Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-09-23 . TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 23 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Monday , . % September 23 , 1985 ( adjourned from September 17 , 1985 ) in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 12 : 00 o ' clock , Noon . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Edward Mazza , Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , James Baker , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Noel Desch ( Town Supervisor ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 12 : 10 p . m . , and asked Mr . Lovi to speak to the matter before the Board - - a Draft Amendment with respect to duplexes - - which required further discussion by the Board and , thus , had been adjourned at the last meeting . Chairman May noted that this discussion was important in view of the Ivar Jonson " cluster " proposal presently before the Board . • The document before the Board is set forth below : DRAFT AMENDMENT : Duplexes RESOLVED . That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend and hereby does amend the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as follows : A . " Duplex " is defined as " a two - family dwelling for which the second dwelling unit exceeds 750 of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit . Be Article III , Section 4 , Number 1 ( R9 ) is amended as follows : 1 . One Family Dwellings . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a one family dwelling : a ) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single family , such dwelling may be also occupied by not more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants . b ) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than • three . Co Article III , Section 4 , Number 2 ( R9 ) is amended as follows : Planning Board 2 September 23 , 1985 • 2 . A two family dwelling , provided that the second dwelling unit shall not exceed 500 of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit . Where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area , it may exceed 50o but shall not exceed 75 % of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit . A new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows : Duplexes , provided that the lot to be built upon has at least 50 % greater lot area and has no less depth or width than otherwise required by this Article . All side yard setbacks shall be 20 % greater than otherwise required by this Article . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a duplex : a ) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . b ) If one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than four . No more than three boarders , roomers , • lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . C ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than five . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . D . Article IV , Section 11 , Number 1 ( R15 ) is amended as follows : 1 . One Family Dwellings . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a one family dwelling : a ) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single family , such dwelling may be also occupied by not more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants . b ) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than three . E . Article IV , Section 11 , Number 2 ( R15 ) is amended as follows : • 2 . A two family dwelling , provided that the second dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 % of the floor area excluding the Planning Board 3 September 23 , 1985 • basement of the primary dwelling unit . Where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area , it may exceed 50 % but shall not exceed 75 % of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit . A new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows : Duplexes , provided that the lot to be built upon has at least 50 % greater lot area and has no less depth or width than otherwise required by this Article . All side yard setbacks shall be 20 % greater than otherwise required by this Article . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a duplex : a ) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . b ) If one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than four . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . • c ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than five . No more than three borders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . F . Article V , Section 18 , Number 1 ( R30 ) is amended as follows : 1 . One Family Dwellings . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a one family dwelling : a ) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single family , such dwelling may be also occupied by not more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants . b ) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than three . G . Article V . Section 18 , Number 2 ( R30 ) is amended as follows : 2 . A two family dwelling , provided that the second dwelling • unit shall not exceed 50 % of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit . Where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement Planning Board 4 September 23 , 1985 . area , it may exceed 50 % but shall not exceed 75 % of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit . A new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows . Duplexes , provided that the lot to be built upon has at least 50o greater lot area and no less depth or width than otherwise required by this Article . In no case shall the permitted lot size be less than that required by the Tompkins County Health Department . All side yard setbacks shall be 20 % greater than otherwise required by this Article . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a duplex : a ) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . b ) If one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than four . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a • unit . c ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than five . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . " Mr . Lovi stated that there was another " draft " which was in the hands of the Chairman only , being a somewhat different approach , which the Chairman had asked him to draw up . Chairman May passed this draft around the table . The document referred to by Mr . Lovi follows : " DRAFT AMENDMENT : Duplexes RESOLVED : That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend and hereby does amend the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as follows : A . " Duplex " is defined as " A residential building comprised of two semi - detached , single family dwelling units which share at least one common building wall . Each unit in a duplex may be owned by separate individuals . " • RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 Planning Board 5 September 23 , 1985 • Be Article III , Section 4 , Number 1 ( R9 ) is amended as follows : 1 . One Family Dwellings . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a one family dwelling : a ) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single family , such dwelling may be also occupied by not more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants . b ) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than three . C . Article III , Section 4 , Numbers 2 and 2a are deleted and a new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows : Duplexes , provided that the lot to be built upon has at least 50 % greater lot area and has no less depth or width than otherwise required by this Article . All side yard setbacks shall be 20 % greater than otherwise required by this Article . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a duplex : • a ) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . b ) If one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than four . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . C ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than five . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . D . To the Accessory Uses permitted in Article III , Section 5 , ( R9 ) is added the following : An accessory apartment which shall not exceed 500 of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit . Where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area , it may exceed 50 % but • shall not exceed 75 % of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit . The following occupancies shall be permitted in the accessory apartment : Planning Board 6 September 23 , 1985 • a ) If both the one family dwelling and the accessory apartment are occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than two . No more than one border , roomer , lodger or other occupant shall be permitted in either dwelling unit . b ) If either the one family dwelling or the accessory apartment is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in either dwelling unit . C ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than four . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in either unit . RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 E . Article IV , Section 11 , Number 1 ( R15 ) is amended as follows : 1 . One Family Dwellings . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a one family dwelling : a ) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single family , such dwelling may be also occupied by not more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants . b ) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than three . F . Article Iv , Section 11 , Numbers 2 and 2a are deleted and a new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows : Duplexes , provided that the lot to be built upon has at least 50 % greater lot area and has no less depth or width than otherwise required by this Article . All side yard setbacks shall be 20o greater than otherwise required by this Article . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a duplex : a ) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or • other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . Planning Board 7 September 23 , 1985 0b ) If one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than four . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . C ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than five . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . G . To the Accessory Uses permitted in Article IV , Section 12 , ( R15 ) is added the following : A two family dwelling , provided that the second dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 % of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit . Where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area , it may exceed 50 % but shall not exceed 75 % of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit . The following occupancies shall be permitted in the accessory apartment : a ) If both the one family dwelling and the accessory apartment are occupied by a family , then the total • number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than two . No more than one boarder , roomer , lodger or other occupant shall be permitted in either dwelling unit . b ) If either the one family dwelling or the accessory apartment is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in either dwelling unit . C ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than four . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in either unit . RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 H . Article V . Section 18 , Number 1 ( R30 ) is amended as follows : 1 . One Family Dwellings . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a one family dwelling : • a ) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single family , such dwelling may be also occupied by not more Planning Board 8 September 23 , 1985 • than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants . b ) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than three . i . Article V , Section 18 , Number 2 and 2a ( R30 ) are deleted and a new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows : Duplexes , provided that the lot to be built upon has at least 50 % greater lot area and no less depth or width than otherwise required by this Article . In no case shall the permitted lot size be less than that required by the Tompkins County Health Department . All side yard setbacks shall be 20 % greater than otherwise required by this Article . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a duplex : a ) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . • b ) If one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than four . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . c ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than five . No more than three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a unit . J . To the Accessory Uses permitted in Article IV , Section 12 , ( R15 ) is added the following : A two family dwelling , provided that the second dwelling unit shall not exceed 500 of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit . Where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area , it may exceed 50 % but shall not exceed 75 % of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit . The following occupancies shall be permitted in the accessory apartment : a ) If both the one family dwelling and the accessory • apartment are occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than two . No more than one Planning Board 9 September 23 , 1985 . boarder , roomer , lodger or other occupant shall be permitted in either dwelling unit . b ) If either the one family dwelling or the accessory apartment is occupied solely by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in either dwelling unit . c ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers and lodgers shall be no more than four . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in either unit . " Referring to the first draft amendment which was before the Board at its September 17th meeting , and before the Board at this adjourned meeting , Mr . Lovi noted that there is being proposed in this amendment a two - family dwelling , as spoken of in the existing Zoning Ordinance , however , the proposal is to change the permitted size of the second unit of that " two- family " dwelling so that it is no longer permitted , as it is under certain circumstances , to be 100 % of the " primary " unit . Mr . Lovi pointed out , however , that there is proposed a two - family dwelling that can be " 1000 " , which will be the . " duplex " . Chairman May pointed out that the other big change that occurs , within this broad frame of " duplexes " , is the potential for two - family ownership . Chairman May pointed out that a duplex could be two houses , with a common wall , owned by two separate people . Mr . Lovi commented that the way our existing ordinance is drafted and the way it is explained are , often times , two different things , and stated that our Zoning Ordinance says that two- family homes are permitted when , in fact , it is clear on many occasions that what is being permitted is an apartment , accessory to a single family home . Chairman May stated that the Ordinance says " two- family " but by the ordinance we could only have an apartment because you have to have side lots and similar requirements . Mr . Lovi stated that the present Zoning Ordinance only becomes a problem when someone proposes to cluster units and says , " Your Zoning Ordinance permits two - family houses on 15 , 000 square feet , and I could make fifty lots which meet that requirement and on each of those lots I am permitted a two - family house , therefore , I want to take 100 dwelling units and cluster them on the site and the way I want to do that is in fifty units of two . " • Mrs . Grigorov pointed out that the Planning Board can say , " You cannot do that . " Mr . Lovi agreed that the Board can say what it wants , however , in his opinion , it would not be supportable by the Planning Board 10 September 23 , 1985 • regulations and the past practices and reminded the Board of the two - unit clusters in Commonland . Mrs . Grigorov stated that the Board did not just have to give somebody cluster because there is no reason not to . Mr . Lovi stated that the State Legislature , when it gave a Town Board the authority to mandate cluster and , when our Town Board , acting on that , delegated that authority to mandate cluster to the Planning Board , it certainly did not say that every cluster proposal that someone brings in has to be accepted as it is presented . Mr . Lovi stated that the point is that " cluster " is a permitted type of development and two -unit clusters are not forbidden by the Cluster Regulations , Mr . Lovi pointed out that under the Cluster Regulations you could have one unit on smaller lots . Mrs . Grigorov stated that she did not agree with that . Mr . Lovi noted that the Cluster Regulations say that up to six units may be clustered in one building . Chairman May commented that he did not think the Board needed to argue that , however , the Planning Board does not see that plan [ Jonson ' s ] as a bona fide use of the Cluster Regulations . Mr . Lovi , commenting that he understood that and adding that that is not really at issue , stated that there should be a way of distinguishing between the different types of permitted dwelling units in the Town . Mr . Lovi pointed out that we permit one - family houses and we permit something we call two - family houses and stated that we are proposing to permit something we call " duplexes " . Mr . Lovi stated that the • question is - - what is a two - family house and how is it different from what we are going to call a duplex ? Mr . Lovi stated that what he is proposing and what is in this draft before the Planning Board is to assume as fact that the Town Board is going to restrict the size in the second dwelling unit to not more than 75 % of the primary unit , but , if it should exceed 75 % , it will be called a " duplex " . Mr . Lovi commented that there would be some gray area if he drafted the threshold somewhere else , for example , a person could say - - if 75 % is permitted but not over 100 % , what about giving me 800 ? Mr . Lovi , reiterating that there would be a gray area between 75 % and 100 % , stated that that is why the duplex amendment is defined to pick up where the definition of a two - family house will leave off . Chairman May stated that he thought our current zoning ordinance is wrong in calling it a two - family house - - it is a one - family house with an accessory apartment because , in our present ordinance , there is no way you can have dual ownership . Chairman May commented that now , by these drafts , we are setting up the duplex as being something entirely different . Mr . Lovi commented that it is a clear intent for a person to sell either side . Chairman May pointed out that it could have two sets of utilities and two different owners . Mr . Mazza wondered if this is to be built like the multiple housing code with fire walls , etc . Mr . Lovi stated that multiple applies to three or over . Mr . Mazza questioned under what codes would it be built . Mr . Lovi , responding that he did not know , stated that that was a question for the Building Inspector , however , in Commonland , there • are certain fire walls , etc . Chairman May asked the Secretary to send a note to the Building Inspector with respect to the question of what additional Planning Board 11 September 23 , 1985 • requirements , if any , there are for a two - family house with a common wall , and , do they differ from a single family house with an accessory apartment . Mr . Mazza pointed out three different scenarios which could occur in the case of a " duplex " - - ( 1 ) someone buys it and rents out both sides , ( 2 ) the owner lives in one side and he rents out the other ; or ( 3 ) two different owners who could either live there or rent out . Mr . Lovi stated that this first proposed amendment is one way of going at it and , on the basis of Chairman May ' s problems , he prepared the other draft for him . Mr . Lovi explained the differences in the one he prepared for the Chairman , commenting , just to get some issues out and discuss it . Mr . Lovi read , as follows : " A . ' Duplex ' is defined as ' A residential building comprised of two semi - detached , single family dwelling units which share at least one common building wall . Each unit in a duplex may be owned by separate individuals . " Mr . Lovi stated that this distinguishes the term " duplex " from the term " two - family dwelling " because of Chairman May ' s observation which he shared . Mr . Lovi stated that our zoning ordinance talks of a " two - family dwelling " as a permitted use , but it is really talking about a single family home with an accessory apartment , and the intent of the Town Board with respect to the amendment to reduce the • size to 75 % is yet additional evidence of that . Mr . Lovi pointed out that in one public meeting after another we hear members of the public talking of " single family " , " single family " , " single family " , and the inference is that these people think they live in single family residence districts when , in effect , the zoning ordinance says they do not . Mr . Lovi stated that there may be people who want it that way , so , to make the different aspects mesh , there has to be , some way of distinguishing the one - family , the two - family , the duplex , and , thus , he is proposing , essentially , doing away with " two - family houses " and consistently rewriting the R9 . R15 , and R30 permitted uses so that one family dwellings with accessory apartments are permitted . Mr . Lovi noted that duplexes are proposed to be permitted , with the somewhat larger lot requirements as are in the draft the Board has and , then , the accessory uses permitted are accessory apartments at 50 % , not to exceed 75 % . Mrs . Langhans wished to make sure that she understood that the two - family will not be called a " two - family " any more . Mr . Lovi responded that that was correct , adding that the " two - family " disappears . Mr . Lovi stated that all are one - family homes but you are permitted an accessory apartment and you are also permitted to have a duplex if the lot meets the additional lot requirements . Mr . Lovi commented that he had also thought about stating that you could not add an accessory apartment to each of the duplex units . Mr . Mazza• stated that he was lost as to why this duplex amendment is coming up now . Chairman May indicated that it was because Ivar Jonson is proposing duplexes on certain lots and he came with what was really a grid