HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1994-11-01FINAL
COPY
• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 1, 1994
RL%D
TOWN F ITHA.C.A
Data `7•,y/
Cie:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, November 1, 1994, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York at 7 :30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, George Bayer, Gregory Bell,
Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Stephen
Smith, Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner), JoAnn Cornish -Epps
(Planner II) , Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney
(Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Mary & Bill Webber, Jennifer Bokaer- Smith, Liz
Walker, Steve Gaarder, Monty Berman, Deena Berke,
Arthur Godin, Greg Thomas, Joan Bokaer, Daryl
Anderson, Susan McGrievy, Sara Pines, Ed Hollister,
Aaron Pines, Nancy Brown, Jerold & Claudia
Weisburd.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30
p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of
Posting and.Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town
Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 24, 1994 and October 26,
1994, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of
is Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the
property under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the
Town of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden, upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents,...as
appropriate, on October 26, 19949
Chairperson Kenerson read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann made a motion that the Board suggest
to the Town Board that a light be put at the bottom of the
handicapped ramp at Town Hall for the safety of the Board members
as well as the public. Board Member Herbert Finch seconded that
motion.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Bayer, Ainslie, Hoffmann, Finch.
Nay - None.
Absent from vote - Smith.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Planning Board Minutes 2 November 1, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN
BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF A 30 +/- ACRE PORTION
OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 28 -1 -26.2, THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
AREA BEING LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,150 FT. SOUTH LINE OF
MECKLENBURG ROAD (NYS ROUTE 79), THE EAST LINE BEING LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET WEST OF WEST HAVEN ROAD, AND THE SOUTH
BEING LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 800 FT. NORTH OF ELM ST. EXTENSION.
SAID PROPOSAL WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30
TO SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (SLUD). ECO VILLAGE AT ITHACA, INC.,
OWNER; FIRST RESIDENTS' GROUP, APPLICANT; CLAUDIA AND JEROLD
WEISBURD, AGENTS.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the above=
noted matter duly opened at 7:35 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted
above.
Chairperson Kenerson addressed the public and gave a brief
overview of the Eco Village project, and a description of the
proposed Special Land Use District. Chairperson Kenerson stated
that the Planning Board would make a recommendation to the Town
Board regarding the SLUD and that the Town Board would then - discuss
the project and hold an official Public Hearing, and make an
official-ruling to adopt the SLUD into law. Chairperson Kener -son
stated that the Eco Village proposal would there come! before the
Planning Board again.for site plan approval.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that the Planning Board had
already discussed issues such as drainage, roads, and emergency
access.
Chairperson Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone wished to speak.
Ed Hollister
of
173
West
Haven Road,
addressed
the Board and
asked
where
the
Special
Land
Use
District
was on
this
property.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that the SLUD was the 30 acre
piece shown in green on the site plan (dated October 25, 1994 and
revised October 26, 1994) posted on the board room wall.
Mr. Hollister asked if there were any other SLUDs in the Town
of Ithaca and . for what use, and what the impact on the taxes would
be if the SLUD were granted for the Eco Village project.
Chairperson Kenerson named several SLUDs and explained what a
SLUD was. Chairperson Kenerson stated that a SLUD was a rezoning
process to allow a specific portion of land to be used differently
than what the currently zoned use permits for that property.
Mr. Hollister asked if the water and sewer would precede the
construction of any buildings.
Planning Board Minutes
3
Chairperson Kenerson responded, yes.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that
Planning Board is considering tonight is onl y
the final version.
November 1, 1994
the SLUD, which the
a draft, and is not
Mary Webber, a member of the First Residents' Group, addressed
the Board and stated that the concept of the project is to develop
a community that is sustainable, to preserve the environment and
open space, by clustering the houses closely together. Ms. Webber
stated that there may be other neighborhoods around this one with
the houses also clustered closely together with a common green area
in the middle for a play area for the children.
Ed Hollister asked if the other neighborhoods would also be
SLUDs.
Ms. Webber responded, yes.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that he thought that the
addition of an additional neighborhood would mean the expansion of
this SLUD,-not necessarily SLUD #10 or SLUD #11.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that was possible.
