HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1988-08-29TOWN OF ITECVCA
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
August 29, 1988
At a Special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca,
Tarqpkins County, New York, held at National Cash Register Ccannpany,
950 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York, on the 29th day of August, 1988,
there were:
PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT J
Noel Desch, Supervisor
Henry McPeak, Coimcilrnan
Shirley Raffensperger, Councilwcman
Robert Bartholf, Councilman
Patricia Leary, Councilwoman
Thcmas Cardman, Councilman
Robert Flvunerfelt, Town Engineer
John Barney, Town Attorney
Susan Beeners, Town Planner
George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner
Margaret Gibson, 1488 Trumansburg Road
William A. Grover, 1486 Trumansburg Road
Athena Grover, 1486 Trumansburg Road
John Bowers, 1406 Trumansburg Road
Sue I^an, 190 Pleasant Grove Road
Fran Laughlin, 428 West Seneca Street
Rochelle Alexander, 15 Catherwood Road
Robert J. Smith, 107 Northview Road
Robert S. Miller, 823 Elmira Road
Robert L. Kenerson, 1465 Mecklenburg Road
Carl Sgrecci, 1130 Trumansburg Road
Mary Louise Perry, 1138 Trumansburg Road
Mildred Brairmer, 249 Troy Road
Charlotte Bosworth, 255 Troy Road
Edward M. Bosworth, 255 Troy Road
Mr. & Mrs. James Hovanec, 1429 Danby Road
Peter Trov\±>ridge, 1345 Mecklenburg Road
Margaret Mills, 108 Pine View Terrace
Thomas B. Mills, 108 Pine View Terrace
Robin Goodloe, 337 Stone Quarry Road
George Breuhaus, 210 Franklin Street
William J. Petrillose, Jr., 168 Troy Road
Bruce Brittain, President, Forest Home
Improvement Association
Douglas B. Brittain, 135 Warren Road
Pat Ferrara, 979 Danby Road
Savino Ferrara, 979 Danby Road
Bruce Rich, 253 DuBois Road
Paul Glover, 1399 Slaterville Road
Gairy P. Carlson, 119 Northview Road
Rita Carlson, 119 Northview Road
Jane DeGraff, 151 Northview Road
Einar Holm, 241 Troy Road
Margaret Hohn, 237 Troy Road
Peter Gergely, 106 Juniper Drive
Norman Rollins, 139 Northview Road
Mary Rollins, 139 Northview Road
Richard Essen, 153 Northview Road
Robert Cotts, 115 Northview Road
Franklin F. Butler, 332 Coddington Road
Janis R. Butler, 332 Coddington Road
Town Board Minutes 2 August 29, 1988
Bonnie Simpson, 112 Pine View Terrace
Ron Simpson, 112 Pine View Terrace
Don Schaaf, 165 Ridgecrest Road
Jennifer Wilcox, 142 Ridgecrest Road
Dooley Kiefer, 629 Highland Road
Kinga M. Gergely, 106 Juniper Drive
Doria Higgins, 2 Hillcrest Drive
Gloria Howell, 120 Clover Lane
Gerald Hall, 296 Hayts Road
Frank L. Eldridge, 259 Troy Road
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT
Supervisor Desch stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting was
to discuss a moratorium on development in the Town and secondly to
further consider the Request for Proposal with regard to the Town
hiring a consultant to help us update our comprehensive plan. He
went on to say that the Board had a revised updated Request for
Proposal. The Sipervisor noted that the subject of a moratorium
was brought to the Boards attention by the Greater Ithaca
Neighborhood Association and they requested that the Board reserve
thirty minutes at a Town meeting to make a presentation on the
subject. He went on to stated that the first speaker would be John
Whitccnib and then after GINA's presentation the Board would hear
anyone not associated with the group \(^o wished to speak.
John Whitcomb presented the Town Board with GINA buttons and then
read the following statonent;
"We, the representatives of the Greater Ithaca Neighborhoods
Association, appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns
regarding the future girowth and development of the Town of Ithaca.
On June 21, 1988, we made a presentation to the Town Planning
Board. During that presentation, many concerns were espressed
about the impacts of development in the Town. Wie requested a
moratorium on large scale development, rezoning and variance
requests, pending revision of the ccnprehensive plan.
The Planning Board proceeded with business as usual, with little,
if any, response to our concerns and requests. During the course
of the summer, we became increasingly frustrated as we learned that
ccnprehensive planning has been discussed for a number of years but
never brought to fruition. Neighborhoods addressed local
development issues on an individual basis, usually acccarplishing
very little. The Planning Board continued to grant subdivision
approval on a fragmented pieconeal basis, always reacting rather
than proacting to proposed projects, with little consideration of
the aggregate effect. Public hearings meet the letter of the law;
however, the Planning Board does not appear to heed concerns that
are actually presented by the public. The people are losing
confidence in their elected and appointed officials. We have seen
a rapid increase in the amount of development in the Town and have
begun to realize that, because the Town did not anticipate and
prepare for the current situation, it is ill equipped to deal with
the crisis perceived by the residents.
At this point, it appears that, in addition to being unresponsive
to the concerns of the residents of the Town, the Planning Board
and staff also lack the necessary legislative tools (and the time
Town Board Minutes 3 August 29, 1988
to develop the legislation) to regulate growth in the TOwn. It
also appears that, once appointed. Planning Board members have
little accountability to the citizens they are sworn to represent
and protect. That is vhy we are here tonight.. .because you, the
members of the Town Board, have the power to enact the legislation
needed to address the conraunity's concerns.
At the heart of any ccnprehensive planning debate, any growth
management strategy or any statement of planning purpose exists a
basic question that must be answered before any decisions can be
made. That question is: What level of growth is desirable? Not
what level are we forced to accept by pressures beyond our control,
but how much and vhat kind of growth do we want in our ccmraunities.
So called "progressive" leaders and planners would have us believe
that maximum growth is a desirable thing. Anyone vho believes
otherwise is branded a reactionary or a radical. "Bigger is
better." - They say. "Growth is good for the economy and
promotes prosperity and progress."—^They say. "No growth equals
not stability but stagnation."—^They say.
But if maximum growth is such a fine thing, we ask, how do they
explain the horrible traffic congestion on Meadow Street or the
need to spend millions of tax dollars for a new route 96? How do
they esqjlain smog in Ithaca this suitmer? What about the critical
garbage disposal problem we face? How do they e2q)lain that
Ithacans face the fastest rising hcme prices in New York State or
pay the highest rents in the Fingerlakes area or have one of the
highest high school dropout rates in the State? And how do they
explain that we have the highest crime rate outside of New York
City? How much more of this prosperity, of this progress do
want? How much more can we really afford?
We do appreciate the efforts that have taken place to date. We
fully support the intent of the Request for Proposal for engaging a
consultant planner to assist in the overall ccmprehensive planning
progress. We feel that a number of specific issues need to be
addressed prior to and as a part of this process.
Representatives of GINA will each speak to specific issues as part
of our total presentation. We ask that questions and ccomments be
held until the end of the presentation. At that time, we
anticipate there will be opportunity for dialogue between meitibers
of the Town Board, representatives of GINA, and members of the
general public. Copies of the individual presentations will be
made available to the members of the Board."
Ron Sitrpson, 112 Pine View Terrace stated that he had basically two
concerns which he would like to ejq)ress to the Bocird. He then read
the following statement:
"The citizens of the Town of Ithaca have beccme increasingly
frustrated with the manner in v^ich public hearings are held by its
elected and appointed boards.
Two problems exist with the process:
1. The public is not involved early enough in the discussion
regarding proposed projects. By the time the process reaches the
"public hearing" or public input stage, the developers have spent
many hours with the Town officials discussing and refining the
details of the project. Usually a resolution has been written for
the Board's approval. This very process places the citizens in
vdiat is perceived to be a purely adversarial position. Part of
this is due to the fact that, by the time the public hearing is
Town Board Minutes 4 August 29, 1988
reached, all or most of the decisions have been made. The
developer perceives public questions and input as a threat to his
project's approval. The Board perceives citizens concerns as an
attempt to prolong the process vdiich will clog their already filled
future agendas.
It would be far more constructive to involve the public in the
planning process at a much earlier phase; perhaps even at the
sketch plan review stage. Perhaps a developer should be required
to make a neighborhood presentation very early on; seek out ideas
and concerns vdiich he could then incorporate in his presentation to
the board. Some successful developers have already realized the
value of this strategy. Finkelstein and neighbors reached accord.
If the developer is sensitive to and working in the best interests
of the neighborhood he should have little to rear fron the
residents.
2. At the time of the actual piablic hearing, neighborhoods often
present valid concerns. At the close of the pxablic hearing, the
Board members are asked questions and present concerns. Often new
information is presented that the public was not previously aware
of or there may even be refinements and/or changes made to the
project plan. At this point, new public concerns may be raised but
there is no opportimity to speak to them. The Chairman of the
Board simply denies requests by stating - "The Public Hearing has
been closed I" The public's ability to seek information or express
concerns is effectively denied. This, certainly, should not be the
intent of the Public Hearing process. Vfe believe, imder the
circumstances, the Public Hearing should be reopened before the
Board votes. The developer is often consulted after the public
hearing for his input but the larger public is denied further
hearings. As an example, at a recent Town Board meeting \^ere
there was no public hearing, after our neighborhood had presented
vdiat we felt was a reasonable proposal to the Boajrd, a party vdio
was representing the developer stood up and for quite seme time
lectured the Board and calling it ridiculous that the Boaard would
consider another plan at this point. Since vdien should an c^)en
process ever be closed to good or better ideas?
Because of the lack of sensitivity -bo public input, the citizens
are frustrated, angry, and disillusioned with their elected and
appointed officials. It appears tliat the Boards do not heed \diat
the citizens feel to be legitimate concerns. Of-ten, -the Boards'
and tdie developer's eagerness to achieve closure of the issue -takes
precedence over -the incorporation or acknowledgement of -the citizen
viewpoint.
We feel -that -the Boards should develop mechanisms -that fully inform
the community of -the details concerning development projects and
encourage ra-ther than discourage public input and strive to
encourage working cooperatively wi-th developers and in-terested
parties to resolve reasonable concerns in -the preliminary phases of
proposed development projects."
Kinga M. Gergely, 106 Juniper Dri-ve read -the following s-tatement;
"The residents of the Town of I-fchaca have gone frcm a feeling of
complacency and blind -trust to increasing frus-tra-tion and no
confidence in our local government.
Hew did we get here?
Perhaps it is the constant -threat of litigation from developers
that influences -the Town Boards. The Town has -taken -the posture
that the developer has the right to develop, and recently, -the
Tcfwn Board Minutes 5 August 29, 1988
developers have been calling all the shots. Ihe residents have
been forced into playing the role of the adversary. Vfe end up
fighting for rights that ought to be inherent in our Ordinances.
It should not be necessary for us to hire an attorney, \dien we have
a Town attorney or to hire an engineer, v^en we have a Town
engineer.
Most of us feel threatened by the sudden escalation of developments
that can't be justified and will irreversibly change the character
of our neighborhoods. We are disturbed by the ad hoc and reactive
manner in \diich the Town conducts business and the lack of firm
criteria, consistent plan and vision, that should be considered
v^en making major decisions.
There is the danger that our neighborhoods, v^ere people bought
hcmes to raise children or to retire, will much too easily be made
into rentals. This increases the density to full capacity and
beyond, adds traffic noise, changes the character of a neighborhood
from a ccniraunity to a transient, poorly maintained hostile
environment. Clever developers take advantage of every loophole to
maximize their profits. The character of a good neighborhood for
example, can not be defined merely in terms of lot sizes!
Many of us are concerned about the ease with vdiich rezoning has
been considered. Precedent plays a large role in the decision
making process. Decisions should be made carefully, so that a
developer can not use bad precedent to his advantage.
Our zoning map is a form of a guaranty: if you bought a hcme in a
single family neighborhood it would stay such. Any changes would
be well justified, predictable, with the consent of the majority
and in the clear interest of the entire ccramunity.
It is unrealistic to ask that no changes be made, ever. The Town
will inevitably grow. But, the Town and the residents need to stop
and reevaluate this ejected growth with the help of unbiased
individuals. We need to determine vAiat the most likely needs are
and vdiere the necessary changes will be least destinictive to
existing neighborhoods. Progress should be deliberate and
predictable. If we err, let's do it on the conservative side.
Mistakes in ccranunity development can not be undone and generations
will pay for thou."
Elliott Lauderdale, 381 Stone Quarry Road read the following
statement:
"Frequent representations of GINA have stated that we are against
development. The second characterization is that we are against
variances altogether. He stated that he would like to clarify that
we are for responsible development and we are for developers v^o
are interest in contributing to the ccmrtunity. We support
responsible development. The argument in his presentation to the
Planning Board was that there are different kinds of developers.
One builder builds according to code and follows the rules, another
sort of developer, builder, frequently knows more about those rules
and uses those rules to their own advantage. They distort the
rules, spirit of the rules and the zoning regulations in order to
find loopholes in order to maximize seme real profit. Mostly the
name of the game is density. His argument was that we should have
consistent enforcement of the zoning regulations. Rational
development, rational growth depends on principal enforcement of
zoning rather than reactive spot zoning and variances vMch allow
seme developers more density and perhaps seme shori: term profit.
That is the argument of the paper that I presented to the Planning
Board.
Town Board Minutes 6 August 29, 1988
Today I would like to go beyond there and suggest same sittple
possibilities. First of all I would like to reiterate the reason
there are so many citizens upset and it has sonething to do with
the character of democratic participation especially at the
Planning Board. The public meeting is closed and hairmers down on
us before we have any real idea of vhat*s happened at the meeting
and frequently before Planning Board members seem to have any idea
of vtot's happening. Another possibility is that issue be
considered by the ZBA. In a case very close to my house we had a
issue be considered by the ZBA and then we found out at the ZBA
that the lead agency for that was the Planning Board. The issue is
moot.
A third scmevtot general challenge is after our presentation to the
Planning Board, Mr. May declared, thanked the GINA groip for the
presentation, said it was full of errors and instructed the
Planning Board members to red line all of those errors.
Unfortunately no one has returned all those errors to us so that we
can complete our understanding of how the process works. It's our
intention that this process of planning and developnent can be a
cooperative adventure v^ere errors are corrected back and forth
rather than a kind of reactive confrontational process that seems
to characterize many meetings that we are attending today. I have
a question for the consultant that is about to be hired for the
proposal vAiich has to do with presentation to the Planning
Board, vAiy is it that seme developers get waivers and variances
that they plan for, in large scale developers, v^le other builders
follow the rules? Codes - code. Zoning Regulations - zoning
regulations. Is there seme kind of system that we can discover
that we can analyze and stop so that we don't have the kind of
reactive irrational development that sometimes takes place. In
seme cases it seems, just suggests the possibility that a kind of
revolving door operates, it seems to make sense to me that builders
and developers are very knowledgeable vdien it seme to development
and building and they should participate in the planning process.
It's less certain to me, however, that builders and developers
should participate in the planning process before they start
building and developing. It seems to make more sense if they do it
afterwards, especially if the interests of that developer are at
stake in seme of the precedent being set in the process of
development. The revolving door that I would like to mention, it
seems in many cases v^ere variances or waivers have been granted
former members or present members of the Planning and Zoning
process or former Town officers have somehow been involved. It's a
possibility to look at the kind of conflict of interest that might
be arising in those cases and be very careful about vtot sort of
ethics are necessary in order to insure that the special privileges
granted seme developers aren't granted because of something like a
conflict of interest. Why are we attending so many meetings? The
basic contention tonight is the spirit is being violated, the
spirit of the zoning regulations being violated and lost amongst
the splitting of hairs with developers \dio are seeking looj^oles.
As the zoning regulations read in general and as the cluster
development regulations read in general, they make a lot of sense.
There is a principal behind it. But as I have attended meetings
its my interpretation that the principal gets lost in the details
of arguments over certain items v^ch to a lay person seem fairly
obvious. As an exanple, in my previous presentation I picked on
Mr. Mazza a little bit because he is our neighbor in Cayuga Vista
and vdiat he was doing seemed to me to be illegal and as I read the
law it was illegal but as far as I can remeiriber we spent at least
five or six or seven hours argxiing about viiether he should be able
to move his grandfathered house into our back yard. In that
process a couple of hits came up about how the process could be
improved. One of those hints was, if we knew \diat the builder or
developer as doing, as citizens, we would be more assured. In this
Town Board Minutes 7 August 29, 1988
case Mr. Mazza said, I'm going to move this house onto this several
acre lot. Where? Nobody knows. I'm going to put it there
teitporary and then I'll move it scxnev^ere else. There isn't any
drawing of v^ere it was going to go. In this case our particular
concerns are that our backyards are often times swaitp, how are we
going to figure out the drainage. Now that's the Planning Board
environmental rule question. As the developer and before we
subdivide taking adequate care of drainage. He said, well I'll
take care of drainage but as concerned citizens are we always going
to take care of drainage? In case there is no way to know he is
going to take care of drainage because nobody knows vdiere the house
is going to go. There isn't any oDncrete plan, site plan that says
this house will go here and, therefore, someone could consider it
and say it won't effect drainage or it will effect drainage.
Instead of kind of a vague idea, I'm going to move it back there
seme \f^ere is accepted by the Planning Board as an adequate
consideration of environmental review. It doesn't seem to make
very much sense and if he put it in a very nice place I might have
been happy and I wouldn' t have spent as much time arguing and
finding all of these objections to his plan. So the siirple
solution to ease seme citizen apprehensions about vaguely stated
plans of developers is to require detailed site plans. There are
several exaitples, especially recently, of citizens groups working
with developers over their site plan to ccroe up with scmething that
the citizens can stand behind and support and then we wouldn't have
to sit through these long meetings of citizens screaming and
developers screaming and the meeting being closed and citizens
objecting because of the meeting being closed.
