Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1988-01-19TCWN OF ITHACA SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING January 19, 1988 At a Special Meeting of the Tdwn Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tcnpkins County, New York, held at the Town Offices at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 19th day of January, 1988, there were: PRESENT: Noel Desch, Supervisor Henry McPeak, Councilman Shirley Raffensperger, Councilvranan Robert Bartholf, Councilman Raymond Bordoni, Councilman Thanas Cardman, Councilman ABSENT: Patricia Leary, Coimcilwoman ALSO PRESENT: Robeirt Flumerfelt, Town Engineer John Barney, Town Attorney Doria Higgins, Citizens to Save Stewart Park Andrew Sciarabba, Chamber of Commerce Walter Slatoff, Citizens to Save Stewart Park Christian F. Oltz, Citizens to Save Stewart Park Representatives of the Media: Tcm Maskulinski, WTKO Elizabeth Ledkowsky, WVBR/FM 93 News PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAtO; The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSIDERATION OF A LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT ON EAST SHORE DRIVE FOR THE TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OF CCMMERCE AND RELATED USES Supervisor Desch noted that the Board had before them the revised local law on the matter of the Special Land Use District at East Shore Drive. The wording that came out of the public hearing held at the Regiilar January Town Board Meeting, has been inserted into paragraph 6"a", the additional words are in parenthesis. The hearing was closed at the January 11 meeting, the environmental review has been ccnpleted and the Town Attorney would like to make a ccniment about the procedural aspects of v^ere we go frcm here. Town Attorney John Barney stated that this change in the local law is a close question of \^ether its a substantive change or not. You hold a public hearing and you can then amend the local law and non-substative ways and go ahead and adopt it. But since we added this provision, v^ch in his view, was a substantive change it requires that the local law in it' s final form be in your possession or on your desk for seven days or mailed to you at least ten days before you adopt it. On reflection he felt because it was a substantive change also requires a new public hearing on that. He suggested to the Board that instead of considering the local law Town Board 2 January 19, 1988 today they set a date today for a hearing to be held at the next Board meeting. Supervisor Desch asked if there were any questions on the wording? Town Attorney Barney replied, that as he read it, he was wondering if the Board would like to add "or, if a building permit or a certificate of occupancy has been issued it shall be revoked" 1 RESOLUTION NO. 20 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the TOwn Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing to consider the amended local law to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide a Special Land Use District at 904-906 East Shore Drive for the Chamber of Coitinerce and related uses at 7:30 P.M., on February 8, 1988. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). Supervisor Desch noted that Doria Higgins had left a statement with the Board which will be included in the record and you can also have it put in the record, if you so choose, for the hearing coming up. He then asked her if she wished to add anything to it? (Copy attached to the minutes). Doria Higgins, Citizens to Save Stewart Park stated no, but one of the comments she makes here is that, she hoped her tone did not sound rude she means it to be courteous, but one of the coanraents ^ she made here that she did not think the Board always reads all of the data that is presented, or some people don't so she didn't want to bore the Board and that she did not particularly like reading her statement but she was afraid some of the Board won't read it if she doesn't read it out loud. Councilman Bordoni questioned, are you referring to your letter Ms. Higgins, that we won't read it? Ms. Higgins replied, yes. Supervisor Desch assured Ms. Higgins that everyone on the Board would read her letter. Councilman Cardman asked Ms. Higgins if she had a point, is there scanething we are not reading in there? Ms. Higgins replied, yes. If you had read carefully the full EAF that seme of the questions she had asked here would have occurred to the Board and they would have been asked before now. She stated that she thought there was a lot of internal evidence in the hearings and in the Board meetings that you have not read all of the data that has been presented to you. She stated that she did not mean all of the Board members as scxne are extremely well informed about it. She went on to say that for instance she had said why is question 6 not answered in either of the full environmental assessments? Councilwcman Raffensperger noted that the Board has a copy of the environmental assessment form in vAiich that is answered. Town Planner Beener remarked, that was answered at the Novatiber 16th meeting. That question and a couple of other ones on the form Town Board 3 January 19, 1988 were clarified and ccnpleted prior to the Board proceeding with the c.n.d. Ms. Higgins, speaking to the Town Planner, stated that her copy was dated 11/4, 10/2 and 11/4, so that would have be after. Then it's finally been answered. Supervisor Desch remarked, that he thought it was pretty clear that everybody has well in their mind the number 81 vehicles per hour. i Ms. Higgins went on to say that this is the one that asks "is the _' proposed action consistent with the reccanmended uses and adopted local land use plan"? Councilwcman Raffensperger noted that the Board did have a copy vhich was dated 11/16/87 in vhich this was answered and may be that could be provided to Ms. Higgins. Andrew Sciarabba asked vdiat the procedure would be after the February meeting, will there be a vote taken at that meeting? Supervisor Desch replied, yes. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING AND RESTATING THE ORDINANCE REGULATING TRAFFIC AND PARKING IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA Town Attorney Barney stated that \^en we considered this and adopted it at the last meeting, Councilwcman Raffensperger was \mder the inpression that seme language had been in the ordinance as previously presented to you, relating to Snyder Hill Road. He went on to say that his recollection was different and we were not able to turn up one that did show the language in earlier. The other problem is that in sxjbdivision "f", v^en we make a correction i with the ccatputer we only read the area that was corrected and we don't go back and read the other parts of it. It turns out, subdivision "f" had been typed over on the parking on Coddington Road so that the ccnputer revered to the prior language v^ch was not vdiat was intended. So he felt that in view of both of these concerns, it would be wise to readopt this ordinance with the correct language. Supervisor Desch asked about Roat Street? Robert Flumerfelt replied that he saw Roat Street on the list, the intersection with Blackstone, stop signs at both approaches of Blackstone to Roat and yield sign at the intersection of Orchard and Roat. Town Attorney Barney remarked, vtot is not on this one and one v^ch you have already set a public hearing for the February meeting is essentially the identical ordinance but adding a prohibition against parking on certain parts of Roat Street. You have two ordinances one that says with Roat Street added and one does not have that. The one with Roat Street added is the one you have alreacty set a public hearing for. The reason we did it this way is because we are not ccnpletely clear as to exactly \tet the people on Roat Street want. The thought was to go ahead and adopt frnm the one without Roat Street and then have the people cone in at the public hearing, advise the Town Board how they feel about it and then either adopt it or modify it to reflect their input. RESOLUTION NO. 21 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Coimcilwcman Raffensperger, Citizens to Save Stewart Park at Special Town Board Meeting to consider a local law establishing a Sp.ecial Land Use District January 19, 1988 \ I am Doria Higgins speaking for Citizens to Save Stewart Park. We would like to say today that we think it is a sorry commentary on the democratic process in the Town of Ithaca and in the City of Ithaca that exhortations from the citizenry have been ineffective in persuading those bodies to adhere to State law, rules and regulations. You all know, or should know in the positions of responsibility to which you have been elected, that spot zoning is illegal in New York State. And you know that there has been, no published comprehensive plan within which the presently proposed spot zoning, or "Special Land Use Plan" could be justified. When someone as well informed as Jon Meigs, Ithaca City Planner who has been involved for years in the planning for the Youth Bureau and the Master Plan for Stewart Park speaks up at the October Town Planning Board Meeting which he attended'as a representative of the City of Ithaca, and says that he is not aware of any such plan, one can be fairly sure that no such plan-had been made public or been adopted. He also said at that meeting that the site planning here proposed will"definitely change the character of the area" and that he "would not think it would be a change for the better." Along these lines we ask you today why Question 6 on page 5 of the Pull Environmental Assessment Form was not answered in either the original October 2 version or the revised October 21 version? That question reads: "Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans?" We v/onder if you failed twice to answer that questions because there isn't an adopted local land use plan,with which the proposed rezoning is consistent We also wonder why; there.is no mention of Stewart Park or of parkland in your answer to question 7 on page 5 which reads: "What aire the predominant land use and zoning classification within I ^ i mile radius of the proposed action?" Why does your answer to I question 12 page 5 say there will not be a significant generation ^ of traffic above present levels and your answer to question B,g, page 3 say that traffic up to 81 vehicles per hour will be generated? If you had read carefully the Pull EAP on which the condional negative declaration is based surely these questions would have occiired to you. We can't help feeling that some of* you may have made up your minds before the data was in and therefore did not feel the need to study data. At the Public Hearing January 11 your Chairman, Mr. Desch . insisted, that the city land being made available to the Chamber of Commerce was not city park land. Item 5.23 in the Ithaca City Charter most definitely snows that the land la park land and it further shows jU^t the Youth Bureau itself is on city park land. At this point it seems that our onlyrecourse in trying to ensure that you our elected representatives follow State rules and regulations is to take you to Court. Until now we had uiscounted that avenue mostly because we had expected that you could be persuaded to follow rules and regulations. At this time we will have to reconsider our options. TCfwn Board 4 January 19, 1988 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:10 P.M., on February 8, 1988 to consider the current amendment to the Traffic Ordinance. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). VISTA LANE RESOLUTIC^ NO. 22 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Bartholf, WHEREAS, Vista Lane has been ccxipleted to Town Highway Specifications, with the exception of minor paving work to be corrected or ccnpleted this spring, and WHEREAS, Ec3ward A Mazza, Esq. and Dell L. Grover, developers of Cayuga Vista Subdivision, have requested that the Town of Ithaca accept Vista Lane as a Town Highway, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca accepts and hereby does accept Vista Lane as a Town Highway i:^n transfer of a warranty deed acceptable in form to the Town Attorney, and upon furnishing security in the form of a letter of credit or escrow account satisfactory to the Town Attorney in the amount of $3,000 for the satisfactory performance of paving corrections/coripletion. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). ^ ZaSUNG ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS Supervisor Desch stated that Henry Aron, as Chairman of the Codes & Ordinance Conmittee suggested that the Town Board might wish to schedule a public hearing to modify Section 56 of the Zoning Ordinance vMch has to do with restoration and the non-conforming uses. The wording that the Codes & Ordinance Comnittee came up with follows: "Nothing herein shall prevent the continued use in substantial restoration of a building damaged by fire, earthquake, act of God, act of the public enemy or catastrophe beyond the control of the owner, provided such restoration is ccnpleted within one year of the loss of the building and provided that the use of the building in the manner in v^ich it was used prior to the loss is reccmmenced within one year, the time limit may be extended by the Board of l^peals in the cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship". He went on to say that the idea would be to have a hearing on February 8th. Councilwcsnan Raffensperger remarked, the change in it has to do with the percentage? Town Attorney Barney replied there on two changes, one has to do with the percentage, right now it's 75% destroyed and the other is the time period, right now it's six months and this extends it to ^ one year. i Supervisor Desch questioned, the concern with Turback's being that imder the present wording, as a practical hardship, would probably not be able to ccnplete it within six months? Town Attorney Barney replied, to be honest with you, he felt that any major building destroyed now there is so much negotiations that Town Board 5 January 19, 1988 goes on before you know if you are going to have any money and how much money you are going to have to rebuild, that takes weeks, months, and the six month period seems very short to rebuild something like Turbacks. Even a year may be a little tough but they have the option to come before the Zoning Board of i^peals for an extension. RESOLUTION NO. 23 Motion by Councilman Bordoni; seconded by Councilwanan Raff ensperger, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:45 P.M., on February 8, 1988 to consider an amendment to Section 56 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Desch, McPeak, Raff ensperger, Bartholf, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). Supervisor Desch mentioned the Kyong proposal v^ch was presented the to Town Board at their January 11th meeting, they will be back in with more information on the 8th of F^ruary. He went on to say that it was likely that they will be going directly to the Planning Boaard with a straight forward rezoning proposal, not a Special Land Use District. It would be a Business B and Multiple Residence Zone. So the referral may no longer be valid but the staff and he are putting together an approach having to do with impact so that hopefully we will have information available ahead of our February meeting. Supervisor Desch noted that interviews were held today for the Highway Superintendent's position. There were three people and hopefully we will beable to come back on the 8th with a candidate. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was duly adjourned. Town Clerk