Ms. Webber stated that until there is a water tower or some
other source of water, the 30 units being proposed is all that
could be built. Ms. Webber stated that additional units would need
to go through the same process that the First Residents' Group has
gone through.
Jerold Weisburd addressed the Board and indicated that the
proposed SLUD is different than other SLUDs in the Town of Ithaca
because it is not a change in use. Mr. Weisburd stated that the
use is the same as the R -30 zoning currently allowed. Mr. Weisburd
stated that the request under the SLUD is to cluster the houses .
closer than what is normally allowed, and the reason that the Group
wants the houses clustered is to preserve the open space.
Ed
Hollister
asked if
there
would
be
any special precautions
taken
in
the
construction
of the
homes
for
fire prevention.
Mr. Weisburd stated that there would only be a change in the
zoning regarding the distances between buildings, but that they
would abide by the code as the state mandated.
Mr.
Hollister
stated
that
resident's
protection
in case
of
he was concerned about the
a fire.
Planning Board Minutes 4 November 1, 1994
Mr. Weisburd stated that there would be fire safe walls and
that emergency vehicles can get to within 60 feet of any of the
homes and the community building. Mr. Weisburd distributed edited
drawings of the site (dated October 25, 1994, and revised October
26, 1994) for the Planning Board to review and discuss. Mr.
Weisburd then made a brief presentation of what changes had been
made since the October 18, 1994 meeting. (Drawings attached hereto
as Exhibit #1)
Mr. Weisburd stated that based on the suggestions made at the
Planning Board Meeting of October 18, 1994 the road had been moved
to the east to give 150 feet of frontage to make 'the western parcel
a legal lot with the correct road frontage. Mr. Weisburd stated
that he had taken some sight readings on West: Haven Road from
standing where the proposed access road would be and found that the
sight distance was greater from the right and the same from the
left due to the crest of the road looking to the left. Mr.
Weisburd stated that the utility pole located near the end of the
access road would not obstruct the view while trying to pull out
onto West Haven Road. Mr. Weisburd stated that the loop for access
should another neighborhood be developed at some point in the
future is shown on the drawings submitted. Mr..- Weisburd stated
that the parking spaces were increased to 45 spaces with an
optional 10 or 11 spaces indicated for possible future use if
needed. Mr. Weisburd stated that 10 or 15 of the parking spaces
may be covered.
Board Member Gregory Bell asked how it would be determined who
gets covered spaces and who doesn't. Mr. Bell stated that it could
be a possible point of conflict.
Claudia Weisburd stated that the covered parking space would
be a part of the residents' lease or contract, and that they would
pay more for that space.
After further discussion, Ms. Weisburd stated that 54 parking
spaces would be acceptable.
Board Member Gregory Bell asked why the point of attachment to
the loop road was such an awkward design, referring to the
intersecation at the western edge of the SLUD.
Mr. Weisburd stated that it was intended to discourage use of
that road as a through road as much as possible, since the
community is developed on the idea of reducing traffic.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that future neighborhoods
would be built and be forced to use only the upper loop and would
not be able to come through there very easily. Ms. Hoffmann added
• Planning Board Minutes 5 November 1, 1994
that they may not be able to go through there at all if it were
restricted to emergency vehicles only.
Mr. Weisburd stated that the impact would be based on where
future houses would be located on that road.
Jennifer Bokaer- Smith, a member of the Residents' Group,
addressed the Board and stated that the reason for not wanting the
loop there when all five neighborhoods were developed is that they
would like the center green as a safe play area for the children
with a path that the children could use without the need to cross
the road.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that she understood what they were trying
to do, but that she was not sure that what was proposed was the
best way to accomplish it.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter suggested that the Planning Board
review the specific comments and concerns about the SLUD. Board
Member Stephen Smith passed out a memo dated November 1, 1994 from
Candace Cornell concerning her review of the Eco village proposal.
Mr. Kanter stated that the memo included comments from Candace
• Cornell, Nancy ostman, and Janet Hawkes and asked if the Board
would like to review that memo at this time. (Memo is attached
hereto as.Exhibit - #2)
The Planning Board reviewed the comments submitted by Candace
Cornell.
In response to Ms. Cornell's questions #1 & #3, Ms. Weisburd
stated that the soil would not be leaving the site and would be
used during construction. In response to Ms. Cornell's question
#3, Ms. Weisburd stated that she had written to Ms. Linda Szeliga
of the Soil Conservation Service and that she is awaiting her
determination regarding the permit requirements for the road
crossing over the wetland.
Mr. Weisburd stated, referring to Question
excavation for the pond would be designed as
#1, that
a balanced cut
the
and
fill,
fill
that
so that as the sides are scooped to create that pond,
is used to create a levy on the low side. Mr. Weisburd stated
they would not need to move any of the soil off the site
the
at
all.
In response to Ms. Cornell's question #2, the Board indicated
that if more than 30 units were proposed, the SLUD would have to be
amended.
In response to Janet Hawkes question #1 regarding keeping farm
animals, Town Attorney John Barney stated that farm animals are
permitted as zoned, with the exception of a hog farm where the
Planning Board Minutes 6 November 1, 1994 .
principal food is garbage.
The Planning Board then reviewed the Full Environmental
Assessment Form and recommended a number of revisions that should
be incorporated.
There being no further discuss
declared the Public Hearing closed and
the Board for discussion.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated
in a County Agricultural District, does
right to impose restrictions on farmin4
ion, Chairperson Kenerson
brought the matter back to
that since this property is
the Planning Board have any
practices.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that with regard to the
agricultural uses, the SLUD is not changing the allowable uses
within that zone, with the exception of a hog farm.
Town Attorney John Barney gave a brief description of the
changes made to the 10/18/94 draft of the proposed SLUD and asked
the Board for direction.
Town Planner. Jonathan Kanter handed out comments submitted-by
Claudia Weisburd concerning the 10/18/94 draft of the proposed SLUR
and stated that the Board could review the memo and then try to
address the points of concern. (Letter dated October 20, 1994,
from Claudia Weisburd is attached hereto as Exhibit #3)
Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked Town Planner Jonathan Kanter
if the Board had dealt with all of the points brought up at the
last meeting by Mr. Kanter.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the Board had made an
opinion that the open space requirement would not be a requirement
of the SLUD, but rather a consideration at the time of
subdivision /site plan review. Mr. Kanter stated that issue of
environmental controls was a general suggestion to the Planning
Board for consideration. Mr. Kanter stated that the remaining
issues could be covered at the site plan stage.
The Planning. Board discussed the items listed in Ms.
Weisburd's letter referenced above with Mr. & Ms. Weisburd and
interested members of the First Residents' Group in an effort to
reach agreement and /or compromise on changes in the SLUD.
Greg Thomas, a member of the First Residents' Group, addressed
the Board and stated that he felt that the occupations that would
be in the common house would allow people to use shared resources
and shared services. 0
. Planning Board Minutes 7 November 1, 1994
It was agreed that the number of offices that would be allowed
within the common house would be limited to no more than four
offices and no more than 100 of the total floor space of common
house and restricted to residents.
Board
Member Gregory Bell
asked
if there would be clients
outside of
Eco Village, and if
so,
what would be the parking
impacts and
the
trip generation
caused
by
that.
Claudia Weisburd stated that parking needs and trip generation
caused by an unknown number of offices was an undetermined need at
this point.
Jerold Weisburd stated that there was concern regarding
Section 3.R. regarding water and sewer and number of building
permits.. Mr. Weisburd stated that it was essential to build the
houses in groups. Mr. Weisburd stated that they were asking for
more flexibility in obtaining building permits.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the Town would need
either an escrow account, a letter of credit, or a bond, that the
Town could draw on to insure that the work gets done. Mr. Walker
stated that building permits are not issued until the utilities
serving those lots are completed and accepted.
Mr. Weisburd asked if the Residents' Group has the money, and
a contract exists with a contractor to do the work, and the money
is put into an account to cover that contract, would that satisfy
the Town, with the amount being based on the actual amount of the
contract.
