Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-29 PUBLIC 29 .MARCH 29 . 1780 Supv Cotterill called the meeting to order at 7 : 30Ptl Roll call was by the Town Clerk : Present : Supv Cotterill , Clm Schlecht , Clm Garlock , Clm Evans , 01m Hatfield and Atty Perkins Supv Cotterill read the notice that was published in the newspaper concerning the mobile home ordinance and amendments to the zoning o rdinance . Q UESTIONS AND / OR COMMENTS : Russ Tibblas . Ellis Hollow Rd - wanted a summarization of what the changes were . S upv Cotterill - the Town Board has received petitions for changes in different zones and changes of uses in the Town . Also there were petitions from residents that live in mobile homes asking for specifications as to how mobiles homes should be installed on a lot . The Town Board appointed a committee to look at mobile homes about a year and half ago . There was an amendment not to allow mobile homes unless it was a replacement while this was being studied by the committee , Along with the proposed changes in the III zoning ordinance and mobile home ordinance there was also a request t o change the zoning map . There also has been a request for a RA lore in the Ellis Hollow area which is not in this proposal , but is delayed until the Town Board and Planning Board and the citizens f rom that area can get more information . Karen Belden - wanted information about PUD , why was this included in the zoning amendments ? S upv lotterill - the Town Board has discussed this and has been part of the zoning ordinance from the beginning , but it has never been used because the requirements were 100 acres . The Town Board felt that it was not usable the way it was and should be more compatible with other towns . J C Page , 1111 Ellis Hollow Rd - on the proposal on the PUD none S ection 2201 it reads that the residential PUN district may be located in any zone district except MA Zone . They are in the AB lone which has been one of the most restrictive zones under the new proposals with single family and two family residents . In Section 2203 it gives the allowed uses and several items are retail stores w hich are of a neighborhood or local service nature and business o ffices . He thinks that this is contrary to a restrictive nature u nder the proposed NB lone . Steve Landau - the Ellis Hollow area residents have asked that there be no multiple family development in the RB Zone , which is ' part of this proposal . The Planning Board recommended that no multiple dwellings in the NB None and now the Town Board has opened this up to multiple family development in any zone that would have ® a residential PUD . He wanted to know why this was granted with one h and and taken back with another ? Atty Perkins - all the uses that were just spoken about not being consistent with a RB Zone are currently allowed in a PUD . The only ✓ equirement that this Board has addressed is the restriction of the n umber of acres which must be part of the PUD . There is no fundamental change in what the allowed uses are . If you had 100 acres in the RB Zone you could do all of the uses that were just d iscussed . Steve Landau - 100 acres is a lot different than S acres which could change the entire phase of the neighborhood . The proposal is f rom 100 acres to 35 acres for a business and commercial zone , 75 acres for an industrial zone which could be put in any zone in the Town . A commercial business could be established in the middle of a ✓ esidential zone . There is no mention of traffic patterns , how it w ould affect the neighborhood . There is language in the PUD proposal in the intent and purpose section - the planned d evelopment shall be in the interest of the public - He wanted to be more specific to know who the public is and how they express their interest . Supv Cotter. ill - when there is a public hearing the public will h ave a chance at that time to see the proposal if there is one . It would have to go before the Planning Board and Town Board just like ® a subdivision . S teve Landau - setting up this mechanism for a developer to come in and do this , how does the Town say no and not open itself up for a lawsuit in saying that you were arbitrary or that you are d iscriminating against a particular zone . There is a public hearing process , but it seem to be a wide open door . He thought that the Town would have a difficult time saying no . Atty Perkins - there is no substantial difference in the PUD proposal than the existing law except with the relaxation of the minimum acreage requirements . All of the language has to be read of Article XXII together , including the part which says Section 2205 ✓ egulations imposed on a PUD district may also include provisions w hich are not found elsewhere in these zoning regulations but which are legitimate exercised of the zoning power under Article XVI . The intent of the PUD is to allow innovative and advanced thinking in plans . It is not to allow that kind of imposition of incompatible u ses in a residential zone . ? ? ? ? ? - the consensus of the room is that we do not want that type o f development and why do we have to come and fight it later . O therwise every time a PUD is presented that has multiple family d wellings or that has commercial establishments you will have to ® put up with this type of a public hearing with fighting between the d eveloper and the residents . He felt that if you made the law clear n ow that there are no multiple dwellings , 5 acre PUDs , no commercial establishments in residential 1 areas you will save everyone a lot of money . Carolyn Brown , 2 Peaceful Drive - she just went through a debate w here she had no protection . There was 100 percent turn out against t he proposal from the residents in Their area . They had to fight and they lost in the end . She would rather have it turned around where if PUD wants to come in they have to fight and prove to the ✓ esidents . It doesn ' t work when we have to fight for what we are t elling you right now what we want . There is a way for them to come In now with 100 acre requirement so leave it at that acreage S upv Cotterill - it is obvious that you are opposed to PUD , Are you o pposed to it anywhere in the Town or only in residential