I also mentioned the Deerrun waiver. It kinds of curious to me.
Deerrun bxiilt houses that were out of code, they were too high and
then the solution to that was to give them a waiver after they did.
That seems like a clear exanple of reactive planning. But beyond
that we are so creative that we give them a waiver for further
houses. It didn't make any sense to me v^atever. And what was the
final resiiLt of that? Mr. Mbnkemeyer stands up and says that he is
threatening a law suit against the Town because even though the
zoning regvilations says you are allowed to have a two story
building, he's got a building with a live in basement and an atrium
and two stories and it's within this 38 feet that was waivered at
Deerrun so you are not being fair to me because you granted this to
them so I want to have, what could be from a laymans standpoint,
four stories, in a zoning area that says you are only allowed two
stories. It seems the solution is sirtple enforcement of
straightforward rule about two stories, I realize it's more
ccnplicated than that but I think if the principal is held onto and
the Planning Board and the has confidence here we can rule here.
We can say this house doesn't look good in the neighborhood we
don't like it, we have a right to say this house does not fit into
the neighborhood. If they can just stand up and say it is not
right, may be it's just not esthetically pleasing. It says in the
regulation that it has to fit into the character of the
neighborhood.
Another exanple, I read the preamble to the plan, and I noted in
there that it's related to Kinga's issue, that Pennsylvania Avenue
is the oldest established residential neighborhood in the Town of
Ithaca. Now in this case I would like to invite the Town Board to
go to Pennsylvania Avenue and they can visit a laundramat that's in
the parlor of one of those established houses and then they can
look and count, perhaps they can put on a map, how many \dTat
appears to have been a lay person, multiple residences like or
apartment like houses on this back bone of our Town, this old and
established neighborhood. I'm hard pressed to understand v^y there
is such a concentration of housing in a formally settled
neighborhood. Perhaps established means the property owners are
Town Board Minutes 8 August 29, 1988
well connected and able to gain zoning variances. This is just a
suggestion.
Now the next step possible step for Pennsylvania Avenue, possible
step only mentioned, would be that the Klondike Manor road would be
connected with Pennsylvania Avenue so that \tet appears to be
rental units, it's stated as- possible rental units for students,
can have access out of Pennsylvania Avenue. For that I would like
to suggest to the members of the Town Board, get a map out and draw
the Klondike Manor road and then look at Pennsylvania Avenue, it's
looks kind of like a lightening bolt, it's got a bunch of ziggs and
zaggs and wonder if that is a reasonable outlet for a concentrated
population. You could also note, vhen you are making that drawing
of the number of road that are going to converge into the dip in
Pennsylvania Avenue. In all of the above there has been a tendency
to be reactive to vdiat sane developers call their rights at the
expense of principal preservation of the neighborhoods stated right
to enjoy the character of their neighborhood.
Nov I have another little story about Klondike Manor. I'm very
interested in the cluster plan, it seems to be an extrannely
rational idea. If someone is going to build on a large scale there
could be compromises made. They could be more density in one area,
and density seems to be the bottom line and less density in another
area. They could preserve watersheds, they could have one area set
aside for buffers so that there isn't disiniption of the
neighborhood. And another extremely creative idea that is
inplemented in cluster plans is that the neighborhood can be mixed,
so that there are some owners, some renters, sane students and then
it's a neighborhood, it's mixed, there are all different kinds of
people there rather than a heavy concentration. I went to a
meeting with Mr. lacovelli about Klondike Manor and he had a very
interesting drawing of a cluster developnent. I thought that was
extremely nice and so I asked him vhat covenants he would agree to.
Whether he would sell so many so that there would be some families
living the cluster development, v^ether he would agree to rent so
many and he adamantly said no. It's right not to have any
restrictive covenants. Again, I would like to say that it seems to
me that the Planning Board has the right to say they are going to
preserve the character of the Town and that's an important
principal and it's written in the zoning and subdivision
regulations and it seems like it could be enforceable. If the plan
doesn't look good to the Planning Board and if it doesn't look good
to a majority of the citizens it can be adopted if it comes out in
some kind of concrete detail to fit into the neighborhood. If it
doesn't it seems that our elected and appointed representatives
have a right to say you can't build here, even though it's your
property. Seems that many urban areas and small cities now
recognize that we have a right to principal in aesthetic taste
about how the Town is going be developed rather than we have to
allow individual citizens to do vdiatever they damn well please on
their piece of land."
Peter E. Hillman, 370 Stone Quarry Drive stated that the issue he
was going to address tonight is that of finances and taxes. He
stated that he want to focus attention on two questions v^ch ve
feel are actually true. He then read the following statement:
"Are pre-existing residents paying additional taxes to help cover
the cost of Development?
Will pre-existing residents be paying additional taxes for future
development?
Town Board Minutes 9 August 29, 1988
We need clear and accurate answers to these questions so that we
can correct for the financial inequities they create to the tax
burden on pre-existing residents of the Town of Ithaca.
There are many "myths of growth" v^ch are given to the public by
local politicians and planners in order to justi:^ their persistent
push for new development. Studies have demonstrated that the most
ccninon myth of growth or development is that "New development
increases a ccmmunity's tax base, spreads the tax burden among more
people, and lowers everyone's individual tax rates." However, when
the facts are looked at, "development does not pay its way with
respect to the costs of public services and must be subsidized by
pre-existing residents through higher taxes. The costs of new
schools, roads, police and fire protection, water and sewer lines
and other services far exceed the tax income generated by the new
housing development." (Quote from Balance Data, No. 24, August
1987, a newsletter of the Population-Environment Balance, 1325 G.
Street, N.W., Suite 1003, Washington, D. C. 20005).
For example, it was found that the taxes generated by new
construction in Loudoun County, Virginia only covered 70% of the
cost of services for the new housing. The pre-existing residents
had to pay the remaining 30% through increased taxes (Balance Data,
No. 24, August 1987).
Did you know that our ccmbined Town of Ithaca — Tamplcins County
tax bills have increased 262 percent over the last 10 years? This
translates to an increase (not including fire protection, water or
sewer) from about $83 in 1979 to $300 in 1988 for a house assessed
for $50,000. Over the last 5 years the increase has been 148.9
percentI Last year along it was a chopping 57.6 percent increase1
Obviously, these increases, especially recently, greatly exceed
inflation. We need to carefully examine these increases to
ascertain how much of it actually (including hidden costs) is
needed to provide services for new developments. We are in real
danger of finding ourselves burdened with additional taxes needed
to provide costly iitprovements after new developments have been put
into place, without having any recourse to selectively "taxing"
these new developments for the services they require. We need to
know in advance vtot additional services will be required to
s\:pport new development so that we can charge "impact fees" on
these new developments for the additional services they require
above and beyond the support structure that is already in place.
In our neighboring Village of Lansing, home owners are facing a 62
percent tax increase because of $8 million dollars in capital
improvements, mostly in road inprovenents to handle the increased
traffic generated by new business and high-density developments.
The high-density developments were not contained in a small area,
forcing capital improvements to be made in a much larger area
(Seymour and Rita Smidt, Letter to the Editor of Ithaca Journal,
i^ril 9, 1988 and James C. Showacre, Letter to the Editor of Ithaca
Journal, i^ril 21, 1988).
To quote from the Balance Data newsletter, "Choice is an essential
ingredient in growth managonent programs. Politicians, planners
and the public must make hard choices about the type, number and
density of housing units to be built in their community; the
capacity of school facilities, conmercial enclaves and industrial
parks; the size and location of highways; and the Ihnits to vMch
the community will go to protect its environment."
We the people of the Greater Ithaca Neighborhood Association feel
that the escalation in our local taxes needs to be looked at very
carefully to ascertain just how much of this increase was required
to provide additional services for the new developments in this
Town Board Minutes 10 August 29, 1988
Town. More inportantly we need to know the cost of irtprovements
and services to support future developments before they are
approved for construction. It is only fair that new developments
be required to pay, maybe in the form of "inpact fees," for all the
additional services and capital improvements necessitated by their
existence."
Bruce Brittain, President of the Forest Hone Improvement
Association stated that he had been asked to say a few words about
the inpact of traffic on existing ccmraunities. He then read the
following statement:
"Traffic has many negative impacts on ccmmunities. These include
noise, fumes, reduced pedestrian safety, and a decline in the
overall quality of life for residents. As development in the Tcwn
continues, the problem of increased traffic in established
neighborhoods becomes increasingly worse. It is difficult to put a
dollar value on parameters such as increases in noise and fumes,
and decreases in pedestrian safety and the quality of life, and so
these factors have been officially ignored. The result is that
traffic generation does not receive adequate attention in
development decisions. Consequently, traffic from new
neighborhoods travels through old neighborhoods, causing imwanted
problems. Planners often react by widening old neighborhoods'
streets, thereby sacrificing established neighborhoods for the
benefit of new neighborhoods.
Fortunately, there is a relatively straightforward means of
determining the financial impact of increased traffic on a
ccmmunity. It is the cost of building new, non-impacting
circulation routes (bypasses) vMch would reduce traffic in the
communities, since that would sirtply move the problem, but would
not solve it. As the Town's population density increases, it
becomes more difficult to map out routes for new, non-impacting
roads. The costs resulting from traffic generation, therefore,
become greater with each new development project. They are
currently so high that they can no longer be ignored.
While it is still possible to map out a network of new,
non-impacting roadways tiirou^out the Town and County, we will have
to move quickly, before all available routes have been blocked by
development. These roadways should snake between built-i:p areas,
rather than connecting their centers, as traditional road ways have
done. This will serve to get through-traffic out of residential
ccmmunities and congested business districts. In order to minimize
the impact that these roads would have on the open land through
vdiich they would pass, I recommend that they be designated as
two-land, controlled access thoroughfares. This would help to
prevent the further spread of "miracle miles," and would prevent
the inevitable problems associated with residential development on
high traffic arterials. With the help of the MacTrans computer
model, and with projected growth figures, our Town and County
planners should be able to determine a network of new roads vMch
would relieve congestion in residential areas now and into the
future. Although the cost of this new road netwDrk will be
significant, the cost would skyrocket as development continues.
Land has to be acquired now for roads to be built later, as the
need arises.
In order to finance this road network, it might be wise to levy a
one-time traffic assessment fee on all new houses and businesses.
Perhaps this could take the form of a surcharge on building permits
for all new construction. In this manner, those v^o contribute to
the problon will be fairly assessed for its resolution. This
assessment fee would not be prohibitive ccmpared to the cost of a
Town Board Minutes 11 August 29, 1988
new house, as each new family adds only marginally to the traffic
flow, but collective monies would be significant, just as is the
collective traffic inpact.
For too long there has been no real traffic planning within the
Town of Ithaca. This has given us the problems that we face today
(heavy traffic in Forest Home, congestion at the Ccaiinunity Comers,
etc.). Rather than continuing in this manner, I would like to see
sane true planning; using foresight, anticipating likely traffic
problems, and taking steps to solve then before they occur. To
this end, I am encouraged to see that the Ithaca Area
Transportation Study has been endorsed by the Town, Cii^, County,
and Cornell, and am pleased with the resiilting MacTrans coiputer
model. Similarly, the draft Town of Ithaca Corprehensive Plan is
also a step in the right direction, although its enphasis seems to
be on laudable generalities. It is my hcpe that the Tcwn Board
will take a leadership role in guiding the Town and County planners
as they seek to rectify the very prdblons that continuing
development has created in the Town of Ithaca. We need an overall
solution to traffic problems, not a pieceneal series of bandaids.
I hope it is not too late."
Celia Bowers, 1406 Trumansburg Road read the following statement:
"One of the major problems facing the Town of Ithaca today is the
progressive "gentrification" of its population. The Town Planner
noted recently that an increasingly large percentage of building
permits were for houses at the upper end of the market. This
problem is cotposed of two main parts. One is the rising cost of
materials and labor, \drLch makes it difficult, if not iitpossible,
for contractors to make a profit building low incone housing. The
other is that the value of land in the Town of Ithaca continues to
rise. Higher land values also encourage higher taxes, making it
difficult for a person of lower than average income to maintain
property even after it has been acquired. This can lead to
deterioration and even condemnation and destruction of property
that should be habitable. Furthermore, the new buildings that
replace the ones torn down will tend to be higher incone housing
for the reasons outlined above, thus perpetuating the tendency
toward gentrification.
In order to deal with these problems and ensure that the Town of
Ithaca ronains hone to people of all income levels, the Town
government must first of all come to terms with its priorities.
Recently, in the first draft of the Preliminary Coiprehensive Plan
drawn up by the Town Planning Board, we noticed that rezoning to
allow an increase in the number of mobile home parks in the Town
was being proposed. While it is true that mobile homes offer
affordable home ownership to families of below average income, I
nevertheless question vdiether mobile home parks are the best
answer. They are unsafe, they are unsightly; they depress property
values around them; and they tend to promote an enclave of lower
income families in a manner vdiich unpleasantly siiraalates the
ghettos of our large cities. Surely a more democratic, more
integrated and more pleasing way of allov^g low income families to
purchase a home can be found.
At first glance, the problem of high building costs and high land
values may sean insuperable, since the private sector is obviously
going to construct high cost housing in order to ensure a
reasonable profit. In order to break the ever increasing spiral of
land and house values, municipal governments must take an active
role. To do this, they need to raise funds. The fairest way to
raise funds, it seans to us, is to tax new construction. More
specifically, we propose that owner-occupied homes valued at under
Town Board Minutes 12 August 29, 1988
$50,000 be exenpt; that hcames from $50-100,000 be taxed at the 1%
level; and hcanes over $100,000 at the 2% level. Commercial and
multiple residential property could perhaps be taxed at the 3%
level.
With the seed money the Town of Ithaca could begin a positive
program of b\:Qring and either selling, renting or leasing land and
houses to low income families. This can be done through land
trusts, explained in the various articles I have given the Town
Board members, or through direct purchase, rehabilitation and sale
of existing properties at low fixed mortgage rates with little or
no down payment to qualified low income buyers. Properties in
reasonable condition that are scheduled for demolition can also be
bought or donated by the owners in exchange for a tax incentive.
They can then be moved to suitable locations, rehabilitated and
sold.
No only is it possible for municipalities to build low income
housing financed by seed money from new construction taxes, but
there are also federal and state grants that support such programs.
Low income housing intended for the elderly and the disabled is
particularly eligible for funding of this sort. Of coiurse, all
houses sold under these programs have a profit-limiting clause in
the deed so that the Town's investment in these properties is
maintained for future generations of homeowners.
These are just a few of many possibilities for encouraging and
promoting home ownership by low income families. However, all of
these plans demand active participation by the TOwn and also some
funding to use as seed money for the initial projects. We strongly
urge the Ithaca Town Board to take a firm stance in support of low
income housing and to take active steps to ensure that by the year
2000 the Town of Ithaca will be a place vdiere people of all income
levels can find a home."
Rosaline Grippi, 423 East Seneca Street stated that she wished to
speak about the conflict between neighborhoods and the
conprehensive plans and subdivisions. She then read the following
statement;
"Ithacans are receiving mixed messages on development and planning
from Town officials and this is creating anxiety and mistrust.
Settled residents not only fear for the beauty of Ithaca as
development proceeds, but also fear the destruction of their
neighborhoods. Others, anticipating haphazard development, are
putting their plans for building on hold; or are seeking
alternatives to neighborhoods that only a year ago seemed
desirable. Seme are considering relocation to nearby communities.
Just two years ago West Hill seemed an ideal and peaceful area for
living. It appeared full of premise, as it did in 1959 to the
Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board vMch wrote of the area,
"With careful subdivision and street design. West Hill may
eventually become of the the area's most desirable residential
districts."
West Hill residents considered the area to be the best kept secret
in Ithaca; lew density, beautiful views, a low crime rate. Growth
was to be anticipated but it would be controlled by zoning
in-place, and with regard for the protection and enhancement of the
neighborhood as is premised by the Town's subdivision and zoning
ordinances.
Town Board Minutes 13 August 29, 1988
We bought a lot on Orchard Hill Road within a third of a mile of
the Hospital. Within the last two year all 8 lots were sold
(averaging 3 to 4 acres each) for single family homes. Five
well-designed houses have since been built and two more are in
plan. Before deciding, we checked the zoning and considered the
neighborhood: DuBois Road, Trumansburg Road, Indian Creek Road —
pleasing, one family homes on large well-tended lots. Because of
open land nearby, we checked with the Town's Zoning Officer to be
sure the area would not allow high density housing (multiple rental
dwellings and mobile home parks). Mr. Frost assured us that the
zoning was R-15 and R-30, with professional and medical offices and
the Hospital in the vicinity. No mobile home park or multiple
rental housing was allowed.
It is more than disconcerting then to read, only one year later,
that, indeed, we are slated to be part of a high density district.
This past spring, in the Ithaca Times, the Town Planner stated, on
the question of growth, "Growth can be controlled by concentrating
the highest density around a node. The point v^ere the new hi^way
would join 96 near the Hospital entrance. If you can concentrate
the limited commercial uses and higher density things hear the
Hospital, decreasing the density to single family homes farther
away, its going to keep the land organized." I ask, vtot about
developments like Orchard Hill Road, also within the neighborhood
of the Hospital?
Instead of nurturing a coaiplex like Orchard Hill Road as a highly
desirable addition to Ithaca, Town Planners, in effect, are telling
us, "Tough luck. This area is being planned for a high density
neighborhood. You made a mistake. Single family homes belong
further away." They are saying, in effect, "We are not concerned
about you; we are concerned about development." In the absence of
a nurturing and protective attitude on the part of the Town
Planners, some awful scenarios are being formed in the minds of
residents of the area, shattering the security of families and
raising tensions between Town officials and citizens. Citizens
have asked for a conprdiensive plan to guide growth and prevent
haphazard development. But that comprehensive plan must enhance
and protect v^at is already in place. In planning for the future
development of Ithaca, you, our Town officials, are not beginning
with a clean slate; you must not violate previous documents and
understandings that people have relied upon \4ien they bought into a
neighborhood.
In the preface to the upcoming comprehensive plan, the public reads
words intended to assuage their fears:
p.5 "It is the intent of the TOwn...to safeguard the quality
of residential life in the conmunity vdiile providing for the
evolving needs of the population."
p.5f. "There are, in each TOwn neighborhood, established
areas of predomiinately large-lot, owner-occupied, single
family housing. It is the intent of the Town of Ithaca to
protect the character of these long-established neighborhoods
and to minimize land use conflicts that may arise from
incompatible comibinations of high and low density residential
use."
Note that the Town recognizes the incompatibility of high and low
density use. But how does this explain high density being planned
aroimd the Hospital v^en there presently exists a low density
neighborhood around the Hospital — on Orchard Hill Road, DuBois
Road, Indian Credc Road, and including Trumansburg Road? The
preface to the upcomiing comprehensive plan explains how this will
be managed:
Town Board Minutes 14 August 29, 1988
p6. "The Town will encourage buffer zones...adjacent to these
areas."
We ask: Can thirty feet of bushes, such as has recently been
approved by the Planning Board as a buffer between a ccnanercial and
an R-15 residential parcel, really solve the problem?
************
What is the dbligation of the Town Planning and Town Boards to
existing neighborhoods?
State law makes it clear that Towns do not have inherent power to
enact or enforce zoning. The State designates the power to the
Town so that the Town nay "formulate for the public good the
pattern of growth by vrfiich the Town should achieve orderly
development...and prevent haphazard growth." The State makes it
clear that the TOwn must exercise that power in respect to
cdiprehensive planning: "When a zoning amendment is in derogation
of a ccirprehensive plan it is not in the interest of the general
welfare of the community..."
The Town acknowledges these obligations v^en it states in the
Zoning Ordinance (p.46) that in making its recommendations, the
Planning Board shall determine that "the proposed change is in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town",
and that "the existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood in vhich the use is to be located will not be
adversely affected."
At the April meeting of the Planning Board, vhen the Kyong project
was first publicly considered, citizens were informed by the
Planning Board Chairman Mr. May that, for the Town of Ithaca, the
comprehensive plan is not a single document, since none had been
officially adopted; rather, the comprehensive plan consists of all
relevant laws and diverse documents, including the zoning
regulations and zoning designation map. But Mr. May also pointed
out that it had been judicially determined that the comprehensive
plan need not consist only of written documents; it also
encompasses that vhich is understood — i.e., "in the head".
We assume this means not only in the heads of Town officials, but
also vhat is understood by citizens. The comprehensive plan then
(until a new one is agreed on) encompasses among other things, and
in addition to the Zoning Ordinance and map, that vhich residents
of an area understand to be the character of their neighborhood;
and that that character, as it exists, will be protected and
enhanced by officials of the Town in accordance with their charge.
To reshape the character of neighborhoods under pressure of
developmient is to run rough shod over the comprehensive plan as Mr.
May has defined it.
We, citizens and Town officials, shoiild be able to relax, working
together, with a constructive attitude, on a comprehensive plan
that will protect, not violate, the character of present
neighborhoods yet allow for orderly developmient and growth."
Laura Marks, 302 King Road East read the following statement:
"In examining the future growth in the Town of Ithaca it is
important to consider the benefits of and plan for the conservation
of green spaces. The preservation of both large plots and smaller
plots within subdivisions needs to be more aggressively and
actively pursued.
Town Board Minutes 15 August 29, 1988
When friends v^o work at Cornell discuss the fact that they could
easily find enployment earning substantially more elsev^here, they
half-jokingly say that Cornell considers living in Ithaca to be one
of the fringe benefits of working there. Since the present
abundance of green space in Ithaca is a major advantage of the
area, let's look more closely at this "fringe benefit".
The air quality, both local and global, is strongly iiiproved the
existence of trees. People living near forested areas can
appreciate a 75% - 80% reduction in airborne particulate matter
including dust, pollen, and pollutants. This filtration, along
with the emission of the plants' own scent and the oxygen that is
produced during photosynthesis, all make the local air cleaner,
fresher, and healthier to breathe than in urban areas vhich have
neglected to preserve their natural areas. This irtprovement has
long been noted and can be seen in the city plans in cities such as
Cleveland, Ohio, vhere at the turn of the century industrialists
established the "Emerald Necklace", a park syston that encircles
the city.
On a more global level, the conservation of our trees can work to
slow the warming trend of the greenhouse effect caused by the
build-ip of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A single mature
beech tree uses the amount of carbon dioxide displaced by 800
single family hones. At the end of this, the warmest summer in
recorded history, each and every tree should be individually
cherished and considered for protection fron bulldozers.
Our trees keep our climate more tenperate. With its ability to
evaporate one hundred gallons of water per day, dissipating 230,000
calories, a single tree can do the equivalent cooling of more than
four air conditioners. As a result, forests tend to be cooler in
the summer and warmer in the winter by 25 - 35 degrees Fahrenheit.
Trees also reduce noise pollution by refracting sound vibration
rather than reflecting it as flat, man-made surfaces do. Stands of
trees can also act as an effective privacy buffer between houses or
subdivisions.
Green areas also work to keep water quality high. By reducing
runoff across paved and unplanted areas, green areas slow, filter,
and absorb rain water rather than sending the toxins of acid rain,
farm chonicals, road salts, etc., directly into the water systen.
Another aspect of our natural "fringe benefit" is that exposiare to
green areas reduces people's blood pressure. Studies show that
people v^o work imder red florescent lights, vMle keeping warmer,
are also more conbative and have higher blood pressure.
Conversely, people v^o can look out a window at green vistas, or,
better yet, spend time relaxing or recreating in green areas, have
lower blood pressure.
Developnent of the Ithaca area threatens to reduce, or as on East
Hill, nearly eliminate our green spaces. With the rapid rate of
acquisition of land by developers, the Town must make decisions now
about the land that is to remain wild and to beccme park space, and
act on those decisions.
The Town has and is considering preservation of many natural areas,
as indicated by the Ccnprehensive Plan draft. The Town needs to
further ejq^lore alternatives so as to leave larqe areas forever
wild. Acquiring development rights or conservation easements from
large landowners gives those owners an alternative to selling to
developers, something which has worked in other ccammunities. Not
all green space needs to be park space. Deeding open space to be
presejn^ed primarily for its scenic and aesthetic value.
Tcwn Boaird Minutes 16 August 29, 1988
discouraging its utilization for recreational activities, is
another use that should be looked into.
In article IV, section 22 of the subdivision regulations, the Tcwn
of Ithaca makes a ccnimendable start at the reservation of parks and
recreational land. However, the law needs to have seme teeth put
into it, as the Planning Board does not always irrplement the
reservation of space in a laudable fashion. Some of the aspects
the Tcfwn should examine for the land to be accepted as green areas
within subdivisions are as follows;
1) Potential land use. Is the land in question good for
recreation, relaxation, or the support of wildlife? If not,
it should not be accepted, as ta3q)ayers should not be asked to
maintain useless property.
2) Safety. Will use of the land, as described above, be a safety
hazard to children, athletes, pedestrians, or motorists? If
so, the land should not be accepted, as taxpayers do not need
to accept and additional liability?
3) Access. Is access to the land appropriate for its intended
use? Play areas should be centrally lcx:ated to the population
they will serve. Wild areas should be located so that human
access is more limited and/or so that they border existing
natural sites. In addition, all developments should be
required to reserve 10% of the area to be left natural or to
be used as park space, to ensure that the local air quality
remains high.
In general, the Town needs to take a much more aggressive attitude
toward finding ways of preserving natural areas and with developers
about vtot it will mean, as land grows scarcer, to be allowed the
privilege of building here. There are numerous examples across the
coimtry of towns taking such steps. With the abundance of high
quality resources, both human and natural, that this area offers,
more positive steps than are currently being taken are available.
Stringent conservation legislature, vdiile discouraging developers
with an arrogance toward nature and only an eye for a quick, easy
profit, will in the long term encourage developers with integrity,
ecological interests, and interests in preserving, rather than
exploiting, local character.
In no other area of Town Planning is the need for a moratorium on
large scale development more urgent than for the preservation of
green space. Roads that break mder increased traffic can be
repaired; additions to schools can be built; out of character
buildings can be modified or even razed. But once wild land is
developed, it will never again be wild. May we be blessed with a
local government that has the foresight, creativity, and strength
to preserve the wonderful "fringe benefit" of the Ithaca area, our
natural resources."
Ms. M^ks then presented, to each Boajrd member, a potted vMte pine
tree.
