HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1996-05-21FINAL
FILED
ITOWN OF ITHACA
bat !O
• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Oerk 4`%7
MAY 21, 1996
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 21, 1996, in
Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Candace Cornell, Vice Chairperson Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie,
Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter
(Director of Planning), Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering), JoAnn Cornish
(Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner).
ALSO PRESENT: T.J. Fowler, Peter Fortunato, Richard B. Fischer, Robert Sweet, Ann
Silsbee, Bob Silsbee, John Wertis, Bill Hilker.
Chairperson Cornell declared the meeting duly opened at 7:40 p.m. Chairperson Cornell 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.
•Robert Sweet of 1401 'h Slaterville Road stated that he mailed a letter to the Planning Board,
and that he would like the Planning Board to review it before making a decision on the Six Mile
Creek Valley Conservation District. Mr. Sweet stated that the letter will show the frustrations of the
property owners. Mr. Sweet asked the Planning Board what the word "FINAL" stamped on the
agenda he received in the mail meant, and if the property owner's concerns are not addressed, what
do the property owners do next. (Mr. Sweet's letter is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.)
Chairperson Cornell stated that those issues will be considered when the Planning Board
goes into the discussion of the Six Mile Creek Valley proposal.
AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION
DISTRICT, TO BE LOCATED GENERALLY BETWEEN CODDINGTON AND SLATERVILLE
ROADS AND THE CITY OF ITHACA AND TOWN OF DANBY AND TOWN OF DRYDEN
BOUNDARIES; GENERALLY FOLLOWING THE ESTABLISHED R -30 RESIDENCE DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES AND EITHER 200 FEET OR 500 FEET WEST OF THE RIGHT -OF -WAY OF THE
SOUTH HILL RECREATIONWAY AND RAILROAD GRADE, AS SHOWN ON A MAP ENTITLED
"SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY PROPOSED CONSERVATION DISTRICT" (REVISED 4/18196).
Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read from the Agenda
is as posted and as noted above.
• PLANNING BOARD 2 MAY 2111996
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
Mr. Sweet stated that as he mentioned before, the letter he referred to does refer to the Six
Mile Creek situation. Mr. Sweet stated that the property owners have had five years of presenting
major concerns, and the questions have not all been answered or addressed. Mr. Sweet further
stated that some of the property owners do not feel that all of their questions and concerns have
been addressed by the Planning Board. Mr. Sweet asked, what do the property owners do next.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that a partial answer to Mr. Sweet's question, is that the
process for the Planning Board tonight is simply to make a recommendation to the Town Board on
the enactment of the proposed Conservation Zone. Mr. Kanter stated that tonight's meeting is a final
recommendation of the Planning Board to the Town Board because the Planning Board does not
have the authority to enact the actual zone change. Mr. Kanter stated that the Planning Board would
be making a recommendation to the Town Board on the Six Mile Creek Valley proposal, and then
the Town Board would take approximately two meetings to set a Public Hearing for this proposal.
Mr. Kanter stated that the Public Hearing for this proposal will probably be in July. Mr. Kanter stated
that the current proposal is still a draft. Mr. Kanter stated that this is the draft that has evolved
through the process, and that this is the draft that is before the Planning Board for recommendation
to the Town Board.
Starr Hays stated that the "FINAL" stamp is part of the New York State Record Management
• System, which means that an original has been submitted to the Town. Ms. Hays stated that the
stamp "FINAL" is not the status of the proposal, it is just the Record Management System for the
Town Clerk.
Mr. Sweet stated that he was surprised to have the word "FINAL" stamped on the notice he
received in the mail, and that he was concerned that the proposal was final.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the "FINAL" stamp on the notice is only for the notice.
Mr. Kanter stated that the Planning Staff very carefully noted "DRAFT" on every page of the
proposed law.
Mr. Sweet asked if there are still some concerns of the property owners with the draft that is
approved by the Planning Board, if there will be a Public Hearing by the Town Board.
Chairperson Cornell stated that would be correct.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the Records Management Program is a program
that was set up by the Town Clerk several years ago. Mr. Frantz stated that the Town Clerk prefers
everyone to use the word FINAL instead of ORIGINAL on all original documents.
Chairperson Cornell stated that tonight's meeting is not a Public Hearing, but that the Board
•would hear comments from the public that did not speak at the last meeting. Chairperson Cornell
stated that tonight's meeting of the Planning Board is for the Board to deliberate the issues of the
. PLANNING BOARD 3 MAY 2111996
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 1996
•
Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District proposal. Chairperson Cornell stated that she realized
at the last meeting, that the Planning Board was not familiar with much of the public comments at
the previous public meetings, and that information is in each Board Member's packets. Chairperson
Cornell stated that the Planning Board did not hear a balanced comment phase from the public
because the Board Members were not furnished with all the information.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to hear additional comments from the
public who have not spoken.
Peter Fortunato of 172 Pearsall Place, addressed the Board and read from a prepared
statement. Mr. Fortunato then thanked the Planning Board for their time. (Mr. Fortunato's letter is
hereto attached as Exhibit #2.)
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there have been six or more new letters that the Board
Members have not seen, and were given out for this meeting.
Chairperson Cornell stated that she would give a brief summary of the letters received: Mr.
Sweet's letter (letter is hereto attached as Exhibit #1); a letter from Marjorie Olds and Bryan Isacks,
who are in favor of the District and continue the visionary path toward preserving the land in the area
(letter is hereto attached as Exhibit #3); a letter from Mitch Weiss and Martha Hamilton, who are in
favor of the District and pleased with the Planning Board for tackling the important issue by
preserving this area (letter is hereto attached as Exhibit #4); a letter from Nancy Gabriel, who has
spoken many times repetitively in favor of Comprehensive Planning and Conservation in the Town
generally along the creek (letter is hereto attached as Exhibit #5); a second letter from Betsy
Darlington stating that the Finger Lakes Land Trust had targeted this area for Conservation in 1989
(letter is hereto attached as Exhibit #6); Mr. Fortunato's letter; and a letter from Louise Mudrak dated
March 12, 1996, who is strongly in favor of this District. Chairperson Cornell stated that the
Planning Board would hear a few more public comments, and then discuss and review the comments
received.
Richard Fischer of 135 Pine Tree Road, addressed the Planning Board and read from a
prepared statement. Mr. Fischer then thanked the Board for their time. (Mr. Fischer's statement is
hereto attached as Exhibit #7.)
Board Member Fred Wilcox asked if Mr. Fischer could briefly state his qualifications.
Mr. Fischer stated that he is a retired professor of Environmental Education from Cornell
University where he taught for 32 years.
Ann Silsbee 915 Coddington Road, stated that she and her husband are in favor of the
Conservation District. Ms. Silsbee stated that the need to preserve the area and as much of its
•
beauty as possible is a very important thing to her and her husband. Ms. Silsbee stated that she
0 PLANNING BOARD 4 MAY 2111996
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
and her husband have lived on South Hill since 1947, in various spots, and she stated that they
could not move anywhere else because they love it so much. Ms. Silsbee stated that the people
who have put this proposal together have done a good job and that there are probably some
mistakes in it, because she thought as with any plan, that it cannot take everything into account, but
it seems to her that it would be a good working job. Ms. Silsbee stated that she is in favor of the
District because everyone needs to preserve the quality of the area for what it is now.
Board Member Finch asked if Ms. Silsbee realized that as much as 50 acres of her land would
be in the Conservation District.
Ms. Silsbee responded, that is right, and asked if this proposal happens, would the value of
the land go up or down. Ms. Silsbee also stated that in many ways it could be said that it may go
up, but that she does not know of any real statistics of this from any other areas. Ms. Silsbee stated
that in some ways, just having a place like this would make the land more valuable.
John Wertis of 95 Westmont Avenue, Elmira, NY, stated that he lived in Tompkins County
for 40 years, and that part of that time he had been involved in land use Organizations and was one
of the founders of the original Board of Directors of the Finger Lakes Land Trust. Mr. Wertis stated
that he came here to compliment the Planning Board, but also officially speaking for the Finger
• Lakes Land Trust. Mr. Wertis stated that he went through his files and the first document he came
across about the Six Mile Creek was dated June 11, 1984, entitled "Proposed Park and Open Space
Plan Update ", where this document recognizes the Six Mile Creek area as a significant conservation
area, and that this concept was approved by the Town Board on June 11, 1984. Mr. Wertis stated
that the next document he found in his files, was a memorandum directed to the Six Mile Creek
Overseer Committee, a City organization, and that was also directed to the Conservation Advisory
Council from the City, but that it came from the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council. Mr.
Wertis stated that the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council did a magnificent piece of work
putting together a study of the Six Mile Creek. Mr. Wertis stated that in 1989 when the Finger
Lakes Land Trust was founded, many people who started the organization were living in the City of
Ithaca and were vitally concerned about the watershed. Mr. Wertis stated that in the five or six
intervening years, that there were nine conservation easements donated by private landowners and
held by the Finger Lakes Land Trust. Mr. Wertis stated that there is 76 acres in the Town of Ithaca
in conservation easements. Mr. Wertis stated that there is 377 acres in the Town of Danby, 148
acres in the Town of Dryden, and 4 acres in the Town of Caroline, for a total of approximately 750
acres in the watershed. Mr. Wertis stated that there is a group of landowners that have made a
hand shake agreement, called the Land Stewardship Program, where the landowners agreed to
practice good conservation efforts and let the land trust know whether the landowners sell the land
or change hands, which is another 750 acres. Mr. Wertis stated that there is approximately 1500
acres in the watershed that are in some degree protected, not by the government, but by the
landowners interested in protecting that land through the workings of the Finger Lakes Land Trust.
•Mr. Wertis stated that the only comment from the Finger Lakes Land Trust on the draft proposal is
that they could see the compromise in it and the history in it. Mr. Wertis stated that he could see
O PLANNING BOARD 5 MAY 21, 1996
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
that people have been rational and people have been wise in putting this draft proposal together.
Mr. Wertis stated that these are regulations that people could live with, and regulations that could
protect the greatest value in the Six Mile Creek area, which is the natural beauty and the water that
runs through it.
Bill Hilker of 277 Burns Road, addressed the Planning Board and read from a prepared
statement. Mr. Hilker also thanked the Planning Board for their time. (Mr. Hilker's statement is
hereto attached as Exhibit #8.)
Mr. Wertis stated that he sympathizes with people that may have purchased land with the
idea of an investment for retirement, and he further stated that he has 90 acres of land out in
Trumansburg. Mr. Wertis stated that if things could stop now, that there would be no need for a
conservation district, but as everyone looks to the future, the future suggests that there is going to
be too much housing, development, and construction, that would be destructive.
Chairperson Cornell stated that she will briefly go over some issues from the last meeting for
everyone who was not present. Chairperson Cornell stated that there were questions of whether
the seven -acre zoning would be the appropriate density. Chairperson Cornell stated that for fairness
on Burns Road, perhaps the Board should exclude the houses that are already built there because
® the Board had already excluded the houses that are already built on Coddington and Slaterville
Roads.
Board Member Wilcox stated that in the minutes of the May 7, 1996 meeting of the Planning
Board, that there was much talk about non - conforming and grand fathering, and he did not
understand where that was coming from.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board would be going over that later. in the meeting.
Chairperson Cornell stated that some people were very much in favor of the District, and were
hoping for a differential tax assessment for the land being put into the Conservation District.
Chairperson Cornell stated that Louise Mudrak suggested at the last meeting, that perhaps there
could be some tax adjustment for land put in the Conservation District. Chairperson Cornell stated
that there are still questions whether the north southwestern boundary along the Recreationway
should be 200 feet or 500 feet, some people are in favor of 500 feet and some people are in favor
of 200 feet. Chairperson Cornell stated that the language of the District stated that the Planning
Board might not find it necessary to have a park set aside, and that one Board Member felt that
since there was so much land there that maybe it should read no park set aside will be necessary.
Mr. Hilker stated that Chairperson Cornell mentioned the one person who spoke in favor of
the Conservation District, but that person was one of about twelve people that were here, and the
®rest all spoke opposing the Conservation District. Mr. Hilker stated that it is a very sad thing
everyone is hearing who were not present at the last meeting, the aftermath, that a group of people
0 PLANNING BOARD 6
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
MAY 2111996
coming in now in favor of this, whereas at the last meeting it was predominately the landowners
against the Town Board soft pedaling this more or do away with this.
Chairperson Cornell stated that many of the people who were at the May 7, 1996, meeting
thought the Planning Board had already heard all the public comments from the other meetings.
Chairperson Cornell stated that most people had the Planning Committee confused with the
Planning Board, and they assumed that the Planning Board had already heard their public
comments in favor of the Conservation District.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that a copy of the Minutes from the May 7, 1996 Planning
Board Meeting was included in the Board Members' packets for this meeting. Ms. Hoffmann stated
that in the Minutes were either the statements as the public made them, or copies of the letters given
to the Planning Board at the meeting.
Mr. Hilker stated that he would like to have a copy of the minutes from the May 7, 1996
Planning Board Meeting.
Chairperson Cornell stated that Mr. Hilker could go to the Town Clerk's office for a copy.
• Chairperson Cornell stated that this is not a Public Hearing tonight, and that she wants the Planning
Board to spend their time discussing the proposal.
Mr. Sweet stated that he knows it is very difficult to come up with a two minute summary of
all of the things that were said. Mr. Sweet stated that what is important is the seven -acre issue, and
considerations such as economics. Mr. Sweet stated that he was one of those who spoke and
stated that in his judgement seven acres contribute to woods.
Chairperson Cornell stated that she felt satisfied that everyone in the public who wanted to
speak spoke, and she could not account for people who did not speak. Chairperson Cornell stated
that her two minute summary was to bring up the point of contentions that are the boundaries of
distance from the Recreationway and the seven -acre density.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he had a concern, and that this would favor Mr. Hilker and
the letter from the two Baker boys. Mr. Ainslie stated that he realized that there was an
overwhelming approval of this by more people probably than have been against it. Mr. Ainslie stated
that his thoughts where those landowners should have rights of remuneration for the land that would
be essentially taken away from them. Mr. Ainslie stated that since a majority thinks it is good, he
does not think the Bakers and other groups that spoke, should not have to just sit there and take it.
Mr. Ainslie stated that he is in favor of the District as far as farming and the purchase of development
rights, and that the same thing should go along on this if it happens. Mr. Ainslie stated that the
•people who are getting land taken away from them, should be paid in a reasonable manner that is
acceptable for all parties.
• PLANNING BOARD 7 MAY 2111996
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
Chairperson Cornell asked if the Baker's land could be one of the pieces of land that would
be divided into R -15 and the Conservation District if this law goes into effect.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Bakers parcel on Slaterville Road would be one
of those that would be split roughly in half.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the Baker's own 12.74 acres.
Director of Planning Kanter responded, yes.
Chairperson Cornell stated that not all of the Bakers land would be going into the
Conservation District, only half. Chairperson Cornell stated that the half that would be going into
the District would be the half that would be the least developable portion. Chairperson Cornell
stated that there were also some other landowners that spoke who neglected to mention that a good
portion of their land would be R -15 or R -30.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that while he was looking through the list, that the Bakers
property is currently R -30 and would be entirely in the Conservation Zone.
•Chairperson Cornell stated that there were some other people who spoke whose land would
still be developable.
•
Board Member Ainslie stated that the Walkers have the largest piece of land.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the Walkers land would still be in the R -30.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Walkers' land would be split in half with a large
portion in R -30 depending on where the boundary of the Conservation District goes.
Board Member Ainslie asked Director of Engineering Walker what percentage of the water
for the City of Ithaca comes from Six Mile Creek and what percentage comes from Bolton Point.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that the Six Mile Creek watershed produces sufficient
water to serve the whole City, but currently the City does take some water from Bolton Point and
some water from Cornell.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the reason he asked is because when there is a fire
problem in the area the Fire Department would call Bolton Point to increase the water pressure so
they could get water to the hydrants on Route 96. .
time.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that they do not do that now, but they may have at one
• PLANNING BOARD 8 MAY 2111996
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 1996
Board Member Ainslie stated that on the tags of the hydrants said that.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that Bolton Point puts the tags on the hydrants notifying
people to contact Bolton Point if the hydrant is used, so that Bolton Point which maintains the
hydrants can come out and check them after use. Mr. Walker stated that the Town of Ithaca owns
the hydrants, and Bolton Point has a contract to maintain the hydrants. Mr. Walker stated that when
a hydrant is used, it needs to be inspected after use to make sure it is operating properly and drains
properly. Mr. Walker stated that the Town has an emergency connection to the City's water plant.
Mr. Walker stated that the Town's transmission main goes up along the City's boundary, crosses the
Six Mile Creek Valley above the City's Water Plant, dropping down to Giles Street, and then up to
Pearsall Place where it stops. Mr. Walker stated that the Town could feed the City's water system
from that transmission main.
Board Member Ainslie stated that there was a West Hill Association when they first put those
watersheds in, and one problem was that there was not enough water pressure to clean the hydrants
out.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that if the demand was so high to drain the City's water
tank, right now the Town takes water from the clear wells at the City's Water Treatment Plant and
from the Elm Street tank that is at the same elevation, that if a sustained fire drained the City's
capacity, then the Town could supplement and put extra water into the system. Mr. Walker stated
that the pressure situation is based on the pumping capacity at Vinegar Hill and Cliff Street.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Board Members have a three -page map entitled
"Proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District Boundary: Burns Road Option" dated 4/18/96,
in their packets. Mr. Kanter stated that there is one typo change to the second page of the map.
The proposed resolution should read Tax Map 48 -1- 14.311, 48 -1- 14.313, and 48 -1 -14.32 instead
of Tax Map 44 -1- 14.311, 44 -1- 14.313, and 44 -1- 14.32. Mr. Kanter stated that these parcels are at
the southern and western end of Burns Road that has existing houses on them and the lots are all
smaller than the proposed seven -acre lot size. Mr. Kanter stated that there is one parcel shown on
the second page of the map that they show as Tax Parcel No. 56 -2 -11 that is only part of that tax
parcel and could be retained as R -30. Mr. Kanter stated that the portion that would not be included
is already, and will continue to be, zoned R -15. (Above- mentioned map is hereto attached as Exhibit
#9.)
Chairperson Cornell asked Director of Planning Kanter if there was a line to follow or if he
was using the lot line as a boundary.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the boundary location would be up to the Planning
Board. Mr. Kanter stated that as for excluding properties from the Conservation District, using
• boundaries would be simpler.
0 PLANNING BOARD 1 9 MAY 2171996
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
Chairperson Cornell stated that Director of Planning Kanter is recommending excluding the
four lots' highlighted in yellow on the map referred to as Exhibit #9, and asked the Planning Board
if the four lots highlighted in yellow should be excluded from the Conservation District.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that would be a good idea, and then it would make it
consistent with what the Planning Board has already done on Coddington and Slaterville Roads.
Board Member Wilcox asked
Director of
Planning Kanter
if there were
any other lots in the
proposed Conservation District that
are entirely
within it that has
a house on
them.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there is a house across Burns Road, (Tax Parcel No.
48 -1- 14.4), which is a parcel of 17.67 acres. Mr. Kanter stated that the reason that parcel was not
included in this proposal is that the guideline the Planning Board asked staff to use at the last
meeting was, the parcel should have an existing house, and the parcel should be smaller than the
seven -acre lot size as proposed in the Conservation District. Mr. Kanter stated that there are some
parcels that are larger than the seven -acre lot size, so staff did not include them. Mr. Kanter stated
that there were a couple of other parcels that were along the Burns Road strip, but that, for all
intents and purposes, they have been excluded from the Conservation District anyway depending
upon where the Planning Board puts the Coddington Road boundary. Mr. Kanter stated that a
• couple of lots were fronting on Coddington Road that would largely be excluded from the
Conservation District anyway.
Board Member Wilcox stated that fronting on Coddington Road, would they have a decent
portion outside the proposed District.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that there was a parcel on Slaterville Road that was a back
lot referred to at the last meeting, but that one acre parcel was entirely in the R -15 District which was
close to Burns Road.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there are many issues that the Planning Board needs to
discuss. Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Board Members for a vote on whether they are
in favor in excluding the four lots as discussed earlier.
The Planning Board Members were all in agreement to exclude the four lots highlighted in
yellow on the map above - referenced.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that on the lots that are vacant now and do not meet the
seven -acre minimum lot requirement of the proposed Conservation Zone, that the landowners would
still be allowed to build a single family house on a non - conforming lot, the landowners can probably
do that under the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kanter stated that for the existing houses on lots
•that would become non - conforming substandard in lot size, the current procedure in the Zoning
Ordinance is that for any expansions, additions, or improvements on those kinds of houses on non-
• PLANNING BOARD 10 MAY 2111996
APPROVED - JUNE 187 1996
c:
conforming lots, the applicant would need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for special approval.
Mr. Kanter stated that at the May 7, 1996 meeting, Attorney for the Town John Barney and himself
suggested that they would be discussing this issue in a broader sense with the Codes and
Ordinances Committee as part of the Zoning Ordinance revision process. The current thought is
that it might be desirable to simplify that process for non - conforming lots so that buildings and
additions, if they met the proper setback requirements, would no longer have to go through that
special approval process with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Kanter stated that there will still be
some lots and houses within the District even with that new provision that would still probably not
meet the setback requirements of the new District, so they may still need to go to the Zoning Board
of Appeals for certain kinds of improvements. Mr. Kanter stated that by taking out properties first
along Coddington Road and Slaterville Road, and now houses on Burns Road, few houses would
be in that non - conforming situation that would need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr.
Kanter stated that if the Planning Board picks the 200 -foot boundary, over three - fourths of that lot
at the corner of Burns Road and Coddington Road would be remaining in R -30 where a non-
conforming situation should not be a problem.
Board Member Finch stated that is one of the reasons he thinks the 200 -foot boundary would
be better than the 500 -foot boundary. Mr. Finch stated that Mr. Kanter stated that dealing with the
property on Burns Road as individual lots would be easier than a corridor. Mr. Finch stated that it
would be a more desirable feature to treat it as a boundary line along Burns Road as the Board is
treating it with the boundary line on Coddington and Slaterville Roads. Mr. Finch stated that the
properties along Burns Road should be included in a boundary line rather than a lot -by -lot basis.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that he does not have a strong preference. Mr. Kanter
stated that these parcels are readily identified parcels that would be simply a matter of referring to
them as tax parcels where the boundaries go. Mr. Kanter stated that the Board could just as easily
use some kind of setback line, but there would just be the question of where that should go. Mr.
Kanter stated that the Board could draw a line at the backs of those parcels and have it jog around
the actual parcel lines. Mr. Kanter stated that Coddington Road was to be a set distance either way,
and the Slaterville Road side would go through some parcels.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is one difference in looking at the map, and that
her thoughts were both along Slaterville Road and along Coddington Road one would need many
more individual lots to deal with as compared with Burns Road. Ms. Hoffmann stated that there is
not as much City owned property along either Slaterville Road and especially not along Coddington
Road as there is along Burns Road. Ms. Hoffmann stated that for these reasons, treating Burns
Road differently would be better by excluding these certain lots rather than coming up with a
boundary line as proposed to us.
Board Member Finch stated that there is more City owned property, and there is also some
very develop able property along Burns Road that is not City owned, and that there are certainly
some opportunities to use that property if it is not restricted.
• PLANNING BOARD 11 MAY 213 1996
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 1996
Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Board if they have an idea on how to address this
issue.
Board Member Bell stated that the identification of these individual parcels is the easiest way,
but he does not think the Board should decide what is the easiest way. Mr. Bell stated that he is not
sure where the boundaries should go without using the individual properties, but it would make
sense to have it along the Coddington Road side where it would be parallel to the Recreationway.
Mr. Bell stated that if the Board decided to take the boundary parallel to Burns Road, whichever
difference the Board chose from Burns Road would not correspond with these individual parcels.
Mr. Bell stated that the back lot lines of the Burns Road parcels may be a variety of distances away
from Burns Road. If the Board makes Burns Road the boundary, there would be many strange little
wedges that would be splitting either these parcels or other parcels that are located behind it.
Mr. Hilker stated that the back lot lines follow a creek. Mr. Hilker stated that two creeks run
on both sides of the parcel. Mr. Hilker stated that the one creek drops straight off Burns Road down
approximately 200 feet where there would not be any development for that area. Mr. Hilker stated
that the two creeks would make a positive identifier boundary. Mr. Hilker stated that the advantage
of using the creek as a boundary is that a house sits on the other side of the creek that sits way back
• in, so if the Board used the creek as a boundary it would include that house also.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board needs to decide whether to make the
creek behind the Hilker property the boundary or use the individual property lines as boundaries
placed just below the Recreation way.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the Planning Board would consider putting a line on either
side of Burns Road across the City owned land right along Six Mile Creek, and how that line would
cross Six Mile Creek.
Board Member Finch stated that it would be the same way anyone else would draw the line
across the City property.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the line in question would follow the creek, just north of the
Recreation way too just behind the Hilker property, and it would end there.
Board Member Finch stated that it would not be a problem making the line cross the City land.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board is not talking about excluding these areas
because the landowners developed houses. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board does not
want the line to go through the City land because there are not developed houses there.
• Board Member Finch stated that he was responding to Board Member Hoffmann's question
• PLANNING BOARD 12 MAY 2111996
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
on how his idea would relate to the City's land. Mr. Finch stated that it is no particular problem
because the Town has gone through the City's land on either side, and that is where the line is now.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the lines that cross City land and go along Slaterville and
Coddington Roads are very far away from what the Town is trying to protect, the creek itself and the
land around it. Ms. Hoffmann stated that if the Board were to put the boundary along Burns Road,
it would be blocking out a section of Six Mile Creek and the land next to it.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the line would not be going into the City's land, it is only to
cut out one section of the three -lots that are already developed.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that, assuming the Planning Board chooses the 200 -foot
boundary, it would be a small section of the R -30 from the Coddington Road area up into the
Conservation District. Mr. Kanter stated that the red line he drew on the map would be the new
boundary between R -30 and the Conservation Zone.
Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Board if they would like to follow the lot line or follow
the stream.
• Board Member Bell asked Board Member Finch if the dotted line that Director of Planning
Kanter drew in red on the map, is the line that Mr. Finch had in mind.
creek.
Board Member Finch stated that he would also include the property on the other side of the
Board Member Bell asked Board Member Finch if he would include the 17 -acre parcel on the
west side of Burns Road.
Board Member Finch stated that his suggestion was to draw a corridor along Burns Road.
Mr. Finch stated that he is not interested in discussing whether the Planning Board would be
following a lot line or not.
Chairperson Cornell stated that when the Planning Board had other discussions the Board
was only going to discuss developed properties. Chairperson Cornell stated that the 17 -acre
property is well within whichever density the Board chooses, and she is suggesting that the Board
exclude that parcel from this conversation and have it part of the Conservation District. Chairperson
Cornell stated that the reason the Planning Board is looking at the three -lots of the Hilkers is
because they are smaller, developed lots.
•Board Member Finch stated that he is not opposed to this. Mr. Finch stated that he just wants
to make sure that it is the easiest, most manageable, and identifiable boundary.
• PLANNING BOARD 13 MAY 2171996
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 1996
Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Board if they prefer the stream as a border or the
lot lines for the three lots on the eastern side of Burns Road.
Board Member Bell stated that his preference is the three individual lot lines.
Board Member Wilcox stated that his preference is the three individual lot lines.
Board Member Kenerson stated that the lot lines exist, are described and recorded, so it only
makes sense to use the individual lot lines.
Board Member Finch stated that his preference is the stream.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the lot lines are good on one side, and the stream seems
good on the other side. Mr. Ainslie stated that he is not sure why the Board is excluding the other
side.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the 17 -acre area is large enough to be included in the
Conservation District, and that it would not meet with the hardship that the Hiker's lots would.
. Board Member Ainslie asked Chairperson Cornell if she knows if the owner of that 17 -acre
property would be willing to give up the land for the Conservation District.
Mr. Wertis stated that the 17 -acre property is in the land stewardship project.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he changed his preference for the boundary line to be the
lot lines.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she also prefers the lot line configuration including the fourth
lot also.
Mr. Hilker stated that the space between the lots that they would exclude, they would probably
join that to his son's lot (Jim Hilker) in exchange for a piece on the bond because he and his son
only have a temporary right -of -way across the old railroad bed, and that sometime in the future
comes in from another place. Mr. Hilker stated that the only other place they can probably come in
would be at the lower end, and if encumbered by the Conservation District it would make it very
difficult to do.
Chairperson Cornell stated that this District does not mean that no one could build or do
anything. Chairperson Cornell indicated that the Board is trying to do this to make things easier on
the families. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board needs to decide whether they
•would like a 200 foot or a 500 -foot boundary west of the right -of -way of the South Hill Recreation
way.
• PLANNING BOARD 14 MAY 217 1996
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 1996
•
Board Member Bell stated that he walked through the proposed land, and that the land is a
lot like a meadow type. Mr. Bell stated that it seems to him the 500 feet makes more sense by
providing more protection for the watershed and a general rural feeling.
Chairperson Cornell stated that this does include a lot more of the streams.
Board Member Bell stated that it seems to him that the portion on Coddington Road that the
City owns should be included. Mr. Bell stated that this should apply equally to large pieces of City
owned property that goes all the way up to Slaterville. Mr. Bell stated that the City will not be selling
their land to put a housing development in the pine forest to reach down to the reservoir. Mr. Bell
stated that there are two places where City owned land goes outside the Conservation proposed
boundary no matter which boundary the Planning Board uses. Mr. Bell stated that there is one on
Coddington Road just west of Burns Road, and that there is one on Slaterville Road that is much
bigger.
Chairperson Cornell stated that those areas are pretty protected.
Board Member Wilcox stated that his preference is zero feet southwest of the Recreation way
and the former railroad grade, and that would be the best place to put it. Mr. Wilcox stated that this
would form a natural boundary. Mr. Wilcox stated that a good portion of the land in the District
would not be buildable anyway for various reasons by picking 200 feet or 500 feet. Mr. Wilcox
stated that the Board would be extending the boundaries around both the watershed and the area
itself to help protect the area by picking the Recreation way /railroad grade as boundaries, and still
give the owners along Coddington Road, who tend to have bigger lots than people on Slaterville
Road, reasonable rights to develop the property. Mr. Wilcox stated that his preference is still zero,
but that he would pick 200 feet.
Board Member Kenerson stated that his preference would be 200 feet.
Board Member Finch stated that his preference would be 200 feet.
Board Member Ainslie stated that his preference would be 200 feet.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that her preference would be 500 feet for some of the
reasons Board Member Bell had stated, but especially, because it would exclude more of the steep
areas along the creeks that run into Six Mile Creek. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it might be possible
that someone could handle protection of that area in other ways, but that her preference would be
500 feet.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there were many concerns about tax abatement. Chairperson
•Cornell stated that one thing the Board needs to discuss is how the Town would be compensating
the landowners. Chairperson Cornell stated that one way the Town could compensate the
. PLANNING BOARD 15
APPROVED - JUNE 1821996
MAY 217 1996
landowner is to urge the County Assessment Office to use tax abatement for Conservation
easements, agricultural easements, and land in a Conservation District. Chairperson Cornell stated
that there is a separate resolution to discuss later regarding tax abatement.
Director of Planning Kanter
stated
that
the revised resolution for the Conservation District
includes a suggested addition that
would
also
be addressed at that time.
Chairperson Cornell stated that at the last meeting there was much movement going on to
try to change the school tax structure from a property base to an income base. Chairperson Cornell
stated that there are many things in the works to try to help people who own land and help take part
of the burden off them. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board will be doing what they can now
to help address the tax structure for compensation to the landowners. Chairperson Cornell stated,
in terms of density, that there were many comments that seven acres was too high a density and that
five acres would be better. Chairperson Cornell stated that other people have stated in letters and
comments in other meetings, that they would prefer 10 acres. Chairperson Cornell asked the
Planning Board if they have a preference on what they think the density should be.
Board Member Finch asked if the associated lot size was also the frontage on the road issue.
• Director of Planning Kanter stated that there were many comments on the 300 -foot frontage
requirement. Mr. Kanter stated that with that size of the lot it would need to be set a comparable
frontage requirement and other dimensional requirements are proportional to what other zones have.
Mr. Kanter stated that the frontage does not have to be 300 feet.
Chairperson Cornell stated that while the Board is addressing the density question, that the
road frontage could also vary.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that, in 1990, when the first version of the Conservation
District idea was drafted, the committee that did that envisioned people that wanted to do a
conventional subdivision within the Conservation Districts seven -acre minimum lot size. Mr. Frantz
stated that the intentions of the original Conservation Advisory Council who wrote the Six Mile Creek
Report in 1990, was that one house every seven -acre density would go hand -in -hand with cluster
subdivision, so the Conservation Advisory Council envisioned very few, if any, actual seven acre lots
ever being created through this proposed District. Mr. Frantz stated that, hypothetically 35 acres,
would be five lots. Mr. Frantz stated that the Committee envisioned four of those lots being two
acres with perhaps 150 feet to 200 feet of frontage on the existing public roads. Mr. Frantz stated
that there would be four two -acre lots and one 27 -acre lot left over. Mr. Frantz stated that no lots
would be 300 feet wide and 450 feet deep, that was the intention in 1990.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Board tried to repeat that at the May 7, 1996
•meeting, that there was a misconception that the 300 -foot road frontage was going to result in a
huge length of roads going through the Conservation Zone that would not be practical, nor was it
PLANNING BOARD 16 MAY 217 1996
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 1996
the intent at all. Mr. Kanter stated that the cluster concept, which the Planning Board could require
is another misconception, because clustering does not have to mean attached townhouses. Mr.
Kanter stated that if someone had a seven -acre minimum lot size, that they could have a cluster of
two or three, one -acre lots around the cul -de -sac or around the existing road frontage with the
remainder of the land in open space.
Chairperson Cornell stated that Mr. Sweet had mentioned that he was concerned about the
roads going through, and that it is not the intention of having a lot of road cutting through the
Conservation District. Chairperson Cornell stated that the purpose is to preserve the area by
clustering.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that what Director of Planning Kanter and Assistant Town
Planner Frantz had described is nothing different from what the Planning Board does in any other
case. Ms. Hoffmann stated that what the Planning Board is trying to figure out is, on a given piece
of land or certain acreage, how many lots could the Board allow. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the
Board uses the R -15 or R -30 zoning to see how big the lots should be or how many lots would fit,
but that sometimes the Board might have to require some clustering.
Board Member Finch stated that Board Member Hoffmann was right. Mr. Finch stated that
his thoughts were to see if there was a better way of doing this or saying this, than to state an
arbitrary lot size. Mr. Finch asked if the Board would be better off looking at this as a development
only in a cluster concept as opposed to having an arbitrary lot size.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that her thoughts were that this figure is no more arbitrary
than any other lot sizes.
Board Member Finch stated that in that case, the Board should leave it R -30 and not change
the zoning at all.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the density is not referring to large seven acres.
Board Member Finch asked if there was a better way of saying that.
Director of
Planning Kanter
stated that
if somebody
wanted to propose one single lot
separated off of a
larger parcel, that
they would
have to meet
that seven -acre lot size.
Board Member Finch stated that the Planning Board does not need to permit that any more
than we need to permit a density that is not clustered either, but that would be a Planning Board
option.
• Director of Planning Kanter stated that he does not know what the Planning Board could do
0 PLANNING BOARD 17 MAY 2111996
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
to prevent one lot from splitting off of a larger parcel as long as it meets the minimum lot size. Mr.
Kanter stated that a number should be set somewhere as with all of the other districts, such as R -30
is 30,000 square feet, R -15 is 15,000 square feet. Mr. Kanter stated that the same way if someone
wants to split one lot off of a larger piece, they would need to meet that lot requirement.
Board Member Finch stated that it seems to him, that there might be a quite buildable lot that
could have a much smaller size than based on the kind of soil it is, based on the level spot it is on,
or other things.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that this might be true in any other district, but there might
be districts with one acre lots and there might be plenty of pieces of land where houses could be
built on a quarter of an acre lot.
Board Member Finch stated that is his point also.
Chairperson Cornell asked Board Member Finch if there is a better way of addressing this
issue.
Board Member Finch stated, by stipulating the lot size.
Chairperson Cornell stated that in the development of this district, the Planning Committee
has gone through a lot of variations of lot size.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the Planning Board should look at it this way, that
there is one house for every seven acres. Mr. Frantz stated that the cluster concept, as being
applied here, is really the same cluster concept that the Town applied to the R -30 and R -15. Mr.
Frantz stated that the dimensional requirements mirror exactly the dimensional requirement in the
R -15 and R -30 Districts. Mr. Frantz stated that the language was pulled right out of those districts,
and that only the numbers were changed.
Board Member Finch stated that it seems to him that the concept numbers should stay the
same, and that the Board is dealing with the same kind of concept.
Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Board Members if they want the seven -acre density,
five acres, or higher than seven acres.
Board Member Bell stated that Board Member Finch raised a good question about how this
District is defined. Mr. Bell stated that he does not like the implication of the seven acres with a
house in the middle, but that he is persuaded by the conversation that clustering prevails anyway.
Mr. Bell stated that his preference would be seven acres, as long as the language makes it clear.
0 Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board would enforce that clustering will prevail.
• PLANNING BOARD 18 MAY 21, 1996
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 1996
Board Member Wilcox stated that seven acres is very hard to visualize. Mr. Wilcox stated
that in the minutes from the last meeting, that Director of Planning Kanter referred to what some of
the other cities in New York State have done in coming up with the seven acres, and with the
research, that he would go with seven acres.
Board Member Kenerson stated that he has been concerned, having been involved with this
for some years, that the seven acres is a restriction. Mr. Kenerson stated that the Board is dealing
with law, not a plan. Mr. Kenerson stated that the Board is here to convert the plan into a law, and
once the Board does that it would be fixed. Mr. Kenerson stated that he would prefer to see the
Board explain to the future generations, who will be making decisions on this, as to what the Board
intends to do about the Conservation District. Mr. Kenerson stated what the Board should hope to
achieve for a community to have, that to build in restrictions without countering the problem of taking
it and the compensation without solving the indefinite sewer and water problems, that are going to
be there if any type of development is allowed. Mr. Kenerson stated that the Board has a problem
there that should be addressed, and that element should be tied in that this property or certain parts
of it, cannot support non - public utilities.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board is trying to work on some of the issues.
Chairperson asked Board Member Kenerson if he wanted to express his opinion on the density.
• Board Member Kenerson stated that he prefers not to have a fixed figure, because it does not
apply. Mr. Kenerson stated that it is already zoned R -15 or R -30.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there has to be a number.
Board Member Kenerson asked if this would be eliminating or overlying the R -30.
Chairperson Cornell stated that it would be eliminating.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that it would be a new zone.
Board Member Kenerson stated that he would prefer to have it as small as possible and as
close to R -30 as possible. Mr. Kenerson stated that he would go below five acres.
Board Member Finch stated that he prefers the smallest size also, but that he also would like
to see this discussed further before this Board says it is final.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he prefers the smallest size also. Mr. Ainslie stated that
the seven acres without proper explanation would really cause a lot of problems for the Town.
•Board Member Hoffmann stated that she had worked on this proposal for a long time, with
the Conservation Advisory Council, the Conservation Board, and the Codes and Ordinances
• PLANNING BOARD 19 MAY 2171996
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 1996
Committee, and this is the latest version which her thoughts were that this version has been whittled
down to a very satisfactory document. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she does not have a problem with
seven acres for the lot size. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the size is based on studying how the Board
could come up with a density that is appropriate for this area to protect the resources that are there.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that the intent that the Board is trying to do and the reasons are very clear.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that all the information is written up in the documentation. Ms. Hoffmann stated
that the seven acres to her, is not an arbitrary figure. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the figure is based
on all kinds of discussions and looking on ordinances elsewhere that have been created to do the
same thing this Board is trying to do. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she does not have a problem with
the seven acres.
Chairperson Cornell stated that in a conversation with Attorney for the Town John Barney,
that he stated he felt it would be more legally defensible if this Board picked five acres. Chairperson
Cornell stated that the higher the number, the harder it would be to defend. Chairperson Cornell
stated that there are some cases that have been defensible, and those cases do happen.
Chairperson Cornell stated that Attorney Barney does feel strongly that five acres would be a much
more defensible number legally.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he is not aware of how much research the Attorney
• for the Town has done on this matter. Mr. Frantz stated that he drafted the original proposal, back
in 1990, for the Conservation Advisory Council, and that before he put pen to paper, he spent a
large number of hours doing research on land uses related to court cases, addressing issues like:
what the U.S. Supreme Court thought about these types of density reductions, what the courts in
New York and other states have decided in recent court decisions. Mr. Frantz stated that he also
consulted with attorneys at the New York State Department of State on whether or not one lot per
seven acres was legally defensible. Mr. Frantz stated that the opinions were unanimous that given
the development constraints in this area and elsewhere in the Town of Ithaca that the seven -acre
figure appeared to be legally defensible.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that given other court cases in New York State and
throughout the country, in he believes the proposal before the Board is not depriving landowners
of their property rights and that there is no regulatory taking involved here.
Mr. Frantz stated that the seven acres is defensible, and it is not an arbitrary number. Mr.
Frantz stated that in 1990 when this Conservation District was drafted, it was drafted with an eye
toward being applied to not just Six Mile Creek Valley, but in similar areas throughout the Town of
Ithaca. Mr. Frantz stated that he and the Committee looked at land parcels Town wide, and that they
looked at what would happen if the Committee went with five or ten acres in terms of development
potential. Mr. Frantz stated that seven acres was chosen because it represented a tenfold decrease
in development potential from the existing R -30 District, that would include a tenfold decrease in the
•potential for adverse environmental impact such as traffic generation on Town roads, storm water
drainage impact on streams, land clearing, etc ... Mr. Frantz further stated that at the same time,
• PLANNING BOARD 20 MAY 21, 1996
APPROVED - JUNE 187 1996
that seven acres as opposed to ten acres had, on a Townwide basis, had the least amount of impact
in terms of sending lots into zoning non - conformance. Mr. Frantz stated that this is the rationale
behind the seven acres.
Chairperson Cornell stated that staff members of the Planning Board, members of the
Conservatrion Board, and the Planning staff have worked on this proposal for many years.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that in this particular Conservation Zone proposal, the
Town is not looking for a tenfold decrease using the seven -acre lot size as a density. Mr. Kanter
stated that if the Board decides to use the 200 -foot boundary along the right -of -way, it would be less
than a 50% decrease depending on the way the existing parcels are configured and how much of
each parcel is in the District. Mr. Kanter stated that if Board decides to use the 500 -foot boundary,
then there would be a 58% reduction in density. Mr. Kanter stated that the legal defensibility has
to do with other things the Town is doing in terms of zoning and housing opportunities. Mr. Kanter
stated that where the very large lot size provisions have been stricken down by courts is in Towns
and Villages is where there are no other opportunities for higher density housing by using the
mechanism as a total exclusionary zoning mechanism. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town of Ithaca
has done quite a lot with multiple residence zones, special land use districts, and other opportunities
for higher density housing. Mr. Kanter stated that if the Board looked at the overall picture of the
• Town's zoning, that the seven -acre lot size would be legally defensible.
Board Member Bell stated that this Board is not talking about a zoning plan for the entire
Town. Mr. Bell stated that there are places in West Hill that people could build all kinds of different
densities. Mr. Bell stated that there are places on South Hill that people could build all kinds of
densities. Mr. Bell stated, what the Planning Board is talking about here is a very specific, and
highly unique environmental set of systems, and the point is to protect those. Mr. Bell stated that
it is not to protect the individual property owners, despite the fact there are some present here
whose interests have to be protected to some degree. Mr. Bell stated that this is an amazing
treasure and it seems to be getting lost in the shuffle here. Mr. Bell stated that there are very few
out of the hundred Towns in New York State that could say that they have anything approaching Six
Mile Creek. Mr. Bell stated that his back yard is one of the boundaries of this District, and that it
would be easy for him to become blase because he has been around this and he kind of gets used
to it.
Chairperson Cornell stated that in the green pamphlet it does outline the reasons why the
Town of Ithaca is proposing this District. (Green pamphlet is hereto attached as Exhibit #10.)
MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Gregory Bell:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
91. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the
• PLANNING BOARD 21 MAY 2171996
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that:
a. There is a need for the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance creating
the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District in the proposed location;
b. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the
proosed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District is to be located will not be
adversely affected;
C. The proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District is in accordance with
a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca
Town Board enact the proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District and
rezone those lands shown on the map entitled "Six Mile Creek Valley Proposed
Conservation District" (revised 4/18/96) from Residence District R -30 to Six Mile Creek
Valley Conservation District, with the above - referenced map amended to show the
western boundary of the Conservation District to be located 500 feet west of the right-
of-way of the South Hill Recreationway and railroad grade, and said map also
amended to exclude Tax Parcel No.'s 44 -1- 14.311, 44 -1- 14.313, 44 -1- 14.32, and 56-
2-11, all fronting on Burns Road, from the proposed Conservation District, as shown
on the revised map subtitled "Burns Road Option" (5/13/96), and
3. That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca initiate discussions with the Tompkins
County Assessment Office and other appropriate County officials to determine whether
the assessed values of properties within the Conservation District should be adjusted
to reflect any changes that may occur in their future development potential.
Board Member Finch stated he would vote against the amendment as stated because he
would not vote for 500 feet. Mr. Finch stated that he moves that the 500 feet to be changed to 200
feet.
Board Member Kenerson stated that he seconds the amendment of the motion.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there are four Board Members that were in favor of the 200
feet, and that there are two Board Members that were in favor of the 500 feet.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does not have any particularly strong feelings about
whether it is 200 feet or 500 feet, because it would probably be possible to handle it with 200 feet
and still protect some of the sensitive areas that are outside of boundary. Ms. Hoffmann stated that
since there are more Board Members for the 200 feet, that she would change her motion to 200 feet
n
•
PLANNING BOARD
instead of 500 feet.
22
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
MAY 2111996
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Wilcox, Bell.
NAYS - Kenerson.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
(NOTE: Adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #11.)
MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Fred Wilcox:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca
Town Board requests that the Tompkins County Board of Representatives direct the
Tompkins County Assessment Office, on a case -by -case basis, to adjust the assessed
values of properties with conservation easements, or within conservation or
agricultural zones to reflect any changes that may occur in their future development
potential.
Chairperson Cornell asked if there could be an amendment to the values of properties to read
the conservation or agricultural easements.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he is concerned with the agricultural part of this, and he
stated he did not understand it.
Chairperson Cornell stated that it is the same as if someone donates a conservation
easement. Chairperson Cornell stated that if someone donates an agricultural easement to the
Finger Lakes Land Trust, it would be saying that their land would be assessed.
Board Member Ainslie asked if this had anything to do with the agricultural assessment that
is now in place under the agricultural district, where people would have to gross so much.
Chairperson Cornell stated that this is separate and is on top of that.
Board Member Ainslie stated that would not work either because the agricultural assessment
is on working farms that gross at least $10,000 a year for two consecutive years. Mr. Ainslie stated
that if that is put into a land trust, then people would not work the farm anymore.
• Chairperson Cornell stated that they could. Chairperson Cornell stated that if someone put
PLANNING BOARD 23 MAY 2111996
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 1996
an agricultural easement on their land, that means that the land would have some kind of deed
restriction on their property saying that the land is going to stay in agriculture. Chairperson Cornell
stated that they will not be giving the land to the land trust, they would keep working the farm and
keep getting the profits. Chairperson Cornell stated that there would be a deed restriction on the
land and the land trust oversees that deed restriction.
Board Member Ainslie asked if the people would get an additional exemption on top of the
agricultural assessment.
Chairperson Cornell responded, only if it makes a difference.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the land in the Town of Ithaca that has been designated
as agricultural land cannot be developed, how could the Town put that into the District because it
cannot be developed anyway. Mr. Ainslie stated that this would imply if someone was in an area
that could be developed, such as farms, that area could be developed only through the
Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Cornell stated that there are some areas of the Town of Ithaca that are not in the
Agricultural Zone or District, that if someone put an agricultural easement on their property and they
• were granted tax abatement it would help them. Chairperson Cornell stated that this Board is simply
asking the Town Board to explore these possibilities.
Director of Planning Kanter asked the Planning Board if they were willing to change the word
"direct".
Board Member Kenerson stated that the Town Board should ask the Tompkins County Board
of Representatives to consider on a case -by -case basis.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that this should read a broader statement that covers
Conservation Easements as well as the Conservation District that is before this Board tonight.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that he does not think that the Board of
Representatives can direct the assessment of the land.
Chairperson Cornell asked if there is another way of wording that sentence.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that the language in the previous resolution regarding
the Town Board initiating discussion, is basically the same type of language that needs to be used
in this paragraph.
•Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Board if there is a motion to table this until Director
of Planning Kanter could come up with new wording.
• PLANNING BOARD 24 MAY 21, 1996
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 1996
MOTION made by Gregory Bell, seconded by Herbert Finch:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby tables this resolution.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 7, 1996
MOTION made by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Jim Ainslie:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of May 7, 19962
be and hereby approved with the following corrections:
That on Page 1, Paragraph 6, states "Mr. Farrell stated he was trying to figure out why the
• Conservation District is trying to protect the reservoir without putting sewage out there.", should be
changed to state "Mr. Farrell stated he was trying to figure out why the Conservation District is trying
to protect the reservoir without putting sewers out there."
That on Page 11, Paragraph 1, all sewage needs to be changed to sewers.
That on Page 24, last Paragraph, states "Director of Planning Kanter stated that a tentative
schedule date to consider the statement of findings which the Planning Staff will prepare, and also
to consider the at the same meeting, Preliminary Subdivision Approval for this proposal on June 4,
1996, with the Planning Board.", should be changed to read "Director of Planning Kanter stated that
a tentative schedule date to consider the statement of findings which the Planning Staff will prepare,
and also to consider} at the same meeting, Preliminary Subdivision Approval for this proposal on
June 4, 1996, with the Planning Board.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson.
NAYS - None.
ABSTAIN - Wilcox, Bell.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
0 Chairperson Cornell brought the matter of considering adjustments to assessed values of
• PLANNING BOARD 25 MAY 21, 1996
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 1996
properties in Conservation easements back to the Planning Board for further discussion.
Director of Planning Kanter addressed the Planning Board and read the revised wording for
the proposed resolution: "That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the
Town of Ithaca Town Board requests that the Tompkins County Board of Representatives
encourage the Tompkins County Assessment Office on a case -by -case basis to investigate
adjustments to the assessed values of properties with conservation easements, or within
conservation or agricultural zone to reflect any changes that may occur in the future development
potential."
Board Member Wilcox asked if the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board who
recommends to the Tompkins County Board of Representatives which talks to the Tax Assessment
Office, and this proposal is approved, who would initiate the review, the landowner or the
Assessment Office.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the landowner should go to the Assessment Office.
• Director of Planning Kanter stated that there are two aspects of this. Mr. Kanter stated that
the landowners could always go into the Assessment Office and request the change, but the more
important part of this is that if the County could establish a new way of assessing these properties
as a program, then individual property owners would not have to go in every time this happens. Mr.
Kanter stated that with Conservation Easements they probably would because it happens on specific
properties, and would have to go through the Assessment Office for recording.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to include a second part to the resolution,
stating that the Planning Board would hope it would be possible in the future to have some program
to allow the Assessment Office to do this as a regular thing. Ms. Hoffmann stated that then it would
not be up to the individual landowners necessarily to have to know that they have to go and do this
in order to get the benefit. Ms. Hoffmann stated that in some ways it is unfair because some people
would get the benefits and others would not get the benefit.
Chairperson Cornell stated that if someone had a Conservation Easement or an Agricultural
Easement, an entity has to manage that easement. Chairperson Cornell stated that if the Finger
Lakes Land Trust accepts Conservation Easements and Agricultural Easements they would tell the
landowners when they accepted it, which is what the land trust does.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the hope of this resolution is that it would help initiate
some kind of dialogue with the County, and some kind of change in the way that the County does
• their assessments.
• PLANNING BOARD 26 MAY 2111996
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she understands what the resolution is saying, but that
this resolution says they would do this assessment on a case -by -case basis, which would mean that
individual landowners would need to go in and initiate this on a case -by -case basis. Ms. Hoffmann
further stated that this is not what she would like to see. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like
to see some language that would encourage the Assessment Office to set up -a regular program.
Board Member Ainslie stated that would just put more burden on them, and that the
Agricultural Assessment under the Agricultural District, the landowners need to initiate.
Board Member Hoffmann asked Board Member Ainslie if, in that case, they have been told
from the beginning that they are in the Agricultural District and wanted an easement.
Board Member Ainslie stated that was right, but that there needs to be some initiation by the
person.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated if the Town Board does adopt this Conservation District,
then the Town of Ithaca should formally notify the County Assessment Office by including a map with
a list of parcels affected by this. Mr. Frantz stated that the list would be a list of parcels that were
just rezoned, and their development potential has been dramatically reduced, and state to the
Assessment Office to look at them again. Mr. Frantz stated that the concern of this Board is that
these parcels would be rezoned and the Assessment Office would not know that they were rezoned.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she is concerned that individual property owners may
not know that the Assessment Office might be working on changing assessments.
Board Member Bell stated that the words "case -by- case" should be eliminated from the
resolution.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Wilcox, Bell.
NAYS - Kenerson.
ABSTAIN - Finch.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
(NOTE: Adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #12.)
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
• Chairperson Cornell stated that there would be a special meeting of the Planning Board on
•
•
40
PLANNING BOARD
27
APPROVED - JUNE 1811996
Tuesday, May 28, 1996, for work session.
ADJOURNMENT:
MAY 217 1996
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Cornell declared the May 21, 1996, Meeting of the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
DRAFTED: 5/30/96 by DAK.
Prepared by:
W(LOA
Deborah A. Kelley,
Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder.
Respectfully submitted:
Starr Hays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
Mary BrycAt,
Administrative Secretary.
•
,7
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday. Mav 21, 1996
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard.
FINAL
7:35 P.M. Continuation of consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board with respect to
a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by establishing the Six
Mile Creek Valley Conservation District, to be located generally between Coddington
and Slaterville Roads and the City of Ithaca and Town of Danby and Town of Dryden
boundaries; .generally following the established R -30 Residence District boundaries and
either 200 feet or 500 feet west of the right -of -way of the South Hill Recreationway
and railroad grade, as shown on a map entitled "Six Mile Creek Valley Proposed
Conservation District" (revised 4/18/96).
8:45 P.M. Consideration of Amendment to Subdivision Regulations for the Town of Ithaca
(Approved by Town of Ithaca Planning Board March 2, 1993, and Approved by Town
of Ithaca Town Board March 8, 1993) to revise Article VI, Section 36 Preliminary
Plat Checklist, Article VI, Section 37 Form of Final Plat, and Article VI, Section 38,
Improvement Plans and Related Information,
9 :00 P.M. Consideration of revision of Preliminary Site Plan Checklist (6/95) and Final Site Plan
Checklist (6/6/95).
9:15 P.M. Board Member Concerns
6. Approval of Minutes: May 7, 1996
7. Other Business.
8. Adjournment,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MNIBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY STARR HAYS AT 277 -1737.
(A quorum of four (3) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
0
Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
126 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
r„ 1 1
s'
i '
j,
i r!-nn 1
a
May 15, 1996
I as well as many other property owners are highly gratified that at long last our
concerns about the proposed Conservation District for Six Mile Valley are likely to receive a
careful review.
Except for the 300 ft. frontage and lot dimension requirements, which were added
relatively recently, each of the concerns expressed at the May 7th Public Hearing were
voiced at the 1991 meeting when the 1990 report of the Conservation Advisory Committee
was first presented to the public.
Two aspects have been particularly troubling. First, the dismissal of economic
concerns with one of two phrases: "we'll address that at a later time" or "we have nothing
to do with assessments, market values, etc." The second is the failure to provide any
rationale for selecting 7A as the minimum lot size. When asked why not 10, 8, 6, 4, etc.
they have either "moved on" or said "it was our judgement this was best.,"
• I hope the Planning Board will develop a clear statement of purpose for this
Conservation District, and judge each requirement as to its contribution. Also please develop
a plan for..alleviating any major .negative economic impact on. property owners._
Sinr %ely,
u
Robert D. Sweet
cc: Supervisor Valentino
•
May 21, 1996
Ithaca Town Board
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Town Board Members,
M .AY 2 V 1996
Summer, Winter, Spring and Fall hikers, bird watchers, young children,
Senior Citizens, out-- of4own visitors walk, jog, ski and bike along the Town of
Ithaca's Recreation Way. As a gateway to Ithaca's woods, members of the public
marvel at this treasure so close at hand and yet so far away from busy streets.
Please continue your visionary path toward preserving the open land
accessible from the recreation Way. Once developed it is lost forever. When our
• children have little ones to take hiking along these cool green lanes, what will
remain, if not for your bold steps tonight?
0
Sincerely,
/A
Marjorie
,
60o 6A�va�
Olds and Bryan Isa ks
100 Renzetti Ithaca, New York 14850 607 - 277 -2228
'CORNELL!COLLUM TEL:607- 257 -6220 May 19'95 11:53 Nc.001 P.02
•
•
•
954 Coddington Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Ni ay 2, 1996
Candace Cornell, Chair'per'son
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Town of I thaca
126 E Seneca St
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Candace,
As residents of the town of Ithaca dsi3 living across thleased h the planning
Creek Valley Conservahan L?istrct we're extrem
YP
board is tackling the important issue of Preserving iover the proposal It is a
source of great esloYment and beauty. In re ouch Hill
noticed that th
e board is still debating over whether to make the
southwestern boundary either 200 feet or 500 feet west of the S
Recreation way right -0f -way. We will be, out °v f+ovrr the Soo feet boundary* Ong
so we would like to voice our strong preteren those of us
The Recreation way has been one of the woumerou gun re
who who take
who live south of the city (as well as the n
advantage of the great trail) and we would like to see as little encroachment
on this a area as possible.
into co look cur views. We loo forward to the
rn anlc y ou for taking
Conservation District becoming official.
Sincerely, �
x
Mitch Weiss & Martha Hcullilton
u
MAY 2 1 iGc.o L1
TOWN .;E ITNACA
PLANNING. ZCNIING. ENGINEE°ING
53B Lois Lane
Ithaca, NY 14850
May 21, 1996
Planning Board
Town of Ithaca
in re: Six Mile Creek Plan
Dear Planning Board:
A property owner along Six -Mile Creek since 1975, I have gone on record
repeatedly in favor of comprehensive planning and conservation in the Town
generally and along this Creek in particular. Unfortunately I am not free to
attend tonight's meeting, but I refer you to my recorded remarks at earlier
hearings on this subject.
Permit me to remind you only that I put sixteen acres of my land into the Finger
Lakes Land Trust in 1990, the first Ithaca landowner to do so. Not only the
current owners of that property (who would be speaking out if there weren't
serious health problems in the family just now), but the neighbors along
Slaterville Road, have expressed their satisfaction with that move. The focus on
• the watershed land for conservation has been positive not only for the health of
the water supply, but also for the nurture of this unique and ancient valley's
plant and animal life. All this in turn benefits many people.
Nearing retirement, I now live in Commonland, where the community continues
to care for our parcel. As a former Residents' Board member, I can assure you of
the breadth of interest in and appreciation for the Town's efforts to plan for and
conserve this land.
A few vocal landowners do not speak for all; please keep in mind your place in
and responsibility to the whole community, and to our longterm future.
Yours sincerely,
Nancy T. Gabriel
C
To: Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
2 0
From: Betsy Darlington
204 Fairmount Ave., Ithaca ?_ ;
Date: May 19, 1996
Re: Six -Mile Creek Conservation District
In my memo to you a week or so ago, I neglected to mention that, in addition to the
many citizens in the Town and City who have been working for years to protect the
extremely important Six-Mile Creek area, the Finger Lakes Land Trust, shortly after its
founding in 1989, selected the entire Six -Mile Creek corridor as its first major target area.
A Why? Because everyone on the Board agreed that this was a resource that simply had to be
protected. The Land Trust now holds permanent conservation easements on a number of
Six-Mile Creek properties, from Ithaca nearly to Hammond Hill. This has taken a large
amount of time and effort by many people, but the Land Trust feels that this significant area
deserves that sort of concentrated effort.
Since 1987, the second major player here, the City, has spent considerable sums to
purchase additional key properties from willing sellers.
Now it is time for the Town to do its part and enact the very reasonable, moderate,
even timid, land -use controls called for in the proposed conservation district plan. Other
•
communities have had the vision to protect important natural areas with zoning that is far
stricter than that proposed here. Your own survey, conducted a few years ago, showed
overwhelming support in the Town for protecting the natural character of the Town. It
would not be logical to be deterred by a small number of voices, from the sensible course the
plan lays out.