Mr. Walker responded, yes, as long as the Town had control
over the escrow account.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that by allowing ten building
permits before completion of utilities, the Board has gone beyond
what the Town would normally allow. Attorney Barney stated that
the Residents' Group has a long way to go with the proposed
infrastructure, and before too many people start houses, the Town
wants to see that the infrastructure is there. Attorney Barney
stated that although the Town was taking title to the sewer, the
Town would not be taking title of the water, and he does not like
to see the Town take money that will build a private facility that
the Town does not own.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that State Building Code
does not allow issuance of building permits without utilities.
Board Member James Ainslie asked if the buildings were
handicapped accessible.
Planning Board Minutes 8 November 1, 1994
Jerold Weisburd stated that the common house needed to be, and
that the houses would not have to be. Mr. We.isburd stated that
they would meet the handicapped need instead of exceeding the need.
It was agreed that the Board members and the First Residents'
group should have an opportunity to further review the! revised SLUR
particularly focusing on issues such as; the number of borders that
would be allowed per unit, the minimum number of parking spaces
that will be allowed for the development, water and sewer
facilities, and the number of building permits issued prior to the
completion of the infrastructure for the project.
There being no further discussion at this time,, Chairperson
Kenerson declared the discussion of the Eco Village SLUD to be duly
closed at 10:26 p.m, to be continued at the November 15, 1994
meeting.
AGENDA ITEM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 18, 1994.
MOTION by Stephen Smith, seconded by Herbert Finch.
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Meeting of October 18, 1994, be and hereby are approved as
written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair -called for =a
.
Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Bell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared the be carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Board Member Gregory Bell addressed the Board and stated that
due to the Ithacare review and the Environmental Impact Statement,
that will have to be prepared he felt that the Planning Board
should have a working session to educate the Board and to insure
accuracy in following the proper procedure in taking the proper
steps when it comes to the environmental review.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that there was no other business
to come before the Board.
EXECUTIVE SESSION.
At 10:31 p.m., Board Member Eva Hoffmann MOVED that the
Planning Board retire to Executive Session for purposes of
discussion of a litigation matter. The MOTION was seconded by
Gregory Bell. The Chair called for a vote with the following
• Planning Board Minutes 9 November 1, 1994
results.
Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Bell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
At 11:04 p.m., James Ainslie MOVED that the Planning Board
return to open session having discussed a litigation matter. The
MOTION was seconded by Gregory Bell. The Chair called for a vote
with the following result.
Aye - Kenerson, Bayer, Bell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Kenerson declared the November 1,
1994 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at
11:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
StarrRae ays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
11/3/94.
1244.994'
b
Z
Z r—
z
c. o
ZC=) — G�
y'
T =
z a_
m A
m
_z
z i
o
C� o
D °
r o
v m O
m O
X N 4
m O
II c Ui °
A II c O
Ci 11 m p
C6
11
M O o
11
x
ul O \ \O 0
(D z — \\ au
-m -- A — \� - -- °o s
i N 1j
i o 1�
C?ii
D T
0 300.000' �
rn
N
l / NNN
A � I
m A pop pt 0 I
Z r O I
` m 0 m I
0 60
Ln 73 I
O D m
c/) I �n
o m i O
i ! m
z
O
O i p
D I i
p I I
WEST HAVEN ROAD
pQOaC�Q4 PdG]a
« <D LD
IL
O
O
L
m
m
`'' ^' - rT' Z m m
��..
n
o
s
\ l
0
a
HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS INC.
T21 a
0
o
v
�
167 -1 CALKINS ROAD
REVISED PROPERTY LINES
O
ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
u
m
r—
Ic
z 124fl998'
z
cn
m
U)
b
Z
Z r—
z
c. o
ZC=) — G�
y'
T =
z a_
m A
m
_z
z i
o
C� o
D °
r o
v m O
m O
X N 4
m O
II c Ui °
A II c O
Ci 11 m p
C6
11
M O o
11
x
ul O \ \O 0
(D z — \\ au
-m -- A — \� - -- °o s
i N 1j
i o 1�
C?ii
D T
0 300.000' �
rn
N
l / NNN
A � I
m A pop pt 0 I
Z r O I
` m 0 m I
0 60
Ln 73 I
O D m
c/) I �n
o m i O
i ! m
z
O
O i p
D I i
p I I
WEST HAVEN ROAD
pQOaC�Q4 PdG]a
« <D LD
IL
lKn
ECOVILLAGE COHOUSING COOPERATIVE
`'' ^' - rT' Z m m
��..
o
co
M.. o y
HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS INC.
T21 a
REVISED ROAD
�_ � � 0
167 -1 CALKINS ROAD
REVISED PROPERTY LINES
ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
- ---- - -- - -���II I"� - WWI i vcc.v 1411V V1 `J'4 17.11 14U 0VVI r .UI
L
November 1, 1994
FACSIMILE MEMO TRANSMISSION
TO: Steve Smith
FROM: Candace E. Cornell
SUBJECT: Comments on EcoVillaae
Below are questions that I was asked to forward to the Planning Board tonight at
hearing. Thank you for relaying them for mel the public
avc�-c` Z� S
My questions:
1) There are plans to dig a pond south of the housing complex (see attached map, label
A). Why is there no mention of digging and moving soil for this part of the project?
2) There are more than 15 structures drawn within the 30 acre parcel we are
considering for rezoning. Some buildings are shaded in (presumably the 15 dwellings) while
others are not. If there are plans to build more than 15 buildings within the SLUD area, it
should be clearly stated. I will only support including the original 15 buildings in the SLUD and
no more.
3) Claudia Weisburd was confused about the permit requirements for the road crossing
over the wetland. EcoVillage has to obtain a CWNA (Converted Wetland Non- Agricultural use)
permit from Linda Szsliga at the Soil Conservation Service. (See attached map, label B.)
Nancy Ostman, Cornell Plantations Natural Area Coordinator:
Watef CL1LUty
1) The site plan shows a pond and outlet stream just south of the proposed First
Residents Group's houses which will drain southward into Coy Glen Creek. (See attached map,
Label A.) it' s essential that the water quality of this drainage be of a high caliber. The
environmental significance and sensitivity of Coy Glen has been recognized by its designations as
an important Cornell Natural Area, a significant Tompkins County Unique Natural Area, and a
Town of Ithaca Critical Environmental Area (the only CEA designated in Tompkins County).
Janet Hawkes, nearby resident /Chair of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board:
1) Some members of the First Resident Group plan to keep farm animals such as goats
and hoses. Are there plans to build barns, stables, or animal stalls and sheds? If so, is this use p
permitted in the SLUD?
2) How will they maintain the water quality of the stream? (See attached map, label A.)
If they plan to use organic farming practices, will the high nutrient runoff get into this stream
and eventually Coy Glen? If they farm using traditional methods, how will they prevent runoff
from contaminating the stream and eventually Coy Glen? Will they do a nutrient loading plan to
manage the nitrogen and phosphorus from the livestock and any organic fertilizers?
3) Page 3, B. -1 =g. How did they arrive at 12 trips per hour?
9as4 4) Page 4, B,- 21 There must be an increase in energy use, e.g., electricity and natural
5) Page 5, C.- 12 Rt. 79 can handle the traffic increase but Hector Street cannot.
6) Page 6, Part 2 • 5-Isn't this question asking about the impact on surface or
groundwater? Their answer has to do with water pressure. I [Janet) think they missed the
point. What Is the real answer?
v•- ' ^•��� -• '- V� -�-v� � 1 LL •:JV f -LJ f -VLLV Li
c:
Q4 I
coo
I
V !
2 '
W '
ro '
z '
w '
J
LJ
N. AVH IS3M
1 0
I a
t Q
V': 1
W 1
z , � -
-. I Q
} I >
1 a:
Li a
9
2 I� r1 8
C
:Lj N
/-
Ole
1
I IsM
rows 1
r, p
for
t t
INUV lJl y4 17 1 f I•ID VV1 r V_
00c7d AgEggC1d i ,a J�
N
t
u
11�
I/
__
It � I
II 1
11 Z 1
1� I
� fl �
a
1• fr
11 3
11 �
n
r�
The
w• •,• • ft
1 A•
• • '�• •
, 0
I• :• • Is
so
to
App a • t..• ' . • •' . ' •' .''' ; " •••� ,III
• • r
kL
I i
I�
F JI
1
.aavfc
1-
I�
i /Mb
W
d
c
4 Q=
r,
4
Li
i
d �
,"O "Fa
A
D ed�
FINAL
OCT 2 01994
House Craft Builders
• MWN OF M41 A 167 Calkins Road
Ithaca, New York
October 20, 1994
Mr. Jonathan Kanter
Town Planner
Town of Ithaca
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Jonathan:
We are very grateful for the timeliness and thoroughness of your work with this
project, especially the speed with which you got out such `finished' draft SLUD.
Following up on the discussions at the Planning Board meeting of October 18, 1
have attached a completed Short EAF, applicable to the re- zoning request only. As
understand from the meeting, the Planning Board will conduct two SEQR reviews in
addition to that conducted by the Town Board: one for the re- zoning (an unlisted
action), and one for the project itself that is presented based on the SLUD, if adopted (a
Type I action)..
I assume, therefore, that this SEQR application addresses only the potential
impacts of changes from the current zoning to the new zoning under the SLUD. What
the SLUD will allow that the current zoning does not allow are (1) cooperative
ownership; (2) slightly greater height; (3) less distance between buildings. The SLUD
is making no changes in potential density or use from that currently allowed. In
preparing the attached form, then, I considered the environmental impact of these items
only, because that is the action being undertaken: changing what is permitted on the
site. The impacts of what we actually propose to do given such permission are
encompassed in the SEQR application forms and materials we have already submitted.
Those potential impacts will be taken up, I assume, in the SEQR review for site plan
approval.
We also have some comments and proposals for revisions to the SLUD draft we
received on Tuesday evening. The proposed changes are shown in italics.
Section 3.13.2. Since each dwelling unit is being counted as though it were a single
family house, we suggest the following so that a unit -owner may have a roommate: °A
two family dwelling may be occupied by not more than two families and, provided there
are no more than 15, two- family dwellings on the property, each dwelling unit may be
occupied by not more than one family plus no more than one boarder, roomer, lodger,
or other occupant.°
1
Section 3. B.6. "Any municipal, public, or private utility purpose necessary to the
• maintenance of utility services.°
Section 3. C.1. "...where such office is part of the residence building or common
house, provided that not more than,,," In fact, the common house, which acts as an
extension to people's houses, is seen as an efficient location for potential home
occupations, allowing more efficient heating and utility use, shared equipment, etc.
Section 3. C.21 "Any of the above mechanical trades that are conducted in the home or
common house shall be conducted..."
Section 3. C.S. "Accessory buildings such as dog houses, storage sheds, carports, or
other small structures clearly ancillary..," One of the concepts with parking cars off to
the side and at some distance from the houses is that carts and sleds will be used to
help carry groceries, etc. Also, with smaller houses, the intent is to create shared
sheds to house such bulky items as bikes, skis, etc. Storage sheds and carports are
therefore part of their existing plan.
Section 3.D, 1. The phrasing seemed to cause some confusion. I assume the idea
was to say that each unit could be owned individually (as in a Homeowner's
Association). Perhaps, "Each dwelling unit may be owned individually..." or
something?
Section 3.D.2. The cooperative description was not quite on. Suggest substitute: "As
a Cooperative, where one Cooperative Corporation owns all the land and buildings and
leases individual dwelling units to each of its shareholders."
Section 31 F. "The minimum distance between buildings shall be in compliance with the
New York State Building Code for wood frame construction, currently five feet."
Section 3, H. Lot Coverage. Although it is unlikely that the group will exceed ten 60
percent land coverage, given that there may be additional requirements for parking, or ,
that the may wish to build a barn or storage shed at some time
Y Y g , perhaps a little more
breathing room could be in the SLUD - say 15 %. This still leaves a maximum
development proportion of 85% open space and 15% developed, very much the
reverse of what is typical and required (10% open /90% developed).
Section 3. I. Parking. The phrasing seems to say that the project must provide at least
two spaces, plus the additional for the common house. This is far in excess of the
44.intent of the group, and far in excess of that required for a multiple residence. As we
PPU said at the meeting, the interests of the residents and of the Town are virtually identical
here - everyone wants adequate parking. The point is, however, that the group does
not want to create more parking than needed, in anticipation of possible needs based
on a formula. The requirement of 12 parking spaces for the Common House, which is
to be used only by the residents, who have their cars in the spaces already required for
2
them, also seems excessive. We suggest sticking closer to the multiple residence
ratio, which calls for one per unit, plus one for every three units (which would call for 40
spaces for the houses). We would therefore propose 1.5 spaces per unit (45), plus
some potential additional, including additional for the common house: 'There shall be
provided paved parking, or parking spaces surfaced in such other manner as may be
approved by the Town Planning Board and the Town Engineer, at the rate of 1.5
l parking spaces for each dwelling unit. In addition, as a condition of site plan approval,
the final plan must delineate parking areas adequate to accommodate an additional .5
parking spaces for each dwelling unit, plus one parking space for each 1000 square
feet of enclosed building space in any community center."
Section 3. K. 4. "The road length is determined by the Town Engineer not to exceed
000 feet." The adjustment in the location of the wide curve in the road to skirt the
wetland lengthened the road slightly. Subsequent road engineering may call for further
adjustments. Three thousand feet would be a safe number, we believe.
Section 3.L. As I mentioned in my October 5 memo to you, I wonder if the phrase 'cul
de sac' gets confusing. Can we eliminate the title ( "Elimination of Cukde- Sac ") and just
start with "No later than....." and then delete, as well, "eliminate any cul de sac of
! greater than 1500 feet by any of the following means. " This is particularly confusing
(� because the subsequent numbers say 1200 feet. So I , d leave it out, and leave the
1200' wording in the subsections 1, 2, and 3. In fact, we would of course prefer 1500
feet to substitute where it now says 1200' but...
Section 3, R. Provisions of Sewer Facilities. This section, like the one below on water,
' poses some problems with respect to the issuance of building permits. In order to keep
the houses affordable, houses are built in groups, with groups at different stages of
construction at any given time. Typically, you start some units, work on the
infrastructure, then start more units and work on infrastructure simultaneously. The
infrastructure is completed and the first units hooked up, and subsequent units are in
varying stages of construction. Can it say: "No certificates of occupancy will be
issued, and no more than ten building permits for construction of any building within the
Special Land Use District shall be issued, unless and until the following shall have
occurred: 1...2... Upon request to the Building Inspector, an additional ten building
permits may be issued provided that the installation of the sewer line shall have
substantially commenced."
jSection 3. R. Provision of Adequate Water Facilities. As above, "Upon request to the
Building Inspector, an additional ten building permits may be issued provided that the
installation of the water line shall have substantially commenced."
...until the following actions are taken to assure a water supply for the proposed
development:
3
12 c r+k
I:
• 1. A water line, to be privately owned and maintained by the owner(s) of the
Special Land Use District, has been constructed by the developer at the developer's
expense from West Haven Road to the vicinity within the Special Land Use District
where the proposed dwelling units and community center are to be located, to provide
water capacity adequate in the reasonable judgment of the Town Engineer and the
Town Planning Board; and ,� x
Sk
2. A pump station to be owned and operated by the owner(s) of the Special
Land Use District has been constructed,. I "to provide sufficient flow of water at the
dwelling sites for domestic household use and fire protection of the common house,
said pump station to be owned and maintained by...
I A meter is installed by the developer .... (omitted reference to pit)
We would be happy to discuss these proposed revisions at your earliest
convenience. Also, if you have any questions or comments about the SEQR form,
please do not hesitate to call.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
&04CM
Claudia Weisburd
House Craft Builders, for the
Residents' Group
V