Dooley Kiefer, 629 Highland Road stated that she was addressing
environmental concerns, she then read the following:
"In addition to the other planning needs v^ch do not get dealt
with by the Town for lack of time, there are environmental
components that have suffered the same fate. I refer specifically
to such topics as (1) the designation of Critical Environmental
Areas (CEAs), (2) revision of SEQR thresholds, (3) creation of
Tcfwn Board Minutes 17 August 29, 1988
specific mechaniatis to trigger SEQR reviews, and (4) tightening up
SEQR processes as well as making them more accessible.
A moratorium on most development or on large-scale projects would
ceirtainly give the Town planning staff time to finally grapple with
these issues, too — to do the necessary study and/or information
gathering to provide the Town Board with reccraraendations for
appropriate local laws or actions to address these issues. Absent
a moratorium, such needed planning tasks will only be acccxrplished
^ if they are giv&i top priority by the Town — and by that I mean
priority over developers* needs — a resolve never yet evidenced.
I will address each of these areas of environmental concern in
turn.
(1) CEAs
The Town Board has the authority to adopt a list of CEAs in the
Town. Such a lifet serves to alert developers and remind regulators
of the need to 'protect such sites. I believe the Town list, to
date, has only one entry. Coy Glen — adopted quite a few years ago
vdien it was threatened by same gravel or mining operations.
There is a ready-made, documented list of Unique Environmental
Areas within the Town, ccnpiled in 1975 by the Torpkins Comty
Environmental Managoment Council (EMC) (Craig Tufts thesis) as part
of a county-wide inventory. The EMC is currently updating its
inventory — but there is no reason that the Town has to wait for
the EMC to finish that 2-year project before adding to the Town's
list such sites as, e.g.. Lick Brook, or the South Hill Swaiip.
Moreover, the EiVC list only includes "good" environmental sites,
not such "bad" ones as hazardous waste sites or construction debris
^ sites. The Town CEA list can also include such problon areas,
vdiich should also be protected from development.
(2) SEQR threshholds
TO its credit, the Town has its own SEQR ordinance, adopted c.
1980, and revised earlier this year to be consistent with revisions
in state regulations. But the threshholds listed in the Town law
were set by guesswork — largely, I believe, by looking at the
threshholds in the State's and City's SEQR laws and regulations and
scaling seme down. For years now they have needed revision — but
this hasn't happened, presumably because such a list does not have
the urgency for ^planning staff time as does a developer vAio wants
to get his project underway. I know the League of Women Voters of
Tcirpkins Coimty (LWV-TC) has pointed out this need to the Town
Board on previous occasions, and I understand that finally this
year such revisions are on the planning staff's work plan — but
the year is two-thirds gone and we've heard nothing about them.
SEQR threshholds appear in the Town's list of Type I actions, those
likely to require and EIS (section V of Town law). In March this
year, vhen the Town SEQR ordinance was revised, LW suggested seme
specific examples of threshholds that seemed too high, e.g., (33)
100 parking places; (#7) 2000 trips/8-hr period/day. I noted at
that time that the Town Planner said she found those numbers okay.
^ I'm not sure Town residents would agree with that opinion (i.e.,
that a project with paring for 90 cars is trivial, or that 1600
trips per 8-hours is insignificant).
(3) Triggering SEQR
It seems logical that a SEQR review should be undertaken whenever
any proposed project in the Town exceeds any SEQR threshhold —
Tcfwn Board Minutes 18 August 29, 1988
even if the project otherwise coirplies with the Zoning Ordinance
(ZD) and needs no other permit or variance. But at present, this
is not the case. At present, the NYS DEC very conservatively
suggests that seme other permit must also be required for a project
in order to trigger a SEQR review. This makes a mockery of SEQR
threshholds. The Town should adopt a local law making clear the
SEQR threshholds have meaning 1
(4) SEQR procedures
(a) Negative declarations.
The Town of Ithaca has no procedures in place to inform the public
v^en a "neg. dec." has been made — i.e., v^en a project has been
determined by the Town to be xmlikely to have significant
environmental impact, and, therefore, to require no further SEQR
scrutiny. This is a serious shortconrLng. The public should be
able to challenge a neg. dec. — but obviously can't do so if it
doesn't know of its existence.
The Tbwn should adopt seme sort of public interest disclosure
mechanism. For exaitple, the Tbwn could post at the Town Hall door
a weekly list of all SEQR determinations — and could also send the
list to each neighborhood association and to the Village of Cayuga
Heights office. This list could be left up for a month — ^toch
would be the time period during vMch the public could challenge
any neg. dec. by bringing forth overlooked information and
concerns. This procedure is especially important since often the
developer takes action right after the Town Boaird adopts a neg.
dec. on his project.
(b) Time limits under SEQR
When the "clock starts running" is an important consideration in
any review or permitting situation. For SEQR, the clock runs from
i^enever a permit application is deemed complete. It is,
therefore, crucial that a permit application not be considered
complete mtil an EIS "findings statement" is approved and filed.
If all that is required is an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF),
then it is crucial that the EAF be answered accurately and fairly.
Often there are omissions and errors — and just plain 180 degree
wrong answers — in the developer's EAF. But these may not be
caught until the first public meeting vdien the EAF is discussed.
Both the Town Board and the public may have pertinent questions and
information vAiich only comes out for the first time at that
meeting. ¨ The developer should not expect the Town Board to act to
accept his EAF at that meeting. The EAF must be revised as
necessary, and the decision-makers should have a single revised
document to review and use as a basis for decision, rather than a
series of verbal or hand-inserted amendments on a series of
versions if the EAF, as has been coninon Town practice to date. The
proposed project should not move forward until the EAF is fully
revised and is, in the Tbwn Board's view, ccnplete and correct.
(c) Determination of catpleteness of application for project
Only after the lead agency considers all application documents in
public session (s), and gets public input (both questions and
information) and deals with that input, should the lead agency
itself — not staff — determine coipleteness, v^ich then starts
the clock running.
I apologize for having had to get so specific as to suggestions; it
simply seemed appropriate to deal in other-than-broad generalities.
These various areas of concern about the Town's approach to and
procedure for handling environmental topics that arise during
Town Board Minutes 19 August 29, 1988
planning and development activities should, I believe, give the
Board a sense of v^ere and why there is public discomfiture.
Addressing them appropriately will certainly take time, and we are
asking you to ensure that the necessary time is allocated to them,
on a priority basis."
Myrtle J. Whitccmb, 233 Troy Road read the following conclusion:
"Again, we applaud the Town Board and the Planning Board in their
recognition of the need to address comprehensive planning.
Specifically, we endorse the RFP and e:}q5ect the process initiated
by that resolution will be brought to fruition. However, v^en we
look at the tentative timeframe outlined to complete process... 1
1/2 to 2 years..., combined with the realization that large
portions of South Hill have already been purchased by developers,
and large portions of West Hill are currently on the market and
will soon be sold for development, it appears that by time time we
complete the planning process, there may be very little open space
left to plan for.
Therefore, we expect that the Town Board will give priority status
to the concerns outlined in this presentation. Specifically, they
are:
1. Identification of the desired level of growth.
2. Protection of the character of established neighborhoods.
3. Developing methods of early and increased public
involvement in the planning process.
4. Revision of the site plan approval process, including
strengthening the sub regs and cluster regs.
5. Strengthening of the environmental irrpact process.
Designation of critical environmental areas and
consideration of ways to protect large areas of green
space and natural habitat.
6. Assess all irtpacts of developnient and designate \^o pays
the cost.
7. The problem of low and moderate inccme housing in an
environment where land Vcilues have been inflated by
developer ccnpetition.
8. Study and design of an appropriate road system prior to
consideration of development.
While this legislation is being considered, studied and enacted,
large portions of the Town will be further developed. It is,
therefore, imperative that, vMle these considerations are being
made, the approval process of large scale developments be brought
under control and be considered very carefully and deliberately.
On way to free up more time to devote to planning issues might be
to instruct the Town Planning staff to prioritize their time.
While we understand that the planning staff does need to spend seme
time reviewing developer's plans to present to the Planning Board,
the bulk of their time should be spent in the far more critical
area of ccmprehensive planning.
In our June 21st meeting with the Planning Board, we requested a
moratorium to create a planned pause vrfiile ccaipr^ensive planning
took place. We watched with interest the debate within the Cit^
concerning the moratorium issue and realized that seme of the
debate was counter productive. The focus was on the moratorium
itself rather than on the issues it was designed to address. Much
valuable time was wasted debating the value of the moratoriiim vMch
could have been better spent addressing specific planning issues.
Tcfwn Board Minutes 20 August 29, 1988
We still feel strongly that a moratorium is a powerful planning
tool. However, at this point we are willing to suspend our request
provided that your response to our concerns is immediate and
effective. Therefore, the Greater Ithaca Neighborhoods
Association, for the time being, would like to table discussion of
the moratorium issue in the Town. We feel the Town officials and
staff should be able to focus entirely upon the issues of
development rather than become bogged down in lengthy debate.
We have circulated petitions in support of a moratorium. Hundreds
of people in the Town are concerned about development issues to the
extent they would sign this petition. We present these petitions
in the spirit of this deep concern. We also add that many, many
more felt the moratorium was not appropriate at this time but,
nevertheless, supported our concerns about the specific development
issues.
The message we have tried to convey tonight is that the residents
of the Town are extremely concerned about the rate and amount of
development that is occuring and has the potential to occur in the
Town during the ccraprehensive planning process. The perception is
that this development is being approved in a piecemeal fashion with
little concern for the cumulative effects. We, the citizens of the
Town, expect that you, as our elected officials, will act in our
best interest.
We can not state strongly enough our sincere belief that yesterday
was the time to have addressed these issues, tomorrow may well be
too late, and today is all we have. Time is of the essence and we
can not think of any other issues that could come before you that
would take priority. We are obliged to set an exairple with better
ideas than other areas that have fallen victim to sprawl. We all
have a responsibility to make the Town of Ithaca a coherent and
safe place to live in and pass on to the next generation in good
condition.
The ball is now in your court."
Supervisor Desch thank all \^o had participated and asked if there
were questions that Board members wished to asked the people v^o
made presentations. He then asked if there were other persons vdio
wished to speak on the subject of planning or moratoriums?
Karl Niklas, 1005 Danby Road stated that unlike the previous
speakers v^o had prepared statements he came this evening
essentially to observe this and lend his support. He went on to
say that he couldn't help but try and associate two moments. One
was the sense that he got of fear and another sense was of trust.
He stated that he thought the reason people were here tonight and
the people have made prepared statements is because we trust you.
We wouldn't be here talking to you, trying to get you interested in
these issues if we didn't. He stated that he thought there was a
sense of fear, however, within the community, and part of it has to
do with seme of the procedures or ways in v^ch procedures have
been used or manipulate at the level of the Town Planning Board.
He thought that vdiat was essential and the he was speaking only for
himself, that there is a review of the appointments to the TOwn
Planning Board. Essentially that's the first front, that's where
the issues take their form, negatively or positively and it's only
after the tenpest that brews before that Board that you all hear of
the discontent or the concerns of your friends and your neighbors.
Now in the last few weeks there have been seme horrible exaitples of
fear and he stated that he would refer to one, the August 11th
editorial in the Ithaca Journal in vdiich Noel Desch, the Town
Supervisor and Montgomery May the Town Planning Board Chairman were
Town Board Minutes 21 August 29, 1988
essentially inplicated in a circumstance v^ere their business
relationships could be viewed in the context of their public rolls
as profiting them. He went on to say that the hardest letter he
ever had to write was motivated by anger essentially, that that
editorial was published without documentation, without adequate
verification and he stated that he wrote a letter as a citizen to
the Ithaca Journal, vAiich was published the following week, in
vdiich he called for an investigation of this issue. Mr. Niklas
stated that he thought it was very sad that we have officials v^o
have worked for the Town, well over two decades that have been
accused and this issue has not been investigated. On a personal
level he felt a matter of honor should be resolved, if it is raised
publicly it should be resolved publicly. Fear has been raised and
he felt that if the fear continues, we are going to see a rather
dissatisfied ccmraunity.
Mr. Niklas stated that he was rather thunderstruck by the beautiful
little trees that were given to the Board, they roninded him of
bonsai. A lot of people are not familiar with philosophy behind
bonsai and that is that there is a healthy antagonism. The tree
wants to grow in one direction and our sense of aesthetics cause us
to trim it and nip it in the bud, so to speak, in forms that we
find pleasing. It's stunted nonetheless, but at least it's
beautiful. Essentially he felt what you saw this evening are two
forces, the forces that are motivating growth and developnent and
forces of the people ^lo exist here, your friends and neighbors,
\fdio want seme resemblance of the former town that we moved to.
Bonsai, conprcmise. Antagonism that results in beauty. So he felt
there were two issues that had to be considered, is the growth and
development of Ithaca and also the self pruning that you provide,
you are our leaders. The other issue is nipping in the bud this
sense of fear that is growing into hostility in seme quarters. He
felt that one way to do that was to review the appointments on the
Town Planning Board as to their appropriateness and the
responsiveness to issues. Speaking to the Town Supervisor he
stated, "Noel, on a personal level, I hope this issue is
investigated publicly and that you are vindicated".
Supeirvisor Desch asked Mr. Niklas if he could ask him a question?
Mr. Niklas replied yes, of course.
Supervisor Desch continued, \dien you read ray response, vdiich
hopefully the Journal will print we are never quite sure, will you
call me and tell me if you still experience fear? He stated that
he would like to know vdiether it responds to \diat message you are
putting forth to the people here. He also asked everyone else to
call him.
Mr. Niklas replied that he did not feel fear, he stated that he
only felt concern but he could not speak for anyone else. He
stated that he was responding, his letter to the Ithaca Journal was
a response to an emotional editorial.
Supervisor Desch replied that he did not mind anyone investigating
his public office, any aspect. But that he did want the people vdio
have read, not only the editorial but your response, to also give
him the opportunity to stated the facts the way they are and also
to let him know if they disagree that those facts make it clear
that there is no conflict of interest in terms of vdiat the Journal
tried to put in the minds of the people.
Mr. Niklas replied, that he assimied was addressed to all the
people, not just him.
Town Board Minutes 22 August 29, 1988
Siipervisor Desch replied, that is correct. Si:5)ervisor Desch asked
if anyone else wished to speak before the Board discusses the
subject of Request for Proposals for consultants?
REgJESTS FOR PROPOSALS
Supervisor Desch stated that this was the public's opportunity to
give the Board their views on the Request for Proposals. You need
to tell us whether you are comfortable with it, v^ether you have
reservations about it because the time is here and we need to move
forward on it. He then asked the Board if they had specific
ccnroents or questions?
Councilwonan Raffenspei^ger stated that she had a question on page
11. She stated that she did not recall this sentence being in this
proposal the last time the Board saw it. She stated that she was
not objecting to it but she would like to have an e:q>lanation as to
why it was put in and v^t it really means, vdiere it says, "the
Town may proceed with the engaging of other consultants for
specific area water or sewer plans during the process of the work
described in this Request for Proposal". She asked if this was new
and may she understand v^y this was put in.
Supervisor Desch replied that he thought he was the source of that
ccaranent. The purpose of that was that in the event that during the
course of the planning consultants work, that the Town determines
that it's in it's interest to retain a consultant whether it's for
a specific improveament such as upgrading the Northeast sewers or
extending water to areas such as Elmira Road vtoch is one area we
have talked about in the past, he felt the consultant/planner needs
to understand that there is a dialoge that will take place between
the two and the other way around if the engineer doing the
designing would have to understand the planning criteria through
the Town staff that there would be a dialoge with the
consultant/planner as well.
Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, all the water and se\^r plans
that we have presently still have stages to go, so v^at you are
really talking about is engineering consultants as opposed to
planning consultants for water and sewer?
Supervisor Desch replied, right.
Coimcilwcman Raffensperger replied that she guessed that was the
confusion and perhaps it could be clarified in the document.
Supervisor Desch replied, perhaps it should say consultants, i.e.
engineers or you could take the word consultant out. You are
really talking about design function, basically.
The Tbwn Planner suggested it read, "of engineering consultants for
the design of specific "
Councilwcman Raffensperger remarked that she thought the Town
Planners suggestion was very clear.
Coimcilman Cardman questioned page 10, first paragraph, he asked if
he was reading it to iiiply that this series of phrases is to inform
the consultant that the Town will continue to go ahead in making
amendments to and modify what seme consider to be a ccnprehensive
plan in place?
Town Planner Beeners replied, essentially yes. It means that she
had assumed that staff would continue with priority revisions to
certain areas of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations
Town Board Minutes 23 August 29, 1988
that we still have scheduled as a priority, v^at Dooley Kiefer was
talking about as far as examining and revising the SEQR
threshholds. Another area she felt was improving the sufcmittal
requirements for different developnent applications so it was
intended that staff as well as the Codes & Ordinance Ccmmittee
would continue in that type of work.
Councilman Cardman replied that he had a couple of concerns that
the Board needs to make sure that the orderly continuation of
business of the Town can continue and we don't inhibit it. But he
personally does not recognize that there is a comprehensive plan in
place, he did not recognize Monte May's definition of what a
ccnprehensive plan is, v^t we have in place is a litany of those
documents, so to refer to a ccnprehensive plan as being in place he
objects to that being here. He stated that he did not know how you
can phrase what ^tou just esplained to me, he stated that he did not
think he had any problem with what the Town Planner just said to
him now and that we need to continue with those priority issues to
be brought before the Board and then can make sure they are in seme
kind of coordination with the progressive ccnprehensive plan. He
stated that he would like that couple of phrases worked at.
The Town Planner replied that she had expected for one thing, in
this sentence, we are talking about ccnprehensive planning for
purposes and ccnprehensive plan elements and process. On page 5
v^ere she describes the definition of ccnprehensive plan and its
elements she tried to set forth ^^t was consistent with the
definition of the ccnprehensive plan as is ccmmonly accepted and
also she described in here that critical element that is often
called a ccnprehensive plan and that is a land use plan. She
stated that it was her intent that it be this broad definition and
she still stood that this is the definition of a ccnprehensive
plan.
Councilman Cardman replied, given my interpretation of what was
said here we will have to get together and may be you can convince
me.
Supervisor Desch asked Coimcilman Cardman if he was concerned with
the conflict of time?
Councilman Cardman replied, no. That's a problem but that was not
one of the issues he was addressing here. He went on to say that
he was concerned that this gives every indication that we have a
carprehensive plan that is a document. He stated that in his
opinion we do not have that.
Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, but the Town Planner has
defined the comprehensive plan as defined in the State law and that
is as a variety of documents as long as she has defined it in that
way then it seemed to her that it was consistent, whether you think
it is adequate or not or the process or plan is adequate is
something different but as long as she has defined it as the series
of documents.
Councilman Cardman remarked to the Town Planner, your point is
Susan in that you are irrplying it to be only the continuation of
that process of the elements of the ccnprehensive plan to include
duly adopted ordinances, law, rules and regulations as well as
consiiLtants report, plans, reports, etc., etc. What you are saying
here is that it is also expected that existing staff will continue
in their assembly of data for ccnprehensive planning purposes and
that staff in coordination with the consultant will continue with
the inplonentation of a ccnprehensive plan elonent. Explain to me
again exactly vdiat you mean.
Town Board Minutes 24 August 29, 1988
Town Planner Beeners replied, vdiat I mean is that we will be
working on in the meantime is essentially those areas that have
already been established as priorities for improvement or further
development, v^ich may include the portions of the many laws and
reg\ilations and even examinations and refinements of pieces of
actual plans.
Supervisor Desch added, an example would be SEQR threshholds.
Town Planner Beeners stated that she thought she would be
presenting SEQR threshholds at the September meeting, a simmary of
proposed work and things that we will do.
Coimcilman Cardman replied, then it will be the Board's
responsibility to make sure we ask the question, "Has the
consultant been consulted and does this coordinate with his
planning method"?
Town Planner Beeners replied, right.
Supervisor Desch remarked that on page 9 there was a very important
subject that he felt the Board needs to hear from the public a
little more about and that is the proposal with regard to the
mombership of this ccnprehensive planning subccramittee. It makes
reference that the subccnmittee will most likely consist of two
members from the aforementioned boards that being the Planning
Board, the Zoning Board and the Town Board and two representatives
fron the community and would be appointed by the Town Board. He
felt the Board needed to discuss this and perhaps have some
feedback from the public. He stated that his impression was that
two members from the public, even if you did it on a geographical
basis, wouldn't quite give you the coverage that would seom to be
fairly basic.
Karl Niklas stated that he was glad the Supervisor raised that
issue because he had red lined a couple of comments he was going to
make on page 9 and how they relate to page 13. He stated that he
was encouraged about the Supervisor's comment that two members of
the public would probably not be representative and that probably
there should be many more. He stated that he would like to pursue
that at the level of the Town Board but he wanted to point out that
that sentence that you referred to on page 9 is actually saying two
things as far as he was concerned. One, it treats the composition
of the comprehensive planning subccmnittee and then it addresses
how many times its going to meet or contact, a minimum number of
contact meetings with the consultant. He stated that he would like
to see that split into two explicit statements. In other words,
the ccnprehensive planning subccmnittee will consist of "X" monbers
indicating how many and from v^ere followed by another sentence
saying how those people are going to be selected and by i^cm. That
followed by said ccmmittee will meet with consiHtants a minimum of
two times.
He went on to say that in that regard he would like to just point
out the little bit of vagueness that relates to page 13 i^ere it is
talking about the selection ccmmittee. This is only a matter of
wording, or at least wording so that we can understand it or I can
understand it. "Selection ccmmittee will review all p2X)posals
received.... The ccmnittee will consist of representatives of the
Town Board, Zoning Board, Planning Board, staff and the public.
Interestingly enou^, that sentence structure doesn't run parallel
to the sentence structure on page 9 that describes the
ccnprehensive planning subccmnittee and the inportance of that
parallel might be significant if you take into account the last
sentence on page 13, "The selection ccmnittee may consist of the
same members of the ccairprehensive planning s\±)ccmnittee". Also, we
Tcfwn Board Minutes 25 August 29, 1988
are all town residents and vihen you say on page 9 "town residents"
that doesn't indicate that there are people not drawn from elected
or public positions but representative of ccnntiunity structures. He
went on to again note the last sentence on page 13, '"The selection
ccnmittee may consist of the same members as the ccnprehensive
planning canmittee, he stated that he thought that was clear to a
lot of people but there is a potential for ambiguity and he would
like to have it cleared up. Does that mean that the selection
ccsnmittee will consist precisely or may consist precisely of the
same members as the ccnprehensive planning subccaimittee or does it
mean some manbers can serve on both? Also, v^y say may, he stated
that he guessed because it is opening 1:5) the possibility that the
two ccmmittees are identical and yet they have two very discrete
functions and he did not see a necessary advantage in having this,
essentially the same number of people, occupy two different
comnittees v^en in fact they are really asked to be in continuity
frcsn the selection process to the consultation process through the
presentation to the public. He stated that he would like the Board
to think about exactly and precisely what you mean.
Supervisor Desch questioned, isn't there a big advantage in having
the one canmittee serve botli purposes? There is scmething to be
said for the coranittee v^o has gone through the interview process
that asks the questions of the consultant that are related to the
Request for Proposal and then having that groi:^) of people make sure
that the consultant that is selected ccmplies with the answers. In
other words it almost becones part of the proposal that moves
forward so that there is a continuity that you gain by having the
same people follow the process all the way through. He stated that
was the way he read it v^en he went through it. The Supervisor
asked if other perceived that there were actually two ccnmittee?
Councilwoman Raffensperger replied that she thought one committee
was a good idea. She stated that she was curious v^y you thought
not?
Mr. Niklas replied that he never though not. His point was that if
they are really the same people, then stop referring to two
ccmmittees. Give than a name and say they are going through the
selection process and then they are going to be the principal
committee that will meet with the consultant and the Town staff
before their presentation to the Town Planning Board. He stated
that he thought it was an unnecessary level of complexity by
identifying two committees and he was not advocating that these be
only one, he was just drawing it to the Board's attention.
Supervisor Desch remarked, you can simply say that the
comprehensive planning subcommittee shall serve as the selection
committee.
Mr. Niklas agreed, noting that it was one of their duties, if that
is what the Town Board wants.
Councilwcmian Raffensperger asked, how many representatives from the
cotinunity at-large do anyone of you think is an appropriate number?
Dooley Kiefer remarked, a majority.
Mr. Niklas replied, there is a parallel in a sense, that the Town
Planning addendum that is identified here, identifies certain
sectors of the Town and it would seemed to him that a minimum of
two people fron each of those major regions would be an appropriate
number. But if you want to cut that down, v^at I am saying is that
each of those sectors should have a representative and if you don't
like the split in numbers you can have more people from the
individual boards to make up equal votes.
Town Board Minutes 26 August 29, 1988
Supervisor Desch replied, let's try it this way, you could have
three representatives from the conraunity, non-elected,
non-^^inted, two from the Planning Board, two from the Town Board
and one from the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board really does not
have the level of input into the cotprehensive planning pieces,
they are an enforcement body, and still not make the board so large
that we would have problems with logistics.
Mr. Niklas asked if there were only three areas?
Supervisor Desch replied, it depends on how you define them. He
stated that he was thinking of East Hill, West Hill and South Hill.
You could have four, that would be no problem.
Greg Wooster, 102 Juniper Drive stated that he had a question on
the representation, v^o will be appointed by the Town Board. He
asked if a representative of GINA wouldn't be an appropriate
representative?
Supervisor Desch replied that he thought that each of the
associations, and he was not sure v^at they are that are all out
there, would find it desirable to si±fnit the name of an individual,
if they can. It would be appropriate for than to submit a name.
Celia Bowers suggested that GINA submit a name and then West Hill,
East Hill and South Hill associations each submit a name.
Supervisor Desch asked that the names be submitted the September
12th meeting.
Councilwcman Raffensperger suggested that anyone \^o was here
tonight v^o wishes to submit their name should feel free to do so.
Laura Marks stated that one thing she would like to put under
consideration, as far as the proposed name of the independent
consultant woiild be that it be someone out of the Ithaca area. She
felt that we have Susan Beeners and George Frantz as people v^o
have a very good idea of Ithaca's needs and she felt it would be
good to have someone come in fresh.
Supervisor Desch remarked, six out of the seven names are from
outside of Ithaca.
Rosaline Grippi asked if there would be more discussion on the
proposed Request for Proposals?
Supervisor Desch suggested the date of September 7th be set for
receiving written coiiments on the RFP or call the Town Planner.
John Whitcomb asked vtot was the anticipated timetable for mailing
the RFP?
Supervisor Desch replied, as soon as we can get it approved.
Karl Nikas stated that he would just like to suggest that the
public owes the Town Board a round of applause.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was duly adjourned.
Tcfwn Board Minutes 27 August 29, 1988
n:p V
1^^
Clerk