Please, pass the plan and protect one of the Finger Lakes Region's treasures!
•
1
0
0
0
rc
Candace Cornell, Chairperson
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
126 E. Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Ms. Cornell:
FINAL
172 Pearsall Place
Ithaca, NY 14850
21 May 1996
I am writing this letter to express strongly my support of the Town of
Ithaca's proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District. I am quite
familiar with the proposal, having examined it on paper more than once,
and having discussed its virtues at length in two recent meetings of the
City's Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee. I am an appointee to that
Commitee on the basis of my being a resident of the Town of Ithaca with
special knowledge and interest in the Six Mile Creek region. Also, I am a
property owner whose land is in the Six Mile Creek watershed.
The watershed is a region where many entities meet: to begin with,
the land in all its slopes and draws, the tributaries running long or
dropping steeply, their waters gathered in Six Mile Creek, the gorge more
obvious where millions of years of shale are revealed. To begin with, I'm
talking about hemlock and pine stands, meadow grasses, the wild flowers
at your feet in a long corridor that leads to the heart of Ithaca. I mean the
woods where deer and gray fox live, where scarlet tanagers, wild turkey,
and ring- necked snakes live, as well as we human beings. A person could
could get lost here, within a mile of the Commons, and I know I'm not alone
in thanking the powers of Heaven and Earth that this is so.
But this wilderness is continually being encroached upon. Why?
Because people value its proximity, they want to get close to it, or live
amidst it if possible, or look out across the valley from their houses at
treetops rather than other people's rooftops. A familiar paradox is already
obvious throughout the valley: real estate development impacts the
environment such that the wildness of the place is steadily being niggled
away. I've lived in my piece of woodland sixteen years, and I've seen lots
of change -- some of it for the better, some of it for the worse, I think. But
I don't see how anybody can deny that the entire area is starting to feel
relatively crowded and that its pristine character is threatened by various
forms of increased human presence.
I know that many of my neighbors in the Town also feel strongly
about the necessity of protecting as much of this territory as is possible --
within whatever human -made boundary it happens to be placed --
through the Planning Department's proposal to preserve panoramas, vistas
and accesses, the creation of buffer zones, and the regulation of "permitted
uses and densities" for future development. I serve on the Six Mile Creek
Advisory Committee because I'm committed to a spirit of cooperation. I
see the proposal for the Conservation District as a modest and reasonable
attempt to look toward preservation of what we value in several ways,
though I also recognize what might be threatening about some provisions
to some people. To quote from the proposal, its purpose is to "provide a
framework to minimize environmental impacts from future development
through the use of appropriate densities and design flexibility." I cannot
help but feel that this reasonable plan respects the rights of potential
developers, as it also asks them to respect the environmental health and
aesthetic values of their community.
Of course, part of the region is already protected by the City's
Department of Public Works, which provides and safeguards water for City
residents, and the City has created the Six Mile Creek Wildflower Preserve,
also, the Town has constructed and maintained the South Hill Recreation
Way (much of it, incidentally, on land donated in a neighborly spirit by
Therm, Inc.) Furthermore, there is the splendid example of those people
who have ceded undeveloped holdings to the Fingerlakes Land Trust.
We do not survive by drinking water alone, nor by tax bases for our
municipalities, nor by profits taken in the development of real estate, nor
within the perimeters of our own particular backyards. My point here is
that the term "watershed" is a complex one that suggests a spirit of
cooperation where things come together. When we talk about Six Mile
Creek Valley, we are talking about the need for recognizing values that
transcend individual preferences. I believe approval by the Planning
Board of the Sig Mile Creek Valley Conservation District is a recognition of
the necessity for foresight and in the best interests ofregion as a whole.
Sincerely,
Peter Fortunato
C
U
C7
4 60
To. Town of Ithaca Planning Board
From: Willis & Shirley Hilker
277 Burns Rd.
Ithaca, NY
Re. Six Mile Creek Conservation District
The reception we as property owners in the proposed
conservation district received at the May 7, 1996 public
hearing was the most promising of any of the meetings which
our family has attended.
Many of the problems which the residents have been faced with
have now been negated with the removal of present homes on
Rt. 79, Coddington Rd. and Burns Rd. from the proposed
district.
There is still the major concern that many of us have used
our land as a medium of retirement income just as others have
used stocks, bonds, annuities, etc. to fund their
retirements. With the present requirements of lot size,
roads, extra costs for subdivision, permits, etc. it has made
the sale of land, weather lots or acreage, too expensive to
compete with other lands around us. In essence all realistic
economic use of the land is in jeopardy of being taken, along
with a large portion of our retirement funds.
The issue of a conservation district has a narrow base of
persons who feel that somehow the conservation district would
allow them to enjoy our investment without any monetary input
on their part. Do the proponents of the proposed district
feel they can come on our land if the district is placed into
effect? Surely they have no vantage point to view the area
which is proposed for the conservation district. Do they
think removing open areas from the landscape will help fauna
and flora? Wildlife does not flourish in woods, see
Audubon Birds book, but in meadows and brush. Are they aware
that there is little natural browse for deer in the area
under consideration as they depend on young maple shoots and
similar growth in winter and this type of feed areas does not
exist in the proposed conservation area. We have had
conservation personal from Cortland make this determination.
For a real view of natural wildlife one only needs to go to
West hill where the last remnants of farming are still
praticed in the Town of Ithaca. But this is the area the Town
has designated to be used for housing. This is the real loss
of habitat in the Town of Ithaca. There seems to be no
rational.
•
To date there has yet to be an answer to the question "what
are you trying to protect ?" Each time there is an statement
on this question such as "cleaner water in Six Mile Creek" it
is learned upon investigation that the water is as clean as
nature will allow, or," protect endangered plants "no plants
have been shown to be endangered more in the area of Six Mile
Creek than in adjacent areas. In short there has still been
no study which indicates a conservation district is needed.
It was heartening to hear several members of the Planning
Board'express concern that this may be time to make
considerable reduction of the present draft or to abandon the
idea all together.
Unless some compelling need for
forthcoming, it probably is time
district. I certainly hope the
this conclusion.
Sincerely,
The Hilkers
,_
a conservation district is
to abandon the proposed
planning board arrives at
i
•
0
•
•
A r r ,4= Q6rW _= t h a e a tee - ter.:. =-��
Presented 'by Richard B. Fischer
MID
The City of Ithaca possessed one *of the most unusual wild-
flower areas in New York State. The area we have in mind is
watershed land along the Six Mile Creek valley from Van Natta's
Al vaaOj L /Nei
Dam on Giles Street to the Other places
in the State and in the Northeast are noted for displays of one or
two species. Here, however, we have a springtime spectacle that
is truly outstanding. LL � rn C"- 3 4 s c R j r� G —o Yap . .
Wildflower enthusiasts know that spring comas to this valley
a little earlier than elsewhere. Early in April, therefore, Peed
go there to see the first bloodroots and hepaticas, harbingers of a
pageant of blooms that will in a few short weeks transform the silent
woods into a spectacle of form and color. Next come the trout lilies,
wild ginger and spring beauties. In the last days of April new blos-
soms are added to the list: Dutchman's breeches, squirrel corn, red
and white trilliums, and toothworts. Most of these species are still
in bloom in early May when their ranks are swelled further with the
addition of bell-worts, bishops caps, Jack -in- the - pulpit, wood anemones,
the two species of solomon's seals, wild geraniums and a variety of
violets. It is then that the woodland floor is an unbelievable wild
garden, a r. ttural phenO"enon � %f ich :gust be witnessed to be appreciated
W1LDFLOf cRS -2 a
but once seen is never to be forgotten. As this crescendo of color
and line is subsiding, late - blooming species such as wild
geranium
and columbine come into their own. The bursting of tree buds and
subsequent closing of the canopy overhead signals the close of this
wildflower festival. For interestingly, the "big show" is a spring-
time event, there being relatively few flowers to see after mid -June.
A question sure to arise is "why is this little valley favored
with so many flowers ?" The answer lies in its geography and geology.
Since this is a river - bottom habitat, subject to periodic flooding,
it receives deposits of rich soil carried down stream from the head-
waters. The valley soil -- rich, dark, well- drained loam -- is the
sort of soil that every gardener wishes he had in his own yard. In
general, the pH is close to neutral. Here and there, however, are
bits of higher ground -- deposited from the ice ale -- which escaped
the influence of the underlying limestone bedrock, and the river flood
waters and which, consequently, test acidic. On such "islands" we find
acid - loving plants such as wintergreen, partridge berry and the lovely
fringed polygala.
Finally, there is a favorable exposure to the sun. This section
of the Six 141ile Creek valley is oriented so that it receives the sun's
rays from mid -day to early afternoon, when they are warmest. It is
for this reason, plus the fact that the dark soil is a good heat ab-
sorber, that spring comes so early there.
Ithacans -- and here we mean all persons c;ho mare their 11om_ in
Ithaca New York
- -.mss a tradition of regard for its natural beauty.
It
WILDFLOWERS-3
US
How logical, therefore, for e to be concerned for the safety
• and preservation of the wildflowers growing in its Six Mile Creek
y7E�1t b MEro F.
i Am RZ rtv(j
valley. I thacans , ---�
U
r.
U
in this unique valley, understandably want to give it some kind of
formal, legal protection. It is for this reason that we have proposed
that the area be desij a 'D1S j R+cT
nated as a �_ a place where
our residents can experience a bit of unspoiled natural beauty near
their homes.
t
0
O
-0000000e 09
•• ••• •••
does
�O v JF�v R`
a on
be be
a 4799;091T we 00 0;000 O.:Os
® ®® °
' ® ° ®� ® ® ®®
® a®
:110 04 0 00 00 as 40 on
(� I
R 30 a
::
�1 �o�R '
a as Is on 00 01 P 00 00
Ole ` c ESER
A
CITY OWNED LAND
:;-,..
to
1
Burns Road Option
C, Retain as R -30 Residence
V.
IV
w.
be
•:��_!
�o =:3
�!
c Co WISE v�
1 -a 30 �-�
-� �o mac- ':~ ' .,e 11 OiSTR�- VpT e a=ir: :�::�:: i�
':'S``; FRS '9 so
` •':; •.fie.;; �:..t. ��R .•� a 00 ` .- ;::: :x 00 a
c ::' 1: .
♦ ,F ,
q�
:: ••.
041 les-1,014 ti� ==' �' �''' '� '
w .. ar
ess, be go
�•: •'r •••' •''• 6, ' • • ••'•
�. . Y••
0 ;
� • • . • ••
` t�'' as We
09 00 04 a we de
Oes
ft
0 NO Al -.
/ �, ••= -_ al
so I age PROPOSED SIX MTT,F C R—=- VAL= � / ''�c• � �' 06 _30 ,
C7N DISTRICT BOUNIaM7
s s BOUNDARY ALTERNATE — 200 FEET FROM SOUTH HITS, RECREATIONWAY
1��1111 111 11 1 MINIMUM 11
11 NMI
0 5:7 0101011 Oro;
• u a- 2021
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING DEPT,
128 E. SENECA ST.
ITHACA. N.Y. 14850
Ii : 0 a6.
1.000 FT
wbmI
500 FT. 1.000 PT.
711 SCALE
OF-- feel
••1
e
ti
�— 3c
(5/13/96)
i
I It
:: .
ow as'
A4go
to as saw a Mesas
0 so a so one
00 00 11 so 0 as so 00
�•
\. cc {� /S
MOW
0
N
ODE
`30
4
WAft oft
"'
0
•
•
•
R,
�.
'��•'
Y{
•�._
_. �
4•r�..
��•�
.ti's
"-
..
.�
Y
..
1�TYS�.
..-
•_�..
•
0
JS
1
1
Ij
a/
L'
I NAT K
1
X
I/
I
1
Sox H SL• cr" VA AL7
Cov.*:r rvo'rr)p% b;sfr -l•ct
kmt SKr Rosa Optzsvv�
(S %13 Ai
FOR TAX PURPOSES ONLY
ftCT TO BE UKO roa O➢Mv(TAaC[
� w
Amcmcm Aa sprKTA. ac
NOT KM aY(
Q4a►'K as R-
Rs3 AA CLs
56 -2. —Its
REVISIONS
r
a.atawr OW swat .•rt
OMO . row va - -- - ---- mwTT ua
MK v ra.naaw aa•at� foaa um
a•aaar0 V"&" Log
LEGEND
om •Truer Lxa mmwwwlvo•—
T
I � �n
m
no ....eT uaa
...m ....o.
n
�fta 900"aT ant
ma &ac...ona
L4l
uarr ar.er Lau
am tar Manta
M� otfOtr Lwa
atO AaeaaO"
A
Ems* MVMLLw --.—
can O PMM
�vv� pfA r LOW
MOAAMO •.f•
Or.
MAP 56
TOWN OF ITHACA WA •.�' p4-•
TOYPKINS GOuNTY, N.T.
OATZ,*AD% V PNOTCM&O N �2643 gaT/. rIY �� IlL
•
0
�1
4�N
�llih
'vl
WHY
• To preserve the outstanding natu-
ral heritage of the Six Mile Creek
Valley, including its ecologically
important and diverse plant and
wildlife habitats, high quality
aquatic environment, and scenic
open spaces and panoramic
views;
• To protect the large expanses
of steep slopes, highly erodible
slopes, and wetlands to safe -
of Ithaca water supply,
'soils, fragile
guard the City
• To prevent the unnecessary destruction of contigu-
ous woodland areas, large tracts of open space, and
agricultural lands used by wildlife as biological corri-
dors;
• To provide a framework to minimize environmen-
tal impacts from future development through the use
of appropriate densities and design flexibility; and
• To preserve the celebrated natural features and
scenic beauty of this area to promote tourism as an
important economic benefit to the Town of Ithaca.
WHAT
This proposal will amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance by establishing a new Conservation Dis-
trict. The proposed district is currently zoned as 11-30
Residence District, which allows one and two-family
houses on lotsof at least 30,000 square feet. (R -15 and
R -9 District lands are not in-
cluded in the proposed Conser-
vation District.) , Qp, cQ,
The areas currently zoned R-30 within the Six Mile
Creek Valley, between Coddington and Slaterville
Roads and the City of Ithaca and Towns of Danby and
Dryden boundaries. The southwestern boundary will
be either 200 feet or 500 feet west of the South Hill
Recreationway right -of -Way.
HOW
By regulating the permitted uses and densities and by
including specific development standards as follows:
1) USES: Most uses currently allowed in 11-30 would
be permitted in this district with an emphasis placed on
sound agricultural and forestry management.
2) DENSITY: The current 11-30 District requires a
minimum lotsizeof 30,000square feet,anddepending
on availability of public sewer, may result in lot sizes
of between 1.5 and 2 acres, based upon approval by the
County Department of Health. The proposed Conser-
vation District would require a minimum lot size of 7
acres.
3) CLUSTERING: The Planning Board would be
authorized to require clustering of residential units in
the Conservation District (as is now authorized for all
subdivisions in R -30, R -15 and MR Districts). For
proposals on the southwest side of Six Mile Creek, the
Planning Board would encourage clustering of resi-
dential units between the former railroad grade and
Coddington Road
4) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Buildings and other structures would not be al-
lowed on: slopes 25 percent or greater, on or within
100 feet of wetlands, within 50feetof thecenterline
of any watercourse carrying water six months out
oftheyear,orwid&200feetofthe 100-YearFlood
Boundary of Six Mile Creek and Reservoirs.
Other guidelines for development include:
• Preserving existing native vegetation whenever
feasible;
• Siting guidelines to preserve scenic vistas;
• Encouraging open space linkages to preserve
wildlife habitats and biological corridors; and
• Preparing a stormwatermanagement plan when-
ever appropriate.
S) PARK AND RECREATION SET - ASIDES
AND FEES IN LIEU: Because of the reduced
residential density in the Conservation District and
the many existing recreational opportunities in the
Six MileCreek Valley, it is anticipated that, in most
cases, there will be no need for mandated parkland
reservations or fees in lieu thereof.
Prepared by the Town of Ithaca Planning Depart -
ment.If you have any questions,pleasecall Jonathan
Kanter, Director of Plannning, at (607) 273 -17470
FINAL
is ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conserva rntpy
Recommendation to the Town Board
Planning Board, May 21, 1996
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Gregory Bell:
11'/:1
1. The Town Board has proposed a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance by establishing the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District, to be
located generally between Coddington and Slaterville Roads and the City of Ithaca and
Town of Danby and Town of Dryden boundaries; generally following the established
R -30 Residence District boundaries and either 200 feet or 500 feet west of the right -
of -way of the South Hill Recreation Way and railroad grade, as shown on a map
entitled "Six Mile Creek Valley Proposed Conservation District" (revised 4/18/96), and
2. The Town Board referred said proposed local law to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board for their recommendation pursuant to Town of Ithaca Town Board Resolution
No. 40, dated March 11, 1996, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 7, 1996, has reviewed the
above - referenced local law, a Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II
prepared by the Town planning staff, a map entitled "Six Mile Creek Valley Proposed
Conservation District" (revised 4/18/96), and other application materials, and
4. The Planning Board has reviewed the public comment record, and has determined after
further discussion on May 21, 1996, that the following Tax Parcels fronting on Burns
Road, all of which contain existing houses, are smaller than the minimum lot size of
seven acres that would be required in the Conservation District, and would become
non - conforming lots if included in the proposed Conservation District, should be
excluded from the proposed Conservation District and retain their current R -30 zoning:
48444.311, 48 -144.3131 48- 1- 14.32, and 56-2-11.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that:
a. There is a need for the proposed
the Six Mile Creek Valley Cons(
b. The existing and probable future
proposed Six Mile Creek Valley
• be adversely affected;
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance creating
:rvation District in the proposed location;
character of the neighborhood in which the
Conservation District is to be located will not
• Proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District -Page 2-
Recommendation to the Town Board
Planning Board, May 21, 1996
C, The proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District is in accordance
with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca
Town Board enact the proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District and
rezone those lands shown on the map entitled "Six Mile Creek Valley Proposed
Conservation District" (revised 4/18/96) from Residence District R -30 to Six Mile
Creek Valley Conservation District, with the above - referenced map amended to show
the western boundary of the Conservation District to be located 200 feet west of the
right -of -way of the South Hill Recreation Way and railroad grade, and said map also
amended to exclude Tax Parcel Nos. 48 -1- 14.311, 48-1- 14.313, 48 -1- 14.32, and 56 -2-
11, all fronting on Burns Road, from the proposed Conservation District, as shown on
the revised map subtitled 'Burns Road Option" (5/13/96), and
3. That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca initiate discussions with the Tompkins
County Assessment Office and other appropriate County officials to determine whether
the assessed values of properties within the Conservation District should be adjusted to
reflect any changes that may occur in their future development potential.
AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Wilcox, Bell.
NAY - Kenerson.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Starr Hays, Recording Secretary;
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
5/21/96.
•
t OW' 1
•
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
Recommendation to the Town Board
County Assessment of Properties in C
Conservation Zones, or in Agriculture
Planning Board, May 21, 1996
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Fred Wilcox:
WHEREAS:
1. The protection of natural resources, selected open space, environmentally sensitive areas, and
unique natural areas are high priorities in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September
1993), and
2. It is a further priority of the Comprehensive Plan to enhance agricultural viability and preserve
agricultural land resources, and
3. Establishment of conservation and agricultural easements, conservation zones, and agricultural
zones are effective means of accomplishing the above objectives, and
4. It is recognized that use of the above preservation techniques affects the development potential of
properties affected, and may in some cases impact the value of such property, and
5. The real property tax assessment system in Tompkins County, New York, does not currently
include an effective tax abatement program to recognize diminished development potential of
• lands in conservation or agricultural easements, conservation zones, or agricultural zones, and
60 Such a tax abatement program would greatly enhance the Town of Ithaca's efforts to preserve
significant open space and agricultural lands.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town
Board request that the Tompkins County Board of Representatives encourage the Tompkins
County Assessment Office to investigate adjustments to the assessed values of properties with
conservation or agricultural easements or within conservation or agricultural zones to reflect any
changes that may occur in their future development potential.
AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Wilcox, Bell.
NAY - Kenerson.
ABSTAIN - Finch.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
•Starr Hays, Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
5/21/96.