layout with duplexes which he proposes to sell to two different people . Mr . Lovi commented that at the first meeting Mr . Jonson indicated that he was not selling to different Planning Board 12 September 23 , 1985 • people , but at the next meeting he seemed to say that he might . Mrs . Grigorov stated that what Mr . Jonson said was that , right now , he can build them with a basement apartment , so why not build them side by side and get people out of the basement ? Mr . Mazza wondered if this duplex thing has been discussed at the Town Board level . Mrs . Grigorov commented that it has been discussed a lot more there than by the Planning Board . Chairman May stated that a duplex has the opportunity of selling to two individuals and this really creates a whole new storm . Mrs . Grigorov pointed out that that possibility is something Chairman May just brought up lately . Mr . Lovi stated that , if we have provisions in the Cluster Regulations that allow the Planning Board to restrict things like occupancy , density , etc . , then that is the vehicle to use . Chairman May wondered about restricting ownership . Mr . Mazza stated that he did not think reference to ownership is in the Cluster Regulations . Mr . Lovi noted that it still comes down to that fundamental question of whether the original proposal of Mr . Jonson for his two units , side by side , is to be considered under the cluster provisions . Mr . Lovi commented that it would have been appropriate for the Board to come up with a smaller number of units and say , for example that 90 is the number , and , for those he wanted to put up as duplexes , the Board would want those lots to be 50 % greater . Commenting further , Mr . Lovi stated that that would allow a project like Mr . Jonson ' s to go forward in a controlled manner and not get us into a zoning ordinance amendment where anyone may say , by right , here is my lot , it has 23 , 000 square feet and I want to build a duplex and he builds it and he sells it to two people . Mr . Lovi stated that he , once again , felt that the cluster provisions are the best way to handle this and the appropriate way to handle it , adding that if you go to this amendment , you get into a lot of other matters . Chairman May stated that he , personally , would not approve this project under the Cluster Subdivision Regulations , adding , however , there are a lot of other people on the Board who can speak to this too , and his is one vote only . Mrs . Langhans wondered if Chairman May meant that on individual lots he would not approve cluster , or did he mean the whole thing . Chairman May responded that he would not approve Mr . Jonson ' s proposal under the guise of a clustered subdivision . Mr . Mazza wondered why . Chairman May stated that he felt it was abusing cluster as we envisioned it . Mr . Mazza wondered what the difference , realistically , was between what Chairman May wanted to do with the amendment and the cluster provisions . Chairman May stated that there was more control with the amendment . Mr . Mazza stated that he thought the Planning Board loses more control under this amendment than under cluster . Chairman May commented that when we define the duplex then we have to add additional regulations as to how and what . Mrs . Grigorov offered that additional lot size would • Planning Board 13 September 23 , 1985 • be part of that . Chairman May stated that additional lot size is a start . Mrs . Langhans , recalling that at at the last meeting Mr . Klein mentioned a row of " duplexes " in Horseheads that just looks like the devil , stated that , however , it has been indicated here that we could control that . Chairman May stated that the definition is important , adding that the fact that a duplex can be sold individually opens up a whole new thing . Mrs . Grigrorov stated that if the duplex is to have separate owners , it is going to be a subdivision , asking , would people have to come in for subdivision approval which would help to control them ? Mr . Lovi stated that that was a good point , an important point , which did not occur to him when he drafted this . Mr . Lovi continued , thinking out loud , and asked Mrs . Grigorov - - okay - - you say it is a subdivision and , yes , there is a common wall , how can you allow that to occur and yet not allow someone to call it cluster ? Mrs . Grigorov pointed out that you have two owners , with Mr . Lovi responding , right . Chairman May responded that he did not think we want to call it subdividing . Chairman May stated that what he believed is that once we define this animal as a duplex , then we rewrite the way to do that . Mrs . Langhans wondered why Mr . Jonson does not want to keep his two - family houses up and down . Mr . Lovi responded that what he said • was - - " Why have people living in the basement ? " - - " Why not side by side ? " . Mr . Lovi recalled that Mr . Jonson also spoke of less driveways and the garage space which he was unable to provide any other way . Mr . Lovi suggested that marketability was also involved . Mr . Mazza pointed out that the Board ' s answer to both of these points is that you also avoid two owners . Chairman May stated that with two owners , a common wall , the maintenance thing becomes another problem , adding that a lot of things become a problem . Reference was made to the Commonland Community covenants . Mrs . Langhans wondered about yards , asking if the two owners would also put a fence down the back yard . Mr . Lovi stated , as a suggestion , whether a subdivision or not , that the question is that of a way to proceed . Mr . Lovi commented to Chairman May that he would probably not like his suggestion , to which