITTEE
YORK
Formulation of clear, concise, and well- considered goals and
objectives is an important part of the planning process. They
will be the foundation for the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
Accordingly, the Comprehensive Planning Committee has drafted
attached goals andjobjectives which are now being forwarded to
the various members of Town boards and committees for comment.
the
"Goals and objectives represent the plan's statement of
community desires, Goals and objectives give direction to
the plan. They represent the community's aspirations and
outline the ends that should be reached if the plan's
proposals areiproperly implemented." (From The Practice
Local Government Planning, International City Management
Association, Chicago, 1988.)
1 11
The following goals and objectives statements are grouped into
five broad functional categories:
1) Land Use, Development,.and Related Activities
2) Transportation
3) Public Utilities, Services, and Community.Facilities
4) Town Government, Administration, and Finance
5,) Economic Development
ME
Please note that, for the sake of.organization and brevity,,the,
Land U's'e and Public Utilities categories- begin with broad goals
and objectives which apply to all of that category's various
.subtopics. For example,:the statement "efficiently and wisely
assess, prioritize;i_ and finance public works and services" is a
general objective which applies to all-the various subtopics of
that section (public utilities, public safety, parks and
recreation, etc.). ft
2/13/91 "Draft Goals and Objectives
Page 1
L�
C7
Goals and Objectives Statements
14. Land Use, Development.-and Related Activities
GOAL: Improve the quality of the built environment; control
and limit growth so as to protect the natural
environment and preserve the character of residential
and rural areas.
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Establish and adhere to well- defined criteria for all types
of land use decisions, {rezonings as well as special
approvals, variances, subdivisions, site planning, etc.}
2) Prepare and maintain land use, development, and
environmentalGregulations in accordance with the plan.
3) Limit sprawl and unnecessary dispersion.
4) Provide physical and visual transitions between different
land uses; minimize conflicts.
5) Consider the unique characteristics of different geographic
areas in the land.use decision making process.
G), .Encourage the maintenance and improvement of the built
environment in order to prevent degradation and decrepitude,
including protecti;on'of h.istoric structures and sites.
7) Establish controls to allow a mix of various compatible land
uses.
8) Cooperate in maintaining -a strong city core for the community. a.
(a) Conservation, Open Space, & Environmental Protection
GOAL: Improve ft he condition of the natural environment, preserve anc
protect it from degradation.
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Identify, classify, and provide appropriate protection for natural
resources, open space, environmentally sensitive areas, and unique
natural areas'.
2) Classify and regulate land uses based on environmental impact and
carrying capacity. Direct development toward areas that are least
likely to be harmed.
• 2/13/91 Draft Goals and Objectives
Ji
Page 2
C7
•
3) Minimize erosion, sedimentation, and drainage problems resulting
from development, and enforce regulation within flood hazard areas.
4) Identify and seek remediation of hazardous waste sites.
5)
6)
Work to improve the quality of public and private water
supplies.
Work to improve and preserve
ground water, and air.
the quality of surface water,
7) Fairly distribute the cost of providing open space.
(b) Development Management
GOAL: Wisely shape, limit, and manage the Town's built
environment.
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Establish and insist on adherence to performance standards which
.guide development management and the development review process.
2) Demand creative, efficient, and attractive plans and designs for
all development. Encourage plans and designs which enhance or
are compatible' with their surroundings.
3). Encourage (and mandate as appropriate) .cl,uster:ing within
developments.in order to allow retention of beneficial open
space and minimize environmental impact.
4) Encourage high- quality construction, appearance, and energy
efficiency.
5) Manage development to- promote the most efficient use of
infrastructure and community facilities.
6) Fairly distribute the costs of development.
7) Regulate signs to reduce visual hazards, enhance their
attractiveness! ", and better inform passersby.
8) Regulate lighting for safety, energy efficiency, attractiveness,
and lack of visual annoyance.
9) Encourage adaptive reuse of structures where appropriate.
2/13/91 Draft Goals and Objectives Page 3
t:
•
.7
(c) Residential Land Use and Development
GOAL: Availability of diverse, high- quality, well- maintained,
safe, affordable, and attractive places for people to live.
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Preserve and'I, enhance the character of established neighborhoods.
2) Encourage self -help and neighborhood action,
3) Make allowance
development to
4) Facilitate the
5) Provide for cu
guarding again
6) Ensure that re
clean, low tra
vegetation, elt
for a variety of hou
meet the diverse nee
creation of opportun
stomary and reasonabl
st the creation of nu
sidential areas have
ffic, low vehicle spe
c.)..
s
d
i
e
i
d
e
ing styles and patterns of
s of the community,
ties for affordable housing.
home occupations while
sances,
esirable attributes (quiet,
ds, safe, abundant
(d) Commercial Land Use and Development
GOAL: Plan for; a limited number of small - scale, convenient, safe,
attractive, and economically viable commercial areas.
Objectives in seek-, ling this goal:
I
1) Improve the safety and appearance of existing commercial areas.
2) Require safe land efficient access to commercial areas.
3) Encourage alternatives to "strip" commercial development.
(e) Agricultural Land Use, Farming, & Agribusiness .
li
GOAL: Enhance agricultural viability and preserve agricultural
ll
land resources.
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Integrate provisions for farming activities and operations in
land use and development regulations.
2) Protect the primacy of farming activities in areas designated
for agricultural uses.
3) Plan public infrastructure so as to minimize development
potential in areas designated for agricultural uses.
It
2/13/91
Draft Goals and Objectives Page 4
'Y
r
•
4) Discourage the conversion of productive agricultural land to
other uses.'
5) Encourage active agricultural practices which minimize
contamination of the environment, soil erosion, and surface
water runoff.
6) Renew,-sustain, and expand the agricultural sector.
(f) Industrial Land Use and Development
GOAL: Attain ta variety of employment opportunities with
responsible industries.
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Encourage the development of non - intrusive light industry in
Planned areas.
2) Consider the,e;zpansion of industrial areas only after presently
undeveloped or vacant industrial lands are used.
3). Encourage improvements to the appearance and safety of existing
industrial facilities.
(g) Institutional Land Use and Development
.o .
GOAL: Encourage the continued vitality and responsible behavior
• . of local institutions while working cooperatively to
control the amount, location, rate, density, scale, safety,
and attractiveness of institutional development.
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Integrate.provisions specifically-for institutional uses and
activities in Town land use and development regulations.
2) Vigorously engage-local institutions in continuing dialogue to„
maintain good communication and reduce existing or possible
conflicts with the Town.
3) Encourage institutions to maximize .public access to their
resources.
2. Transportation
GOAL: Ensure al transportation system which is safe, effective,
efficient, and environmentally and socially responsible.
2/13/91 Draft Goals and Objectives Page 5
•
•
i
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Minimize the�i need for motorized transportation within the
Greater Ithaca area.
2) Minimize the negative impacts on.the natural and residential
environments from traffic and the construction and maintenance
of roads. 11 1
3) Diversify the transportation system, with emphasis upon more
fuel - efficient forms of transportation, such as public transit,
bicycles, and walking.
4) Maximize the aesthetics and convenience of the transportation
-- system.
5) Ensure adequlate safety for the entire transportation system
through theause of appropriate accident prevention strategies.
3. Public Utilities, Services and Community Facilities
GOAL; Provide';Lutilities, other public services, and community
facilities according to the needs of Town residents in an
effectilve and efficient manner.
Objectives in seeIking this goal:
Il�f
1) Properly maintain all publicly owned facilities and equipment.
2)' Efficiently and wisely assess, prioritize, and finance public
works and services.
3) Wherever mutually beneficial and practical, participate in joint
development of utilities, facilities, and services with other
municipalities and /or institutions.
4) Seek State, Federal, and other outside funds to help pay for
public works'land services.
5) Work with residents to provide various community facilities for
neighborhood use.
(a) Public Utilities
GOAL: Providelhigh- quality public utilities at reasonable cost.
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Locate public utilities in accordance with the various goals and
objectives of this plan.
• 2/13/91 Draft Goals and Objectives
i
am.- .
2) Examine possible impacts on existing development, and the
potential for future development, when considering the
construction of new or expanded public utilities.
3) Evaluate the,need for stormwater management facilities, such as
retention ponds and storm sewers.
4) Limit public {utility "tie -ins" so as not to exceed design
capacities.
5) Ensure the quality, efficiency, and affordability of drinking
water provision and waste water treatment.
6) Work to prevent surface and groundwater pollution by sewage
systems. I -
7) Carefully evaluate requests for extension of public utilities
from other municipalities and areas of the Town not presently
served by assessing the potential impacts on service capacities,
continued service to the Town, transportation, possible growth
inducement, and other potential impacts.
8), 'Include streetlights as part of the infrastructure normally
constructed by developers where the scale and density of
projects dictate.
9) Encourage energy and water conservation.
• (b) Public Safety
GOAL: Protect people and their ,property.
Objectives in seeking this goalo.
1) Ensure the adequate provision of high - quality fire, police, and
other publicsafety services and facilities.
2) Encourage the adequate.provision of high - quality, affordable
hospital andlhealth care services and facilities.
3) Foster communications between public safety providers and the
community, and encourage the further development of public
safety education programs.
4) Pursue various prevention measures in order to minimize the need
for such emergency services,.
(c) Parks and Recreation
GOAL: Provide,l'diverse, accessible, and attractive parks and
recreational opportunities.
2/13/91 Draft Goals and Objectives Page 7
r]
•
r �
U
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Create an integrated system of parks throughout the Town, being
mindful of (and planning for) the beneficial aspects of
undeveloped open space.
2) Where appropriate, maximize the accessibility of Town parks to
residents.
3) Provide linkage (eg. pathways, stream corridors, trails, utility
rights -of -way) between various units of the system, as feasible.
4) Acquire
suitable
land
park lands and
develop recreational facilities
that collectively
provide for a
diversity of recreational
opportunities.
(d) Education
GOAL: Encourage
high
- quality educational
services and facilities.
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Reserve
land
for public
school expansion in planning future
development.
"!
2) Communicate and cooperate with educational institutions.
3) Encourage neighborhood schools and their use as community
centers. .
(e). Solid Waste Management
GOAL: Ensure the efficient and responsible management of solid
waste.
Objectives in seeking this goals
1) Reduce the amount of generated solid waste.
2) Maximize reuse and recycling. „
ii
3) Improve and expand municipal composting.
(f) Human Services
GOAL: Foster and improve the availability of human services.
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Encourage the provision of human services to those with special
needs.
• 2/13/91 'Draft Goals and Objectives
•
•
..
•
4.
2) Ensure handicapped accessibility to all 'public services in the
Town.
3) Encourage high - quality and affordable day care services and
facilities.
Hsi
tratio
GOAL: Maintain a Town Government responsive to and representative
of the opinions of residents in the Town while considering
the needs of .the greater community in the decision making
process:
Objectives in seeking this goal:
1) Provide ample opportunities for citizen participation in Town
government.
2) Seek to influence and cooperate with
in accordance with the various goals
3) Provide responsible fiscal
4) Ensure that Town facilities
and well maintained.
5. Economic Development
other governmental agencies
an'd objectives of the plan.
and records management,
are adequate, appropriately located,
GOAL Promote'a stable, responsible, and diverse local economy.
Objectives in
seeking this goal:
1) Encourage a wide variety of
residents.
employment opportunities for
2) Increase the;jproperty tax base without creating a burden on
public services and infrastructure.
3)' Encourage local ownership and management of businesses.
.R
2/13/91 ,Draft Goals and 'Objectives Page 9
•
TOWN OF ITHACA
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 /Cq—
DATE: February 12, 1991
RE: Official Population Counts -- Town of Ithaca and other
Tompkins County municipalities.
Attached for your information are official population figures for
the Town of Ithaca and other Tompkins County communities prepared
by the .Tompkins County Department of Planning.
As you can see the official population of the Town per the 1990
_Census is 17,797 persons, up 1,775 from 1980. The Town of Ithaca
experienced the largest increase, in population over the past ten
years of any Tompkins County municipality. It's increase in
population represents. 25.,3 %' of, Tompkins County's population
.increase.
I am confident that the 1,990 Census will be an accurate reflection
of the ,people of th'e Town of Ithaca. Town planning staff have
spent `approximately, 250; hours during the past two years
participating in the!;ICensus Local Review Program. This has enabled
us to :review for accuracy various census maps and housing unit
estimates provided by the Census Bureau, both before and after the
census was taken. Our postcensus review conducted this past
September resulted in an upward adjustment of '62 'persons, from
17,735 to 17,797.
Overall the census results appear close enough to our estimates to
be acceptable. All indications are that any errors,in the census
counts would result''in a slight overcount of the Town of Ithaca
rather than any undercount..
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the 1990
Census.
0 IF
•
Iu
TABLE 1
OFFICIAL POPULATION COUNTS: TOMPKINS COUNTY, 1990
PI ®PULAT�ON CHQNG fi99 -1980
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1990 1980 CHANGE 1990 -1980
Numbe %
TOMPKINS COUNTY � 940971 87085 7012 8%
0
CAROLINE TOWN 3 044 27541 290 11 %
DANBY TOWN 2858 24491 4091 17%
DRYDEN TOWN 13251' 1215-61 10951 9%
Dryden Vil 1908. 17611 1471 8%
Freeville Vil ( 437 4491 ml 21 -3%
ENFIELD TOWN 3054 23751 679 29%
GROTON TOWN 5483 52131 270 5%
Groton Vil 2398 2313 85 4%
ITHACA CITY 29541 28732 809 3%
ITHACA TOWN 17797 16022 1775 111%
Cayuga Hts Vil 3457 3170 287 9%
LANSINGTOWN 9296 8317 979 12%
:
Lansing. Vil 3281 3039 242 8%
NEWFIELD TOWN „ 4867 4401. 466 11 %
ULYSSES TOWN ' 4906 4666 240 570
Trumansbg Vil 1611 1722 -1 11 -6%
NEWYORK 11117990455 17558165 432290 2.46%
SOURCE: U.S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, WASH. D.C. 20233
NOTE: TOWN TOTALS INCLUDE VILLAGES WHERE APPLICABLE
If
Page 1
i
i
•
100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
•
.40000
30000
20000
10000
Psi
r]
(:HAH'( 1A
POPULATION CHANG E:1 990-1 980
TO CA DA DRY ENF C-R ITH ITH LA NE ULY
NP ROL NBY DEN Dry Fre IEL OT Gro AC AC Cay NSI Lan WFI SSE Tru
KIN INE TO TO den evi D ON ton A A uga NG sin ELD S ma
S T O W S J M V i I Ile T O T O V i I CIT TO Hts TO g TO TO nsb
Page 1
J
j
I
I
I
!
I
�
i
i
lif
ILUU..
kkk
TO CA DA DRY ENF C-R ITH ITH LA NE ULY
NP ROL NBY DEN Dry Fre IEL OT Gro AC AC Cay NSI Lan WFI SSE Tru
KIN INE TO TO den evi D ON ton A A uga NG sin ELD S ma
S T O W S J M V i I Ile T O T O V i I CIT TO Hts TO g TO TO nsb
Page 1
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
THE ITHACA 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
of The Ithaca Journal a public nem
Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice,
copy, was published in said paper
7
per printed and published in
which the annexed is a true
end that the first publication of said notice was on the
day of If i \ Kok v `-. I 19
Sub ribed and sworn to before me, this / day
of 19 G
lNufary rUD11C.
JEAN FORD
Notary Public, S`=te cr Nov YcI}
fib. 46:: 0
r t Coun
Commission expires M21Y
•
/6
rOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING
BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARINGS, TUESDAY, FEB -'
RUARY 19, 1991
B direction of the Chairman
of the Planning Board, NOTICE
IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public
Hearings will be held by the
Planning Board of the Town of.
Ithaca on Tuesday, February
19, 1991, in Town Hall, 126 E.
Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y.. at
the following times and on the'
following matters:
8:00 P.M. Consideration of
Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of 2.9
plus /minus acres from Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -27-
1 -11.2, 133.5 acres total, lo-
cated at 1138 Trumansburg
Road, Residence District R-15.
Richard and Jo Perry, Owners;
Carl Sgrecci, Agent.
8:15 P.M. Consideration of
Site Plan Approval for the pro-
posed construction of a 2,048
plus /minus -sq. ft. building.
with basement, to be located
at Rogan's Corners, 825 Danby
Rd., Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 6- 40 -4 -2, business District
"A ". James C. Rogan, Owne-
r /Applicant.
Said Planning Board will at ,
said times and said place hear J
all persons in support of such
matters or objections thereto. -1
Persons may appear by agent`s
or in person. j
Jean H. Swartwood'
Town Clerk
273 -1721 ,
February 14, 1991