HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-10-24 FDate
4
'TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 24 , 1989
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , October 24 , 1989 , at the Machinists ' Hall , 638 Elmira Road ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov , James Baker , Robert Miller ,
Montgomery May , Robert Kenerson , Virginia Langhans , Stephen
Smith , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , George R . Frantz
( Assistant Town Planner ) , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) .
Zoning Board of Appeals members present : Edward Austen , Eva
Hoffmann ,
Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee members present : Edward
Austen , Eugene Ball , Bruce Brittain , Robert Kenerson , Dooley
Kiefer , David Klein , Virginia Langhans , Shirley
Raffensperger , Ronald Simpson ,
ALSO PRESENT : Ronald S . Ronsvalle , Ann Pendleton , Dick Pendleton ,
Attorney Laura Holmberg , Elliott Lauderdale , Jim
Ainslie , Song Kyong , Harrison Rue , Town Supervisor Noel
Desch , David C . Auble , R . Cotts , Myrtle Whitcomb , John
Whitcomb , Celia Bowers , Frank Liguori , Ronald Brand
( Stuart I . Brown Associates . )
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 00
p . m .
Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled , as required by the New York State Department of State ,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control .
AGENDA ITEM : FURTHER REVIEW OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT
TO OCCUPANCY .
Chairperson Grigorov opened discussion on the above - noted matter
at 7 : 10 p . m .
The documents pertaining to the proposed local law amending the
Zoning Ordinance relative to the occupancy of dwelling units are
attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 .
Attorney Barney stated that James A . Coon , Deputy General Counsel
of the New York State Department of State , did not suggest too many
changes , but , typically , as it was read and reread , it was noted that
in the prior draft a family was defined as two or more persons , then
it had gotten into some rather convulated language in a couple of
places where it says how many people could occupy a single dwelling in
a two family house in a single unit . Attorney Barney said that it
seemed easier to move the language relating to an individual right
into the family definition itself , adding , in the revised version the
4
Planning Board - 2 - October 24 , 1989
family now is defined by defined term , as including an individual , or
two or more people , either related or unrelated , commenting , one can
occupy a single family dwelling as a family , commenting that that
change was not suggested by Attorney Coon , it was just one that made
more sense to have it that way . Attorney Barney said that another
change made was that there was a provision which allowed the Zoning
Board of Appeals to make the determination as to whether a group of
unrelated persons constituted a family under the court decisions to
impose conditions , adding , that was discussed at the Nevele Hotel with
Attorney Coon , and there was some concern that by putting that
authority in it would be discriminating between blood related families
and unrelated people , commenting that the feeling was to take it out ,
and noting that , if someone walked in the door with a proposal to try
and establish the fact that they were a family as defined herein , and
there needed to be a couple of changes made in order to reach the
level that would be acceptable , that the staff , or whoever was
handling it , could probably suggest those changes be made before the
application was done , so the application would reflect the total
situation .
Virginia Langhans asked about multi - dwellings , etc . Ms . Langhans
mentioned multiple residence districts and special land use districts ,
adding , if everyone has read the recommendations from the consultants ,
then one would see where they have recommended to eliminate Special
Land Use Districts , Attorney Barney responded that he would have to
• say that the recommendations are just that , at the moment the Town has
Special Land Use Districts , Attorney Barney stated that he has some
qualms about eliminating the use of Special Land Use Districts from a
legal standpoint , but , obviously , it is something that will be
debated , discussed , and ultimately determined by the Town Board ,
Attorney Barney remarked that , at the present time , the Town has
Special Land Use Districts , and in a couple of those Special Land Use
Districts the Town does permit occupancies other than single - family
houses . Mr . Kenerson offered that it could always be changed later ,
with Attorney Barney in agreement . Attorney Barney noted that it is
really a preamble anyway .
Mr . Kenerson wondered if there were any provisions for
enforcement in the document . Attorney Barney stated that this Local
Law amends the Town Zoning Ordinance in several respects , but the
Zoning Ordinance itself contains provisions for enforcement of
violation of the Ordinance ; they would remain , and would apply to this
area , as well as the other areas governed by the Ordinance .
Montgomery May wondered about the results of hazardous
overcrowding of residential dwellings , noting that the overcrowding of
residential dwellings and properties is also regulated and is based on
habitable floor area . Mr . May offered that one is not looking at area
at all ; it is being called a dwelling . Mr . May said that there are
some minimum restrictions , and there are many dwellings within the
Town that can take many , many more people than what is being talked
• about , adding that he felt there was no overcrowding by anyone ' s
standards . Mr . May stated that he felt the consultants were talking
about New York City , not Ithaca , New York . Attorney Barney responded
Planning Board - 3 - October 24 , 1989
• that the Legislative Findings are not generated by the consultants ;
they were generated , principally , by him . Attorney Barney commented
that the effort was to establish certain minimum floor areas , which
are really tied into the Building Code . Mr . May replied that he did
not see that the Ordinance did that at all . Attorney Barney said that
there is a minimum of 150 square feet of habitable space for the first
occupant , and 80 square feet of habitable space for each additional
person in each dwelling unit , adding , Section 58 of the Zoning
Ordinance provides for a minimum of 600 square feet for a dwelling .
Attorney Barney noted that at one time there were some limitations on
vehicles as well , with Edward Austen responding that the ZBA decided
that would be very discriminatory .
Ms . Dooley Kiefer wondered about accessory apartments in ' which
more than one person can live . Ms . Kiefer stated that she realized
that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance does not apply to the Village
where she resides , but was suprised that there are not similar
accessory apartments on one - family homes in the Town . Ms . Kiefer
cited proposed Article 3 , Section 4 , Subdivision 1 , which says that a
one - family dwelling may be occupied by not more than a family , or a
family plus no more than one boarder , roomer , lodger , or other
occupant . Chairperson Grigorov noted that that was not including the
apartment . Ms . Kiefer said that was not clear from reading it ; she
thought it included the apartment .
• There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS , members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in conjunction with consultants
from outside the Town of Ithaca , have reviewed the proposed revisions
to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the definition of family and
occupancy , and
WHEREAS , the Town Attorney has presented a draft revised version
which has incorporated changes suggested in conjunction with such
review ;
NOW , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED , that the Planning Board and the
Zoning Board of Appeals recommend to the Town Board the adoption of
the revised definition of family and the revised occupancy rules in
substantially the form submitted to and reviewed by each of said
Boards .
The undersigned certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the respective Boards of which each of the undersigned is
Chairperson . The copy of the proposed revisions annexed was the form
reviewed by and approved by said Boards .
•
Carolyn Grigorov
Planning Board - 4 - October 24 , 1989
• Chairwoman , Planning Board
October 24 , 1989
Henry Aron
Chairman , Zoning Board of Appeals
October 25 , 1989
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , May , Baker , Kenerson , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of further review of
proposed Zoning Ordinance with respect to occupancy duly closed at
7 : 35 p . m .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 5 , 1989
MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by Robert Kenerson :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of September 5 , 1989 , be . and hereby are approved as presented .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , May , Baker , Kenerson , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
AGENDA ITEM : INITIAL PRESENTATION BY CONSULTANTS OF DRAFT TOWN OF
ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW REPORT AND DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO
THE PLANNING BOARD WITH TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
SUB - COMMITTEE .
Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted
matter at 7 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above .
Chairperson Grigorov announced for the public present that this was
not a Public Hearing , but at the conclusion , she would , if there is
time , be glad to let anyone speak .
Chairperson Grigorov also announced that there would be a full
Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan November 14 , 1989 .
At this point , Mr . Ronald Brand , of Stuart I . Brown Associates ,
addressed the Board and stated that the Town of Ithaca retained his
firm in February of 1989 , to do a review of all of the planning
documents identified as planning elements , of the Comprehensive
Planning Program , as well as the Draft Statements of Philosophy ,
• Purpose and Planning Guidelines . Mr . Brand said that the firm also
looked at existing regulations for the municipality as it pertained to
land use . Mr . Brand offered that the firm met , during the month of
Planning Board - 5 - October 24 , 1989
• March 1989 , with representatives of the Town Planning staff , with Mr .
Frank Liguori , with representatives from the City Planning staff ,
representatives of the County Economic Development Agency ,
representatives of Cornell University , Ithaca College Planning staff ,
representatives of the Ithaca Town Board , and with the Comprehensive
Planning Subcommittee , Continuing , Mr . Brand noted that the firm met
with residents of the community through a public information format ,
adding , input was received from the residents of the community , and
then in April or May 1989 he [ Mr . Brand ] received letters from several
of the residents of the community expressing their concerns about the
planning program and the direction it was taking the Town of Ithaca ,
commenting that a part of that is highlighted and summarized in the
report . Mr . Brand stated that the basic premise of what the firm has
done is to propose a strategy ; a recommended option for the Planning
Board to consider taking action on and to recommend to the Town Board
to take into consideration and make a commitment to fund a course of
direction during the coming year : as to how to correct some of the
weaknesses that were found in the existing programs how to strengthen
that program , and to solidify some of the citizens ' concerns that were
raised about it .
Mr . Brand stated that , basically , what the firm is recommending
is a strategic approach which causes one to not only look at the
existing program , but also look at the future program at the same
time , and to do that , the Planning Board , charged with the
responsibility of maintaining the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning
Program , have some very real decisions that they have to make
concerning the Board ' s commitment of time and resources to do that
projects updating existing regulations ; dealing with a Comprehensive
Plan of development , and , at the same time , dealing with the day to
day applications that come before the Board for approval . Mr . Brand
stated that the process the firm is recommending includes all three
steps , and is a process that the firm feels , using the resources that
the Town of Ithaca has in its planning staff , can benefit greatly the
planning process by having staff work with the Board , or whatever
advisory committee is chosen to be created in developing this planning
document , and working on updating the regulations , as necessary . Mr .
Brand offered that the bottom line the firm came out with is a
recommendation for the Board to consider , and to ask questions as each
of the Board members read through the 85 - page document , adding , it is
not intended to highlight problems , but is a guide for the Board to
look at ; determine their own priorities ; how they want to address ; how
they want to approach the process ; how they want to ultimately involve
the public in the process , and how they want to deal with preparing a
specific Comprehensive Plan Document , as is set forth in Town Law ,
adding that he leaves that challenge to the Planning Board , commenting
that his firm has given a recommendation of what they feel , based on
how their experience in other communities , would work . Mr . Brand said
that , in addition to cataloging the existing plans and documents , and
reviewing the Comprehensive Draft Statement , and making
recommendations for revisions , the firm looked at how they might
• suggest the Board refine the Comprehensive Planning process itself ,
and how the Board might bring the public into the process , and making
the product the public product of the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan ,
Planning Board - 6 - October 24 , 1989
• adding , in that process the firm has laid out , in one of the chapters ,
a series of steps that the firm has used elsewhere in another
community . Mr . Brand said that it has been used in more than one
community , but tonight he would keep referring back to the Town of
Canandaigua , NY , where he found there were a lot of parallels between
the Town of Canandaigua and the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Brand stated that
the Town of Canandaigua is surrounded by a city at the end of a lake ;
it has hillsides ; it has a lot of scenic gorges ; it has a lot of good
active farmland ; it has a lot of major highway corridors ; a lot of
development pressures occuring from the Rochester , NY area , while the
Town ' s is occuring from the City of Ithaca , from Cornell , and Ithaca
College . Mr . Brand offered that there are a lot of similarities , and
that process proved to be a good model for the firm to make
recommendations for the Town of Ithaca to consider in the process of
refining its Comprehensive Planning program .
Continuing , Mr . Brand stated that in the Town of Canandaigua , his
advice to them on dealing with the preparing of its Comprehensive Plan
- - it was 20 years old and an outdated document , it had not been kept
up - to - date ; the Planning Board had it and it was put on a shelf and
not used - - commenting , and the Planning Board decided , and the public
decided , that it was time to look at it , as there were a lot of
pressures coming for development from outside the community ; the lake
was being gobbled up ; there was no more available land along the lake
for public access ; these things were of concern to the community . Mr .
Brand said that one of the first steps that the Town Board directed to
occur in this process was that the Planning Board initiate a survey
for the community residents , commenting that a 50 - question survey was
prepared and sent out to over 2000 residents in the community , adding
that 1 , 028 residents responded , which is a 45 % response rate . Mr .
Brand stated that he felt Ithaca could do better than that , because ,
based on the public meetings that were held , there is a lot of public
interest in this effort . Mr . Brand noted that he thought one could
find some very positive direction , and one will find , through this
process , that people who may not want to stand up at a public meeting
and say what is on their mind , will come forth through a written
document and offer what is on their mind . Mr . Brand said that the
other step in the process , which the firm tried to identify , is that
they strongly recommend that some very specific goals and policies are
created to guide the Planning Board decisions , and guide the ZBA when
it hears variance requests , or special uses , etc . , and to guide the
Town Board when they are asked to rezone land , and when they are asked
to create new districts , or new regulations . Mr . Brand remarked that
the other part of the process that he thought was stressed in the
document was that a plan should be looked at that has a certain
picture , a certain image , at a certain point in time , and not too far
into the distant future ; a plan to look at and to evaluate , and to
monitor , to see how it is developing , so that the report does not come
back that says the ultimate development of the area will result in
this ramification , this need , or this concern . Mr . Brand stated that
the process allows for it to be maintained by the � Planning Board ,
because when the Planning Board adopts , pointing out that the Planning
Board adopts the Master Plan , not the Town Board , and the Planning
Board can also adopt a Master Plan which calls for a periodic review
Planning Board - 7 - October 24 , 1989
• of that document , adding , a periodic review that provides opportunity
for documenting changes that have occured , it provides opportunity for
documenting the need to address specific changes that need to be dealt
with , either in land use controls , or in the planning program itself ,
noting , it quite honestly makes the Town ' s defense , if brought to
court on any matter , a much simpler process to identify and defend .
Mr . Brand stated that it makes for environmental reviews to determine
the consistency and the impacts of those projects consistent with the
Plan Document , and where it is going . Mr . Brand stressed the point
that it provides the Planning Board an opportunity to keep a pulse on
the community , and to have an opportunity for the community to have
dialogue , and interchange with the Board , as to what their concerns
are that they see , perhaps not in the newspaper , or the public notice ,
but as the community residents go by and see something happening out
on a piece of land and become alarmed that something else has gotten
away from them . Mr . Brand stated that it is not unique to Ithaca , NY ;
every community has this concern ; that there are decisions being made
and the public has little or no input into it , commenting , that is not
at all the case the firm found pertaining to Ithaca , NY ,
Mr . Brand noted that the next item his firm was asked to look at ,
and make recommendations on , was a recommendation on intermunicipal
cooperation in land use planning and regulations . Mr . Brand stated
that the County has proposed an informal referral process to extend
the limits of the General Municipal Law , ( the 500 feet from County or
• State municipal boundaries ) and to allow Planning Boards or Zoning
Boards to refer any matter that they feel they want input on , to the
County for review and opinion , adding that that process exists in
other ' counties ; it is not unique to Tompkins County , and it provides
some very valuable resources , a resource of knowing what is going on
across that municipal boundary line , a resource of knowing what is
going on at the County level , an opportunity for the County to know
what is going on in the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Brand stated that , as
important as the above exchange in dialogue is , it is also important
when that referral occurs that that County Planning staff knows what
the position of the Town of Ithaca is concerning that particular area
of the community , and the overall of the community itself . Mr . Brand
said that a Comprehensive Plan Document with specific land use
policies , and specific design , provides such direction and such
message , not only to the County , but to the State and other agencies
as well . Mr . Brand stated that they are also looking and suggesting
that there are other opportunities that his firm has seen that can
work , commenting that it requires a little commitment on the part of
the Planning Board , but it is a commitment that pays off in the long
run , i . e . , for the Planning Board members to develop a liaison with
adjacent municipal Planning Board members . Mr . Brand offered that at
the public information meeting held in March of 1989 , there was a
representative present from the Town of Ulysses Planning Board ,
Mr . Brand said that the other points of intermunicipal
cooperation that were talked about would be for the County to provide
• training programs on a periodic basis with each of the municipal
boards . Mr . Brand offered that the State is looking at legislation to
require Planning Board members to go through training courses and
Planning Board - 8 - October 24 , 1989
• become certified , adding , that is something that has been sitting on
the back burner for a couple of years .
0
Mr . Brand stated that updating and maintaining the Comprehensive
Plan is one of the items that the firm was asked to address . Mr .
Brand pointed out that what he recommends the Board do is : as the
Board goes through the process of preparing a specific plan document ,
the public information process , and the environmental record , should
coordinate with all the adjacent municipalities , including the County
and the City , to figure out what is to be accomplished in the next 20
year period , then as the plan document is adopted , provide for that
periodic review , and publish that notice , each year , in the paper ,
that it is on the agenda for review . Mr . Brand commented that in 1987
the Town of Canandaigua adopted its Master Plan , adding , in May of
1989 they modified about 30 pages of the Master Plan , and there was a
lot of public support behind the Town Planning Board doing that
process . Chairperson Grigorov wondered how long the process took .
Mr . Brand responded that they started in January of 1986 and it was
April of 1987 when the Planning Board was finally to a point where
they adopted it , commenting , that was after going through a series of
meetings with a Planning Consultant firm out of Buffalo , NY , Mr .
Brand said that he attended the meetings to guide the Town to make
sure that the ' Planning Board understood what the Consultant was
presenting to them , and to make sure that the Planning Board knew that
when it got time for this product to be considered for adoption , that
• it was going to be the Planning Board ' s document , it was not going to
be the Consultant ' s document . Mr . Brand offered that the process
involved two public information meetings , at which there were about
200 people present at each meeting , and a public hearing . Mr . Brand
offered that by the time it got to the public hearing stage there was
no controversy . Mr . Brand , for everyone ' s information , held up the
working document and offered that the Town of Canandaigua went through
the whole process of identifying each of the basic elements that
comprise a Master Plan , remarking that this led to pictures of what
the community wanted to deal with . Mr . Brand stated that , after
completion of the document , it was available to residents for $ 40 . 00 ,
commenting that the Town did not think anyone would pay $ 40 . 00 , so
they prepared a visual summary which contained a brief synopsis of the
document all on one page , and which costs the community about $ 2 . 50
each . Mr . Brand stated that The Upstate Chapter of The American
Planning Association presented an award for the document .
Mr . Brand stated that his firm was asked how the public might
become more involved in preparing the Plan Document . Mr . Brand said
that some communities have taken the route of having a consultant come
in . Mr . Brand stated that the process his firm is recommending for
the Town of Ithaca includes a process that the Planning Board
consider , during the next year or 18 months , or whatever time it may
take to prepare such a document , adding that the Board will have a
great deal of other responsibilities that the Town Board will throw at
them ; the ZBA will ask the Planning Board ' s opinion ; the County may
• ask for some input ; the staff will bring other projects for the Board
to look at , approvals will be sought by developers , homeowners , and
landowners . Mr . Brand noted that the Planning Board has to make a
Planning Board - 9 - October 24 , 1989
• decision , e . g . , how the Planning Board can best use their resources ,
their time , the staff time , and how to continue to communicate the
development of the Plan Document to the public . Mr . Brand offered
that one of the ways might be through the creation of a subcommittee
or subcommittees , it might take the form of the Comprehensive Planning
Subcommittee ; it might take the form of three or four Planning Board
members and three or four other residents of the community ; it may
take the form of newsletters in which the Board would periodically
report to the public . Mr . Brand stated that the public should also be
asked , at the time the Board has a document put together , to sit down ,
participate , understand what the document says , and give their
comments . Mr . Brand stated that there would not be consenus from
everybody ; a Planning Program is going to have some strengths and
weaknesses , and would affect areas in different ways ; there is going
to be concern from some neighborhoods that , perhaps , some issues were
not addressed the way they wanted them addressed , and others saying , I
think you have hit it right on the nose ; we need to look at this very
seriously . Mr . Brand stated that the public participation process
should occur before the Board gets to the point of a public hearing
and final plan adoption , so that the final hearing , and the final plan
adoption has the input of the public , and the Board can defend their
decisions , and answer questions at the public hearing process , make a
negative declaration , adopt that plan , and then send that message on
to the Town Board that a plan has been adopted , that have met the
charge they have given you , and the Board is maintaining that plan and
• wants the Town Board to recognize it .
Mr . Brand stated that his firm ( Stuart I . Brown & Associates ) has
given the Town a report of 80 + pages , which they have worked rather
long on with the Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee ,. Mr . Brand
commented that the report is not intended to be a criticism of the
Town ' s planning program , as a matter of fact , he thought the Town ' s
planning program and the commitment the Town has made to the program
through its resources is unique to a lot of areas in the State . Mr .
Brand stated that , very rarely would one find even one staff planner
in a community the size of Ithaca . Mr . Brand stated that the Town is
very fortunate to have two very good staff planners , adding that they
have a lot of resource information , a lot of mapped information that
they are putting together through the help of students from Cornell ;
they have a lot of information on demographics and population that is
being put together , and a lot of information they are working closely
with the County on . Mr . Brand said that the staff is proceeding on
the development of some very interesting and meaningful documents that
begin to look at environmental features in the community , which was
one of the weaknesses that his firm saw in the regulations , adding
that some of the areas which have deep slopes and areas such as flood
plains , wetlands , probably should be looked at in a little more detail
than what he saw in the existing Zoning Ordinance , commenting , that is
not a criticism , because a lot of communities have not used this
overlay technique , but where they have used that approach and .
technique it has resulted in an additional level of review ; it is
• identified early - on in the process ; there is something unique about
that site that , perhaps , is a little sensitive , and ought to be dealt
with right up- front , before it gets too far into the program .
Planning Board - 10 - October 24 , 1989
• Mr . Brand stated that his recommendation to the Town Board and to
the Planning Board is that : if the Boards decide to go forward with
the firm ' s recommendation to implement the action plan , they do it
knowing that it would make a commitment on the two planners for their
time ; a commitment that is going to add a great deal of time to their
level of work to maintain a program during the next year or 18 months ,
whatever it takes , to maintain a program to update existing
regulations , and to keep the public involved , and informed of where
the plan is going . Mr . Brand stated that he thought the opportunity
exists right now , and it is a unique opportunity because of the fact
that he understood the Town Board is looking at preparing next year ' s
budget for this process . Mr . Brand stated that he hoped the Planning
Board , after the public meeting on November 14 , 1989 , can come to a
decision on it and make a recommendation to the Town Board , as to
which direction to proceed .
Mr . Brand stated that he believes the recommendations his firm
have prepared for the Board can provide a good foundation for the
community to develop a meaningful Comprehensive Plan Document , and to
augment the Comprehensive Planning Program , Mr . Brand said that he
used the above terms distinctly because they were of great concern to
several members on the Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee , as to what
the distinction was between a Comprehensive Plan Document , which is a
specific course of action in a specific period of time , and the
Comprehensive Planning Program , which is an evolutionary process , an
• ongoing process that involves decisions , involves regulations and
amendments to those regulations , looking at studies and the need for
additional studies , looking at the impacts farther down as the result
of growth and development occuring in the community . Mr . Brand stated
that the two together should not be confusing ; they complement each
other greatly , adding that he cannot help but stress the fact that
what is looked at to be done is to augment the Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Planning Program .
Chairperson Grigorov wondered about the map which was shown by
Mr . Brand , and what relation it had to the zoning . Mr . Brand ,
referring to the Town of Canandaigua map , responded that the map
represents where the community wants to be by the year 2010 , whereas
the Zoning Map represents where the Town is today . Mr . Brand stated
that the key i "s : does that Zoning Map match the Town of Canandaigua
map . Mr . Brand' commented that his firm found that the existing zoning
in the Town of Canandaigua was considered to be adequate , adding that
whenever they go into a community they always look at zoning to be
something that is not static ; it is subject to change , just like the
Planned Document itself , and it should be kept in mind that where a
community has not , in the past , prepared a plan document to base its
zoning on it , automatically becomes questionable , in that , is that the
best zoning layout and format for the community . Mr . Brand stated
that his firm would like to suggest , instead of the zoning being the
tail that wags the dog , that the dog wags the tail , and as one goes
through the Plan Document to create the policies , then take a look at
• the zoning to see whether , indeed , there are other changes that might
occur , e . g . , changes beyond overlay districts ; changes that might
include some additional zone districts ; changes that might include
Planning Board - TI - October 24 , 1989
• some additional lands to be zoned differently from what they are right
now .
Mr . Brand offered that the Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee
was very comprehensive in its review of the Drafts that were given to
them , and they were very clear in wanting to provide some very
specific direction , and some priorities in that direction for the
Board to think about . Mr . Brand stated that he does not look at the
present document as the end product at all ; he looks at it as an
element of the ongoing program , adding that it is a recommendation ; it
is a guide , and it is not a law by any means . Mr . Brand stated that
his firm would like to know , so that they can review the document ,
before it is sent on to the Town Board for consideration .
Mr . Kenerson commented that it might help to have a feel for some
of the things that Mr . Brand has referred to , and that the
Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee discussed , as to where they sit in
the process . Mr . Kenerson said that the Subcommittee discussed things
at length , and what is being presented by Mr . Brand is his firm ' s
report based on what they were charged to report about , adding , the
firm did report on what they were asked to do . Mr . Kenerson stated
that the Subcommittee looked at the report as step one in the process
of analyzing the present process , letting the second phase take care
of the details and results . Mr . Kenerson , referring to the Letter of
Transmittal from the CPS to the Planning Board , stated that the CPS
• suggests that the report from Stuart I . Brown Associates be accepted
in part on the basis that they have met their contract , and suggests
that it be passed on to the Town Board after the public hearing on
November 14 , 1989 .
Mr . Klein stated that what he thought was really important about
the report for the Planning Board to consider is that it really lays
out a tremendous amount of work for the Planning Board for the next
two years . Mr . Klein commented that the Planning Board will have to
come to grips with accepting what parts of the report , what specific
recommendations on additional elements that may have to be prepared ,
plus dealing with getting the process going , either through
continuation of the Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee , or something
similar , such as a subcommittee of the Planning Board , or the Planning
Board as a whole ; there are a tremendous number of tasks to be done
that are really worthy of the Planning Board ' s consideration and
careful thought , in terms of how the Board wants to deal with that .
Mr . Klein offered that he thought it was important for the Planning
Board to feed back to the Town Board how they want to go about that ,
and what specific support might be needed , obviously in terms of
outside consultants , staff time , etc . Chairperson Grigorov mentioned
that the committees could involve people who are not on the Planning
Board . Mr . Klein stated that he thought the subcommittee concept was
something that the consultant raised many times during the early
Drafts , adding that he felt the makeup of that is something the
Planning Board maybe is best . to determine , or to work with the Town
• Board in terms of , again , whether it is this specific committee , or a
smaller one . Mr . Klein stated that he felt the Comprehensive Planning
Subcommittee was fairly broad - based , and functioned quite well .
Planning Board - 12 - October 24 , 1989
. Chairperson Grigorov stated that she had hoped to see more about
cluster and preservation of open space . Mr . Brand responded that
since there was not a Purchase of Development Rights program , or
Transfer of Development Rights program in place , they did not have
anything to evaluate , but , basically , the PDR program in New York
State exists on Long Island , and , as of last month , in the Town of
Pittsford , which is in Monroe County . Mr . Brand stated that his firm
looked at the cluster concept , and , basically felt that one of the
things they saw was that the Town was beginning to look at clustering
quite seriously , which does have advantages , noting , it does help to
reduce costs ; it does help to keep costs within reality , and those
cost savings can be passed on to homeowners .
Mr . Brand offered , for a suggestion , that his firm has worked
with three municipalities - - two Villages and a Town - - in doing a
joint Master Plan , adding that they had a subcommitte made up of
representatives from all three municipalities , commenting that the
charge there was a little different because the community was looked
at as a whole and incorporated the impacts of land use in the Town on
each of the villages , and the impact of each of the Villages . Mr .
Brand stated that , through their committee process , they actually had
the committee prepare the document and present it to the public in the
public information arena for their comments . Mr . Brand offered that
one thing he did notice was that sometimes the residents of a
community are a lot kinder on citzens in the community who have put a
lot of effort into putting a document together . Mr . Brand noted that
that process , believe it - or not , works to involve future Planning
Board members , because it gets them committed to the program .
Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that she felt the report , which
was reviewed in an earlier Draft by the subcommittee , reflects pretty
well the improvements the subcommittee had suggested be put in , so it
would be more relevant to what the situation is .
Ms . Beeners said that she had about ten comments for
clarification or correction within the text .
Ms . Beeners noted that on Page 1 of the Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Planning Program Analysis , pertaining to Ithaca College ,
the language is a little misleading as it looks like IC moved to South
Hill in the 1980 ' s , when they really moved in about 1962 . Ms . Beeners
stated that it should be acknowledged that IC ' s location has resulted
in a trend of growth in that area . Ms . Beeners noted that on Page 6
and Page 49 there are references made to Special Use Permits , adding
that while the Town has some Special Permits , there are more Special
Approvals ,
Continuing , Ms . Beeners said that on Page 5 there is reference
made about thep Town Sewer Master Plan that was prepared in 1960 in
which it did not envision the relocation of Ithaca College to the
Town , and , given that IC did move up there in 1962 , that , indeed ,
• there had been some planning related to having the Campus move up
there . Ms . Beeners offered that the above is kind of an historical
matter .
Planning Board - 13 - October 24 , 1989
Ms . Beeners referred to Page 13 - Goals and Objectives , adding
that she thought this would be of relevance to the Comprehensive
Planning Subcommittee . Ms . Beeners said that there is a listing of
Goals and Objectives that the CPS endorsed back in December 1988 . Ms .
Beeners stated that it was not her impression that it was an effort to
create specific goals and objectives for the Comprehensive Plan
Statement , but was really more of a matter of trying to have some
common ground . Ms . Beeners offered that she had drafted the Goals and
Objectives , and her intention , at that time , was to have them be a
summary of what she saw in the Comprehensive Plan Statement and the
record of public comment on the Comprehensive Plan Statement since
August 1988 , commenting , for that matter , she would suggest that on
Page 13 , instead of saying " in an effort to create specific goals and
objectives " , perhaps it should be changed to : " to summarize goals and
objectives to help guide the consultant ' s work " . Ms . Beeners stated
that she would want the CPS to agree on the above . Ms . Kiefer , CPS
member , responded that that seems accurate .
Ms . Beeners referred to Page 32 - Identification of Ongoing
Tasks . Ms . Bee'ners noted that the consultant ' s have summarized some
of the tasks which have been undertaken , adding that it would be
helpful to have the two Engineering Reports that are referred to
actually to be cited as far as what their title is , so that they would
be kept straight . Ms . Beeners referred to Item 4 , Page 32 , which
states : " A major revision to the Town Zoning Ordinance has been
• prepared . No ` action has yet been taken on this revision . " Ms .
Beeners stated that she would suggest such a word as " consolidation of
amendments " instead of " major revision " ; there have been some
amendments done such as the Noise Ordinance , and the Occupancy
amendment is in process ; there have not been any large scale revisions
to the document ,, and consolidation would be a more accurate term .
Ms . Beeners referred to Page 37 , Item No . 5 , which states :
" Evaluate the Need for a Capital Improvements Program ( CIP ) . " Ms .
Beeners stated that she thought Item No . 5 was a little confusing , in
that there is some general discussion on Page 76 about CIPs , and
possible appropriateness of it , and the need in the Town . Ms . Kiefer ,
CPS member , commented that that was something she had marked , adding
that she hoped there was time to actually ask the Consultant what his
recommendation was , in that , do the Consultants recommend a CIP as a
desirable thing . Mr . Brand responded that that would be based on what
the various department heads would identify as projects that need to
be undertaken during a six -year -plan period , and that would qualify as
a capital project as set forth under the Public Finance Law; that
being a project of at least $ 10 , 000 . 00 , and having a life expectancy
of six years or more . Mr . Brand said that one may find , when such an
evaluation is done , that there has not been an evaluation , as it is
not his [ Mr . Brand ] role to presuppose such an evaluation , that ,
perhaps , the Town Highway Superintendent might identify certain pieces
of equipment , or certain highway projects that need to be undertaken
over a period of time , and perhaps there are other projects that need
to be taken into consideration , adding that they may be as far - fetched
as a new Town Hall would be . Mr . Brand said that it is not in his
scope to recommend such drastic courses of action , but it is something
Planning Board - 14 - October 24 , 1989
• for him to say that a capital program is an evolutionary process ; it
is a process that , normally , based on his experience as a planner , is
something that he started back in the early 1970s . Mr . Brand said
that through the process of identifying needs , one also begins to
identify some priorities for those needs , and then put some dollar
figures as to what the Town can afford in addition to the normal tax
rate increases as a result of salaries , cost of living , cost of
materials , and cost of doing business , so that the Town can come up
with a phased financial program to accomplish the goals over a
specified period of time ; they may include drainage ; they may include
highway , not only resurfacing and grading , but also removing of banks
and things of that nature for safety improvements . Ms . Kiefer asked ,
if such projects are identified by the Town , would the Consultant
recommend that they be approached in this way ? Ms . Kiefer wondered if
the Consultant would recommend against capital improvements . Mr .
Brand answered , no .
Ms . Kiefer , directing her comment to the whole Planning Board ,
stated that the CPS got this version of the document two days before
their meeting , and noted that , she for one , did not have a chance to
read it in detail , adding that her question about the Capital
Improvements Program had to wait until tonight , as she had not put
together Page 37 and Page 76 until today , actually . Ms . Kiefer stated
that she would have taken care of her question earlier . Ms . Kiefer
stated that she was glad the Consultant clarified her question , as it
• was not clear to her from reading the document that the Consultant
would actually recommend that , if it was appropriate for the Town .
Shirley Raffensperger , CPS member , referred to Ms . Beener ' s
comment on Page 32 , Ms . Raffensperger thought that it had been
discussed briefly in some version . Ms . Raffensperger , directing her
comment to Ms . Beeners , stated that she did not think that refers to
those consolidating amendments , but rather to a past major revision .
Ms . Beeners agreed with Ms . Raffensperger , Ms . Raffensperger noted
tht Ms . Beeners had discussed Item No . 4 on Page 32 . Ms .
Raffensperger said that the statement itself is not related to those
consolidating amendments as she recalled the discussion , adding that
the introductory. paragragh is really where the trouble lies , and No . 4
should not be included under it . Ms . Raffensperger stated that they
did adopt thoseclarifying amendments . Attorney Barney stated that he
would not characterize those as a major revision , adding that he
thought Ms . Raffensperger was right , that is the work that was done
several years ago . Ms . Beeners remarked that she thought No . 4 then
refers to the recent consolidation , which will be published in
November . Ms . Raffensperger stated that action was taken on it ,
whereas it states that " no action as yet been taken on this revision . "
Attorney Barney responded that if one is talking about consolidation ,
it has been consolidated ; the Town is awaiting the occupancy decision
on that in November , and , presumably , action will be taken in the
sense that it will go to the printer , or wherever , to be duplicated .
Ms . Beeners stated that this is referring to something as a
• consolidation , and adding that she did remember talking about the many
past Zoning Ordinance Drafts - - new ones , and revisions that have been
done . Ms . Beeners stated that she would expect , as the Planning Board
Planning Board - 15 - October 24 , 1989
and the Town Board get down to looking at the specifics of the
recommendations , it should be acknowledged that prior planning
efforts , or zoning revision efforts , over 20 - 25 years or more , should
also be considered , not only the Stuart I . Brown Associates document ,
but some of the many other efforts that have been made . Ms .
Raffensperger responded that her question really was not to get into
that ; it was that in the CPS they discussed perhaps eight amendments
that were made , and it seemed to her that it passed at the end of last
year . Ms . Raffensperger said that they were discussed as clarifying ,
or whatever , amendments , commenting that her major point was that it
is not a major revision , but action was taken , so it is either one way
or another . Ms . Beeners said that action was in the process of being
taken . Attorney Barney stated that it needed to be pinpointed exactly
what is being talked about - - the consolidation , revision , or the
clarifications . Ms . Beeners suggested that it read : " certain
clarifying amendments to the Zoning Ordinance were prepared and were
adopted . " Ms . Beeners noted that , in addition , there has been a
consolidation of various Zoning Ordinance amendments made over the
last three years and a re - publication of that is expected in November .
Town Supervisor Desch offered that Page 33 would have to be corrected
because that makes reference to proposed . Ms . Beeners said that that
then would require that it be updated to indicate that , indeed , those
amendments were drafted during 1988 , and adopted .
Ms . Beeners stated that she found a lot of the recommendations
• intriguing , but some of the things she does not particularly agree
with at the present time , but she thought they should certainly be
considered , as this deals with specific recommendations within the
Document . Ms . Beeners referred to Page 61 - Town of Ithaca Highway
( Master Plan Map ) , which states : " This Highway Map is in need of
updating to include the following . " Ms . Beeners noted that several
things are listed , some of the things being currently considered , but
also some older, items , such as the industrial loop road on South Hill
and the Hector Street by - pass . Ms . Beeners wondered if it appeared ,
when people read the item , that Mr . Brand was recommending to stick
with a specific route as shown on the Official Highway Master Plan ,
such as that specific Hector Street by - pass , or a specific Compton
Road Extension , Ms . Beeners stated that she thought of a two -word
change , such as , " The Highway Map is in need of updating to include
updates of the following . " Ms . Beeners stated that if the Planning
Board and the CPS do not see any misinterpretation , then she would
say , just forget about that two -word change . Edward Austen , CPS
member , responded that any changes in the highway update would be in
Phase 2 of the Plan . Ms . Beeners agreed with Mr . Austen . Ms . Beeners
wondered if she was reading the item a little differently from others ,
and if it is worth making that kind of a change to the Draft . Ms .
Kiefer wondered if the Town , at some time , adopted an industrial loop
road on South Hill , Ms . Beeners responded , yes , it is on the map .
Ms . Beeners wondered , as one reads this , does it look like it is being
recommended that the Town stick with that particular alignment , or
that the Consultants are saying that that Compton Road extension is
• great . Ms . Beeners remarked that if no one sees any problem with the
wording she would leave out the two -word change she suggested . Mr .
Smith wondered if it would be better to use " taking into
PlanningBoard
- 16 - October 24 , 1989
consideration " , rather than " to include " . Mr . Frantz responded that a
lot of things have changed since the time the map was produced in
1968 , e . g . , the industrial loop road was one of those roads that was
to cross through the Six Mile Creek gorge , adding that in 1968 that
may have been okay , but today 95 % of the people would have grave
reservations about such a road . Ms . Langhans wondered , if it was
adopted why was it not put on the map ? Mr . Frantz answered that it is
on the map , but the map was adopted in 1968 ; perhaps the map should be
looked at again to re - evaluate the roads that are proposed on it .
David Klein , directing his comment to Mr . Brand , stated that maybe Mr .
Brand meant the map is in need of evaluation of the following . Mr .
Brand said that the 20 - year old Highway Map itself , is in need of
updating ; anything 20 years old should be updated . Supervisor Desch
commented , shouldn ' t it say " the map is in need of updating , including
a review of the following ? " Mr . Brand offered that there is no
recommendation that that industrial loop road be part of the Plan
Document , Ms . Beeners noted that there are a couple of minor
corrections in the bibliography in Appendix B . Ms . Beeners said that
the two that jumped out at her were the Comprehensive Sewerage Study
instead of Comprehensive Sewage Study , and The Tompkins County General .
Plan to Guide Development and Promote Intermunicipal Cooperation and
Coordination , August 9 , 1989 , noting that she believed that should be
marked " Draft " . Ms . Beeners commented that there are some places in
the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations discussion where an
Article Heading is included , but in other places the Article Heading
• dropped out .
At this time , Chairperson Grigorov mentioned that Mr . Brand had
recommended rotating Chairman of the advisory boards . Mr . Brand said
that that would be done once a year . Mr . Brand also mentioned
assigning a Planning Board member , as a project came in , to work with
staff to put together a report for the Board , and that also is a time
to work with the public . Mr . Brand offered that assigning a Planning
Board member responsibility allows for input from whomever it may be .
Ms . Kiefer stated that she has looked over some of her notes from
earlier meetings , and she remembers Mr . Brand brainstorming early on
and saying the , kinds of things that were helpful , she thought , in
other communities , having each Advisory Board , Planning Board , and
ZBA , have Annual Reports , and having those reports include tallies of ,
e . g . , all the variances granted and the types of variances , and how
many variances were granted , and by going through that excerise every
year the Boards learn a lot about themselves and the directions they
are heading in . Ms . Kiefer remarked that she did not see those
recommendationsin this report , and wondered if they were just
overlooked . Mr . Brand responded that part of the recommendations too ,
is not only to report the activities on a monthly basis and a yearly
basis , but also to map that on a map , so that one can begin to see a
picture . Ms . Kiefer wondered , if an addendum is prepared for this
report , could that cluster suggestion , which was made orally , be
included ?
• Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were anyone from the public
who wished to make a brief comment .
Planning Board - 17 - October 24 , 1989
Elliott Lauderdale wondered if he could read the plan .
Chairperson Grigorov answered , yes . Ms . Beeners offered that the
Executive Summary Report has been made available to the public at no
charge , however , there is a $ 5 . 00 fee for the full Comprehensive
Planning Program Analysis . Mr . Frantz stated that there are two
copies available at the Town Hall , Monday through Friday , for people
who would like to come in and read it . Mr . Frantz offered that there
would be a copy of the Comprehensive Planning Program Analysis , along
with the Executive Summary , available at the Tompkins County Public
Library .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the initial
presentation by the consultants of the Draft Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan Review Report and Draft Executive Summary Report
duly closed at 9 : 25 p . m .
AGENDA ITEM : CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW PROJECT ,
Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted
matter at 9 : 27 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above .
At this point , Chairperson Grigorov noted that another item the
Planning Board had before them was the Consideration of Modification
to the Planning Board Meeting Schedule .
• There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion with respect to the
meeting schedule .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Planning Board amend and hereby does amend its
1989 Meeting Schedule by postponing its regularly scheduled November
7 , 1989 meeting until November 14 , 1989 , in order that a Public
Hearing on the Comprehensive Planning Program - - Analysis and
Recommendations and Executive Summary Report , by Stuart I . Brown
Associates , Inc . , can be held on November 14 , 1989 , at 7 : 30 p . m . , at
the Machinists ' Hall , 638 Elmira Road , Ithaca , New York .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , ,' Langhans , Baker , May , Kenerson , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
At this time , Ms . Beeners stated that , based on some of the
Planning Board ' s prior discussion , it appears that the Planning Board
has approved the allocation of about one -half of the Planning Board ' s
regularly scheduled meetings to be devoted to Comprehensive Planning
• related work , which would include the review of the presentation
tonight , as well as other matters that are brought up . Ms . Beeners
commented that the meeting scheduled for November 14 , 1989 be for
Planning Board - 18 - October 24 , 1989
Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Planning Review Work , and also to
consider a further recommendation on work scope , or on the
Comprehensive Planning Program to the Town Board ; then the next
meeting would be November 21 , 1989 , where there would be development
review , and some reports on some projects that are outside of the
Town . Ms . Beeners suggested that every other meeting be Comprehensive
Planning work , so the December 5 , 1989 Planning Board meeting could be
scheduled for further definition of the Comprehensive Planning Work
Program , adding , it would put the Board in some kind of a position ,
date -wise , to make a recommendation to the Town Board for their
December 11 , 1989 meeting on different matters in trying to narrow
down a course of action .
At this point , the Board , along with the Town Planning Consultant
Ronald Brand , discussed the matter of Recommendation to the Town Board
regarding the Comprehensive Planning Review Project . Attorney Barney
commented that he was a little puzzled as to why the Board should
accept the Draft Report tonight without the benefit of public input .
Mr . Brand responded that there has to be something to hold the public
hearing on .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion .
• MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
WHEREAS :
1 . The Town Board has authorized the conducting of a Comprehensive
Planning Review Project in 1989 by Stuart I . Brown Associates ,
2 . The Planning Board , on October 24 , 1989 , has heard the Initial
Presentation , by Ronald Brand of Stuart I . Brown Associates , of
the Draft " Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Planning Program Analysis
and Recommendations Report " and Draft " Executive Summary Report " ,
dated October 16 ,, 1989 .
3 . The Planning Board , on October 24 , 1989 , has received the
Resolution of the Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee
transmitting the Report and the Executive Summary Report , and
recommending on the acceptance of the work .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
! . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend the
acceptance of the Draft Report and Executive Summary Report with
the following conditions :
a . A Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday , November 14 , 1989 ,
to consist of a Public Informational Meeting and
• Presentation by the Consultants of the Draft Report and
Executive Summary Report , followed by Consideration of
further recommendation to the Town Board on the
Planning Board - 19 - October 24 , 1989
• Comprehensive Planning Review Project and on Recommended
Further Work .
b . The addition of minor modifications of correction and
clarification of the Draft Report and Executive Summary
Report as may be recommended following the Public Hearing on
November 14 , 1989 .
c . The provision of a summary to be transmitted to the Planning
Board and Town Board describing the completion of tasks , as
outlined in the Project Agreement , for review by the
Planning Board at the November 14 , 1989 Public Hearing on
the Project .
d . The Planning Board shall make further report and
recommendation to the Town Board on the acceptance of the
Project , following the November 14 , 1989 Public Hearing .
e . The Planning Board shall make further report and
recommendation to the Town Board on a proposed further Scope
of Work , following the November 14 , 1989 Public Hearing , and
also pursuant to a schedule of subsequent future meetings on
Comprehensive Planning work .
AND , IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that
the Town Board commit an appropriate level of effort for timely
implementation of improvements to the Comprehensive Planning program .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Ken erson , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any other comments .
There being none , Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the
Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board on the Comprehensive
Plan Review Project duly closed at 9 : 40 p . m .
At this time , Ms . Beeners announced , for the Planning Board ' s
information , that the following is related to keeping the . Planning
Board informed as to what is happening elsewhere , and relates also to
the phasing of the process of review of the proposed budget for 1990
by the Town Board . Ms . Beeners said that , in general terms , there are
three things : one , it is proposed that a planning technician be hired
on a full - time basis , adding , if that is approved , she would imagine
that the Board would try to get somebody on board in January of 1990 .
Ms . Beeners said that there would be an intense effort on the planning
• technician ' s part to pull all the maps together , manually and
computerized , and also to do some day to day work .
Planning Board - 20 - October 24 , 1989
• Continuing , Ms . Beeners said that there is also a proposed level
of funding for a consultant fee of some kind . Ms . Beeners said that
there is also a proposed contract with CLEARS , and with the County
Planning Department , to have a geographic information system developed
over 1990 , which would have , on a parcel basis , land use , soils , topo ,
and other information .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairperson Grigorov declared the October 24 , 1989 ,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 45
p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•
•
/ c /A 0 Sl/1 ovJ I kA 61BSc GI�_r ,a To B4
I o l & of Cavi-�'
TOWN OF ITHACA O fiofl
• LOCAL LAW NO . FOR THE YEAR 1989
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO THE OCCUPANCY OF
DWELLING UNITS
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town _of Ithaca- as =
follows : —� -- —
Section 19 Legislative Findings ,
The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca permits
residential uses and establishes residence districts in the Town
consistent with the Town comprehensive plan . One purpose of this
part of the Zoning Ordinance is to preserve the - Town ' s .
residential character and protect residents from overcrowding , an
excessive volume of traffic , parking problems , and excessive
noise which deprives them of the privilege of quiet residential
. neighborhood communities . Residential districts are designed to
allow people to reside in peaceful environs undisturbed by the
disruptions attendant to business , industrial and other intensive
uses * _.
The U . S . Supreme Court has found that a quiet place where
yards are wide , people few , and motor vehicles restricted are
legitimate guidelines in land - .- use plans . Further , the police
• power is not confined to elimination of filth , stench and
unhealthy places , but it -is-proper,.-to-lay out- zones-where-family -- - - -
values , youth values , and blessings of quiet seclusion and clean
air, make the area a sanctuary for people.
The Court of Appeals . of the State of New York has also
recognized the validity of these governmental purposes , provided
there is a reasonable relationship between the purpose and the
regulation utilized to achieve that purpose .
In recent years town officials have been inundated with
complaints about the overcrowding , noise -, and parking problems in
many residential neighborhoods caused by large numbers of persons
occupying residential dwellings on a transient basis , primarily
as student housing for a . semester or academic year . The vast
majority of these complaints are received during the school year .
The Town has two institutions of higher learning with a large
population of _ students ._ _ _. _ _ Unfortunately ,_ __ the _ housing_
accommodations provided by these institutions of higher learning
are inadequate to meet the housing needs of all of the students
enrolled in these institutions , thereby causing students to look
for housing in what are otherwise primarily long term residential
neighborhoods . The effect . of these problems is to convert
dwellings in such residential neighborhoods into rental , non
owner- occupied properties occupied by large numbers of students .
These occupancies are usually not individuals li0.
ving together as
. a single housekeeping unit , but are more reflective of transient ,
' Dwelling . Ith3 , , 9 / 20 / 89 3 : 08pm
• seasonal ( including semester or academic year ) occupancies .
This trend threatens the stability and integrity of
residential neighborhoods . This practice interferes with the
goal of providing quiet and peaceful residential neighborhoods .
It also results in the hazardous overcrowding of residential
dwellings .
The Town recognizes that quasi -multiple dwellings are an
integral part of the community . However , if legitimate long-term
residential units continue to be converted from long-term
continuous occupancy to rental occupancy on a semester by
semester basis for short -term economic gain at . the expense of the
rest of the community , the character of the Town ' s residential
neighborhoods will be destroyed. Rather than a place where long-
term stabilized neighborhoods exist where residents can have
peace and solitude , they will become a haven for students whose
parties , driving , and other activities disturb residential
tranquility . Such type of occupancies are better accommodated in
multiple residence districts and special land use districts
permitting same . The Town does provide substantial
accommodations for this type of occupancy in its multiple
residence and special land use district areas .
The protection of residential values must be achieved by
• regulations which are reasonably related to this goal . The Court
of Appeals decision in McMinn v . Oyster Bay , ( 66 N . Y . 2d 544 ,
1986 ) is illustrative of this fact .
It is the purpose of this local law to protect the Town ' s
residential neighborhoods by reasonable regulations .
Specifically , this local law redefines " family " in compliance
with McMinn . ( supra ) .
Overcrowding of residential dwellings and properties is also
regulated based on habitable floor area .
By such regulations the Town hopes to give effect to its
zoning ordinance and the goal of preservation of residential
neighborhoods by insuring that residential neighborhoods continue
to be populated by year round , long -term residents , while
transient student visitors are properly located in zones intended
for multiple and transient accommodations .
Section 2 . The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as
readopted , amended and revised , effective February 26 , 1968 , be
further amended as follows :
1 . Article I , Section 1 , Subparagraph 5 is amended to read
as follows :
• 2
% 1 , Dwelling . Ith3 , 9 / 20 / 89 3 * 08pm
" 5 . A ' family ' consists of
Cq Rn Ind , o �-
�j tea ) Two or more persons occupying a single dwelling
unit , related by blood , marriage , or legal adoption ,
living and cooking together as a single housekeeping
unit ,.. or
C /1� M - Two unrelated persons , occupying a single dwelling
unit , living and cooking together as a single
JJ housekeeping unit .
ql� ) Notwithstanding the provisions . of paragraph ( b ) of
this definition , a group of unrelated persons numbering
more than two ( 2 ) shall be considered a family upon a
determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals that the
group is a functional equivalent of a family pursuant
to the standards enumerated in paragraph ( e ) herein .
( d ) Before making a determination whether a group of
more than two unrelated persons constitutes a family
for the purpose of occupying a dwelling unit , as
provided for in paragraph ( c ) of this definition , the
Zoning Board of Appeals shall hold a public hearing ,
after public notice , as is normally . required for the
obtaining of a variance . The fee for such an
application shall be the same as is required for an
• application for a variance . Said application shall be
on a form provided by the Zoning Board of Appeals or
�Zoning Enforcement Officer . C /
In making a determination under paragraph ( djo*� t�he
Board of Appeals shall find :
( i ) The group is . one which in theory , size ,
appearance and structure resembles a traditional
family unit .
The group is one which will live and cook
together as a single housekeeping unit .
The group is of a permanent nature and is
neither merely a framework for transient or
seasonal ( including - as " seasonal " a period of an -
f . tI ' academic year or less ) living , nor merely an
` association or relationship which is transient or
-I . seasonal in nature . In making this finding , the
Zoning Board of . Appeals may consider , among other
factors , the followings
( a ) Whether expensesfor preparing of food ,
rent or ownership costs , utilities , and other
• 3
Dwelling . Ith3 , 9 / 20 / 39 3 : 08pm
Y
• household expenses are shared and whether the
preparation , storage and consumption of food
is shared .
( b ) Whether or not different members of the
household have the same address for the
— — purposes of -
( i ) Voter registration .
( ii ) Drivers license .
( iii ) Motor vehicle registration .
( iv ) Summer. or other residences .
( v ) Filing of taxes .
( c ) Whether or not furniture and appliances
are commonly owned by all members of the
household .
( d ) Whether or not any children are enrolled
in local schools .
• ( e ) Whether or not householders are employed
ie
n the local area .
( f ) Whether or not the group has been living
together as a unit for an extended period of
time , whether in the current dwelling unit or
other dwelling units .
tz
( g ) Any other factor reasonably related ' to
whether or not the group of persons is the
functional equivalent of a traditional
family . ,
r ( i AA gicQup I ividua s�liv ' g together in
the s dwell1kng un ' all be esumbd., not to be
.' family s de ed he it ' s oc' ied by
_ fou r more alts ver a of e ' htee`r�years
nd is t occ _ by nor , d dent ildln .
w �� ,
( V ) e. pre ption t r visio `( iv )
above m be utted lent idence of
1 ) 9 p� the charac fist fo i �s divis ' n ( iii )
01 above .
( vi ) In making determinations under this section ,
the Zoning Board of Appeals shall not be required
4
Dwelling . Ith3 , , 9 / 20 / 39 3 : 03pm
• to consider the matters set forth in Section 77 of
this Ordinance .
( f ) In making determinations as to Dheaa
Gv particular group consists of a family , the Zod
of Appeals may impose reasonable conditions occupancy - - as - a - - - family ---as -contemplateds Ordinance . Such conditions may include limiTLWNi � numbers of vehicles , parking of vehicles , ffacilities in the inside of the building ( e .
�p1JInl �' of food preparation areas , etc . ) .
) eO
(q ) Notwithstanding the provisions elsewhere provided
1 herein , if the following limitations result in a lesser
permitted number of occupants than would be permitted
under the definition of- family set - forth above and the
regulations of each zone set forth later in this
Ordinance , the number of occupants , related or
otehrwise , shall not exceed the maximum numbers
determined on the basis of habitable space of each
dwelling unit as follows :
( i ) A minimum of 150 square feet of habitable
space for the first occupant ; and
• ( ii ) 80 'square feet ' of habitable , space for each
additional person in each dwelling unit .
In no case shall the enclosed floor area be less than
required by Section 58 of this Ordinance .
Areas utilized for kitchenettes , bath , toilet , storage ,
utility space , closets , and other service or
maintenance space shall be excluded in determining
' habitable spacer . "
2 . Article 3 , Section 41 Subdivision 1 , is amended to read
as follows :
" i . A one - family dwelling . A one- family dwelling may be
occupied by not more than
� ��g� A ! tr j A „ t L -
lv�a�J
Q � ) A familk , or
( c ) A family plus no more than one boarder , roomer , lodger
or other occupant . "
• 5
•► Ir I7�i���/ j
Dwelling . Ith3 , , 9 / 20 / 89 3 : 08pm
• 3 . Article 3 , Section 4 , Subdivision 2 ( a ) is amended to
read as follows :
" 2 ( a ) . A two - famiV dwelling shall be occupied by not more
than two families sept that one or bo unit may , f not
ca kied� by . a ily , a oc ied an i ividu ( i . e a
wo- ily well i sha be o pied no ore an e
f ' ly , ea unit , or e f in one it a a
indi ' dual othe unit , or o ind idua. in e h
unit . ) '
4 . Article 4 , Section 11 , Subdivision 1 , is amended to read
as follows :
"A One - Family Dwelling . A one - family dwelling may be
occupied by not more than
-(� plus no more a
` ( d ) A family , or
( d ) A family plus no more than one boarder , roomer , lodger
• or other occupant . "
5 . Article 41 Section 11 , Subdivision 2 ( a ) , is amended to
read as follows :
" 2 ( a ) . A two - famil dwelling shall be occupied by not more
than two familiesxcept ,that one or th u ' ts ma if not
cc up ed a 'f�mi be cupi by an nd1 ual . e . , a
t - fam . y elle s 11 b occu ed by o m e tha one
Yn fam I ea unone famil in o un and
indivi ual n t o , er nit , one ndiv al each
unit . )
6 . Article 5 , Section 18 , Subdivision 1 , is amended to read
as follows :
" 1 . A One -Family Dwelling . A -one - family dwelling may be
occupied by not more than
( b ) An individ
Iod Occu ,
A family , or
• 6
.• A
Dwelling . Ith3 , 9 / 20 / 89 3 : 08pm
• ( dl ) A family plus no more than one boarder , roomer , lodger
or other occupant . "
7 . Article 5 , Section 18 , Subdivision 2 ( a.) is amended to
read as follows .
" 2 ( a ) . A two - famil dwelling shall be occupied by not more
than two families ex , pt t at one or th units m , if „ not
Kun
paied by a family , a oc pied an ndi ' dual ' . e . , a
family well�i.nq sha be cc
by o m e th on
in ea h u ' t , or ne ily o e u ' t an an
v ual in a her un , o ne in
al. in each
. ) A/
8 . Article 6 , Section 26 , is hereby amended ' by adding a
paragraph at the end thereof reading as follows .
" Each dwelling unit in a multiple residence shall be
occupied by no more than
us no . more ,
• ) A family , or
A family plus . no more than two boarders , roomers ,
lodgers or other occupants . n
Section 3 . Pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law and the
, statute of local governments , this . Local Law shall supersede any
inconsistent provisions of the Town Law .
3
Section -: In the event any portionof this law is declared
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction , the validity of the
aa
remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of
invalidity .
Section . This local law shall take effect ten days after
its publication pursuant to applicable provisions of law .
• 7
�•Y�Yir8i,1' ,1
TOWN OF ITHACA
• LOCAL LAW NO . FOR THE YEAR 1989
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO THE OCCUPANCY OF
DWELLING UNITS
BE I_ T ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as
follows : - -
Section 1 . Legislative Findings .
The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca permits
residential uses and establishes residence districts in the Town
consistent . with the Town comprehensive plan . One purpose of this
part of the Zoning Ordinance is to preserve the Town ' s
residential character and protect residents from overcrowding , an
excessive volume of traffic , parking problems , . and excessive
noise which deprives them of the privilege of quiet residential
neighborhood communities . Residential districts are designed to
allow people to reside in peaceful environs undisturbed by the
disruptions attendant to business , industrial and other intensive
uses . -
The U . S . Supreme Court has found that a quiet place where
yards are wide , people few , and motor vehicles restricted , are
• legitimate guidelines in land use plans . Further , !the police
power is not confined to elimination of filth , stench and
unhealthy places , but it is proper to lay out zones where family
values , youth values , and blessings of quiet seclusion and clean
air make the .area a sanctuary for people .
The Court of Appeals of the State of New York has also
recognized the validity of these governmental purposes , provided
there is a reasonable relationship between the purpose and the
regulation utilized to achieve that purpose .
In recent years town officials have been inundated with
complaints about the overcrowding , noise , and parking problems in
many residential neighborhoods caused by large numbers of persons
occupying residential dwellings on a transient basis , primarily
as student housing for a semester or academic year . The vast
majority of these complaints are received during the school year .
The Town has two institutions of higher learning with a large
population of students . Unfortunately ,— the housing
accommodations provided by these institutions of higher learning
are inadequate to meet the housing needs of all of the students
enrolled in these institutions , thereby causing students to look
for housing in what are otherwise primarily long term residential
neighborhoods . The effect of these problems is to convert
dwellings in such residential neighborhoods into rental , non
owner- occupied properties occupied by large numbers of students .
• These occupancies are usually not individuals living together as
a single housekeeping unit , but are more reflective of transient ,
EX /,l 140/ r ,Z
uweiling . lzn .s , Lu/ ,Ly/ 89 3 : 35pm
• seasonal ( including semester or academic year ) occupancies .
This trend threatens the stability and integrity of
residential neighborhoods . This practice interferes with the
goal of providing quiet and peaceful residential neighborhoods .
It also results in the hazardous - - overcrowding of residential
dwellings .
The Town recognizes that quasi -multiple dwellings are an
integral part of the community . However , if legitimate long-term
residential units continue to be converted from long-term
continuous occupancy to rental occupancy on a semester by
semester basis for short-term economic gain at the expense of the
rest of the community , the character of the Town ' s residential
neighborhoods will be destroyed . Rather than a place where long-
term stabilized neighborhoods exist where residents can have
peace and solitude , they will become a haven for students whose
parties , driving , and other activities disturb residential
tranquility . Such type of occupanciesare better accommodated in
multiple residence districts and special land use districts
permitting same . The Town does provide substantial
accommodations for this type of occupancy in its multiple
residence and special land use district areas .
The protection of residential values must . be achieved by
regulations which are reasonably--related- to this - goal The Court
• of Appeals decision in McMinn v . Oyster Bay , ( 66 N . y . 2d 544 ,
1986 ) is illustrative of this fact .
It is the purpose of this local law to protect the Town ' s
residential neighborhoods
by reasonable regulations .
Specifically , this local law redefines. " family " in compliance
with McMinn , ( supra ) .
Overcrowding of residential dwellings and properties is also
regulated based on habitable floor. area .
By such :: regulations the Town hopes to give effect to its
zoning ordinance and the goal of preservation of residential
neighborhoods by insuring that residential neighborhoods continue
to be populated by year round , long-term residents , while
transient student visitors are properly located in zones intended
for multiple and transient accommodations .
Section 2 . The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as
readopted , amended and revised , effective February 26 , 1968 , be
further amended as follows :
1 . Article I , Section 1 , Subparagraph - 5 is amended to read
as follows :
• 2
• Dwelling . Ith3 , , 10/ 19/ 89 3 : 35pm
115 . A ' family ' consists of
( a ) An individual , or
( b ) Two or more persons occupying a single dwelling
unit , related by blood , marriage , or legal adoption ,
living and__ cooking—together as a single housekeeping
unit , or
( c ) Two unrelated persons , occupying a single dwelling
unit , living and cooking together as a single -
housekeeping unit .
( d ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph ( c ) of
this definition , a group of unrelated persons numbering
more than two ( 2 ) shall be considered a family upon a
determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals that the
group is a functional equivalent of a family pursuant
to the standards enumerated in paragraph ( f ) herein .
( e ) Before making a determination whether a group of
more than two unrelated persons constitutes a family
for the purpose of occupying a dwelling unit , as
provided for in paragraph ( d ) of this definition , the
Zoning Board of Appeals shall hold a public hearing ,
after public notice , as is normally required for the
obtaining of a variance . • The fee for such an
application shall be the same as is required for an
application for a variance . Said application shall be
on a form provided by the Zoning Board of Appeals or
Zoning Enforcement Officer .
( f ) In making a determination . under paragraph ( d ) the
Board of Appeals shall find :
( i ) The group is one which in theory , size ,
appearance and structure resembles a traditional
family unit .
( ii ) The group is one which will live and cook
together as a single housekeeping unit .
( iii ) The group is of a permanent nature and is
neither merely a framework for transient or
seasonal ( including as " seasonal " a period of an
academic year or less ) living , nor merely an
association or relationship which is transient or
seasonal in nature .- In making this finding , the
Zoning Board of Appeals may consider_ , among other
factors , the following .
• 3
Dwelling . Ith3 , , 10/ 19 / 89 3 : 35pm
• ( a ) Whether expenses for preparing of food ,
rent or ownership costs , utilities , and other
household expenses are shared and whether the
preparation , storage and consumption of food
is shared . —
( b ) Whether or not different members of the—
household have the same address for the
purposes of
( i ) Voter registration .
( ii ) Drivers license .
( iii ) Motor vehicle registration .
( iv ) Summer or other residences .
( v ) Filing of taxes .
( c ) Whether or not furniture and appliances
are commonly owned by all members of the
household .
( d ) Whether or . not any children are enrolled
in local schools .
( e ) Whether -or not householders are employed -
in the local area .
( f ) Whether or not the group has been living
together as a unit for an extended period of
time , whether in the current dwelling unit or
other dwelling units .
( g ) Any other factor reasonably related to
whether or not the group of persons is the
functional equivalent of a traditional
family .
( iv ) In making determinations under this section ,
the Zoning Board of Appeals shall not be required
to consider the matters set forth in Section 77 of
this Ordinance .
( g ) Notwithstanding the provisions elsewhere provided
herein , if the following limitations result in a lesser
permitted number of occupants than would be permitted
under the definition of family set forth above and the
regulations of each zone set forth later in this
Ordinance , the number of occupants , related or
• 4
��ryidi� .Z
Dwelling . Iths , , 1u/ 19/ 89 3 : 46pm
otherwise , shall not exceed the maximum numbers
determined on the basis of habitable space of each
dwelling unit as follows :
( i ) A minimum of 150 square feet of habitable
space for the first occupant ; and
( ii ) 80 square feet of habitable space for each
additional person in each dwelling unit .
In no case shall the enclosed floor area be less than
required by Section 58 of this Ordinance . .
Areas utilized for kitchenettes , bath , toilet , storage ,
utility space , closets , and other service or
maintenance space shall be excluded in determining
' habitable space ' . "
2 . Article 3 , Section 4 , Subdivision 1 , is amended to read
as follows :
" 1 . A one - family dwelling . A one - family dwelling may be
occupied by not more than
( a ) Onei family , or
( b ) One family plus no more than one boarder , roomer ,
lodger or other occupant . " -
3 . Article 3 , Section 4 , Subdivision 2 ( a ) is amended to
read as follows :
112 ( a ) . A two - family dwelling shall, be occupied by not more
than two families . "
4 . Article 4 , Section 11 , Subdivision 1 , is amended to read
as follows :
" A One - 11
Family Dwelling . A one- family dwelling may be
occupied by not more than
( a ) One family , or
( b ) One family plus no more than one boarder , roomer ,
lodger or other occupant . "
5 . Article 4 , Section 11 , Subdivision 2 ( a ) , is amended to
read as follows :
" 2 ( a ) . A two - family dwelling shall be occupied by not more
than two families . "
• 5
Dwelling . Ith3 , , 10/ 19/ 89 3 : 35pm
• 6 . Article 5 , Section 18 , Subdivision 1 , is amended to read
as follows :
" 1 . A One - Family Dwelling . A one - family dwelling may be
occupied by not more than
( a ) One family , or
( b ) One family plus no more than one boarder , roomer ,
lodger or other occupant . "
7 . Article 5 , Section 18 , Subdivision 2 ( a ) is amended to
read as follows .
" 2 ( a ) . A two - family dwelling shall be occupied by not more
than two families . "
8 . Article 6 , Section 26 , is hereby amended by adding a
paragraph at the end thereof reading as, follows :
" Each dwelling unit in a multiple - residence shall be
occupied by no more than
( a ) One family , or
• ( b ) One family plus no more than two boarders , roomers ,
lodgers or other occupants . " , -- -
Section 3 . In the event any portion of this law ios declared
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the
remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of
invalidity .
Section 4 . This local law shall take effect ten days after
its publication pursuant to applicable provisions of law .
• 6
4 ovvzwo