Chairman May responded that that was fine . Mr . Lovi suggested , as to duplexes , take out the provision that duplexes can be sold separately , so , in other words , in all residential zoning districts you are allowed a one - family house , a one - family house with an accessory apartment 50 % of the primary unit or , if in the basement , up to 75 % , and , you are allowed a duplex , which may not be sold to separate owners , on a larger lot . Mr . Lovi commented that for someone like Mr . Jonson who is really not building duplexes like this , he is building attached single family houses and selling them , this would not be getting around the Cluster Regulations -- they • apply because they offer more control . Commenting further , Mr . Lovi explained that when we allow a duplex on an in - fill lot , 22 , 500 square feet , we are putting restrictions that they cannot be sold Planning Board 14 September 23 , 1985 • separately because that would be a subdivision and we are not going to allow that . Mr . Lovi pointed out that cluster allows zero lot line construction . Mr . Lovi suggested that , in our seeking to define what is going to happen , by speaking to covenants , by lot line restrictions , by addressing fencing , all as part of the site plan requirements , we already have the mechanism in the Cluster Regulations to do that , and commented , why muddy the waters by additional regulations . Mr . Baker indicated his agreement . Mr . Lovi stated that he was aware that it does make everyone very wary to say it in terms of Mr . Jonson , adding that he hated to discuss regulations in terms of one development , and further adding that he really felt this proposal should be considered under cluster . Chairman May offered that this approach lets one person , on one lot , build a duplex , to which Mr . Lovi responded , yes , adding that that person is allowed to build but not sell each unit in the duplex to separate persons . Mr . Mazza offered this scenario - - okay , I own one unit ; I have the deed in my name ; I sell Mrs . Langhans half by giving a deed to her and me , I keep my half and she keeps her half -- you have , in essence , two owners with undivided interest in the property . Mr . Lovi suggested that one could do that with any existing home . Mrs . Langhans offered another scenario -- I own the whole thing and I intend to make the other half a bed and breakfast . Mr . Mazza opined that you are losing some of your protections of zoning by opening up • that door . Mr . Mazza stated that he was wondering where we are trying to get on this , and asked Mr . Lovi if he were encouraging rentals since he was suggesting saying that they cannot be sold . Mr . Lovi offered that if the intent of the Town Board is to permit the construction of two -unit , attached housing , that is fine and this is one way of doing that , adding that , on the other hand , if it is their intention to restrict attached housing , this is also a way of doing it because it comes down to the question , how do you define what a duplex is . Mr . Lovi , noting that he was trying to write unambiguous regulations , stated that he had to come back to cluster for Mr . Jonson ' s project . Mr . Lovi , commenting that he had said this at earlier meetings and was called on the carpet about it , he thought unfairly , stated that he thought it was up to the developer ' s attorney to say why this is a cluster . Chairman May noted that under cluster , the Board does have a lot more power . Mrs . Grigorov pointed out that cluster has always had to do with open land . At this juncture , Mr . Cartee joined the Board and Chairman May asked him if the building code requirements between a single family home with an attached apartment and a home owned by two different owners with a common wall differ . Mr . Cartee responded , basically , no . Mr . Cartee continued and spoke of fire separation requirements as being what is applicable . Mr . Cartee stated that the thing with a duplex is the fire rating separating the units in a side by side manner versus the fire rating separating the units being the ceiling in an up and down . Mr . Lovi noted that it was , therefore , a matter • of the required fire wall separation being vertical rather than horizontal . Chairman May wanted to be sure that whether the unit is 50 % or more and is built in the basement or built next door , the same rating would be required so there is no difference between the two . Planning Board 15 September 23 , 1985 • Mr . Cartee stated that Chairman May was right . Mr . Cartee offered that in Commonland Community there is 8 " block in addition to the 5 / 8 " plus " x " rated sheet rock on both sides , over two , that is , the triplexes , for example , adding , however , that that is not required , but is the way Mr . Weisburd chose to do it . Chairman May noted that , therefore , there is not a question of a differentiation . Mrs . Langhans commented that , visually , an up and down looks like a single family house , the other looks like a row house , not a single family . Mrs . Langhans stated that she would think it would be very expensive . Chairman May commented that it opens up his market . Mrs . Grigorov pointed out that he does not have to make them equal , he could make one side smaller . Mrs . Langhans commented that she thought a developer would balk at single ownership . Chairman May pointed out that regulations should not be written for just one development . Chairman May stated that Mr . Lovi has raised some good points as to cluster , however , he would suggest that we need to address the duplex as far as two people owning . Chairman May , noting that the present zoning ordinance talks about two - family but does not permit two - family because it does not permit a common wall , stated that we need to work on that . Chairman May stated that what the duplex amendment does is open up honest - to -goodness two - family homes in R9 , R15 , and R30 . Mr . Lovi suggested that it be borne in mind the effect • that that seemingly innocent change , which seems reasonable , would have on the economics of clustering . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the Cluster Regulations say that a developer may not exceed the number of units which in the Planning Board ' s judgment , it decides could be built . Mr . Lovi noted that , in terms of drafting this , if the Board is telling him that about duplexes , it has to tell him the number of units with respect to clustering , adding that right now that number is two , provided the density is not over 3 . 5 per acre . Supervisor Desch , who had also arrived , commented that that would make the figuring of the total number of units much easier . Chairman May offered that he thought it should probably remain at two , but be more specific , adding that he thought the number was two , that is , " x " number of units , provided not more than 3 . 5 per acre . Mr . Lovi stated , in pulling this together for the Board ' s comments to the Town Board , he had three questions . Mr . Lovi stated that his first question was , do you believe that both units in a duplex should be permitted to be sold to separate owners . Chairman May responded , for himself , he had thought we needed a new definition of duplex which Mr . Lovi did for him and nobody has seen , and , once you have defined duplex then , yes , dual ownership . Mr . Lovi responded that , if yes , then it appeared to him that Mrs . Grigorov ' s point is appropriate , with the next question being , is that then a subdivision ? Chairman May stated that there is no question , whether we call it that or not , it has the effect of a subdivision and , therefore , he was back at the same old place - - we need to define and • then write a different set of regulations about what happens when you have a duplex . Chairman May suggested that it is not just a two - family home in a zone . Mrs . Langhans offered that , in her Planning Board 16 September 23 , 1985 • opinion , we will have to say - - it is not a subdivisions it is not a cluster , it is a duplex . Chairman May offered that all we are doing is adding another permitted use in the zoning districts . Mrs . Langhans wanted to make sure whether it can be in any of the districts . Chairman May stated that he had no problem with that . Mr . Lovi , commenting that if that is the approach that is taken , asked what the Board ' s feelings would be if the amendment were drafted so that a duplex were permitted by special permit , and the conditions of the special permit were these : that the lot shall be no less than 150 % and that the dimensions be no less than the minimum dimensions of the zone , and then the Planning Board or the Town Board would be free to add other conditions . Mr . Lovi noted that , this way , a person would not be able to come in as of right and get a building permit to build a duplex , adding that some board would have to find , or the Building Inspector , that the conditions of the special permit were met . Mr . Lovi stated that these rules would be unambiguous so that it does not come down to a " character of the neighborhood " type of thing . Chairman May stated that he thought it was not fair for that to be on the Building Inspector , adding that he thought the Planning Board should retain site plan approval on all duplexes . Supervisor Desch stated that there are so many possibilities that it makes it difficult to do otherwise . Chairman May agreed , stating that that is where he has had the problem , and adding that he did not think we can just arbitrarily permit duplexes without site plan approval . Mr . Lovi , commenting if you are going to • require that , wondered why not permit these as a cluster where the Board has site plan approval powers and has restrictions in place to put on , adding that there are so many more controls in the Cluster Regulations than under the zoning ordinance . Mrs . Grigorov pointed- out , ointedout , however , that no one could do it on one lot because of the minimum of 5 acres for a cluster . Mr . Lovi , wishing to make it clear that he was not here to make the developer ' s case , stated that he was here for the regulations , and further stated that he was suggesting that the regulatory mechanism is already there . Mr . Lovi commented with respect to the proposal which was before the Board a month ago , if the lot lines had been more clear and it had been drawn with a zero lot line , it would be similar to what was approved at Commonland . Mr . Lovi suggested that the Board could write covenants and all that stuff , and it could be unambiguously handled under the cluster provisions . Mr . Lovi suggested that , if the Board thinks that 102 units are too many , it can say - - staff , cut it down to 90 and we sharpen our pencils and if still too much - - fine . Mr . Lovi stated that that , to him , is the way to have control . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the present site plan approval section of the zoning ordinance does not let us do that , but the subdivision regulations do . Mr . Mazza stated that he , frankly , did not think he will see any difference as he drives by . Mr . Mazza , referring to the draft duplex amendment , wondered how we would make this as attractive as we want to the community , and stated that he sees less control . Chairman May • pointed out that it defines duplexes . Mr . Mazza stated that he thought , by the time we fill this out , we are going to see a lot like what we have under cluster . Supervisor Desch commented that the problem was one of too many duplexes in one place and not one of a cluster of duplexes solely . Mr . Lovi stated that that was a good Planning Board 17 September 23 , 1985 . point , adding that too many together contributes to an adverse quality , so , for that reason , we restrict the number that you could do on a case by case basis under the Cluster Regulations . Supervisor Desch wondered if we needed to take a look at the Cluster Regulations . Mr . Lovi responded , no , not really , adding that the proposal that was originally presented by the developer could properly be considered cluster by the Board and it could concentrate on the varieties of units , numbers of units , sitings of units , etc . , since there is so much more control than if we amend the Zoning Ordinance whereby , as Mr . Mazza has indicated , someone could come in fast and loose . Mr . Mazza wondered if deeds were proposed in the common areas . Chairman May stated that only the " park " has been been proposed . Mr . Mazza commented that , therefore , there would be no covenants or by - laws . Mr . Mazza stated that we have to check the cluster regulations to see what we are allowed to do as far as deed restrictions go . Mr . Lovi commented that what this project is very similar to , if you remember , is Mr . Novarr ' s proposal up on Dove Drive which was also a cluster , and in that case , the units were clustered in groups of four or five . Mr . Lovi noted that Mr . Novarr did show irregular lot lines and the Planning Board had a problem and said , how will people know where their boundary ends ? The Board indicated that Mr . Lovi had made a good point . Mr . Lovi stated that , for this proposal because it is around a more conventional subdivision plan , there is no reason to consider that aspect , and the " park " could be a common open space area . • Mr . Lovi stated that , as far as a mechanism through which we are able to review projects , the Cluster Regulations are something we have had for two or three years now and under these Regulations the Planning Board has as much control as it can have . Mr . Lovi commented that to build something new makes him apprehensive . Mr . Mazza stated that he tended to agree that cluster is the way to go , but we need to check out the Cluster Regulations to make sure we have the controls that we think we have , if , in fact , we would choose that route . Referring again to the draft , Mr . Mazza stated that we have looked at one side , now , the other side is what Mr . Lovi says which is that we have all these controls under cluster that we ever need . Mr . Mazza wondered if maybe we should look at this in terms of revising the zoning ordinance in terms of that . Chairman May stated that he had no problem with that , and added that he really wanted to get people out of the basement . Mr . Mazza conjectured that Mr . Jonson may go to the point of least resistance . Chairman May stated that his objection is not with a duplex , it is with the way we get to it . Chairman May stated to the Board , " Let ' s look at cluster again . " Chairman May also stated that he had trouble with it , he really did , as cluster , but , if it is the Board ' s opinion that cluster is appropriate , so be it . Mrs . Langhans commented that she thought the cluster proposal being on a grid pattern had been the source of the problem for• the Board . Chairman May stated that cluster means , to him , preserving open space and this plan does not . Mr . Lovi offered that it does . Mrs . Langhans wondered why , adding that there is more house on a bigger lot . Mr . Lovi responded , if you were going to . Planning Board 18 September 23 , 1985 build 90 single family houses , which is what they are considering , then a conventional subdivision would require the use of considerably more land than the present proposal . Chairman May stated that we have not preserved open space . Mr . Mazza stated that he understood what Chairman May was saying , but , what are we going to end up with up there if we adopt this draft ? Mr . Mazza stated that we are giving them another mechanism that gives less controls than cluster . Mr . Mazza stated that , under cluster , you could approve something that looks just like what is proposed under this draft . Mr . Mazza stated that you have more options under cluster . Mr . Lovi suggested saying that 90 units is the number - - 30 single family and 30 two - family all on 100 ' x 150 ' lots , but the rest is open space - - park and buffer , and wondered if that would be better . Chairman May responded that it could be better . Chairman May stated that it could be even better if they were fourplexes , and that way open space is preserved and he would be much more comfortable . Mr . Lovi stated , even if we do not talk about common open space , the Cluster Regulations allow for varieties of open space such as views and that sort of thing . There followed a discussion of " open space " . Mr . Lovi noted that under cluster we could get into a very high level of control . Mr . Mazza offered that you can call it what you will , but clustering gives more control . Mr . Mazza commented that he thought we had a conceptual problem here . It being well after 1 : 00 p . m . , Chairman May thought it would be best to stop . Everyone agreed it had been a very worthwhile • discussion . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the September 23 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 1 : 30 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .