HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2020-06-18
Town of Ithaca Planning Committee
Thursday, June 18, 2020 (via Zoom Conferencing)
Committee members: Rich DePaolo, Chair; Bill Goodman, Pat Leary
Board/Staff members present: Rod Howe, Town Supervisor; Sue Ritter; Marty Moseley
Others: None
1. Persons to be heard: None
2. Committee announcements and concerns: None
3. Consider approval of November and May meeting minutes.
November minutes: Rich moved; Pat seconded. Approved with one minor correction.
May minutes: Pat moved; Bill seconded. Approved with two minor corrections.
4. Continue discussion of potential historic preservation program:
Rich summarized the previous meeting’s discussion and asked Rod to report on his communication with
city staff. Rod stated that further discussion regarding possible collaboration with the City’s Historic
Preservation Program would need to wait until Bryan McCracken (Historic Preservation Planner)
returned to the office. The committee decided to put this on hold for the time being.
Committee members then discussed the Town’s historic building/structure inventory. Sue explained
that the project was undertaken between 1997-2000 by graduate students in Cornell’s Historic
Preservation Program, resulting in the surveying of 480 properties. Each property was inventoried using
a NYS Historic Preservation Program Building-Structure Inventory Form. Sue suggested the survey
information would be a good place to start for initiating a preservation program and identifying
potential properties for inclusion. Committee members were impressed with the amount of
information provided in the forms and agreed that this would be a good starting point.
5. Consider yard setback requirements for accessory dwelling units:
Rich summarized the issue from the May meeting, which was precipitated by a resident on Roat Street
who felt that an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) had been built too close to his house. The ADU was built
15 feet away from his side yard property line, which is allowed for an ADU that is attached to a principal
building. However, if this were a detached ADU, the setback requirement is 30 feet. The resident
questioned whether the town should standardize the ADU setback requirements.
At the previous meeting, Marty reported that the ADU was considered “attached” only because of the
existence of a breezeway. It was technically considered attached, but it was not actually attached by a
wall to the principal dwelling. Marty reiterated his suggestion from the May meeting to consider adding
a definition for “attached ADU” and asked the committee if they thought that would help situations like
on Roat Street. The committee agreed that a definition would be helpful.
The committee began considering definition approaches. The initial idea was to have a maximum
distance requirement between the ADU and the principal structure, with the separation required within
a conditioned space (heated/cooled), such as an entryway/mudroom, not outdoor space. After
considering various distance measurements, the committee questioned whether the size of the
conditioned space is apt to be controlled by costs (construction and heating/cooling) so that just
requiring the attachment within a conditioned space would be a reasonable approach. The committee
agreed and asked Marty to work out more specific language for the committee to consider at the July
meeting.
Rich asked Marty if this new definition would create non-conforming situations. Marty said yes, but this
would only come up only if a homeowner was requesting modifications related to the ADU or the
attachment with the principal building.
6. Staff Report & Updates:
- Sue reported on several Planning Board applications and possible outside weekend events to take
place this summer at the South Hill Business Campus.
Next meeting: Thursday, July 16th.