Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1980-02-25 zlz� ��a lUs . ; TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD , PLANNING BOARD , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J O I N T M E E T I N G FEBRUARY 25 , 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 , 1980 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ( second floor ) , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Councilwoman Catherine Valentino , Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger , Councilman Victor DelRosso , Councilman George Kugler , Councilman Marc Cramer , Councilman Henry McPeak , Montgomery May ( Planning Board ) , Liese Bronfenbrenner ( Planning Board ) , James Baker ( Planning Board ) , Bernard Stanton ( Planning Board ) , Lawrence . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Barbara Restaino ( Town Planner ) , Donna Kessler ( WTKO ) , Eileen Costello ( WICB ) , Nancy Fuller ( Secretary ) . Mrs . Catherine Valentino , as Chairman of the Codes and Ordinances Committee , led the discussion . Mrs . Valentino ' s opening remarks outlined where the joint discussions were at this point pointing out that the joint Boards had reviewed the . . . proposed amendments through page 54 , and were ready to begin with Article X . Agricultural Zone ( A ) , page 55 . Mrs . . Raffensperger asked if there is a minimum size requirement for an Ag Zone . Mrs . Restaino stated that there is not . . Mrs . Restaino pointed out that the proposed amendment makes a rezoning process necessary to go from an Ag Zone to a Residential Zone . Mrs . Valentino noted that the regulations in an ag zone , and others , are pretty much mandated , and asked if there were any parts peculiar to our local needs that the Boards membersshould be aware of . Mrs . Restaino responded by pointing out that the proposed Institutional Use Zone ( P ) which is Article XI , is considerably different from the 168 ordinance . She noted that this Article was first done in the 174 draft and sets forth large areas of land owned by Cornell , Ithaca College - - any State , Federal , college , or university buildings or land . She stated that the intent was to have these areas recognized . as public use areas , which they are , rather than having them zoned residential . Mrs . Restaino also pointed out that the Institutional Use Zone requires that these entities come in for site plan review , even though by law it is not mandatory for State or local entities to come in for site plan review . She noted that it is a courtesy but it is important that the Town knows what Cornell , IC , etc . , are proposing . Returning to Article X , Agricultural Zone , Mr . Stanton wondered if paragraph 2 of Section 43 , on page 57 , meant that if a man wanted to expand his barn he would have to have site plan approval ? Mrs . Restaino explained that that was not the intent , it was intended for the expansion of an agricultural facility or agri - business , rather than just building a barn . Mr . Baker stated that this part is very confusing to him . Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , Pl . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 2 / 25 %80 Page Two Mr . Stanton felt that the word " facility " implies something very general . The definition of " Agricultural Facility " or "Agri - Business " was not# , ( Such definition reads : " An agricultural experiment or agricultural research facility , or a facility for the commercial production of agricul - tural products not to include the commercial servicing or sale of farm machinery . " Mr . Stanton commented that if it is the intent , and he hoped it is the intent , not to make it difficult for a farmer to build his barn , it might be good to make it a little clearer . Mr . Cramer asked if Mr . Baker were concerned also about the height requirements ( Section 44 , paragraph 4 , page 58 ) of 301 . Mr . Cramer stated that it seemed to him that many are higher than 301 . ' Mr . DelRosso cited the E . A . I . Co -Op expansion up on West Hill pointing out that this is a very large facility and would seem to fit under those matters needing site plan review . A discussion followed as to how one determines what a large operation is . Mrs . Restaino felt that this was a problem area and would have to be looked at in committee . Mr . Stanton stated that at least the intent should be clear that si plan approval is not required for a shed . Mr . Fabbroni stated that most of his comments were included in his comments under date of January 20 , 1980 , to Mrs . Restaino , which he thought had been sent to the various Boards . Mrs . Valentino stated that all of Mr . Fabbroni ' s comments will be gone over in the committee . Mr . McPeak wondered why there was a question mark after , Planning Board in item " c " on page 60 . Mrs . Restaino stated that the question mark was there intentionally to indicate that there really had not been a decision on which Board or person would be appropriate to determine , the yard requirements on irregularly shaped or legal non - conforming lots . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner felt that this kind of determination takes a certain . amount of technical knowledge and she thought that the Building Inspector would be more qualified to do this . Mr . Fabbroni stated that that was fine as long as there is added some general criteria such as the lot meeting minimum square footage requirements , then the Building Inspector has some discretion but not full discretion - there is some minimum which has to be met . Mr . Fabbroni noted again tha � he would suggest , at least , the lot has to meet minimum square footage requirements , not necessarily the width and length . Mrs . Restaino asked if it would then go to the Planning Board . Mr . Fabbroni suggested either the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals . Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , P1 . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 2 / 25 / 80 Page Three Mr . DelRosso was curious about the last sentence in paragraph " d " on page 60 , wondering what the relationship was of it to the previous sentence . He commented that the whole thing does not make too much sense , and asked what was intended . Mrs . Restaino agreed that paragraph " d " needed improvement . Mr . DelRossc stated that he thought what was meant to be said was " If there are two garages on adjacent lots , they can be closer than 251 . " Mrs . Valentino now continued the discussion moving on to Article XI , Institutional Use Zone ( P ) , noting that some discussion had already been held on this Article . Mr . McPeak asked if paragraph 1 of Section 48 , page 62 , meant to include things like a Federal Post Office - and - facilities that involve shared costs , such as Cornell University and the Federal Government in such . things as dorms that involve HUD funding . Mrs . Restaino stated that facilities such as a Post Office and those involving shared costs were intended to be those included in this Article . Discussion moved on to Article XII , Site Plan Approval and Zone Change , page 64 . Item #3 in Section 50 , Uses Requiring Site Plan Review , page 64 , being " Agricultural facility or agri -business . " , was identified as a problem area . Mrs . Restaino explained that the listing on page 64 is a listing of those things requiring site plan review . Mrs . Restaino pointed out that Environmental Assessment has been included . Mrs . Restaino pointed out that on page 65 , paragraph 1 , sub - paragraph ( a ) , sets forth a requirement for a narrative description in writing of a proposed project . Mrs . Restaino noted that the final site plan is required to be much more detailed than the preliminary . She stated that what this article does is enumerate the requirements that we already are using to a great extent and listing them in this case . . Mrs Bronfenbrenner stated that she did not know where we should bring this up , but there is a problem in the area of a radio broadcasting station . Nothing in this connection is mentioned in the proposed revisions , she pointed out . She asked where such an item should be in the ordinance and suggested that other ordinances could be reviewed as possible models . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner stated that these are apparently not a utility . Mrs . Restaino recalled the WTKO radio tower proposal in 1970 which was a special permit process requiring zoning ordinance amendment . She sugges - ted that for special things we need a place for special permits . A lengthy discussion followed wherein appropriate stipulations were suggested , height requirements , specificity of use . Mrs . Restaino felt that the ordinance must be specific about the use . Mr . May stated that he did not know about uses but he is sure about height , and mentioned 60 ' over an existing building structure . Mr . DelRosso suggested that for a home antenna specify height but shortest distance . Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , Pl . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 2 / 25 / 80 Page Four Mrs . Restaino read from a proposed ordinance amendment in 1970 , which was not adopted , as follows : " Section 74 . Special Exceptions . Where there are practical difficulties or special conditions which make application of these regulations unreasonable or impossible to comply with ; and when , in its judgment , the public convenience and welfare will be substantially served and the appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently injured , the Town Board may in a specific case , after . public notice and hearing and after referral to the Planning Board for an opinion as per the procedure outlined in section 46 ( 2 ) above , authorize ' the following special exceptions to the regulations : 1 . Airport or Aircraft Landing Field 2 . Cemetery 3 . Hospital or Health Care Facilities 4 . Radio or Television transmitting or broadcasting station 5 . Public Utility use or structure 6 . Marina , boathouse or bathing facility In the exercise of its approval , the Town Board may impose such conditions regarding the location , character , height , bulk coverage , . or other features of the proposed use , building , or structure as it may deem advisable in the furtherance of the purposes of . this ordinance . Peter K . Francese 6 July 1970 " O Mrs . _ Bronfenbrenner pointed out that the new solar energy collectors should be considered also as special exceptions . Mr . May added that windmills are certainly worth noting now also . Mr . Kugler pointed out that the effect of solar panels on set back requirements should be discussed . A decision was reached to add a special exceptions section in the last section of the proposed ordinance amendments under General Provisions . Mrs . Raffensperger suggested that a parcel of land that is being con - sidered for a change in zoning should be posted to indicate that such a change is being considered , and , such posting must be visible . This sug - gestion was . viewed . very well . Mr . DelRosso stated that it ought to be mandatory to put a sketch in the paper at the time of hearing or projected hearing . A discussion followed with no definite decision reached . Mr . Kugler suggested that in the seventh line of sub - paragraph " iv " on page 66 , the words " at least " should be changed to within . This was done . Mrs . Valentino and Mrs . Restaino agreed that the Planning Board .will go over Article XII with a fine tooth comb . Mrs . Restaino , turning now to Article XIII , Special Flood Hazard Are$, page 70 , stated that this Article is mandated and there is really not very much for us to do on this , noting that it is taken from a model code . She added that this is necessary for the obtaining of flood insurance . Mrs . Restaino pointed out that the Special Flood Hazard Area and the Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , Pl . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 2 / 25 / 80 Page Five Conservation Area ( Article XIV ) are overlays of an existing area , adding that the zoning that they would overlay is the original zoning . i Mrs . Restaino commented that we should probably change our zoning map to reflect that . Turning to Article XIV , Conservation Area ( C ) , page 76 , Mrs . Restaino stated , that this article is something the committee drew up after the SEQR law was passed and would add additional regulations to areas that are environmentally sensitive . Mr . Stanton commented that this article allows us to have such a thing but we do not have one now . Mrs . Restaino stated that we do have a unique area now which would be a - conservation area . Mrs . Raffensperger wondered if there is any kind of recognition that land is rezoned for a purpose , but never really is . The need for the setting forth of a . reversion back to the original zoning requirement was discussed . Mrs . Restaino stated that such a clause should go . under " Zone Change " in Section 54 of Article XII , Site Plan Approval and Zone Change . She noted that persons should know that that would happen if , indeed , their use never came about . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner suggested that a time frame could also be indicated . Returning to the discussion of Article . XIV , Conservation Area , Mrs . Restaino stated that she thought that Mr . Buyoucos should look over this as far as the legal aspects go - - for example , the purchase option may not be enforceable ( Section 67 , page 77 ) . Mr . Kugler pointed out the very last sentence on page 78 - - " Recreation areas such as playgrounds and campgrounds may not be located in a Conserva- tion Area . " He stated that it is necessary to be very careful where a Con - servation Area is designated . Mrs . Restaino stated that she did not know if the whole section would be enforceable ( Section 67 ) , that would be for Mr . Buyoucos to work on . Mrs . Restaino added that to require SEQR review is legitimate . Mr . May stated that he would think you would need a time that a purchase option has to be acted upon . Mr . Cramer asked if " limited public use " has been defined . Mrs . Restaino said no , adding that that is only in Section 67 . The discussion moved on to Article XV , General Provisions , page 79 . Mrs . Restaino stated that this all is from the existing ordinance or the 76 draft , Referring to the fourth sentence in paragraph 2 of Section 68 on page 79 , Mr . Kugler wondered if requiring completion of any building being con - Ask structed or renovated within two years is reasonable . Mr . Fabbroni commented that this gives the building inspector something to hold on to - - the question to be pondered is if there is progress or the building just sits there . Mr . Stanton was concerned about the intent of sub - paragraph " g " of . Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , P1 . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 2 / 25 / 80 Page Six paragraph 3 of Section 68 , on page 81 , and wondered if it. meant that if he wanted . to tear down his outhouse , did he have to get a building permit ? Mrs . Restaino po inted out that the Assessment Department uses the building permit records for assessment purposes . She also noted that in this way there would be knowledge of proposals for tearing down historic structures . Mr . Stanton stated that he understood what was intended , but that he thought it is absolutely unenforceable . Mr . May also wondered about small structures such. as sheds , dog houses . Mrs . Restaino asked if the consensus were that sub - paragraph " g " should be struck . Mr . May was of the opinion that it should not be , but that it needs clarification . Mr . DelRosso . suggested referring to all buildings with an assessed value of " x " number of dollars . Mrs . Restaino suggested adding that accessory buildings are excepted . Mr . McPeak pointed out that in sub - paragraph " f " ; on . . page . 81 , the word " own " should probably be " owner " . This correction was made . Looking at sub - paragraph " c " on page 84 , under paragraph 10 , Mobile Homes and Trailers , Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she was sure that the intent is that the owner of the mobile home must be employed by the owner of the property on which the mobile home is placed for working the land . Mrs . Restaino agreed . O Mr . Stanton referred to Section 69 , Legal Non - conforming Uses , page 85 , paragraph 2 , Abandonment of use, and stated that he was concerned about what a legal' non - conforming use abandonment means . He stated that one has got to be sure what one means by abandoned . Mrs . Restaino explained abandonment as a legal term that has been argued in court and is usually defined in terms of substantial use . Mr . Stanton commented that what Mrs . Restaino was saying is that we have done the best we can with this . Mrs . . Restaino agreed , adding that she will look at it again and elaborate as much as possible . Mrs . ' Restaino pointed out that . as a result of earlier discussions at this meeting , under this Article we will add another section for special exceptions . Mrs . Raffensperger asked if that means special permits . Mrs . Restaino replied that it does . Moving on to Article XVI , page 86 , Mrs . Restaino pointed out the rules and regulations for the Zoning Board of Appeals , commencing on page 88 , Section 71 . Referring to the entire Article ; Mrs . Restaino noted that Mr . Buyou would certainly g rtainl have to o over this also , butit is taken pretty much the 168 ordinance . Mr . May , referring to paragraph 2 of Section 70 , Permits and Enforce - ment , page 87 ( Permit to build . ) , wondered if this paragraph precludes a child ' s Kool - Aid stand . , . . , point Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , P1 . 13d . , Zon . Bd . ) 2 / 25 / 80 Page Seven It was agreed that that was not the intent , although it seems to mean Aft that a permit to build is required for any structure in any zone . Mrs . Valentino suggested that the words " or operate " be added after the words " Permit to build '.' in both cases where they appear in this para - graph . This was agreed upon . The matter of the Kool - Aid stand was not resolved , but Mr . May suggested that size ought to be thought about . Discussion now turned to the " Preamble " , a separate section commencing with . page " i " . Mr . DelRosso stated that it would be nice if the first paragraph of the Preamble also set . forth as a purpose for the regulation of the Town of Ithaca the allowing of the individual to make the best use of his land to suit his own needs . Mr . Stanton expressed his hope that the word " affect " rather than " impact " could be used in paragraph 1 on page " iii " ( Multiple Residence Zones ) . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she was delighted to see this Preamble this evening . She continued and stated that in the business zones she is concerned that there is no recognition of the importance of the expansion of a business zone as well as just its creation . She commented that you can slowly but surely be nibbled to death . Mrs . Raffensperger felt that surely some place in this ordinance expansions of business use can be dealt with . She pointed out that this does not necessarily involve a rezoning for further use if the land is already zoned . Mrs . Raffensperger , noting the reference to the Tompkins County Comprehensive " selective communities pattern " on page " i " , wondered if it is implied that the Town has approved that as a Town , adding that she did not believe that we have and that she is not sure that we want to . Mrs . Restaino stated that if there ever were a question of whether the Town has a comprehensive plan , that would be the one . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that it was her recollection that the densi - ties far exceed anything that we have ever contemplated for the Town . Mr . Stanton stated that it would be helpful if there were a paragraph stating that there are the following zones , noting that the preamble goes from neighborhoods to residence zones without any statement of how we got into zones . Mr . Stanton stated that he thought there was an intent in establishing these zones that you wanted to keep the character of the area . Mr . Stanton thought that something . like a lead - in statement would be useful , commenting that the sequence does not seem to be orderly to him . Mr . DelRosso pointed out that the word " six " in the second line of page " ii " should be " eight " to jibe with the eight neighborhoods listed . subsequently . Mr . Stanton suggested listing the residential zones - - R - 9 , R- 15 , R- 30 .. Mrs . Restaino pointed out that they are together in the proposed amendments . Mr . Stanton pointed out that Cluster Housing is separated out by . a heading , page IIiiiII and it might follow well to have the residence zones too . Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , P1 . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 2 / 25 / 80 Page Eight It was agreed that the typing format was that of the 174 draft and would be improved upon . Mrs . Restaino suggested that Mr . Gary Evans of the Tompkins County Planning Department could attend the next meeting of the committee to talk about the " selective communities pattern " . This was agreed upon . Mr . May , while mentioning Article IV particularly , stated that any time there is a reference ' to signs , it should be stated that signs shall conform to the Town of Ithaca Sign . Ordinance . , This was agreed upon . Mrs . Valentino stated that if , after this evening , those .... present . think . of anything else that they would like to comment on , please get it to Mrs . Restaino . Mrs . Restaino stated that this would be the time that she would need to look at everybody ' s comments once again , and , whenever anyone i. s finished with their draft , they should get them to her . At 9 : 30 p . m . , Mrs . Valentino declared the February 25 , 1980 , work session over . Respectfully submitted , . 0 Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary .