HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-10-15 ' 1
w,
• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 15 , 1985
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , October 15 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Virginia Langhans , Barbara Schultz ,
Edward Mazza , Carolyn Grigorov , David Klein , Peter M . Lovi
( Town Planner ) , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Nancy M .
Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : E . L . Rose Gostanian Monkemeyer , Janette McCord , Ronald
Scarofile , Arnold Albrecht .
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and
accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on October 7 , 1985 and October 10 , 1985 , respectively ,
together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the various neighbors of the subdivision under discussion ,
upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the
Applicants , as party to the actions , on October 10 , 1985 .
• DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STUDIES
HOUSING 1980 - 1985
- - TRAILER PARK LOCATION
Mr . Lovi stated that he would like to inform the Board about a
planning study that he has been working on , although he did not have
the full report at this time . Mr . Lovi stated that he has been putting
together , using the Lotus on the PC , a model of all the building
permits issued since 1980 . Mr . Lovi described the approach he was
using which involves noting the one family homes , the two family homes ,
construction costs , number of units , where it occurred , square footage
of buildings , its rooms , and so on . Mr . Lovi noted that when one looks
at the cost of a particular building , it is the cost as the builder
described in the building permit , so it could be that some show the
cost of construction and some show the selling price . Mr . Lovi
commented that this could be a problem , but in working with larger
numbers of permits , it tends to even out . Mr . Lovi stated that he has
adjusted the figures to 1985 real dollars and will indicate the average
cost per square foot and the average number of rooms and how the
construction size and construction costs differ throughout the Town .
Mr . Lovi stated that he will make up the graphics for this study ,
adding that he has worked it out on the computer . Mr . Lovi , commenting
that there have been changes over the last three years , stated that one
startling statistic is that , overwhelmingly , new construction is for
single family housing . Mr . Lovi stated that ten out of every eleven
• homes are for single family units . Mr . Lovi pointed out that this
study does not include retrofits , adding that he will eventually look
4
Planning Board 2 October 15 , 1985
• at the whole picture . Mr . Lovi stated that this study is of new
housing , every month , and added that the changes from 1980 are
interesting .
Chairman May agreed that this was extremely interesting and
commented that the dollars may not be that important . Mr . Lovi
commented that the number of rooms is falling , but the size is pretty
constant , adding that there appear to be fewer rooms but of a slightly
larger size .
Mr . Lovi asked Mr . Klein , as an Architect , if he had seen any such
occurrences . Mr . Klein stated that his firm does not do that much
housing but , from what he has read , the average size of housing is
shrinking .
Mr . Lovi commented that , while attending the New York State
Affordable Housing Conference recently , adding that this study is
timely with that , he found that the Town of Ithaca is not alone in the
issues it faces . Mr . Lovi stated that other Towns are facing the same
sort of concerns and issues that our Town is with respect to infill
construction , zero lot lines , cluster development , and other concepts ,
and , are finding their way , as we are , of working that out and fitting
it all to their existing community and with the economics of the area
and with several builders working with various options - - for example ,
Commonland Community with duplexes , triplexes , and so on . Mr . Lovi
commented that these varied types of development and the problems
• incurred and dealt with are very common . Mr . Lovi expounded on the
idea that people , when they are looking for new housing - - more than in
the past - - one of the things that marks the new couple when they go
out and buy is the idea that , if they can afford $ 80 , 000 . 00 , they go
out and buy it and there is very little being held in reserve . Mr .
Lovi stated that it appears that they want the most house that they can
buy for their dollars , and added the comment that , as in Commonland ,
one can see that the modest house is now becoming a larger house and
Mr . weisburd is meeting that market . Mr . Lovi commented that it has
taken a lot of time to collect the data and work out the graphics , but
he is quite excited about it .
Chairman May thanked Mr . Lovi and asked if there were any other
questions from the Board . There were none .
Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi if he wished to discuss the next
Agenda Item - - Trailer Park Location . Mr . Lovi stated that he did not
want to discuss that particular item now , but , he would like to mention
that , at the Town Board Meeting , Town Attorney Barney had a very good
question that he brought up with respect to the Zoning Ordinance .
Town Attorney Barney referred the Board to Item # 5 on Page 1 of
the current Zoning Ordinance which , he commented , we are tinkering
with . [ " 5 . Family : A family consists of one or more persons related
by blood , marriage or adoption . " ] Town Attory Barney noted that the
• only change which is being discussed is the replacing of the word " one "
with the word " two " . Town Attorney Barney offered that the problem is
that if only that is changed without attaching a definition of " one " ,
" two " , " three " , in Items V . # 8 , and # 9 , it seemed to mean that only
Planning Board 3 October 15 , 1985
• two or more is a family , therefore , we should also amend numbers 7 , 8 ,
and 9 , and , 10 , to allow a single person . Mr . Lovi stated that he
certainly agreed that there was a need to add " single person " type of
wording , and he would suggest adding " or a single family " . Mrs .
Langhans agreed .
Mr . Mazza , referring to Page 5 , # 2a , Page 9 , # 2a , and Page 12 ,
# 2a , and commenting that he had raised this point about seven years
ago , stated that , where the ordinance says that there may be up to
three unrelated persons , and no more , in either a single family house
or a two family house , and then goes on with the two family with a
family in one there can be two boarders , and so on , it also says ,
which , if read together with neither unit occupied by a " family " , that
is impossible , and , further , that there could be four unrelated persons
in a two family if you read paragraph 2a , sub -paragraph ( 1 ) . Mr . Mazza
commented that if you change family to two persons , we are now talking
six . Town Attorney Barney stated that Mr . Mazza ' s point was well
taken . Continuing , Mr . Mazza pointed out , however , that under " this "
as two , or a single person , you still have the possibility of four .
Mr . Lovi commented that that is why Items # 7 , 8 , and 9 [ Page 1 of the
Zoning Ordinance ] should be changed .
Mr . Lovi stated that , if he may , he would like to speak briefly on
the matter of duplexes . Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi to continue . Mr .
Lovi stated that , if the Town Board considered the present development
as " cluster " [ Ivar Jonson , Honness Lane ] , then the Planning Board can
• step back and take a longer look at duplexes . Mr . Lovi stated that the
matter of the proposed amendment with respect to duplexes , basically ,
has been tabled pending further discussion and recommendation from the
Planning Board . Chairman May pointed out that this has been done only
if there is a more traditional cluster arrangement presented . Mr . Lovi
stated that , without getting into too much of the specifics , he did
receive , today , a plan and EAF from Mr . Jonson and his engineer , Mr .
Albern , and it is their intention and expectation to appear before the
Planning Board , at Public Hearing , on October 29th , Mr . Lovi stated
that the plan which they are showing has a mix of conventional lots
with restrictive covenants in the deeds to assure single family homes ,
and , showing interior lots , which would be larger lots , on the order of
20 % - 300 - 400 larger , but which would have a duplex - - attached , zero
lot line homes - - on them . Mr . Lovi stated that he [ Jonson ] has a
typical cluster plan showing the same common driveway , adding that he
[ Lovi ] did not see more than two units clustered in any one building
and , so , the number of units continues to decrease . Mr . Lovi stated
that he thought this plan is about 85 which is down about ten from the
last time and down about ten more from the beginning . Mr . Lovi , noting
that the 3 . 5 per gross acre requirement would result in 112 units ,
stated that the proposal they are bringing in is 85 which is about
three - fourths of that total . Mr . Lovi , commenting that he understood
that the Board would like to see something like a traditional cluster ,
stated that there are aspects of this plan which are like a traditional
cluster plan , and added , however , that the Board should not expect to
• see triplexes or quadplexes .
Planning Board 4 October 15 , 1985
• Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi if there were anything else he wished
to report on . With Mr . Lovi responding , not at this time , Chairman May
thanked Mr . Lovi for his presentations .
OLD BUSINESS
Chairman May stated that he would appreciate having a Motion on
the next meeting date of the Board since it will not be meeting on
November 5th , Election Day , by policy . Chairman May stated that the
October 29th meeting will essentially be the " first " meeting of the
month .
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhanse
RESOLVED , that the regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board for the month of November 1985 will be held on Tuesday , October
29 , 1985 , commencing at 7 : 30 p . m . , as usual , it being that the first
Tuesday of the month of November , November 5th , is Election Day .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Schultz , Mazza , Grigorov , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
• PUBLIC HEARING : PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR A 2 - LOT SUBDIVISION
OF . 812 ACRES AT 1048 DANBY ROAD ; TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 ,
6 - 39 - 1 - 12 , JANETTE McCORD AND RON SCAROFILE , OWNERS / SUBDIVIDERS .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted
and published and as noted above . Both Ms . McCord and Mr . Scarofile
were present .
Chairman May invited Ms . McCord to tell the Board about her plans .
Ms . McCord stated that she and her husband would like to divide the
property so that the existing house has one lot and they have another
lot so that they can build another house . Ms . McCord stated that the
second house would be a two - family which they would be living in . Ms .
McCord stated that the sketch shows parking for both lots . Ms . McCord
stated that they would still own both lots and both houses .
Chairman May , and the Board members , reviewed the Survey Map which
they had before them and which described the driveway and parking area
for both the existing house and the proposed house . The Survey Map is
entitled " Survey Map of Janette McCord & Ronald Scarofile Parcels " ,
1048 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , State of New York ,
dated October 8 , 1985 , signed and sealed by R . L . MacDowell , Jr . ,
N . Y . S . L . L . S . , Reg . No . 35421 .
• Mr . Lovi , noting , for the Board ' s information , that Ms . McCord has
met with both Mr . Cartee and him , pointed out that the penciled
Planning Board 5 October 15 , 1985
• sketches showing the driveway , parking , and proposed house , have been
extensively described and they meet all requirements of the R9 zone .
Mr . Mazza inquired of Mr . Lovi if they were going to have to get a
variance . Mr . Lovi stated that no variances are needed . Mr . Klein
wondered about the frontage requirement for R9 being 80 feet , minimum .
Mr . Lovi pointed out that Article III , Section 9 , Paragraph 3 , permits
a minimum width of 60 feet when both public water and sewer are
available . Mr . Klein commented that he would then assume that water
and sewer is there . Mr . Lovi stated that they were both available and
shown on the plan .
Chairman May asked if there were any other questions . Mr . Mazza
wondered what would happen if the existing house got sold separately
and asked if there were going to be an access driveway for that lot .
Ms . McCord stated that there is not one now , but there could be in that
eventuality . Mr . Mazza wondered if the Board should include ingress
and egress for , say , that new lot . Mr . Lovi described the situation ,
commenting that the existing lot controls its own destiny . Mr . Klein
asked if the one proposed lot with the existing house on it with a
proposed 81 - foot frontage meets the regulations , with Mr . Lovi
responding , yes . Chairman May noted that , therefore , it would appear
that both lots meet all the regulations . Mr . Lovi stated that they
do . Mr . Mazza asked if the existing house is hooked up to public
sewer . Mr . Scarofile stated that it was .
Chairman May asked if there were anyone present from the public
• who wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May asked the Board to
turn to the matter of the EAF .
The Board reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form as
completed , signed , and submitted by Janette McCord under date of
September 23 , 1985 , received October 11 , 1985 [ Part I ] , and as reviewed
by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , [ Parts II and III ] under date of
October 11 , 1985 , and recommending a negative declaration of
environmental significance . For the record , Mr . Lovi ' s review follows :
" This project is not expected to have a significant effect on the
environment and I recommend a negative declaration . The reasons
supporting this determination are : 1 ) The technical appendices to our
Comprehensive Plan do not indicate any environmental aspects which
could adversely impacted [ sic . ] to any significant extent . 2 ) This
project meets all the requirements for a two - lot subdivision . 3 ) The
house to be constructed on the site meets the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and all one and two - family houses are Exempt actions . "
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . David Klein :
WHEREAS :
1 . This project is an Unlisted action for which a Short Environmental
Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public
Hearing on October 15 , 1985 .
• 2 . A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the
Town Planner .
Planning Board 6 October 15 , 1985
• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead
Agency for the environmental review of this project .
2 . That this project is determined to have no significant impact on
the environment and a negative declaration of environmental
significance shall be and hereby is made .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Schultz , Mazza , Grigorov , Klein .
Nay - None . ,
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May asked the Board to turn to the matter of the request
for preliminary subdivision approval .
Mr . Mazza offered , posed as a question , that it was not
appropriate , he supposed , to talk about the duplex aspect of this when
it is a subdivision request only . Mr . Lovi stated that the proposed
house is not a duplex ; it is a two - family house . Mr . Klein opined that
he did not think it appropriate to speak about a duplex , adding that
anything that is built would require a building permit and , if it
turned out to be a duplex , that could be addressed at the time of
application for a building permit for a duplex . Mr . Mazza commented
that he really did not think it appropriate , adding that he was just
thinking out loud .
MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
WHEREAS .
1 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment
Form for this proposed subdivision and has made a determination of
negative environmental significance .
2 . The Planning Board has reviewed this subdivision at a Public
Hearing on October 15 , 1985 .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the following
requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval , having
determined that such waiver will result in neither a significant
alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies
enunciated or implied by the Town Board :
a ) four dark - line prints of the proposed plat .
b ) Contour intervals , to USGS datum , of not more than two feet
. when the slope is less than four per cent and not more than
five feet when the slope is greater than four per cent .
Planning Board 7 October 15 , 1985
• c ) Cultural features within and immediately adjacent to the
proposed subdivision .
d ) Direction of flow of all water courses .
e ) Location and description of all section line corners and
government survey monuments in or near the subdivision .
f ) Addresses of all owners abutting the proposed subdivision .
g ) Natural features within and immediately adjacent to the
proposed subdivision .
h ) Vicinity map showing the general location of the property .
i ) Border lines bounding the sheet , one inch from the left edge
and one - half from each of the other edges .
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of property presently
known as 1048 Danby Road , and presently designated as Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 39 - 1 - 12 , into two lots , as presented and
described on a Survey Map prepared by R . L . MacDowell , Jr . , dated
October 8 , 1985 .
3 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the
requirements for Final Subdivision Approval ,
4 . That the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
endorse the plat .
• 5 . That no building permit shall be issued for new construction on
this property until a copy of the above - referenced survey map has
been filed in the office of the County Clerk .
6 . That a copy of this resolution shall be immediately delivered to
the Town Clerk for distribution to the Town Board .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Schultz , Mazza , Grigorov , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Town Attorney Barney commented that he thought , maybe , the Board
should think about , technically , waiving preliminary approval and
granting final approval .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the
McCord / Scarofile two - lot subdivision duly closed at 8 : 19 p . m .
Ms . McCord and Mr . Scarofile thanked the Board for its time and
consideration .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITION TO
AN EXISTING MANUFACTURING BUILDING ON THE GROUNDS OF THERM , INC . TOWN
• OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 54 - 2 - 1 , ARNOLD ALBRECHT , REPRESENTATIVE .
Planning Board 8 October 15 , 1985
• Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
duly opened at 8 : 20 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public
Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Albrecht was
present .
Chairman May stated that he would have the record show that , due
to possible conflict of interest , he will not be entering into any
discussions on this matter . Vice Chairman Grigorov took over the
Chair .
For the record , the Board members each had before him/ her the
following documents .
1 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed , signed , and
submitted by Arnold J . Albrecht under date of October 11 , 1985
[ Part I ] , and as reviewed by and recommended upon by the Town
Planner , Mr . Lovi , under date of October 11 , 1985 [ Parts II and
III ] . Mr . Lovi ' s recommendation reads : " This project is not
expected to have a significant impact on the environment and a
negative declaration is recommended . The reasons supporting this
determination area 1 ) The technical appendices to our
Comprehensive Plan do not indicate any areas of particular
environmental concern which could be adversely affected by a
project of this small magnitude . 2 ) The project is in keeping
with the zoning of the area . 3 ) A site plan will be approved
• before construction may proceed . 4 ) The construction will be
inspected by our Building Inspector to insure that the terms and
conditions of site plan approval are met . "
2 . Drawing , entitled " Plot Plan , Property and Buildings , THERM " ,
dated March 1985 , showing existing buildings , topography , and
proposed 14 ' x 40 ' addition ( in red ) .
3 . Drawing , entitled " Inspection Dept . , Extension , D , THERM " , dated
October 11 , 1985 .
4 . Draft Resolution with respect to Environmental Assessment ,
5 . Draft Resolution with respect to Site Plan Approval ,
Mr . Albrecht appeared before the Board and stated that the
addition is for Quality Control and is a part of Therm ' s inspection
area . Mr . Mazza , noting that Mr . Albrecht had indicated that this is
an area that is going to be used for inspection , asked if there were
any doors or accesses other than from the inside . Mr . Albrecht pointed
out to Mr . Mazza and the Board the doors and access ways shown on the
Drawing entitled " Inspection Dept . , Extension - - D " , and described how
they are to be utilized .
Mrs . Schultz asked if the addition were to be at ground level , to
which Mr . Albrecht replied , no , adding that it will be four feet above
• ground with a crawl space . Mr . Mazza wondered what the crawl space was
for , with Mr . Albrecht stating that it was for air . Mr . Albrecht
described the other rooms involved in the Inspection Department . Mr .
Planning Board 9 October 15 , 1985
• Albrecht also described the building as a concrete block building with
a poured concrete basement wall and a steel roof .
Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were anyone present who
wished to speak to the matter of the Therm addition . No one spoke .
Vice Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 25 p . m . , and
asked the Board to turn to the matter of the EAF .
MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz :
WHEREAS :
1 . This project is an Unlisted action for which a Short Environmental
Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public
Hearing on October 15 , 1985 .
2 . A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the
Town Planner ,
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead
Agency for the environmental review of this project .
2 . That this project is determined to have no significant impact on
• the environment and a negative declaration of environmental
significance shall be and hereby is made .
There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Langhans , Schultz , Mazza , Grigorov , Klein .
Nay - None .
Abstain - May .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if the Board were ready to consider
the matter of Site Plan Approval .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza :
WHEREAS :
1 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment
Form for the proposed 14 - foot by 40 - foot extension to the Therm ,
Inc . inspection department and has made a determination of
negative environmental significance .
2 . The Planning Board has reviewed a site plan at a Public Hearing on
October 15 , 1985 .
• THEREFORE IT IS RE
v SOLVED .
Planning Board 10 October 15 , 1985
• 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the following
requirements for site plan approval :
a ) Description of property lines , including metes and bounds .
b ) Location of adjacent public streets .
c ) Area and location of parking .
d ) Location of off - street loading and access drives .
e ) Location and description of proposed signs and lighting .
f ) Location and description of proposed landscaping and other
features .
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Site
Plan Approval to the Site Plan entitled " Plot Plan , Property and
Buildings , THERM " , dated March 1985 , as presented .
There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Langhans , Schultz , Mazza , Grigorov , Klein .
Nay . None .
Abstain - May .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the Therm , Inc .
• addition duly closed at 8 : 35 p . m .
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
1 . Family
No discussion .
2 . Duplexes
No discussion .
3 . Satellite Dishes
Each of the Board members had before him / her the following
two -page document .
" DRAFT AMENDMENT : Dish Antennae
RESOLVED :
That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend and hereby does amend
the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca by adding the following
definition :
' Dish Antenna ' is defined as ' A large parabolic antenna used to
• receive television , radio , microwave , or other electronic signals
from orbiting satellites . This device may also be known as a
satellite antenna or satellite earth station .
Planning Board 11 October 15 , 1985
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED :
That a new Section shall be added and hereby is added to Article XIII ,
General Provisions , to read :
Dish Antennae . Free - standing and roof -mounted dish antennae shall
be prohibited from all districts except as follows :
1 ) In Residential Districts R9 , R15 , and R30 , and Agricultural
Districts , a free - standing dish antenna with a diameter or
height of 15 feet or less shall be considered a permitted
accessory building and subject to all applicable yard and
height requirements .
2 ) In all other zoning districts , free - standing or roof -mounted
dish antennae with a height of 15 feet or less may be
permitted following site plan review by the Planning Board .
In the site plan review , the Planning Board shall consider :
a ) the aesthetic effect of such antenna and the effect on
neighborhood property values ;
b ) the accessibility of the particular property to
commercial cable television service ;
• c ) the location of the property and its effect on the
physical effectiveness of the dish antenna ;
d ) landscaping , berming , and buffering .
3 ) No dish antenna may exceed 15 feet in height when measured
vertically from the highest exposed point of the antenna ,
when positioned for operation , to the bottom of the base
which supports the antenna .
4 ) No dish antenna may be located on any trailer or portable
device . However , a portable or trailer - mounted antenna may
be placed on a lot by an antenna installer for a period not
to exceed one week for the purpose of determining the most
acceptable place for a permanent installation .
5 ) A dish antenna located on a building within 200 feet of an
R9 , R15 , or R30 zone shall not exceed 6 feet in height above
the roof height at the building line .
6 ) The installation of all roof -mounted dish antennae must be
certified by a registered architect or professional engineer .
7 ) No such antenna or device shall be abandoned unless the owner
removes same from the premises and restores the surface of
the ground to its original grade and approximately the same
• condition as before the antenna or device was installed .
Planning Board 12 October 15 , 1985
8 ) Applicability . Regulations on dish antennae apply to all
types of installations , such as .
a ) Dish antennae serving more than one user on a single
lot , such as apartments in an apartment complex , mobile
homes in a mobile home park , or separate business
establishments in a single business buildings
b ) Dish antennae operated by commercial , regulated cable
systems ;
c ) Dish antennae which serve one user on one lot . "
Mr . Lovi noted that this document had been discussed in September
and the only change was in item # 4 , on page 2 , in the first line where
the words " any trailer " should be taken out .
Chairman May pointed out that that was not what the Board changed
because " trailer " could mean " mobile home " or " recreational vehicle " ,
so it would be " trailer or " that should be taken out . This prompted a
lengthy discussion of items # 3 , # 4 , and # 5 in parallel . Town Attorney
Barney offered the following suggestion for the first sentence in item
# 4 : " No dish antenna may be located on any portable device , including
a trailer , designed principally for the transportation of such dish
antenna . " The Board members accepted Town Attorney Barney ' s
• suggestion .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he was having trouble with item
# 2 , page 1 , which seems to say that an antenna may never be more than
15 feet high .
Mr . Lovi stated that for existing commercial and multiple
residence zones , if someone were proposing to come in and put in an
antenna , for benefit of the people who have purchased adjacent property
with certain expectations , that is where site plan should click in .
Chairman May stated that he would question that the Board has the
authority to do this under the proposal from the FCC . Chairman May
read , as followss " The proposed FCC rule preempts any local zoning
that discriminates against satellite dish antennas in favor of cable
television or other communication systems . The rule also requires that
local zoning ordinances for dish antennas have a ' direct and tangible
relationship to reasonable , valid , demonstrable , and clearly
articulated health , safety , or aesthetic objectives and constitute the
least restrictive method to accomplish such objectives . ' "
Chairman May suggested that item # 2 speak of dish antennae bigger
than 15 feet with site plan approval .
Mrs . Langhans wondered what was left on the list of zones to which
item # 2 refers when it states - - " In all other zoning districts " . It
• was noted that Multiple Residence Districts , Business Districts , Light
Industrial Districts , and Heavy Industrial Districts were the zones
referrred to . Mr . Lovi stated that the multiple residence district is
' Planning Board 13 October 15 , 1985
• the most important thing to him , for example , Walter Wiggins ' Bed and
Breakfast on Danby Road .
Mr . Mazza asked if that were legal . Both Mr . Lovi and Chairman
May responded , yes , with Mr . Lovi adding that Mr . Wiggins owns it and
it is an amenity of the hotel .
Mr . Mazza wondered what difference it made if the dish is 15 feet
or 20 feet , or whatever , with site plan approval . Mr . Lovi suggested
taking out " with a height of 15 feet or less " . Town Attorney Barney
commented that a one - foot dish or a three - foot dish seemed , to him , de
minimus .
Chairman May offered wording something like - - " In all other
zoning districts , free - standing or roof -mounted dish antennae with a
diameter of less than 6 feet are permitted and anything in excess of 6
feet may be permitted following site plan review and approval . " Town
Attorney Barney suggested the following wording for item # 2 [ first
paragraph ] : " In all other zoning districts , free - standing or
roof -mounted dish antennae with a diameter of less than six feet are
permitted . In such districts such antennae with a diameter of six feet
or more may be permitted following site plan review and approval by the
Planning Board . " The Board members accepted this suggestion .
Town Attorney Barney suggested that something ought to be added to
the beginning of item # 3 . Discussion followed with respect to adding
• " Except as permitted by the Planning Board under paragraph 2 above , " .
Town Attorney Barney suggested the following : " Except as permitted as
part of the site plan approval in the preceding paragraph , no dish
antenna may The Board members accepted this suggestion .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and
hereby does recommend to the Town Board approval of the Zoning
Ordinance amendment on Dish Antennae , as amended by said Planning Board
this date , October 15 , 1985 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Schultz , Mazza , Grigorov , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
4 . Mobile Homes
The Board members discussed the following proposed draft amendment
on Mobile Homes .
" DRAFT AMENDMENT : Mobile Homes
• RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca add and hereby does
add the following definitions to the Zoning Ordinance :
Y
' Planning Board 14 October 15 , 1985
• Mobile Home : A transportable dwelling unit suitable for year - round
occupancy . A mobile home is designed and built to be towed on its own
chassis , comprised of frame and wheels , and connected to either public
or private utilities . The unit may contain parts which may be folded ,
collapsed , or telescoped when being towed and expanded later to provide
additional cubic capacity . A mobile home may also be designed as two
or more separately towable components designed to be joined into one
integral unit capable of again being separated into the components for
repeated towing . This definition excludes travel or camping trailers
towed by an automobile and neither wider than 8 feet nor longer than 32
feet . Self - propelled motor homes , or modular housing which is not built
with an integral chassis and which must be transported on a separate
vehicle from factory to housing site are also excluded from this
definition .
Mobile Home Lots A parcel of land used for the placement of a single
mobile home and the exclusive use of its occupants . This lot may be
located only in a mobile home park as defined by this ordinance .
Mobile Home Park : A parcel of land owned by an individual ,
partnership , or corporation which has been planned and improved for the
placement of mobile homes for nontransient use . This parcel may be no
less than fifteen acres in size .
Mobile Home Stands That part of an individual mobile home lot which
has been reserved and improved for the placement of the mobile home ,
• appurtenant structures and additions .
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend
and hereby does amend the following Sections of the Zoning Ordinances
1 . Article II , Section 2 is amended by adding to the list of
permitted districts a Residence District R5 .
2 . A new Article and Sections are added to the Ordinance . The text
of this Article and Sections is given in Appendix A .
[ End of Page 11
APPENDIX A
RESIDENCE DISTRICTS R5
SECTION 1 . Location . With the approval of the Town Board , a Residence
District R5 may be established in any Residence or Agricultural
District of the Town .
SECTION 2 . Use Regulations , In Residence Districts R5 no building
shall be erected or extended and no land or building or part thereof
shall be used for other than a mobile home park .
SECTION 3 . Accessory Uses . Permitted accessory uses in Residence
• Districts R5 shall include the followings
v
' Planning Board 15 October 15 , 1985
• 1 . Automobile parking and garages , subject to the further
requirements of this Section .
2 . Structures and open land for recreation , intended for residents of
the mobile home park .
3 . Such areas and structures as may be necessary for home -making
activities , such as a common laundry or garden plots . The use of
any such area or structure shall be limited to residents of the
mobile home park .
SECTION 4 . Area , Yard , Coverage and Height requirements shall be as
follows :
1 . Area : A minimum tract of fifteen ( 15 ) acres is required for the
development of a Residence District R5 .
2 . Lot Size : Each mobile home lot shall have a minimum gross area of
5 , 000 square feet . The arrangement of lots in the park shall
facilitate the efficient development of land and permit the
convenient access of emergency vehicles .
3 . Stand Location : The location of the mobile home stand on each lot
shall be identified on the site plan .
SECTION 5 . Special Requirements shall be as follows :
1 . Stands : The mobile home stand shall be provided with anchors and
other fixtures capable of securing and stabilizing the mobile
home . These anchors shall be placed at least at each corner of
the mobile home stand .
[ End of Page 21
2 . Skirting : Each mobile home owner , within thirty days after the
arrival of the mobile home in the park , shall be required to
enclose the bottom space between the edge of the mobile home and
the mobile home stand with a skirt of metal , wood or other
suitable material . This skirt shall be properly ventilated and
securely attached to the mobile home .
3 . Parking : One garage or lot parking space shall be provided for
each mobile home , plus one additional lot space for each 3 mobile
homes . No parking lot shall be located farther than 100 feet from
the dwelling unit it is intended to serve . Each parking space
shall have a minimum of 180 square feet .
4 . Buffer Yards : A buffer yard at least 30 feet wide shall be
provided around the perimeter of the mobile home park . No
structures are permitted in the buffer yard and the Planning Board
may require that suitable landscaping be provided in order to
effectively screen the mobile home park from adjacent properties .
M
' Planning Board 16 October 15 , 1985
. 5 . Access and Sidewalks : Access drives shall be paved with
black - top , concrete , or other solid material . Driveways and
walkways shall provide safe access , egress , and traffic
circulation within the site . The placement , size , and arrangement
of access to public ways shall be subject to the approval of the
appropriate highway authority . Where the density of population or
school bus routes make it necessary , sidewalks and bus shelters
may be required .
6 . Open Space and Recreation Areas : The applicant shall provide
recreation areas on the premises for children . The Planning Board
shall review and approve all such areas . Ten per cent ( 10 % ) of
the gross lot area of the mobile home park , exclusive of the area
reserved for buffer yards , shall be permanently maintained as open
space .
7 . Storage Areas : The developer shall construct common storage
structures in convenient locations . These storage areas shall be
enclosed and secure and may be located in a common building
containing laundry and meeting space . The minimum size of each
storage area shall be eight feet high , eight feet deep , and four
feet wide .
8 . Screening of Waste and Refuse : One or more common areas shall be
provided for the disposal of waste and refuse . These area shall
• contain secure garbage bins of a suitable size . These areas shall
be screened from public view by shrubbery or a fence .
[ End of Page 3 ]
9 . Signs . A single sign at each entrance of the mobile home park is
permitted . The size and other characteristics shall be regulated
by the Town of Ithaca Sign Law ,
SECTION 6 . Site Plan Approvals . No building permit shall be issued
for a building within a Residence District R5 unless the proposed
structure is in accordance with a site plan approved pursuant to the
provisions of Article IX .
Revised : June 20 , 1985
Peter M . Lovi
Town Planner "
[ End of Page 4 ]
The Board members did not appear to have any problems with Page 1 .
On Page 2 , top of page , Section 1 . , the Board discussed adding
" District R30 " after the word " Residence " . Also , on Page 2 , Section
3 . , the Board discussed removing the word " shall " from the first
sentence .
• On Page 3 , Item # 4 . , the Board discussed adding the following
sentence . " No parking shall be permitted in the buffer zone . " On Page
w
' Planning Board 17 October 15 , 1985
• 3 , Item # 5 . , the Board discussed changing the word " Sidewalks " to
" Walkways " . Item # 6 . , on Page 3 , appeared to be okay . With respect to
Item # 7 . , the Board discussed changing that item to read : " 7 . Storage
Structures : The park owner shall construct storage structures in
convenient locations . These storage structures shall be enclosed and
secure and may be located in a common building . The park owner shall
provide storage space with minimum dimensions of eight feet in height ,
eight feet in depth , and four feet in width for each mobile home in the
park . "
On Page 4 , Item # 9 , the Board discussed changing the first
sentence to read : " A single sign for the mobile home park is
permitted . "
Mr . Lovi discussed a new Item - - Item # 10 - - which was not before
the Board , having to do with Fees . Proposed Item # 10 read :
10 . Permits . An operating permit shall be required for all mobile
home parks . This permit shall be renewable annually . The
Building Inspector shall make periodic inspections of the mobile
home park to determine whether such park is in compliance with the
terms and conditions of the permit , the Zoning Ordinance and the
site plan approval . The fee for the permit shall be in accordance
with the following schedule :
• 1 - 4 units $ 25 . 00
5 - 9 units $ 50 . 00
10 - 24 units $ 100 . 00
25 - 49 units $ 200 . 00
50 - 100 units $ 400 . 00
over 100 units ( Number of Units ) X $ 5 . 00 "
# 10 . The Board members did not appear to have any problems with Item
There was no further discussion of the Draft Amendment in re
Mobile Homes .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the October 15 , 1985 meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 15 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•