areas ? K aren Belden - why can ' t we leave PUD the way it is now in the ✓ esidential areas . Catherine Brown - you stated that other parts of the zoning o rdinance has been worked on for over 2 years and this PUP has been worked up the last fa or 'T weeks , and there was no input by the P lanning Board for review before it was presented . Supv Cotterill - this has been discussed by the Planning Board and Town Board for over a year that the 100 acres has never been used and probably never will . Catherine Brown - there is a PUD in the current ordinance which d iffers in very significant ways from this proposal . In the RC Zone w here PUD was allowed by permit , industrial PUb allowed only in RC . RD , and MA Zones . It is not correct to net that it has always been allowed everywhere , The old PLED states that they had to be located o n a state or county road . This lets them be located anywhere an a state , county or town road . The present size is 100 acres , the intention was to plan a large residential community or commercial industrial complex under one ownership responsible for all phases o f development . To reduce the minimum site to S acres residential , • 5 commercia ]. and 75 industrial and then to say .residential PUD can be anywhere , commercial and industrial can be in RBI. which is a residential zone . This is the worst kind of spot zoning , It is potentially damaging to all residents and the size of such d evelopment is no longer controlled by ordinance . It is controlled case by case by the Town Board . As fon public hearings it is stated t hat in each case these bodies may hold public hearings , It does n ot say they must . This is a big difference when public hearings are held and public input is permitted . It is generally after the plan has been submitted and the homeowners objection . to commercial d evelopment is always to late and seldom seriously considered . This proposal is designed to make it easier for developers , not to protect the residents who have a long term stake in their property . iffy Perkins - wanted to clarify that a public heating is required on a planned unit development change , contrary to your statement . Section 1106 Atty Perkins - are you opposed to a PUD in a residential zone , if they are multi family dwellings , 2 family dwellings , educational buildings , churches , community buildings and other semi structure buildings ? These are all presently allowed in the present ordinance . K aren Belden - they are opposed to the decrease in the acreage in t he PUD S teve Landau - the Planning Board dropped multifamily in the RB Zone and it is put back by this proposal . Atty Perkins - it has been taken out of RB and only allowed where it is planned along with single and double family dwellings . S teve Landau - the residents in that zone made it very clear that t hey do not want that done . Atty Perkins - this is what the Town Board needs to hear that you d o not want it even if it is in a PUD . This PUD proposal intends to simplify the procedural existing PUD proposal and attempts to allow t he same things that were allowed previously with some clarification . Steve Landau - the public has made it very clear to the Planning B oard over a long period of time . _ There was considerable discussion PUD Catherine Brown - they were asked by people on the Planning Board if they were sure they wanted to be in a RB1 . The people in our area told them yes , as it is . The one thing that they wanted to get ✓ id of in RB1 was the possibility they could be saddled with a mobile home park by permit in an inappropriate place . As the proposal is now we could have hotels and motels in the RB1 zone . L and , business and commercial development are now allowed in RB1 . S o they gave us all that we had asked for with one hand and took it all back with the PUD , and worse because people who were in RB1 , they now are in jeopardy of these things being put on them when t hey thought they were safe from commercial development . The consensus of the audience were against the reduction of the acreage and wanted it left at the 100 acre requirement for PUD . S teve Landau - felt that this was a rush job and is difficult to see all of the effects with this kind of a PUD proposal will have o n the Town . He felt that there should be a lot more discussion and t hought going into this . J oyce Gerbasi - questioned the wording in Section 209 in the mobile h ome ordinance and felt that it should read ( 2 ) are improved , or ✓ estored after damage , and improvement or restoration affects 50 % or more of its total floor area . 47 Atty Perkins - the Town Board will have to hold another public ® hearing to correct the error in Section 322 of the Mobile Home Ordinance which should have been omitted . Margaret Walbridge - was upset that the proposed PUD was included w ith the proposed mobile home ordinance and the rezoning map . The mobile home ordinance and rezoning have been talked about a lot and you have received public input on those issues . She feels uncomfortable with this PUD radical change . Tom Bonn - felt that the Planning Board should be the ones ✓ equested to consider the PUD and not the Town Board for changes . Roger Lampila - former member of the Planning Board , the Planning B oard was charged by the Town Board to look at PUD and come up with changes . The Planning Board did discuss PUD and at that time there w as a member from the County Planning to help with the discussion . According to the County Planning member , the Dryden PUD was absurd w ith the 100 acre minimum and that the Town should at least consider to go to 5 acres . The Planning Board , 4 years ago , decided n ot to address PUD . This is why the Town Board has chosen to address PUD themselves , because the Planning Board has not . G eorge Schlecht - the following have PUD : Village of Lansing - 5 acres , no distinction between residential , commercial or industrial ; the Town of Danby - 5 acres with no distinction between residential , or commercial ; Town of Lansing - will consider them on 2 acres no distinction ; Town of Ulysses - 3 acres ; Town of Groton - 3 acres ; Village of Freeville - no minimum area requirements ; Town o f Cortlandville - 10 acres ; Town of Ithaca - does not have a PUD , they use rezoning . What the Town is proposing is not a radical change . Mert Webb - also agreed that the Town Board should not hold up the mobile home ordinance or rezoning for the proposal of PUD . This should be considered separately . P hil Simon - felt that restricting mobile home parks to be on municipal water and sewer it unfair . Closed public hearing RESOLUTION # 79 - A MONKEY RUN SEWER DIST Clm Garlock offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : 2nd Clm Schlecht ( original in minute book ) Atty Perkins - this does not increase or the proposed amount to be e xpended . This should make the system more efficient . The only ✓ equirement is to hold a public hearing and make determinations that is in the interest of the district , and that the amount is not increased and there are no further approvals needed . I I I an, 8 t RESOLUTION DATED March 29 , 1988 . ® A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN OF SEWERAGE HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN , TOMPKINS COUNTY , NEW YORK , FOR THE MONKEY RUN SEWER DISTRICT ( 4 ) IN SAID TOWN . WHEREAS , pursuant to proceedings heretofore had and taken in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 -A of the Town Law , the Town Board of the Town of Dryden , Tompkins County , New York , h as heretofore established the Monkey Run Sewer Distict ( 4 ) in said Town and has adopted a plan of sewerage therefor ; and WHEREAS , it is now necessary to modify such plan ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden , Tompkins County , New York , as follows : Section 1 . A meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden , Tompkins County , New York , shall be held at the Town H all , 65 East Main Street , in Dryden , New York , in said Town , on the 12th day of April 4 1988 , at 7 : 30 o ' clock P . M . , P revailing Time , for the purpose of conducting a public hearing to consider a proposed modification of the plan of sewerage heretofore adopted for the Monkey Run Sewer District ( 4 ) in and for said Town . Section 2 . The particulars in which it is proposed to modify t he aforesaid plan of sewerage are as follows : 1 ) Delete 5 , 000 linear feet of 8 " diameter gravity sewer 2 ) Delete one pump station with forcemain • A y7 a - 2 - 3 ) Substitute approximately 6, 450 linear feet of 10 " diameter gravity sewer from the Route 366 connection , extending along the railroad right - of -way to a point approximately 250 feet from the Route 13 right -of -way . Section 3 . The Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a notice of said public hearing to be published in The Ithaca Journal the official newspaper of said Town , and posted in the manner prescribed by law , which notice shall be in substantially the following form , to -wit : Al fI- • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden , Tompkins County , New York , will meet at the Town Hall , in Dryden , New York , in said Town , on the 12th day of April , 1988 , at 7 : 30 o ' clock 2 . M . , Prevailing Time , for the purpose of conducting a public hearing to consider a proposed modification of the plan of sewerage heretofore adopted for the Monkey Run Sewer District ( 4 ) in and for said Town , at which time and place said Town Board will hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same . The particulars in which it is proposed to modify the aforesaid plan of sewerage are as follows : 1 ) Delete 5 , 000 linear feet of 8 " diameter gravity sewer ® 2 ) Delete one pump station with forcemain 3 ) Substitute approximately 6 , 450 linear feet of 10 " diameter gravity sewer from the Route 366 connection , extending along the railroad right - of -way to a point approximately 250 feet from the Route 13 right - of -way . Dated : Dryden , New York , March 29 1988 . BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN , TOMPKINS COUNTY , NEW YORK ie / r Town Clerk • 92.E - 3 - Section 4 . This resolution shall take effect immediately . The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call , which resulted as follows : Supervisor Cotterill VOTING Yes Councilman Schlecht VOTING Yes Councilman Garlock VOTING Yes Councilman Evans VOTING Yes Councilman Hatfield VOTING Yes The resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted . * * * * * Atty Perkins - if the Town Board would like to make changes to the ® proposed mobile home ordinance on which the public hearing was held t hose changes would include Section 209 Item 2 and the other change would be the elimination in Section 322 of the first sentence which is the complete unnumbered paragraph . If you desire these changes h is recommendation would be a resolution for the changes and that a public hearing will have to be scheduled on those changes for the April 12 Board Meeting at 7 : 15PM . RESOLUTION # 79 - B SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING MOBILE HOME ORDINANCE Clm Garlock offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Town Board schedule a public hearing for April 12 , 1988 at 7 : 30PM for the proposed changes to be made for the mobile home ordinance . Clm Evans Roll call vote - all voting Yes Atty Perkins - if the Town Board wishes to propose if necessary an amendment or a change to the proposed amendments to the zoning o rdinance by deleting reference to paragraphs 21 and 22 which have t o do with repealing the existing planned unit development d istricts and ordaining and establishing a new Article 22 entitled P lanned Unit Development districts Section 2201 thru 2209 . Only if this is required by law there will have to be another public h earing held on this change . There will need to be a resolution and ® further authority that if it is determined that such a change where a public hearing is not necessary that Atty Perkins will do so in w riting . RESOLUTION # 79 - C DELETE PARAGRAPH 22 & 23 IN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Clm Evans offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Town Board schedule a public for April 12 , 1988 at 7 : 45PM to delete paragraph 21 and 21 in the proposed amendments t o the zoning ordinance . 2nd Clm Sch .lecht Roll call vote - all voting Yes Adjourned : 10 : 00PM Af L1_c4!r / Susanne Lloyd / Town Clerk