Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1980-01-21 4D� Vi I �� I }rY�/`. t ' TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD , PLANNING BOARD , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J O I NT M E E T I N G JANUARY 21 , 1980 The Town of Ithaca Town Board , Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals met in working session for discussion of proposed revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance on January 21 , 1980 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ( second floor ) , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Supervisor Noel Desch , Robert Powers , Councilman Victor DelRosso , Councilman Marc Cramer , Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger , Councilwoman Catherine Valentino , Councilman Henry . McPeak , Liese Bronfenbrenner ( Planning Board ) , James Baker ( Planning Board ) , Montgomery May ( Planning Board ) , Bernard Stanton ( Planning Board ) , Carolyn Grigorov , ( Planning Board ) , Edward Austen ( Zoning Board of Appeals ) , Edward King . ( Zoning Board of Appeals ) , Jean Swartwood ( Town Clerk ) , Barbara Restaino ( Town Planner ) , Gary Evans ( Tompkins County Planning Department ) , Carol Eisenberg ( Ithaca Journal ) , Pamela Holme ( WTKO ) , John Davidoff ( WICB ) , Susan Myers ( WHCU ) , Nancy Fuller ( Secretary ) . Mr . Robert Powers , Past - Chairman of the Town Codes and Ordinances Committee ; led the discussion . Mr . Powers ' opening remarks covered what had been covered at the Joint Meeting in November 1979 , noting that discussion had progressed to Section 6 . on page 18 . Mr . Powers pointed out that paragraph 3 on page 19 sets forth a requirement that pasture area must be provided if one wishes to keep a horse - or horses . Mr . Fabbroni ' s challenge of allowing farms with animals in R - 9 and R- 15 and possibly R - 30 was noted . Mrs . Raffensperger inquired if horses are to be kept so many feet from a lot line . Mr . Desch pointed out that paragraph 7 on page 20 sets forth a 30 foot distance from lot line requirement . Continuing on , Mr . Powers turned to Section 7 ( Building and Other Structural Regulations ) , page 20 , commenting that the Committee tried to be consistent . Mr . Powers pointed out the square footage re - quirement for one - family dwellings in R- 30 , R- 15 , R - 9 being proposed by the Committee as 720 sq . ft . Mr . Powers commented that the Committee was told that this is the smallest mobile home generally being sold , adding that 720 sq . ft . is somewhat of an arbitrary figure but , nonetheless , arrived at after investigation . In sub- paragraph " b " on page 21 , Mr . Powers noted , a 360 sq . ft . dwelling . unit is set forth as a minimum requirement for one unit in a two- family dwelling , with the total dwelling required to be not less than 1 , 200 sq . ft . Mr . Powers pointed out that the 360 sq . ft . figure is the smallest size in multiple and ; if that is correct there - - why not here ? Mr . Powers noted that paragraph 2 on page 21 is the same as the 68 ordinance . Referring to paragraph 3 on page , 21 , Mr . Powers noted that the Committee had added measurements as well as stories . Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , P1 . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 1 / 21 / 80 Page Two Mr . Desch noted that Mr . Fabbroni had suggested 30 feet as the height maximum for habitable space , rather than 26 feet as proposed by the Committee . Mrs . Restaino stated that she thought that 30 feet is a little more reasonable . Mr . Powers commented that a lot of people say that too . Mr . Desch noted that Mr . Fabbroni also suggested that the maximum height for an accessory building be 22 feet , rather than 18 . feet . Mr . Powers stated that these . numbers are all subject to change , and pointed out that both stories and height were recommended . Mr . Powers pointed out that on page 22 , Section 8 , paragraph 1 , lot dimensions are the same as both the 176 and the ' 68 ordinances , but R- 9 ' is back in . Mr . Powers turned to . page 24 , paragraph 5 , Parking requirements , and stated that the Committee had tried to address the problem of parking . space in one and two family residence zones . Continuing on with this paragraph ( 5 ) , Mr . Powers noted , on page 25 , sub - paragraph " c " which he read out loud , as follows : " All parking areas must be paved or graveled , drained , maintained and provided with. readily accessible driveways . Open parking areas for 5 cars or more must be landscaped and screened from adjoining streets . No parking area shall be permitted in any required minimum front yard except upon the Special Approval of the Zoning Board, of Appeals . Mr . Powers then noted specific instances in recent years which brought this up , being that of parking on the front lawn of certain areas , e . g . , Snyder Hill Road . Mr . Powers stated that the Committee is trying to tighten this up a little bit . He said that their biggest co. cern is that they do not mean to say that one cannot park in one ' s fro 4 driveway . He asked those present to please look at this carefully . Mr . Fabbroni ' s question of whether front yard or edge of shoulder was meant was noted . Mr . Desch suggested adding the words " and properties " to the second sentence in this sub = paragraph " c " , so that it ' would read : " Open parking areas for 5 cars or more must be landscaped and screened from adjoining streets and properties . " Mr . Powers agreed that . this sub - paragraph ( c ) needs improvement . Mr . May wished to discuss paragraph . 3 on page 21 again , stating that both the structural heights are unreasonable . Mr . Powers stated that he thought the time to do- that is when the Planning Board and the Town Board disect this draft . He stated that at this point he , on behalf . of the Committee , is trying to convey information to the . Boards members and point out that a change was made here , a change was made there . He suggested that if any Board member wishes to make a change , he or she should think about it , and present those changes to Mrs . Restaino . Mrs . Valentino said that she was not sure she understood the process , and asked if after this meeting the draft goes back to the Committee . Mrs . Restaino stated that that was the case , adding that different . opinions from many people as to height , for example , will come through and it w! become clear that it should be changed . She stated that then she will incorporate the changes into the draft and go over this with the Commit and then it will go to the Attorney . Mr . Powers stated that the Committee felt that it would be a good idea for the Town Board , the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board to have some impression as to the thought process that went on when V . Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , Pl . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 1 / 21 / 80 Page Three the Committee did the revisions . He stated that each of these Boards should individually , or collectively , go over this draft and , at that time , dot the is and cross the is - - right now we are indicating concepts . Mr . May commented that what Mr . Powers is really saying is that no particularized input is wanted at this meeting . Mr . Powers agreed that not a whole lot should be indicated at this point . Mr . Desch added that comments should go to Mrs . Restaino in writing . Mr . Powers said that he thought we should go through the whole draft fairly rapidly so that concepts are understood . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner commented that this should be done before Mrs . Restaino makes the correc - tions . Mr . Powers agreed . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner stated that she thought that the " intent " is needed before any of the Boards get this draft - - or " purpose " , whatever it is to be called . Mr . Powers stated that if it is the consensus that those present . want to stop and dot is and cross t ' s , that is fine . Mrs . Valentino stated that she thought that in certain cases we can arrive at a general consensus . She said that that would save time , though it may take more time right now , but on some of . these .. issues . we might already have an idea . Mr . Desch pointed out that Mr . Fabbroni has set forth his rationale for his 30 - foot . and 22 - foot height recommendation in his report to Mrs . Restaino to which we have . been referring , that rationale being on page 5 .' of his report under item #26 and # 27 . Mr . Desch asked if anybody had any objections to that . Mr . Desch stated that he would certainly endorse 22 feet for accessory buildings . Mr . Powers pointed out the gray area of low side vs. . high side . Mrs . Restaino suggested calling a basement a story and have that included in the definition , adding that that would set your limit for the three stories and you could still use your 30 feet . Mr . Powers noted that Mr . Fabbroni is talking about a two - story building plus basement . Mr . Powers posed the question - - if you are on a hillside , at what point do you make your measurements , and , is a basement a story ? It was noted that a " story " has been defined and precludes a basement . Mr . May wondered if all buildings over 26 feet were undesirable , pointing out that there are a lot of them . Mr . Powers said , not at all , and added that the intent was three stories from the main floor level and then to calculate how high is a story . He noted that a basement for living is 716 " . Mr . Desch noted that it looks like Mr . Powers was right . ; we are not going to resolve it . The discussion moved on to Article V . Multiple Residence Zone ( R2 ) . Mr . Powers commented that this portion shows the need for a comprehensive plan . Mr . . Powers stated that this has been a very controversial concept for a number of years , noting again that it is necessary to develop a comprehensive plan . Mrs . Raffensperger asked if , in the other zoning ordinance , there were any criteria for multiple residence zones . Mrs . Restaino stated that Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , Pl . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 1 / 21 / 80 Page Four i" she did not think so . Mr . Powers stated that . the Committee did give a good deal of time . to percentage density concept and added that it was not their intent t shut down the percentage density concept , but they were not prepared to handle the whole thing until they had a basis . Mrs . Restaino stated that it would . be more appropriate in a plan as a guide and _ not . in the zoning ordinance which is law , not policy . Mrs . Raffensperger pointed out that she has read among her papers on the zoning ordinance , undated material referring to intent , neigh - borhood character , welfare , etc . She asked if the Committee left that all out on purpose . Mr . Powers commented that that applies , really , to all zones . Mr . Desch wondered why that would not be in the purpose . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she was told it would be in a purpose in each section , and added that it must be one place or the other . Mr . Powers stated that he thought that it would be a good idea to put that in an extended purpose for this section . Mr . Desch asked that those present look back on page 17 , wherein sub - section " a " sets forth criteria for residences . He stated that that is probably what people have in mind . Mrs . Restaino stated that there is no reason why we could not inc porate these sort of requirements in multiple . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner add , and business , as well Mr . May wondered why the Committee had accepted a 360 sq . ft . dwelling unit . here ( sub - paragraph " a " , page 26 ) and required 720 sq . ft . in mobile home zones . Mr . Powers pointed out that the 360 sq . fte refers to a unit with no separate bedroom and stated that the Committee felt it was acceptable for an apartment . He commented that a freestanding 360 sq . ft . unit is pretty small . Mr . May said that he thought that one would have . trouble ' defending 360 sq . ft . as okay and 720 sq . ft . as being required . Mrs . Restaino commented that any new mobile home park would meet the newer requirements . Moving on to Article VI , Mobile Home Residence Zoine . ( R3 ) , page 30 , Mr . Powers stated that it may . not be necessary to have this , but the Committee thought they should write it in . He stated that it is modelled after Broome County ' s ordinance and noted that this Article . took a very long time . Mr . Powers noted that Section 15 on page 31 , paragraphs # 1 and # 2A set forth minimum area requirements of 25 acres - = 25 acres minimum si area for an R3 Zone and 25 acres minimum size area for a mobile home park . Mr . Powers noted that you may have an R3 Zone which is 150 acres or 26 acres . Mr . Powers added that there are other permissible uses in R3 than mobile homes . Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , Pl . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 1 / 21 / 80 Y: Page Five Mr . Powers stated that under paragraph 3 on page 32 , 15 , 000 sq . ft . is required for a mobile home on an individual lot , noting that this is . larger than the requirement for a lot in R9 . Mr . May stated that this is unrealistic when you say people can build a home on 9 , 000 sq . ft . Mr . Stanton commented that R9 zones are meant to be more high - density areas . Mr . Powers stated that 15 , 000 sq . ft . was not accidental . Mr . Powers pointed out that sub - paragraph " e " on page 34 shows the same 26 - foot height requirement that has been discussed . Mr . . Powers pointed out that the requirements for streets , etc . , which are set forth on page 35 , are from a model ordinance . . Mr . Powers . commented that open space requirements set forth on page 37 were the Committee ' s own requirements . Continuing on to Article VII , Business Zones ( B - 1 ) , ( B - 2 ) , page 39 , Mr . Powers stated that there were fairly substantial changes in this area . Mr . Powers pointed out that some neighborhood businesses are permitted . Mr . Desch asked how one would accomplish paragraph 3 on page 42 . Mrs . Restaino stated that that is a difficult one , but the Committee wanted to include it . Mrs . Raffensperger wondered why there were only two kinds of busi - ness zones . . Mr . Powers asked if she were thinking about size Mrs . Raffensperger replied , size and use . She stated that by having B- L and B - 2 you are eliminating criteria - - for example , service stations , is compressed . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner stated that the Committee was trying to cut down the confusion . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she thought that B - 2 is an awful big category , adding that she was considering impact on existing facili - ties and possible expansion . Mr . Powers asked Mrs . . Raffensperger if there were a third category , would it be smaller or larger than B - 2 . Mrs . Raffensperger responded , . larger than B- 2 . Mr . Powers asked what there is in this revision which would not handle . . a hotel , as an example - - or a skating rink - - or a bowling alley ? Mr . Desch asked where one would put a regional shopping center -- in B- 2 ? Mr . Powers replied , yes , in B- 2 . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner stated that she thought there should be a separate category for regional facilities . Mr . Powers stated that this matter is handled in the review process . He added that if you make a relatively simple document , but make a sub - stantial review process, you can control this . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner stated that the only control the Board really has Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , Pl . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 1 / 21 / 80 Page Six in shopping centers such as ' East Hill Plaza is the parking requirements . Mrs . Valentino stated that this is a very serious question . She pointed out that there were - no . criteria . during the period of the appro4 process for East Hill Plaza . There was no way we could put limitations on this , no past experience , nothing in writing . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner suggested an approach might be through occupancy regulations , size , etc . Mr . Powers stated that B - 1 zones have built in physical limitations , but that he can see the concern for B - 2 . Mr . Stanton pondered the question of ending up with limitations in B - 2 not specifying regional shopping centers - - - perhaps the way to go would be to have separate requirements for them . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that there has to be some way to regulate those B - 2s that may be in operation now - - every . expansion: _ and continued use has to be of concern . Mrs . Restaino suggested that rather than limiting type of use , we should perhaps limit intensity . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that basically the old zones seemed to have correlation between type of use and traffic generation . Mr . Powers stated that the Committee spent considerable time in trying to avoid a lengthy shopping list , and , . in doing this , we create * the kind of circumstances of which you are speaking . Some discussion ensued with - reference to paragraph 5 on page 41 where additional business or light industrial uses is set forth . The questions remains as to whether " light industrial uses " should be in or out . Discussion moved on to Article VIII , Light Industrial Zone ( I - 1 ) which commences on page 45 . Mr . Desch pointed out that in sub - paragraph " d " on page 462 it is stated that " No waste may be burned on the premises . " . He suggested that that might be out of date . Mr . Powers agreed that that was a good thought . Mrs . Fuller expressed concern about the " unrelated which " in . the "Purpose " section ( 25 ) , page 45 , and was asked to fix it up . Mr . . Powers pointed out that Section 29 , paragraph 1 , page 47 , " Noise " is from a model ordinance . Mr . May was concerned with the use of - the word " objectionable " . in the second sentence of that paragraph , indicating that such a description of noise is really just a catch- all phraseology , rather than a definition . He wondered how it could be defended . Mr . Powers agreed that it would be difficult defending " objectionable " noises when the chart follows indicating maximum . permissible sound pressure levels . Mr . Powers noted that you may have noises that are defined and may be determined to be objectionable . Mr . McPeak stated that audible range has been defined . Mr . Powers disagreed . Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , P1 . Bd . , Zori . Bd . ) 1/ 21 / 80 Page Seven Mr . McPeak stated that he was talking about radiation frequency - - the FCC regulations - which have been set forth on a graph as of 1978 . Mr . McPeak noted that a shop running RF generators would wipe out every - one ' s TV for a half a mile or so . Mr . McPeak referred again to the FCC regulations and jurisdiction and pointed out that if the Town licensed a business it would have a problem regulating this . He wondered what we would tell them . He said that this is a problem rearing its head more : and more . He noted that RFI , Radio Frequency International does not get into the health range until it gets beyond a certain level . Mr . - Powers stated that this is a point well taken . Mr . Powers commented that he has never seen it in an ordinance . Mr . Powers . continued and noted that there is a change from the 168 ordinance having to do with " smoke " . Paragraph 2 on page 48 refers to the DEC thresholds . Mr . Powers added that paragraph 3 on page 48 , " Odors " may change according to DEC thresholds also . Discussion moved on to Article IX , Heavy Industrial Zone ( I - 2 ) , page 51 . Referring to Section 33 , paragraph 4 , page 51 , Mr . Powers wondered if the inference there is that one cannot have a guardhouse in any other place . Mrs . Restaino stated that sub - paragraph " a " should be put in Light Industrial Zones also . Mr . Powers agreed noting that the permission for the installation of manufacturing equipment if allowed in heavy industrial , should be allowed in light industrial . The last item of discussion at this joint meeting was. in connection with the " Buffer areas " which is set forth on page 54 , paragraph 4 . Mr . May pointed out that the . 200 feet referenced could also be parking . Mr . May commented that the buffer area could be smaller if parking were set apart . This joint meeting . of the Town Board , Planning Board , and Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 10 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary .