HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1979-11-20 TOWN OF ITIIACA
TOWN BOARD , PLANNING BOARD , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
J O I N T M E E T I N G
NOVEMBER 20 , 1979
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 November 20 , 1979 ) in Town Hall ,
126 East Seneca Street ( second floor ) , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Supervisor Noel Desch , Councilman Andrew McElwee , Council. -
woman Shirley Raffensperger , . Councilman George Kugler , Councilman Robert
Powers , Councilman - Elect Marc Cramer , Liese Bronfenbrenner ( Planning
Board ) , Montgomery May ( Planning Board ) , Barbara Schultz ( Planning Board ) ,
Carolyn Grigorov ( Planning Board ) , Bernard Stanton ( Planning Board ) ,
James Baker ( Planning Board ) , Lawrence Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Lewis
Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Barbara Restaino ( Town Planner ) , Jean
Swartwood ( Town Clerk Understudy ) , Gary Evans ( Tompkins County Planning
Department ) , Nancy Fuller ( Secretary ) .
Mr . Robert Powers , Chairman of the Town Codes and Ordinances
Committee , chaired the meeting .
® Supervisor Desch began with a few brief opening remarks of intro -
duction of those present , words o _Ewelcome and a history of zoning in
the Town of Ithaca .
Mr . Powers continued in this vein and described the background of
the revisions under discussion and the history of -the committee ' s work
over the past one - and - one - half to two years .
-` ` Mr . Powers noted that throughout this discussion , both the ' 76 Draft
and the . 168 Ordinance will be referred to . Mr . Powers stated that this
revision now before the members of the Boards for the most part is based
on the ' 76 Draft . He noted , however , that there is an area , primarily in
Multiple Housing , where the committee went back to the ' 68 Ordinance .
Mr . Powers stated that there has been a considerable amount of publicity
in terms of letters from Mrs . Restaino to all Boards and people outside
the Town Office itself , whose opinions the committee valued and from whom
the committee has asked comments concerning this revisions this group is
about to discuss . He stated that , unfortunately , the committee has had
virtually no response from anybody , including Board members . He wondered
if anybody were interested or simply felt that the proposed revisions were
jim - dandy .
Mr . Powers set the tone for the discussion meeting and suggested
looking at the proposed revisions from the point of view of concepts and
changes made rather than dotting " i " s and crossing " t " s . He asked , however ,
that if those present see such things , they make a noteand get them to Mrs .
Restaino , Mr . Fabbroni , or Mrs . Fuller , Mr . Powers suggested going through .
his copy and noting things he , himself , sees , starting with the first page .
Mr . Desch pointed out that one thing this group might do , just before
Joint , Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , Pl . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 11 / 20 / 79
Page Two
the discussion is brought to a close , is identify where we go from here - -
those steps that need to be accomplished prior to , and including , the
adoption of the revisions - - in order that the committee has clear
direction .
Mr . Powers described to those present the fact that there is a
considerable amount of information that keeps coming into the picture for
discussion by the committee for possible insertion in the revision , for
example , information obtained at conferences such as the Planning and
Zoning Institute held. in Monticello , New York . . Mr . Powers stated that it
was his personal opinion that at some point you approve what you have ar �l
make a decision on what is at hand , and still keep in mind that there iF
nothing about this document that precludes amendment .
As the starting point , Mr . Powers asked if everyone were happy with
the " Purpose " , page 1 .
Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she had a question as one of those
who has turned in comments and suggestions to Mrs . Restaino , and that is ,.
probably more in the fo .rm . of an opinion than a question , there should be
an expanded " intent " section as in the 1974 - 76 draft .
Mr . Powers commented that after two years , the committee has . come
up with this " purpose " paragraph , and stated that if there are elaborations
they should be taken into consideration .
Mr . Desch wondered . at this point if there were. any fundamental con
flicts with the revisions before the Board members now , that should be �-
discussed and pointed out . I-Ie explained that he. did not have in mind
such matters as suggestions or imp =rovements or particular wording , but he
did have in mind basic , fundamental conflicts with what such member may
see before him or her .
Mrs . Restaino pointed out that such a fundamental conflict would be
that point raised by Mr . Aron , who was not present due to an out - of - tow _
business trip , but who had submitted a Memo to the three Boards meeting )
tonight . Mr . Aron stated in his memo that " the - Residence Zones R- 30 ,
R- 15 , and R - 9 , should be written to allow a maximum of three units in
each structure rather than two units . This should apply whether owner -
occupied or not . The high cost of land , materials , and labor makes this
mandatory . "
Mr . Desch wondered if there were any further fundamental conflicts .
Mr . Fabbroni_ stated that he thought , for the benefit of everybody who-
ha. cs come on board in the last two years , it is important to know where he
stands on this matter . He stated that he was the author of the 176 version
which was his best attempt at drawing together the 168 ordinance and the
' 74 revision , and so on . IIe stated that he has not been that involved with
the committee on purpose , and , a lot of his comments may be to ask " why "
the shift in direction or policies , and may show why he has not second -
guessed Mrs . Restaino . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he sees very big probims
from an enforcement point of view , that being the perspective he used tW
draft the ' 76 version - - not so much to dictate what the policies should
be , but to " firm up " from an enforcement process . Mr . Fabbroni stated ,
for example , the resident= ial zones are now all combined into one section
and , if you review the problems that the public has expressed , it seems tc
open up the door to . bigger problems , rather than closing those doors .
Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . . , Pl . Bd . ; Zon . Bd . ) 11 / 20 / 79
Page Three
Mr . Fabbroni noted , as a more specific example , that a lot of uses have
been permitted in only R- 30 and under this revision R- 15 and R- 9 are all
® opened up to other uses . He stated that he sees "this as a flaw in
combining these particular uses .
Mr . Desch asked if that were not a sign of the times from a socio -
economic use ? He used the Monkemeyer proposal for mixed residential
commercial as an example and asked again if that were a reasonable land
use ?
Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that PRDs ( Planned Residential Developments )
and PUDs ( Planned Unit Developments ) are no longer in the proposebd
revision and these are mechanisms by which to accomplish that kind of
mix .
Mr . Powers stated that , number one , in the ' 76 Draft and the 168
Ordinance , we see the same thing about :fifteen times - - there is a lot .
of duplication . He stated that if we are writing this as an ordinance
which individuals who come into this building need to pick up and read and
understand , we need to eliminate some ambiguity . He pointed out that in
this process N°; e are likely to create sets of circumstances that make it
difficult to enforce . Mr . Powers continued and noted that the proposed
revision to the ordinance is less specific in many instances than the
documents we have worked with . Mr . Powers stated that with the proper
review from those present , Mr . Fabbroni and others , if there are areas
in which the commlittee made life difficult in enforcement , the committee
Mould like to have that input at this point as to how it can improve the
® proposed revision . Mr . Powers stated that he did not want to see us give
up the simple document , but , he did not want one we cannot enforce . Air .
Powers added that as for basic areas of conflict , there is no one who is
going to be dismayed if criticized .
Mr . Desch wondered if it would not be impossible to evaluate this
revision strictly on the basis of enforceability , and noted "that looking
at Article IV , residential zones , they are not particularly foreign to
what we have known - - their identity is retained .
' Mr . Fabbroni stated that as one sits with the ' 68 ordinance and as
one watches what the public has come storming "through the door on in
-the way of variances , special approvals , you see concepts that have out -
grown their time . He stated that we are going in a direction opposite to
what the clamour for change is . Mr . Fabbroni" noted for example that
farming and animal operations in the 154 ordinance and the 168 ordinance
are in R- 30 , and that 25 years later a lot of subdivision development
is in R- 30 areas and it is very objectionable to have farming operations
100 feet from your side yard . Mr . Fabbroni stated that meetings with
West Hill people have shown objection to this sort of thing . I-Ie noted
also that the Zoning Board of Appeals may allow further uses on the basis
of special approval . He stated that to allow now these uses in R - 15 is
suicidal . Mr . Fabbroni said that another related example would be the
clinic on Nest Hill and group homes .
® Mr . Powers said that it should be kept in mind that the clinic was
fresh in the mind , of the committee .
Mr . Fabbroni noted that a clinic is not even allowed in this revision .
Mr . Powers suggested that the discussion should go back to Article I .
page 1 .
Joint Ideeting ( Tn . Bd . , PI_ . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 1. 1 / 20 / 70
Page Four
Mr . McElwee suggested that these comments should be taken and then
give t-he revision over to Mr . Fabbroni for his figuring out how to
enforce the problem areas .
Mr . Powers agreed that this was a good idea .
Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she had taken note that an elaboration
of the " purpose " would be ' a substitute " intent " .
Mr . Stanton asked Mrs . Raffensperger what she sees as the problem
with the intent . firs . Raffensperger stated that it was considerably mo ,° -
in depth in the ' 74 - 176 Draft and seemed to tell . what the Town is all
about . She stated that the " intent " is important both from a public .
relations point of view and a legal point of view'0 Mrs . Raffensperger .
said that she ivould . put .. her recommendations in writing and submit them
to Mrs . Restaino .
Mrs . Raffensperger suggested that .there is a need for a definition
of . " Subdivision " . Agreed .
Mr . Cramer suggested that there is a need for a definition of a
" Condominium " . There was some discussion of just what a . condominium is
juxtaposed with an apartment which someone owns together with a certain .
portion of land , bearing in mind the Eastwood Commons concept .
Air . Stanton expressed some concern about the definition of
" Agricultural District " , and submitted what he considered to be a beta
definition to Mrs . Restaino . One of his particular concerns was the u *
of the term " County - wide " .
Several of those present expressed some concern about Definition r2
" Family " , and it was agreed that the Town Attorney would have the last
word on what a family will be .
Mrs . Bronfenbrenner suggested that. there is a need for a definitio
of " Site " and / or " Site Plan " . Agreed .
IJr . Fabbroni suggested that there is a need for a definition of
" Open Space " . Agreed .
Mr . Fabbroni said that he had a question related to definitions .
Ile noted that the definition of " Neighborhood " and the concept . of
neighborhood is gone .
Mr . Powers discussed Air . Fabbroni ' s comment in relation to the
committee ' s thi. nk _ing on Multiple , Percentage Density Scaling concept ,
floating zone concept , etc . Mr . Powers agreed that it would be a good
idea to be able to define a specific location for a specific use , if
, feasible and possible . Mr . Powers stated that until the Town had a
" Muster Plan " which was something a little II]ore updated than our , 1958 - 59
document , it was a little difficult for the committee to locate this
sort of thing until it had a land use plan of some sort . IIe stated th
it was at that point that the committee decided until_ that has been do *
it is not advisable to rock the boat in an area that works pretty well ,
so , the committee went back to the 168 Ordinance and used it , but with
the thought that when we get to this point we would like to strongly
urge that the next move be a master plan which would be some indication
as to what the Town has in rui nd in -terms of documenting what the Town
Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , Pl . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 11 / 20 / 79 -
Page Five
has in mind as to what use goes in what place .
Mr . Desch commented that it would appear that the new zoning map
will not loop much different from the present Zoning Map .
Mr . Powers commented , " Probably not . "
Mrs . Restaino stated that the neighborhood concept would be more
appropriately stated in . an over - all land use plan or master plan .
Mr . Desch commented that the neighborhood element is in itself a
floating element .
Mrs . Raffensperger noted at this point that her concern about the
" intent " is probably more like confusion as to what is a master plan and
what is the " intent
Mr . Kugler suggested that there is a need for a definition of a
" Service Station " . Agreed .
Mrs . Raffensperger expressed concern about definition # 7 , " Altera -
tion " , and wondered if such definition . referred to " physical " alteration
or " use " alteration . She asked if it should be defined as -to " physical "
or " use " . Her concern was noted .
Mr . Stanton said that he could see a problem with the definition of
" Basement " and the definition of " Cellar " .
Mr . Powers suggested using ' Basement - - See Cellar " .
Mr . Kugler suggested using the State Building Code definitions for
basement and cellar .
Mr . Stanton suggested simply adding the words " as per NYS Building
- Code " .
Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that the proposed zoning ordinance revision
is consistent with the Building Code , whereas the present one is not so
consistent .
Mr . Desch stated that he had a problem with definition # 34 , " Frater -
nity or sorority House " . He said that the word " recognized " presented a
problem for him . Others evidenced -the same concern . Some discussion
followed with Mr . Powers noting that there are other societies or groups
such as the secretaries ' associations ( Business and Professional Women ' s
Association ) which may have such facilities , for example , the Women ' s
Community Building which supplies housing as well as meeting rooms , He
stated that there are organizations which might be acceptable which are
not related to a university or college . It was clear that there is a
problem with this deflnitlon .
Mrs . Fuller suggested that there is a need for a definition of a
® " group home " . Agreed .
Mr . Desch expressed some puzzlement over definition. # 67 , " Sub
stantial Improvement " .
Mrs . Restaino explained that th =is is a part of
,the State regulations for flood plains and has to be incorporated . It
was agreed that referring to " a " floodplain , rather than " the " floodplain
would clear up 'the matter . It was also agreed that using the . word " a "
Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , Pl , Bd . , Zon , Bd . ) 11 / 20 / 79
Page Six
instead of " the " when referring to " floodplai. n " would be better .
Mr . Desch wondered about the rationale behind definition # 73 , " Yar
Both Mr . Powers and Mrs . Restaino stated that the words used are direct
out of the 168 Ordinance .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the front yard has always been referred to
as a distance as well as open space or area , and noted that later on in
the revision it is referred to as a distance rather than open . space . .
Mrs . Raffensoerger had a question in this regard which is where the
yard being defined is located . She added that there seems to be a ref el,, nc
missing somewhere .
Mr . Desch submitted that a front yard . is the open space described
by the set back _line in the case of the front yard , or whatever other
definition of distance you want to use .
Alrs . • Restaino noted again that the wording used is word for word
from the 168 Ordinance .
Mr . Fabbroni urged add =ing the words " at the set back " .
Air . Powers noted that there needs to be a definition of " set back " ,
which had been in one committee revision and removed . He suggested
putting it back in . Agreed .
A2r , McElwee noted that he had seen ordinances with diagrams setti
forth set back requirements . There was no decision reached on this poi1�'C .
Mr . May suggested that there is a . need for a definition of a
" corner lot " . Mr . Kugler agreed to draw up such definition and submit it
to Mrs . Restaino .
Mr . Desch led a discussion on definition #74 , " Zoning Enforcement
Officer and / or Building Inspector " . Mr , Fabbroni explained the legali jes
of calling such official of the Town , Building Inspector . It was agreE
that the definition would be that of Building Inspector and that the
Words " enforce the Zoning Ordinance and to " would be inserted in the
definition following the words " by. the Town Board to
Mrs . Bronfenbrenner asked that Mr . Aron ' s statement be discussed .
Air . Powers agreed . It was noted that a three - family structure and a
multiple dwelling structure are allowed under the revision . It was noted
that the two - family home restrictions are a little less restrictive under
the revision insofar as which is the primary and which is the secondary
unit - - they can be equal . It was noted that the problems are mostly
with a non - owner occupied residence . Mr . Powers noted that the revision
does not refer to primary and secondary dwelling units . Mr . Powers ,
Mrs, Raffensperger and Mr . McElwee . expressed their disagreement with 14r . .
Aron ' s suggestion of allowing a maximum of . three units in each structure
in Residence Zones R- 30 , R - 15 , and R- 9 . There was a general consensus
among those present that allowing a maximum of three units in - each
t
structure was not appropriate at his time , however , there is a built
in alarm system through the Zoning Board of Appeals which would indicate
a need for re - considering such allowance as -time passes .
Turnin now to Article IV , page 15 , Mr . Fabbroni noted that sub-
L>
1 ( b ) is a repeat of what is said in sub - section l ( a ) , noting ,
Joint `: eeting ( Tn . Bd . , P1 . 13d . , Zon . Bd . ) 11 / 20 / 79
Page Seven
again that the revision restates in ( b ) what is said in : ( a ) .
Mrs . Restaino agreed that it is redundant , but it was done on pur -
pose . The commi- LLee ., anted to state that if there were not a family unit
and the family is one person , then you would not have more than three
unrelated persons .
Mr . Powers wished to be reminded of what they had in mind with ( b ) ..
Mrs . Restaino that they were thinking of a group of people . calling
themselves a family .
Mr . Desch suggested comb =ining ( a ) and ( b ) and say " no more . than
four unrelated people " .
Mr . May felt there should be a definition of " owner. " . Mr . Powers
did not agree and added that he did not see what it might accomplish . .
After some discussion , it was agreed that sub - section 1 of Section 5
. ( page 15 ) should read :
1 . A one - family dwelling .
a * a one - family dwelling may be occupied by one family and
no more than two additional unrelated people , or one
family and three additional unrelated people provided
that the dwelling is occupied by the owner of deed
record , and by no more than a total of four unrelated
people . "
Mrs . Raffensneroer wondered if sub - section 2 ( a ) of Section 5 ( page
15 ) means that there can be no two - family dwelling that does not have
the owner living in it . it was agreed that the use of a semi - colon in
the third line after the �Yords " in each unit ; " would clarify the matter . '
Mr . Fabbroni wished to point out that this means there may be six
unrelated persons in a two - family dwelling if owner - occupied .
I
Mr . Powers agreed that that is what that sub - section says .
Mr . Fabbroni expressed concern about the first paragraph of Section
5 , Use Regulations ( page 15 ) and the missing word " any " . There was no
decision reached on the insertion or non - insertion of this word " any " ,
however , the discussion moved toward the question of utilizing the
services of a professional editor at the appropriate time . That matter
too was not decided and remains , do we or don ' t we engage the services of
a professional editor .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that he alas very uncomfortable about just
referring " Cluster " approval to Section 281 of Town Law . Ile felt that
that Section ( 281 ) is the most generalized section that there is in Town
Law .
® Mr . Powers wondered why Mr . Fabbroni made his statement and asked
if it were because he thinks we should permit more or that he thinks there .
is a better place to do it .
Mr . Fabbroni stated -that if we do not do it with this document ,
then we must do it simultaneously with the subdivision regulations : Mr .
Fabbroni noted also that -the reference to 3 . 5 units per acre is out as
well . Ile expressed fear that the proposed revision is too liquid in this
Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , P1 . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 11 / 20 / 791
Page Eight
area
Air . Powers noted that we are waiting for a master plan and asked
hoty Mr . Fabbroni would handle cluster in this document .
Mr . Fabbroni suggested having the requirements at least as stringent
as the subdivision .regulations . He stated that it is necessary . to give
the -- Planning Board something to hang on to and suggested at least getting
the criteria of density back in there and handle it in the subdivision
regulations by referring it from here in the subdivision regulations .
Mrs . Restaino felt cluster should be in the subdivision regulation
Mr . Desch pointed out that the intent of this zoning ordinance Is
to permit cluster and suggested not re :Cerencing Section 281 .
Mr . Fabbroni expl_ ained the " unwritten law " i_ n connection . with
cluster of 3 . 5 units per gross acre .
Mr . Desch noted that in the case of R- 9_ , we are allowing a different
density under cluster . Mr . Fabbroni noted that you. can get a higher
density with all two - family homes .
Mr . Powers asked Pair . Fabbroni if he could buy Mr . Desch ' s statement
for paragraph 3 � on page 16 where he stopped and excluded the words
" pursuant to Section 281 of Town Law '. ' . Mr . Powers wondered if it should
be ignored completely or should reference merely be made -to it in the
subdivision regulations .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that there needs to be a clearer definition of
cluster residential subdivisions as the Planning Board is required to
review such subdivisions . IIe stated that a clearer definition should be
in the zoning ordinance or in the subdivision regulations - - it should be
some place .
Mr . Powers stated that it is a new concept as far as our zoning
ordinance and subdivision regulations are concerned . Mr . Powers asked
if Mr . Fabbroni could make a recommendation to Mrs . Restaino so that
cluster is somewhere . Mr . Fabbroni said he would be happy to do so .
Mrs . Restaino said that she really did not see the problem , She
described the cluster concept as allowing the same density as . if lots
were laid out in a standard form meeting the requirements of whatever
zone they might be in , dwelling units being " clustered " together leaving
open space .
Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that if you lay out a subdivision and put
a two - family home on the smallest lot , possibly that is the controlling
density for the cluster . He repeated that two - families on the smallest
lots would set the tone .
It was agreed that this matter was a fundamental concept to be
decided .
Continuing on , Pair . Stanton pointed out in connection with Item n7
on page 16 , that in order to be consistent with the definition , the
second sentence should read , " A farm must include a minimum of 5 acres
used for crops . "
1
- Joint Meeting ( Tn . Bd . , Pl . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 11 / 20 / 79
Page mine
Mr . McElwee expressed some concern with regard to Item 118 on pa
16 , having to do with special_ permits from the Zoning Board of Appeals .
He felt that it was unclear whether the Planning Board had to approve or
recommend a permit to the Zoning Board and how .
Mr . Po �;, ers pointed out that what is important in her is that the
Zoning Board of Appeals has the final word in this case and the under --
standing was that the Planning Board have secondary effect on it and be
able not to respond at all if it chose , or , to respond and be over -
ruled .
Mrs . Grigorov stated that the has recommended strongly that the
Planning Board handle special permits in order to , among other reasons ,
maintain the judicial atmosphere of the Zoning . Board .
Mr . Fabbroni referred to Items ## 7 and # 8 on pages 16 and 17 , these
two paragraphs in particular , and , also r5 and ## 6 , really , stating that
these kind of uses have come to be problems in R- 30 zones , which , back
then the original_ zoning ordinance was written , were rural type zones .
He stated that they seem to be misplaced in an R- 15 and R- 9 zone , much
the same way as he felt about the farming uses . Mr . Stanton also ex -
pressed concern that allowing farming in all .residential zones could be
a problem area in this revision.
Air . Fabbroni continued , noting Item # 5 on page 16 , as an example
of where , if you had a choice , you would not want a museum in R- 9 or
R - 15 . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner did not agree stating -that you would not want
such a facility out in the country . nor . Fabbroni said that he would agree
With that , but you might want a facility such as this in a, commercial
zone . Mr . Poi= ers said he did not agree . Mr . Fabbroni did not pursue this
question any further .
Mr . Powers stated that he thought that objections , especially �:Ir .
Fabbroni ' s , need to come back to the committee for discussion :
Mr . Fabbroni agreed and added -that the things he has mentioned have
definitely been problems . He stated that 900 of the calls are concerned
with enforcement in residential areas and by combining things in R - 30 ,
R- 15 , and R - 9 , it becomes more confusing than having a few extra pages .
Mr . Powers asked if he may ask Mr . Fabbroni to write a paper on the
subject . Mr . Fabbroni said he would be happy to do so .
Mrs . Raffensperger stated that Mrs . Grigorov brought up the substan -
tial question of the Planning Board rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals
granting permits .
Mrs . Grigorov wondered if the committee had discussed this fully .
She noted again the recommendations of the Department of State in this
regard pointing out the judicial_ atmosphere of the Zoning Board and the
Planning Board being a. more appropriate Board concerned with land use .
Ah
Mr . Fabbroni thought that it seems to hang on the maturity of the
Boards - - at this point both Boards could probably do it as well
Mrs . Restaino said that it could go either way .
Mr . McElv. ee stated that item ## 2 of sub - section " a . " on page 17 may
be too controversial .
Joint Nleeting ( Tn . Bd . , P1 . Bd . , Zon . Bd . ) 11 / 20 / 79
Page Ten
'sir , McElwee also wondered which Board should handle special permits
and if it were reversed , do the other points apply .
imr . May , referring again to page 17 , said that he thought that the
" 30 days " could be a problem and that he thought it should be extended .
He suggested 45 days . Agreed .
Mr . Desch wished to add .the words " by the Planning Board . " to th e
end of the second paragraph on page 17 , at the end of the second sentence .
Agreed .
Mrs . Fuller expressed some concern with the mechanics involved in
second paragraph on page 17 . Mr . Powers : asked her to submit a suggested
paragraph to Mrs . Restaino . Agreed .
Mr . Fabbroni questioned the " lack of action by the Planning Board "
sentence , second paragraph page : 17 , second sentence , as being; 'too strong .
Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that in this whole zone , the requirement of
100 open space is noticably absent .
Mr . Pourers noted again that these are the things the committee 1117as
looking for when they wrote to everybody under . the sun - - except Mr .
Fabbroni . He stated that the committee needs a marked up copy or a
letter from Mr . Fabbroni .
Mr . Desch asked what the kind of interval_ is that makes . sense bet �x i
now and receiving comments and the next meeting .
Mrs . Restaino said at least a two week interval . She noted that she
got back five responses previously . .
Mr . Desch stated that following the next session he would like this
group to address the question as to what aspects of this matter the Town
Board should take up , such as the Planning Board or the Zoning Board
issuing special permits .
Mr . Powers asked that those ' present . think about " noise " . Mr . Powers
asked that they read carefully under " mobile home " and note . . the minimum
size area is 25 acres and that one can do other things there other than
mobile homes . Mr . Powers also wanted the people to look at the minimum.
square footage on mobile homes and residential homes .
Mrs . Restaino raised the question of , if legally the Town does not
have to have a mobile home zone because of our non - conforming mobile home
park , does the Town want -to have a mobile home district referenced in the
zoning ordinance . She noted that there has been a court decision on this
matter. .
Mr . Fabbroni noted that if a proposal could meet the requirements thf
way they are spelled out here , you have something other than what we have
as a mobile home park now
Mrs , Raffenspergcr asked which of these zones are going to be on the
map and which are not , noting that one ' s comments on a . particular section
depend on whether it is going; to be on the map or not .
IVi. th that major question left to -think about , Mr . Powers set the ne :
Tr1 n Dpr. E iter l3 _ 1979 at 7 : : 0 p . m l+ i 1 n i Ad