HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2001-12-04DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED- APPROVED - APPROVED
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FILE
DATE
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2001
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, December 4,
2001, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George
Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board
Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John
Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter,
Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra-
Lehman, Planner,
EXCUSED: Kevin Talty, Board Member.
ALSO PRESENT: Jimmie Stober, . 382 Main St, Johnson City, NY; Tim Frateschi,
Harris, Beach LLP, 300 State St, Syracuse, NY
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35 p.m.; and accepted for the
record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings
in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 26, 2001 and November 28, 2001,
together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City
of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning,
upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants
and/or agents, as appropriate, on November 28, 2001. (Affidavit of Posting and
Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1)
Chairperson Wilcox 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: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:36 p.m. With no persons
present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR, Determination, Telecommunication Antennas, Maple
Avenue
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Tim Frateschi, Harris, Beach LLP, 300 S. State St, Syracuse, representing Wireless One
. We are here tonight to submit our application, which has already been submitted, but to
present our application for a special use permit, preliminary and final approval, so that we
1
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
can obtain a special use permit to put three telecommunications antennas on a existing
utility pole in the NYSEG substation on Maple Avenue, on the Cornell campus.
The telecommunications equipment will be used to provide services for the Cornell
campus, strictly for the Cornell campus. Under the FCC 'Telecommunications Act
Independent Wireless One has a license to provide services, Sprint services and.. we are
required to provide services in this area and that's why we are placing antennas on the
existing utility pole. As I said, I submitted an application to the Board for it's
determination and hopefully the application speaks for itself. We went through this early
October and we tried to use the same format in the application that we used last time, so
it's familiar to you. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
By the way, I have Jimmie Stober here also and he is our site acquisitions specialist on
this project and Jimmie is with Sober and Krouder LLC. He may step in and answer some
questions that I may not have the answers to.
Board Member Mitrano — Did you ever work in the Rochester office?
Mr. Frateschi — Of Harris Beach? No I have not. I've been there many times though. We
have a new office on Gernzey Rd.
Board Member Mitrano — Out in Pittsford?
Mr. Frateschi — Yes
Chairperson Wilcox — Your application states that your interest here is to provide service
to the Cornell University campus. I'm curious as to why you didn't choose the top of
Bradfield Hall which is one of the higher buildings or some other higher point on
campus.
Mr. Frateschi — I'm going to defer to Jimmie on most of this because he is the site
acquisition person on this. But my understanding was that we looked at a number of
different high facilities or high structures on the Cornell campus, including the
smokestack and including Bradford Hall. But we weren't able to get the approval of the
landowner to do that on those buildings.
Jimmie Stober, 382 Main St, Johnson City, NY — Actually, Tim said it in a nutshell. Our
first goal was to be on Bradford Hall, but Bradford Hall has all the equipment that is
allowed and so that was not offered by the University. Our second choice would have
been the veterinary medical center. The process there was a 2 to 2 'h year process as it
was explained to us and we have a deployment need to be in there as soon as we can. We
investigated a number of other sites, including the smokestack. Actually, we had
candidates through I, starting with A that we worked on. But the one that became most
apparent, that we thought would work best for community planning and zoning and the
2
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED- APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED
campus was at the substation. There already were similar type structures there and that
we could go on a pole that was already there and not have to replace a pole, but we could
be on the pole below the top of the pole and we could in fact attach flush with the pole.
And we felt that with the screening, the location and everything would work for us. Our
main objectives on this particular site was to cover the campus and we have the rest of
the area adequately covered and this site cover the campus. It didn't give us any ability to
cover any other areas, but as it turned out, it did what we needed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Was the fact that the
that the reason it was going to take so long?
Vet School was under the state offices, was
Mr. Stober — It's statutory property, it's under the state offices, however the review
process still goes through the Cornell Trust and it has to be reviewed and approved by
Cornell before the application can be made.
Board Member Hoffmann — Is this the only antenna that is needed for the full campus
coverage?
Mr. Stober — No, actually it's not the. only antenna that's needed. If we could have been
on Bradford Hall, that would have been an ideal situation. That's the reason it's loaded
with equipment already. Because we couldn't, we actually had to split the cell site.
Which of course brought additional costs and I believe there's a facility across campus,
opposite from where we are. I was not involved in that. So there's actually two sites that
cover the campus at this point.
Board Member Hoffmann — So your company has not filed another application for
another tower?
Mr. Stober — Not for the campus. There's a possibility that because Cornell's in a
building process and they're going to build some very tall buildings, that we'll have an
opportunity to participate with them although that has yet to be negotiated. My
conversation right now is about as far as we have gone with Cornell on that and that
would put us in a better coverage positions, particularly when the new buildings go up,
they're going to block signals.
Board Member Mitrano — Which ones are those? Duffield? The new engineering school.
Mr. Stober — I'm not certain which one it is. When I met with the real estate part of the
department that handled the statutory buildings, they indicated that there were some new
buildings being planned and that if I were to be on the building were Frontier is, and I'm
not sure where that is, that our signal would be blocked in two years. So we could spend
two years getting it zoned and get it approved by the University and going through
architectural review to find out that when we're ready to make the installation that it will
already be a site that won't work.
3
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Thayer — The smokestacks appear to be a better location, better in height
anyway.
Mr. Stober — Well the smokestacks look like the ideal telecommunication candidate.
However, the installation of antennas on the smokestack, even though we paint them to
look exactly like the bricks, so that the lines match up, is thought by some people on
campus that it takes away from the integrity of a historic structure. They really don't want
to even consider it, period, end of conversation.
Board Member Thayer — Interesting. The electrical equipment below the pole doesn't
bother your signal?
Mr. Stober — No, it will not bother our signal. That's a very good question. For those of
you that don't know that we can use the sixty - megahertz energy that comes off those
poles to hide a signal and it can interfere if it leaks. So we could have a situation where,
some time in the future, a sheer from a line or something could start leaking and it would
interfere. However, we have an agreement with NYSEG to work those technical things
out. Our system would know instantly and we'd be calling it in immediately. It'd look
like a midnight meeting out there getting everything fixed.
Board Member Conneman — How high is the pole?
Mr. Stober — I believe the pole is fifty —five feet. Fifty feet.
Board Member Mitrano — The pole is actually sixty feet tall.
Mr. Stober — We're below the top.
Chairperson Wilcox — Why are you below the top.
Mr. Stober — We're below the top so that we cannot have a problem with anyone in the
community about adding anything to the viewscape that already doesn't exist and it will
work for us. We could maybe be a little bit higher, but what we will gain by it we could
possibly lose in this meeting or with the people on the campus that don't want to see that,
so we usually go below the pole line and for the same reason, our antennas aren't out on
arms. This way they have the least visual impact. In fact, most people won't even notice
that it's there, that's the goal.
Mr. Stober — I'm glad I'm not here asking to build a sub station.
Attorney Barney — This PCS technology?
Mr. Stober — This is a PCS.
Chairperson Wilcox — Like those little gaps I have along Route 366, maybe we'll see
Sprint fill them in.
0
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Stober — Actually, along 366, I believe that we have a site at 13 366 NYSEG and
we'll probably be covering from that site at which time it's ever approved. The Town of
Dryden.
Board Member Hoffmann — Why is it that you are waiting for confirmation, as indicated
on the E.A.F. Form? Does that have to do with the plans or is that being considered a
historical structure?
Mr. Frateschi — Is your question whether the pole itself is a historic structure?
Board Member Hoffmann — No, I was wondering why you need a confirmation.
Mr. Frateschi - It's part of the E.A.F. process that we request from SHPO, which is the
State Historic Preservation Office. We let them know what we are doing. If they don't get
back to us with an objection to the site, then we go forward with this.
Board Member Hoffmann — There are no problems that you know of.
Mr. Frateschi — No.
Board Member Hoffmann — The other question is 17 on the same page. Is the site served
by utility. You have written "no" but I really thought that it was.
Chairperson Wilcox — I can answer that, but I'll let you try first.
Mr. Frateschi — I would think that the public utility, I think they're contemplating there is
whether the site itself provides public utility or electricity to that site. This is a relay
station or a generation station for other people. It's not the destination of the utility. Fred
can hopefully explain it better than I can.
Chairperson Wilcox — I thought I'd watch you squirm a little bit first!
Board Member Hoffmann — I think that somewhere on it, it mentions something about
usage of power.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm looking at one of the drawings and it shows a proposed
overhead Batelco service line running across Maple Avenue from the NYSEG pole to
your proposed site. At least one utility, in this case, has some sort of connection to the
telephone network .
Mr. Frateschi — But your question was "why do we have no there"
Board Member Hoffmann — Because someday you may be using electricity.
Mr. Frateschi — We will be.
5
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED- APPROVED - APPROVED— JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Attorney Barney — I think the intent of this question is do you have enough electrical,
water, whatever services you need in order to conduct the project. I think the answer
more properly is yes.
Mr. Frateschi — I would agree with you..In fact, I would stipulate that that is a mistake
and that the answer should probably be yes on that. Because we will be using the public
utilities for.our own service. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
SEQR RESOLUTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2001-110 - Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval IWO
Telecommunication Antennas on NYSEG Pole Maple Avenue Tax Parcel No. 634-5
Planning Board, December 4, 2001
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS,
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for a
proposal to attach telecommunications antennas onto an existing NYSEG utility pole at
the Maple Avenue substation, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5, Residence District
R -30. The proposal includes attaching three cellular antennas to an existing utility pole,
and installing an equipment compound within the existing NYSEG substation. Cornell
University, Owner; Independent Wireless One Corporation, Applicant; Timothy A.
Frateschi, Harris Beach, LLP, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to
Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on December 4, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and
Part 11 and Visual Addendum, prepared by the Town Planning staff; a report entitled
"IWO Application for Special Use Permit," prepared by Harris Beach LLP; plans entitled
"Cornell Wood Pole, NYSEG E. Ithaca Substation, Maple Avenue, Ithaca, NY,"
including Sheet No. LST745Z1 entitled . "Zoning Plans & Elevation," Sheet No.
LST745Z2 entitled "Zoning Overall Site Plan," and Sheet No. LST745Z3 entitled
"Zoning Property Map," all prepared by C & S Engineers, Inc., and dated November,
2001; and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special
Approval;
rel
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
MOTION made by Tracey Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman.
The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Howe, Thayer, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Conneman,
NAYS: None.
EXCUSED: Kevin Talty.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval
for a proposal to attach telecommunications antenna onto an existing NYSEG pole
at the Maple Avenue substation, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 =1 -5, Residence
District R -30. The proposal includes attaching three cellular antennas to an existing
NYSEG substation. Cornell University, Owner; Independent Wireless One
Corporation, Applicant; Timothy A. Frateschi, Harris Beach LLP, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:51 p.m. With no persons present of
be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Board Member Mitrano — So, just because I have a Sprint account, doesn't mean that will
automatically go into my cell phone?
Mr. Stober — Even though we have a number of sites throughout the county that have
already been approved and we have them built already at this time, none of them will be
turned on until we have the whole system on. It's really discouraging for a user to believe
that they've got service and drive one block and then they have nothing. We've found
that that's really contrary to our purpose of good customer service. We have a lot of the
system that is up at this point and once we get the whole system built, then we'll turn it
on.
Attorney Barney — When do you anticipate that occurring?
7
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Stober — We have things before planning boards in places like Danby and a few other
places where the process is more protracted and it is hard to know for sure. We're passed
out deadline already as to when we had hoped to have it on.
Mr. Frateschi — John, we expect it to be turned on not long after the first of the year.
That's what we're looking at.
Chairperson. Wilcox — When you arrived this evening we had what appeared_ to be
identical letters from NYSEG and Cornell University. These are some interesting
negociationing isn't it. Does Sprint negotiate with Cornell, who negotiates with NYSEG,
how does that work?
Mr. Frateschi — Independent Wireless One will negotiate a lease or an easement with
Cornell as the landowner and then we will negotiate a lease with NYSEG who is the
property owner, the, pole owner. So that we will have two separate agreements both with
the real property owner and with the pole owner.
Chairperson Wilcox — And you don't anticipate and problems.
Mr. Franteschi — We do not, the economic terms have already been straightened out.
There are just some small legal issues that have to be worked out, but we anticipate that
by the end of this month.
Chairperson Wilcox — I drove by the site on W. King Road. I noticed a truck out front, is
there some work going on? Do you know?
Mr. Stober — As far as I know, the antennas are installed there. I'd have to go look, but
that's what I've heard through the pipeline.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. I did see some trucks, so it would appear that there is
some work going on.
Ms. Balestra -Lehman — I have a question about the easement, or the lease agreement. I
got a call John Mezner from Cornell and he asked that we modify condition "b" so that
instead of it saying " the negotiated lease agreement ", it would say " the negotiated
easement agreement ". I don't know. I want to leave that up to you John.
Attorney Barney — If he would prefer to say "easement agreement" I have no problem
with that.
Board Member Hoffmann — Is that the very last condition.
Attorney Barney — No.
Ms. Balestra -Lehman — No, it's the second condition, on the first page.
DO
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED- APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Why don't we just say "negotiated agreement"
Ms. Balestra -Lehman — "Submission of a copy of the negotiated easement agreement ",
instead of lease or getting rid of that all together and just saying the negotiated
agreement.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -111 Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval
and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval IWO
Telecommunication Antennas on NYSEG Pole Maple Avenue Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for a
proposal to attach telecommunications antennas onto an existing NYSEG utility pole at
the Maple Avenue substation, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -5, Residence District
R -30. The proposal includes attaching three cellular antennas to an existing utility pole,
and installing an equipment compound within the existing NYSEG substation. Cornell
University, Owner; Independent Wireless One Corporation, Applicant; Timothy. A.
Frateschi, Harris Beach, LLP, Agent.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town
lead agency in environmental review with respect
Approval, has, on December 4, 2001, made a nega
significance, after having reviewed and accepted
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant,
prepared by Town Planning staff, and
of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
to Site Plan Approval and Special
tive determination of environmental
as adequate a Full Environmental
and a Part 11 and Visual Addendum,
3, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on December 4, 2001, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate a report entitled IWO Application for Special Use Permit,"
prepared by Harris Beach LLP; plans entitled "Cornell Wood Pole, NYSEG E. Ithaca
Substation, Maple Avenue, Ithaca, NY," including Sheet No. LST745Z1 entitled "Zoning
Plans & Elevation," Sheet No. LST745Z2 entitled "Zoning Overall Site Plan," and Sheet
No. LST745Z3 entitled "Zoning Property Map," all prepared by C & S Engineers, Inc.,
and dated November, 2001; and other application materials.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
t. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in
E
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies
enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary & Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed Telecommunication Antennas on the NYSEG utility pole
on Maple Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 75, as shown on plans entitled, "Cornell Wood
Pole, NYSEG E. Ithaca Substation, Maple Avenue, Ithaca, NY," prepared by C & S
Engineers, Inc. and dated November, 2001, subject to the following conditions, all to be
completed prior to the issuance of any building permits:
a: obtaining of Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals,
be submission of a copy of the negotiated easement agreement between the
applicant and the property owner (Cornell University), as well as the necessary
agreement with NYSEG, for the location of telecommunication antennas on the utility
pole,
co submission of a financial security bond for the removal of the
telecommunications facility in the amount of $50,000, as per Local Law No. 4, 1998,
form of which is to be approved by the Attorney for the Town, and
do submission of an original of the final site plan (Sheet No. LT0746cZ2) on
mylar, vellum, or paper, bearing the original stamp, seal, and signature of the licensed
engineer who prepared the site plan, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, determines the following:
a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as
demonstrated by the. applicant;
be the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be
adversely affected as a result of the proposed project;
C, the specific proposed change in use as a result of the proposed project is in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca;
do the proposed telecommunication antennas are necessary to meet current or
reasonably expected demands for services;
e. the facility conforms with all federal and state laws and all applicable rules
or regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, Federal
Aviation Administration, or any other federal agencies having jurisdiction;
10
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
fe the facility is considered a public utility in the State of New York;
g* the facility is sited, designed, and constructed in a manner which
minimizes (i) visual impact to the extent practical, and (ii) adverse impacts upon
migratory and other birds and wildlife;
h, the facility complies with all other requirements of this ordinance, unless
expressly superceded herein; and
i. the chosen site is the most appropriate site among those available within
the technically feasible area for the location of a telecommunications facility.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation
that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved, and
3. That the Planning Board recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals waive the
following requirements of Local Law No.4, 1998, relating to the Construction and
Maintenance of Telecommunication Facilities:
a. an inventory report specifying existing telecommunication facility sites
and evaluation of opportunities for shared use,
b, the dimensional standards indicating the fall zone having a radius equal to
the height of attached antennae, but requiring a fall zone of 50 feet,
C, the vegetative buffering surrounding the fence containing the equipment
cabinet to buffer the view from neighboring residences and public roads, and
do the agreement to negotiate with subsequent applicants seeking to co- locate
telecommunication facilities on the initial applicant's structures.
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Howe, Thayer, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Conneman.
NAYS: None,
EXCUSED: Kevin Talty.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
11
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
AGENDA ITEM — Presentation of Proposed Revised Town of Ithaca Ordinance and Map
(no action will be considered at this meeting).
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Kanter — I'll try to keep my remarks to a minimum and I guess how long we spend
on this is up to the Board at this point because I think what we had in mind for tonight
was to try to give a brief overview of the proposed zoning additions and bringing you up
to date on the process that's occurred so far and kind of set this up so that you'll have a
better idea when 'you go back and look at the Zoning Ordinance revisions, the full text
and the maps. You'll be able to focus on certain things and be able to ask us more
detailed questions at some point.
Basically, this has been going on for probably four years now and even goes back to the
comprehensive plan, which was adopted in 1993, which had a lot of recommendations for
zoning changes, among other things that have been adopted since then. But this is the
first time we have really sat down and tried to do a total overhaul and update of the
zoning ordinance and trying to clean up a lot of things that were recommended from the
comprehensive plan, in terms of implementation. So the Codes and Ordinances
Committee has been spending quite a bit of time trying to focus on this effort and we
finally have come up with this proposed revised draft. We apologize for not having been
able to mail that out ahead of time, but you have copies of that now in front of you. We
also have a revised Executive Summary that now corresponds to section and page
numbers from that revised zoning text.
I guess what we're trying to do tonight and you can kind of give us guidance on how
much of this you want to get into, how much depth and detail. But, we wanted to run
through some of the major changes in the zoning ordinance text itself that the Codes and
Ordinances Committee has come up with and then also run through some of the proposed
map changes that would go onto the Zoning Map.
So, of course, this is a larger effort than any of us here have undertaken. Of course, Fred
and Eva have been participating on the Codes and Ordinances since this whole process
has started several years ago. And, of course, John Barney has been very much involved.
So, I guess, process wise, where we stand right now, is the Codes and Ordinances
Committee has completed the draft ordinance and has decided to circulate it around to the
various boards and committees and begin to get some feedback from the Planning Board
and you're the first one to really see it in person, up close and personal. We have another
short presentation scheduled on Thursday evening with the Conservation Board. We'll be
sending it out to the Zoning Board of Appeals and, of course, the Town Board will be
getting copies of it and we're going to be talking with them about how to pursue the
environmental review of the ordinances revisions at their upcoming meeting on Monday.
Then, I guess also going to be setting up a meeting of the Agriculture Committee, which
hasn't met in probably several years and go over some of these recommendations with
them. If I had to characterize some of the most important changes, the agricultural zone is
probably one of them. Both in terms of the zone language itself and the map changes.
Probably also the conservation zone is one of the significant changes. Right now, we
have, kind of as our model conservation zone, the Six Mile Creek conservation zone and
we've expanded that into a more generic conservation zone and are recommending that
12
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED
that be mapped in a number of other areas. Probably, in terms of major work efforts that
were done by the Codes and Ordinances Committee in other significant areas of work
that I wouldn't say necessarily changed, is the business zones in general, which have
undergone quite close scrutiny and some change is recommended. Probably, in very loose
and general terms, those are some of the key terms to look for when you go through the
ordinance and the map changes.
So what I thought I would do, and again we could probably go on until 10 or 11 or 12 if
you wanted, to tonight. On the other hand, we could probably stop at 9. Basically this
meeting is for you and for whatever you think would be most helpful. I'll certainly ask
John Barney to help out with explaining any of the more legalistic aspects of some of the
changes and Fred and Eva, could certainly explain your recollections of why we did
certain things the way we did. We haven't exactly set a deadline for comments to get
back to the Codes and Ordinances Committee yet, but I think it's going to be somewhere
in the range of about a month and a half. What I was originally hoping for was to get
comments back to the Codes Committee by their January 16`h meeting. I'm not sure if
that's realistic at this point or not. I have to see how long it takes to get all the materials
distributed to the other boards and committees and we'll see how that goes. It could
become February. I think we'd like to give everyone a good month and a half to take a
look at this. Remember, this is sort of the initial review effort at this point. Although we
did, two or two and a half years ago, circulate an earlier, partial draft. The zone only
portion, to boards and committees. So a lot of the stuff isn't totally new. Some of the
things in, the. agricultural zone have maybe evolved and changed a little bit more since
then, but I think a lot of that has already been discussed with one initial run. So, with all
that in mind, let's we if we can run through and what I'm going to do is pretty much
follow the outline of the executive summary. I'm using the revised version and it does
have page number references and you can use those for reference, as well. What I think
we'll try to do, is as we talk through sections, especially when we get to zones themselves
as we describe some of the text changes. Mike will then kind of run through some of the
map changes that are suggested. 1.
Starting off, I think really the most important change in the whole ordinance and you
might disagree with me John, is the fact that we're proposing that definitions be arranged
in alphabetical order. But when you look through that section, you'll see that there are a
number of new definitions that are proposed and a lot of them are kind of updates of
terminology that has kind of needed some clarification, or even in some cases,
modernization. Some of the key ones that have been added would be things like "drive
through facility "farm retreat" is a term that's kind of new. "Mixed use" is a term that
we're using in the new business zones, which would allow a combination of residential
with commercial development as long as the residential aspect is subordinate to that
commercial use. So, when you get a chance, take a close look through the definition
section because in many cases I think a lot of what follows really is based on hopefully
clear definitions. I think a lot of these updates we try to avoid interpretations where
they're not necessary. Of course, sometimes when you try to do that, that just brings in
further need to interpret.
Article 4 is a section on establishment of zones. I just wanted to highlight, there are,
again, three really new zones, in a sense, as compared to our current ordinance. The
conservation zones is, again, the expanded version of Six Mile Creek Zone, more
13
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED- APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED- APPROVED - APPROVED
applicable generally to other areas in the town. The lake front residential zone is a new
zone along the lakeshore, which we'll talk about a little more when we get to that section.
The office park zone commercial zone is a brand new zone that we didn't have before.
Article .5 is the new conservation zone section. Again the key to the overall conservation
zone is an attempt to provide for very low densities in significant natural areas that have
been identified for various reasons. The Six Mile Creek conservation zone had its own
characteristics, but we found that the provisions that were adopted for that zone really
were generally applicable to a number of other situations because they included things
like the reference to mandatory clustering to try to concentrate development on portions
of sites. Special regulations and requirements for preserving wetlands and other sensitive
environmental portions of the sites. And so those have all been retained but we worded
them a little to make them more generally applicable. One thing I'll mention that applies
to all of these lower- density residential zones, the conservation zone, the agricultural
zone, the lower - density residential zones, until you get up to the new HDR. We've added
a provision that allows a second dwelling unit to be added in an accessory building on the
site. Right now, we have the provision where you can have basically an accessory.
apartment in the principle building. It's really like a two family dwelling provision in
most of the residential zones. The committee felt that it would be a good idea to
encourage, again, more affordable housing opportunities, where there were appropriate
situations in accessory buildings on sites. This would apply to the conservation zone, and
that's why I'm beginning the description here, but also inmost of the residential zones
subject to a number of special approval process and requirements. We do have the elder
or cottage provision in the current ordinance and that would also remain. That seem to be
a fairly limited kind of an opportunity that really hasn't been used in the Town of Ithaca
yet, it's been used in a few other areas around Tompkins County. This kind of provision
would be that type of thing that could have the potential for extended family use. We
decided to use it in the lower density residential zones because there would be ample
space on the lot. And to, basically, not use it when you get to the hdr (high density
residential zone) because lot sizes there are beginning to get really small in contrast to
square feet. It has kind of limited opportunities and we also have to think about adding
new accessory buildings and how that would affect the density character of already
developed areas and not build it in the high- density zones. So maybe Mike, at this point,
may want to run through the suggestions on the zoning map for the conservation zone.
Mr. Smith pointed out the areas on the blow -up maps, as described by Mr. Kanter.
Mr. Kanter — We also included the comp plan map as a resource which the Codes and
Ordinance Committee used substantially to help come up with a lot of these
recommendations, especially for the more open space oriented aspects of the zoning map.
Some where in these we also have, there's a reference if anyone wants to look at it, the
park and open space map that shows possible conservation zoned areas.
So, you'll probably see when you look at comparing those maps; not every single one of
the suggested conservation open spaced areas on the comprehensive plan results I a
zoning map proposal yet. Although, in many cases, they do correspond quite closely. But
we'll also be looking at some additional areas like Coy Glenn as the one that the
Conservation Board is looking at currently. Whether that can be added, as a proposal at
14
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED- APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
the time that we go out to the public with this map, I'm not sure. We'll see how that goes.
And again, any point is good for questions or clarification. If we move on too quickly, let
us know or if you have a question that comes up later, we can always go back.
The agricultural zone, I think is probably one of the most re- worked zones that we have
now in this proposed ordinance. The current agricultural zone isn't really an agricultural
zone, it's really like the R -30 zone and it happens to mention a couple of things about
agriculture and it also says a lot about radio and television antennas. So we totally re-
worked the. agricultural zone and the intent there is to make it much more clear that the
intent is agriculture as the primary use or focus in that zone and that a number of things to
strengthen the economy of the agricultural zone we put in. Things like adding certain
uses that were related to agriculture to the farms economy. So permitted uses include
things like equestrian facilities, forest management, forest resource uses, roadside stands,
those are much more clearly stated now, in the agricultural zone as being permitted uses.
A lot of special permit uses are being added, such as retail sales of machinery products or
supplies related to or derived from agricultural operations. That's a mouth full, but
basically, what it means is that it provides farm and farm- related businesses opportunities
to locate in those outlying areas of the town and perhaps start to strengthen the presences
of agriculture in that area. Also other .things, like research facilities dedicated to
agricultural uses, farm retreats,. we had mentioned before in the definitions section. Farm
retreat, the definition basically it's sort of like a visitor or tourist almost oriented use,
which allows visitors to come and stay on a farm and learn how to do farming and the
farm facility could actually have lodging facilities there. So it's almost a combination of
educational and an accessory agricultural type of use.
Chairperson Wilcox — We should talk about the right to farm conditions, which are very
important. Potential residents have to be aware that this is a farming district, there will be
noise, there will be dust and there will be odors.
Mr. Kanter — That's right up front in the statement of purpose, as well as the agricultural
zone section, which has a specific legal form of a rights of farm provision, which
basically also deals with neighbor relations and nuisance law. So that these are also in the
state /county agricultural districts. That state law, in the regulations promoted by state ag
and markets, I believe emphasize the primary use of farming in those areas. We did look
at a number of sample rights to farm provisions and a number of sample agricultural
zones and none of them were what we thought looked quite right, but we kind of put this
together with some of the best of all those that we looked at. Obviously, density is
another major consideration of the agricultural zone. Right now, it's really the equivalent
of only 30,000 square foot lots. The proposal is to vastly lower the permitted density of
residential development in the agricultural zone, so that it would end up being one unit
per 7 acres, which is really the same as the conservation zone. At the same time, there
are proposals in there to again promote clustering to allow the Planning Board to require
clustering just as in the conservation zone. And actually, the one unit per seven acre
density is not a lot size requirement at all, it's actually their provisions .in there for non -
farmed lots to be basically between one and two acres, depending on the Health
Department requirements per septic and water supply because many of these areas are not
going to be in areas that are served by public sewer or water. The intent there is to have
15
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED= APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
the low density to concentrate what development does occur on small portions of the
properties and then there are additional restrictions regarding the potential for
subdividing these original farm parcels further once they reach a certain amount of
residential development . there would be restrictions on further subdividing them.
Basically, the intent there is to try to keep as many fairly large farm parcels intact and
contiguous as possible. I guess the threshold we came up with is trying to aim for getting
parcels at least a minimum of 25 acres in size, once they are completely subdivided.
That's a very over - simplification, but that one I would really urge you to take a good
close look at. Maybe Mike, at this point could go through the zoning map proposals real
quickly.
Mr. Smith pointed out and described the areas referred to.
Chairperson Wilcox — It's nice to see conservation and agricultural districts in green, first
of all. But it's nice to look at that proposed re- zoning; it's not a very good shade a green
right now. I can't say that it's a seventy percent increase in the conservation and
agricultural district, but it's quite significant. It's consistent with the direction the Town
has been moving.
Mr. Kanter — Of course, one thing that I think we'll have to do with all of this, it is
significant changes in terms of lowering densities in certain areas, is come up with some
good numbers on how much land if effected and how that will balance out with
developable zones in the town. We want to make sure that we're not zoning out all
growth in the town. I don't think that's at all the intent of the comprehensive plan. The
plan basically did have a lot of open space recommendations, but called for balance with
development for appropriate opportunities in other areas. So we're really going to need to
document that, as well as we can.
Mr. Kanter — Some of those were the key issues, so we wanted to spend a little more time
on those this new lakefront residential zone, again, brand new and really the purpose of
this. is to apply to residential lots along the shore line of Cayuga Lake and to come up
with more specific provisions for how that shore line is handled, especially in terms of
things like docks and boat houses. It comes up with some specific requirements for set
backs of structures from the shoreline. The concern is to try to retain some the open space
of the lakefront and view from the lake. So that's one of the primary purposes of it. Mike
can probably, very quickly, highlight where this is occurring. Again this is very much an
over simplification. The whole thing is a new section, so take a close look at that.
Mr. Kanter — The low- density residential zone, which we'll abbreviate LDR and from
here, the other residential zones, medium - density residential, high- density residential,
they're all, to a large degree, the renaming of the existing resident zones, R -30, R -15 and
R -9, corresponding to those. Probably the one that received the most attention and has the
most change is the low- density residential and part of that is because the comp plan
recommended areas that they called rural residential. It went a little bit beyond what we
had done with our R -30 zone and recommended that, although it would be primarily for
residential use, that agricultural uses and open spaces uses would be desirable to retain in
16
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED- APPROVED - APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED
that area. So that's pretty much what the purpose of that zone indicates and so, principle
uses, for instance added things like nurseries and farms as permitted principle uses and
other things like bed and breakfast establishments and equestrian uses have been added as
special permit uses. As we get into these area, there are going to be a lot of changes that,
for instance, deal with other zones from which R -30 might have been changed to and in
some cases, other zones going to the new low - density resident zone. So, without getting
into too much duplication, Mike, maybe you could just sort of high light the major
changes in the low- density. Before we do that, let me add just one other important thing
with the low- density zone, is a new way of determining minimum lot size. Basically, R-
30 is the equivalent zone now. It requires 30,0000 minimum square foot lots. The new
approach would be to determine whether or not the lot is served by public sewer. If it is,
the 30,000 square foot requirement would remain, but if not served by public sewer, then
there would be a 3 -acre minimum lot size requirement. So that's a major change to that
and that could actually result in some number of non - conforming lots that maybe we can
talk about later, when we get to the .non - conforming section. The Codes Committee
talked a good bit about that.
Mr. Kanter — The medium density zone really stays very much the same as the current R-
15 zone. Again, its purpose is for primarily for residential development. So there is the
purpose statement in case there'll be minimal intrusion of commercial farming or other
types of uses and again, the second provisions being allowed in the accessory buildings
applies also to the medium - density residential zone. And there really are not a whole lot
of map changes with that zone, but Mike can probably, real quick, point to those.
Mr. Kanter — The high- density zone, I really don't have too much to say about that, in
terms of changes in the zone itself, but there was a fairly, and again.this, the HDR would
not have the second dwelling unit permitted in accessory buildings, although it would still
allow the second unit in the main, principle building. There were a couple of significant
changes in the zoning map. That Mike can outline.
Mr. Smith pointed to the various changes on the map.
Mr. Kanter - We're not really sure at all why some of those areas, particularly along
Stone Quarry Rd, were originally zoned in R -9 and very topographically constrained that
really not a provision of...
Board Member Mitrano - Are those railroad tracks that used to go along there?
Mr. Kanter - Yes, it goes basically from the southwest area development in the City up
the edge of the south hill, up through this area and it actually is proposed as a future
bicycle pedestrian trail.
Chairperson Wilcox - You should also point out that further south of that the main
current R -9 zone is much smaller.
17
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED
Mr. Kanter - Mobil homes park zones basically, is equivalent to the current R -5 zone and
there are no re- zoning proposals in that. The only area that we have is over on Seven Mile
Drive and really not a whole lot was done to change that section. Pretty much, we just
added some clarification of certain uses. For instance, one family dwelling would be
permitted in that zone all though it's not likely that we would have very much of that.
Community residences and daycare homes added . as principal uses. And some
accompanying uses like child daycare center is added. Also maintenance buildings,
community buildings that we realize were things that would probably things that would
normally be associated with that kind of development. They didn't used to be allowed or
specified as a zone. So it's really kind of more clarification than anything else.
The multiple residence zones. Probably the major change there is in terms of density. The
current requirement in the mr zone results in the density of, a maximum density of 17.4
dwelling units per acre and the change there would lower the maximum potential to 12.4
dwelling units per acre. We found that by looking around the different sites that had been
developed with apartments and multiple residents types around the town, most of them
were in the range of maybe eight to ten units per acre and there was a general feeling that
17.4, which could conceivable done under the current zoning might be too high a density.
So that's one recommended change, that's something to take a look at and give some
thoughts on. And another minor change there has to do with the buffer requirement,
which use to, or currently has a 30 foot distance requirement from adjacent zones, that
would change to double the maximum distance of the side yard requirement with the
adjoining zone, so it more directly relates to what type of development is directly
adjacent to that mr development. Not to many zone changes recommended with this
zone, but it might good if I Mike went through this.
Mr. Smith pointed out the changes on the map.
Board Member Mitrano — So it's basically decoding that. I lived up there. When I moved
to Chase, the idea was that there were going to be shops. Has that now changed? Is that,
in fact what you're saying? I guess that question didn't make any sense. Help me out Eva.
When I first moved up there people said, this is zoned for a designed to have your shops,
small grocery stores, your offices in your homes.
Chairperson Wilcox — What was the one they had that little meeting for? People came in
from Alabama.
Board Member Hoffmann — There were these architects who were supposed to do that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you disappointed?
Board Member Mitrano — No, I was just curious how it had been handled at the zoning
level. I certainly know how it was handled in the practical use of it.
Mr. Kanter — When we
get to the
commercial zones, which
is right about now, we'll try
to focus in on what we're
calling the neighborhood oriented
commercial zones and areas
that could serve places
like Chase
Farm and Deer Run better than it is right now. Again,
IN
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED- APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 -APPROVED-APPROVED-APPROVED
we spent quite a bit of time looking at the commercial zones and basically, the key issues
really .came about when the Burger King issue was before this Board. Drive threw
facilities was a major issue and large -scale retail development also became a big issue.
The big box type of development. Those two really were a focus of a lot of the discussion
that the Codes and Ordinance Committee had: We did quite a bit of research, trip
generation rates and looking at different uses and what type of traffic would be
associated. We actually went back and looked, quite closely at the comprehensive plan
recommendations for the commercial zones and found that really the key there was
neighborhood oriented commercial zones and one kind of focus community commercial
zone that was recommended in the plan. So a lot of the work that we did was really trying
to bring the current language of the zoning ordinance a little bit closer to the intent of the
comprehensive plan. So one of the things that I think would be applicable and is proposed
to be in almost all of the commercial zones is the idea of mixed use development again I
mentioned that briefly, but it would bring in the possibility of a residential component in
a residential zones. That's something that I think the comprehensive plan, not only
anticipated, but encouraged in its language and seems to be something that could fit in,
pretty much on a small scale level, in some of the commercial areas. Although, I think
what we find around the time is that there are a lot of kind of scattered commercial areas,
like Elmira Rd has: some scattered commercial sites. The Rogans development, up on
Danby Rd, that's kind of a small pocket of commercial development. And of course, the
major concentration of commercial development in the town is the East Hill Plaza, Judd
Falls Plaza area. So, with that sort of as background, the way these commercial zones are
being recommended pretty much follows the pattern of the existing commercial zones,
but the zones are re- defined and re- oriented and fine tuned to try to bring all of those
things I mentioned into play so the neighborhood commercial zones, again, they're really
intended to serve immediate neighborhoods. Mike can outline where that is on the map.
Mr. Smith outlined the area referenced on the maps.
Mr. Kanter — I think one of the areas that we've talked a lot about is that Danby Rd
commercial area. It seems to be kind of an important location in terms of Chase Farm and
Deer Run and it seems to have some good potential for providing some small scale
neighborhood oriented facilities there. The current business owned on that corner right
now would allow a shopping center about 150,000 square feet in size and that goes back
to the 1960's when that zone was established there. It was for a specific development
proposal at that time and for some reason, we have left that zoning in place all these
years. I think every bodies feeling on the Codes Committee was that the scale of that
would be a little bit out of character at this point in time. Again East Hill Plaza has really
developed as the more community wide shopping area. Not only that, but Elmira Road
has developed quite a bit and has all the shopping facilities down there, so that the size of
development that was contemplated back in the 60's is probably not appropriate anymore
from that area anyway. Another concern with that corner, in particular was the proximity
of the state park to that location. I think we're trying to come up with some sort of a
balance of some small -scale commercial development and perhaps some residential
development as well. So that's basically what that proposal is trying to meet.
IIES
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Mitrano — Who owns that property again? That corner.
Mr. Kanter — Dave Auble owns it. He's was involved with that earlier. Chase Pond area
proposal you were mentioning. We've actually had quite a number of discussions with
Mr. Auble on that site.
Board Member Mitrano — Why hasn't it been sold to development? It does seem quite
prime. He must want too much money.
Chairperson Wilcox — They paid a lot of money for it at the height of South Hill
development frenzy that occurred with Deer Run and the Chase Developments..
Mr. Kanter — Really quickly, just in terms of usage and that neighborhood commercial
zone., The intent was to clearly indicate that drive through uses would generally not be
permitted in the neighbor hood zone, except for banks It think would be the only use
allowed to have drive through facility. And that uses in the neighborhood zone would be
limited to a maximum of 7,500 square feet. The building size, as well would be limited to
7,500 square feet, except where the Planning Board authorizes an increase up to 10,000
square feet by special permit.
Board Member Mitrano — If McDonalds wanted to move there, is that possible?
Mr. Kanter — Without a drive through, yes. We didn't get into distinguishing between fast
food restaurants and other sit down types of restaurants. We got into more the
differentiation between drive through and non - drivethroughs.
Chairperson Wilcox — Unless it's a really good restaurant, it's there to serve the
neighborhood. Your hill, if you will. Unlike a fast food restaurant, which might draw
people fro outside the area.
Mr. Kanter — So, that's pretty much the idea of the neighborhood zone. If you want, we
can move on to the office park zone and describe that a little bit. The office park
commercial zone is. another brand new zone. The idea of that really was to provide
certain areas where office development could be the primary use and other uses like retail
and light industrial would not be allowed. So there are going to be fairly limited
opportunities for that, maybe Mike can point to where those are proposed right not.
Mr. Smith pointed out the areas where the office park commercial zones were proposed.
Mr. Kanter — And the one on Danby Road, that's really a lot of it is the Axiom site, which
is currently zoned industrial. We tried to recognize the current uses of a building like
Axiom so that wouldn't. be precluded in the office park zone. So it contemplates research
and development facilities as well and allows things like cafeterias and lunch rooms as
accessory uses. So that's something that was also suggested by the comprehensive plan as
being kind of a good idea for allowing some additional growth in the town and it seems
20
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED
top be a good type of low impacting commercial type of development that could be
encouraged in the town.
Probably one that will generate the most discussion, I would imagine is the community
commercial zone and how we ended up handling that. That's an easy one for Mike to
point out where that is.
Mr. Smith pointed out where the community commercial zone extends on the maps.
Mr.Kanter — The idea there is pretty much stated in the purpose section which indicates
that community commercial zone is intended to provide areas for a broader range of
economic activities which may draw clientele from all areas of the town and even from
outside the town. That's probably where the concept is going to come into some
discussion with some of the people that we have already heard from who live in that
general area,. who I think, have tried to look at East Hill Plaza and Judd Falls Plaza as
neighborhood oriented facilities, but the reality is that they have become more than that.
They do generate business from areas further than the immediate surrounding areas. But
at the same time, I think we have to recognize that, while that is kind of the retail
business center of the town, if there is one, there is a need to recognize the proximity of
residential neighborhoods and to be sensitive to those. I think what we tried to do with
that zone was strike a balance again, as with many of these other issues, so we continue
to provide the types of uses that are up there at the two plazas. We did talk again about
drive throughs and whether they should be allowed or not allowed. They are allowed by
special permit in that community commercial zone on restaurants up to 10,000 square
feet, on pharmacies up to 25,000 square feet. There's always the re- development
potential of, for instance, the Judd Falls Plaza, which is what I think we kind of focus on
for something like that, where, in fact, that had been the preliminary proposal for a
pharmacy which would have had a drive through on the combined bowling alley- fitness
center site, which did not come through. So we're looking at that type of use as a
potential use that could be located there, but there also is a new limitation, well actually,
it's a current limitation when the Town Board was looking at this issue, the Town Board
already has enacted provision that limits businesses to a maximum of 25,000 square feet
and that would be continued in that zone. So that's pretty much it for that community
commercial zone.
The other thing that we did and we spent a good bit of time going through with the
committee was a summary table of uses of the business zones, which you do not see in
front of you and you do not have in front of you and that's something that I think we
would like to do when this progresses a little bit further because it was a good tool for the
committee to use and go through and compare permitted uses in the different zones. It
certainly makes it easier for the general public to get a better idea of what is and isn't
allowed within each zone. So I think we're going to try to come up with a version of that
when we go to the. public information meetings. I think that will be very helpful.
We actually went on a field to visit each of the commercial zones, which was interesting
because I think it gave people a good idea of the types of uses that were located around
the town and certainly encourage any of you who haven't done that to take a little trip
around the town, to take a look at some of these places.
21
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
The commercial zone really is the business key zone restated. Mike is you can point out
the very limited number of those. Rogans would be a neighborhood commercial area
because it really has more other stuff there than the. gas station.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have a question, can I ask it now? Under community
commercial, a small parcel containing a carwash currently zoned business, where is that?
Chairperson Wilcox — East Hill Car Wash.
Board Member Mitrano — East Hill Plaza,
Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, really.
Mr. Kanter — Car washes would become special permit uses in the community
commercial zone. I believe, maybe John you might remember this, I think that Rogan's
would or wouldn't become a non - conforming.
Attorney Barney — Yes, it would be a non - conforming.
Chairperson Wilcox — Lakefront commercial?
Mr. Kanter — Lakefront commercial is a pretty easy one too, because that is the current
business E zone. Which Mike is pointing to, which most of that is owned by Cornell now,
I guess there might be a little of bit of it Cornell doesn't own. The uses in there would be
pretty much the same as is the current business E zone, except that mixed use commercial
residential would be allowed by special permit as long as the residential component was
set back at least 100 feet from the shore line and also that set back provision would apply
to hotels and motels, which are currently owned. Restaurants would be allowed, but not
with drive throughs, although maybe we want a boat drive through. We didn't get into
that discussion.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there somewhere that the town might have a park access?
Attorney — Technically we do. It's a long -term license, which we got through Cornell. It
basically was built by Cornell and so the facility is pretty much there now.
Board Member Mitrano — That little pavilion thing that's up there.
Mr. Kanter — They're just finishing the pavilion. Last week it wasn't done, but I think it
might be now.
Chairperson
Wilcox — That is
the only place in
town that the public can have access to
the lake. It's
an important part
of the negotiations
between the town and Cornell.
Board Member Mitrano — How much further down, going towards... where does the city
end?
22
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter — Just right after the visitor center.
Board Member Thayer — A hundred foot set back on the lake would not be possible any
where on the lake.
Mr. Kanter — Well, it would basically put it back behind the railroad tracks.
Board Member Thayer — On the other side of the road.
Mr. Kanter — That was the idea.
Board Member Thayer — But on the other side of the lake there's no possibility
anywhere?
Mr. Kanter — No and there isn't any area recommended for that zone on the other side. I
mean some day there could be, in a hundred years or something.
Chairperson Wilcox — Somebody could buy out some of the northern lots on that side of
the lake, potentially.
Board Member Mitrano — That figures. When was the city incorporated outside of the
town, which is what I assumed happened.
Mr. Kanter — It was a village at one point and then became the city.
Ms. Balestra -Lehman — 18 something.
Chairperson Wilcox — Does it do back that far as a city of the village?
Ms. Balestra- Lehman — I can't remember, I read this too.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think it was incorporated as a city around 1900, but I could be
wrong.
Ms. Balestra -Lehman —Yeah, it's probably around that time.
Ms. Kanter — In fact, I think the visitor center used to be in the city and that was one of
the areas that then became part of the town.
Chairperson Wilcox — We swapped something to get the Youth Bureau, used to be part of
the city —there was an exchange.
Mr. Kanter — The light industrial zone. Not too many major changes in that. Still is the
only zone in town where you can have adult entertainment uses and Chris can tell you all
about that. Couple of changes with permitted uses that the light industrial zone would
23
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
now permit administrative of professional offices and it would also add, more specifically
things like warehousing and storage, which weren't previously stated as clearly as that.
Which would also include self- service storage facilities. So that would be the only zone
in the town which would allow those self storage facilities that you don't see in the town,
but you see in other places.
Mr. Smith pointed out the 4 zones on the map.
Chairperson Wilcox — We should probably tell you what they are. We've got Ehrhart
Gas, in the back. The Mancini Park, we have Therm and then Cornell Heating.
Mr. Smith — The one area that's been eliminated is the area at the corner of the City.
There isn't any development here.
Mr. Kanter — Topographically, it's not likely to every be any.
Chairperson Wilcox — Didn't you say that there's no road access.
Mr. Smith — Yeah there's no direct road access to it.
Mr. Kanter — And the ownership is kind of interesting. We couldn't tell at first who
owned it but Mike found out from the Assessment Office.
Mr. Smith — It's really part of the Lake. If you come out here, it goes down into the flood
control channel and goes all the way down to the state land.
Mr. Walker — While there is the flood control that's maintained by the state. The town
maintains a portion of the flood plain in the town and the city maintains the remainder of
it along the flood control. That's the old meatpacking plant location down there.
Chairperson Wilcox — And that meatpacking location was temporarily owned by the town
and then transferred to the city as part of their substitute parkland.
Mr. Thayer — I think the limousine service uses that zone. Would that be non - conforming
use of that?
Mr. Kanter — No, because that's not in the light industrial zone. That is actually zoned R-
30, I think, right?
Board Member Mitrano — I'm just curious, did the city ever do anything about adult
entertainment. They've got that place down town, have they ever zoned it.
Ms. Balestra- Lehman — The do have zoning.
Chairperson Wilcox — On the other side of Cherry St, down in that area.
0
24
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED- APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Mitrano —Oh, that's interesting.
Chairperson Wilcox — Wallace Steel used to be down there.
Mr. Kanter — Industrial. This . one is pretty easy. We've just sort of up dated and
modernized the language in that. We added a list of some prohibited uses, which you can
see in there. There is some clarification of the wording, but mainly the changes in where
it encompasses, it kind of shrinks a little bit from the current industrial area.
SLUDs, now known as Planned Development Zones. All the existing SLUDS, except for
Indian Creek, would remain as they are. Indian Creek is proposed to go back to its
original agricultural zone.
Procedures for creations of new zones, kind of just clarifies existing procedures. So I
guess we're pretty much done with the actual zones themselves, the maps and the
remaining sections really are procedural administrative kinds of things and special
regulations.
The site plan review section, Article 23, again got quite a bit of attention, but has already
been affected by the recently enacted local law that the Town Board adopted at the end of
last year —or was it early this year, I forget. Where the site plan modification thresholds
were re- established. So that basically, this new section repeats those amendments that
have already been made, which kind of updates those thresholds for bringing actions back
to the Planning Board for review. I think one of the major changes in the site plan section
also have to do with environmental considerations and this kind of goes back to a lot of
the discussions the former Planning Committee got into. Boy, we haven't had the
Planning Committee around for three years or so. A lot of the ideas for some of these
things came from that committee initially. This new site plan section, much more
specifically, adds, as considerations of approval, the Planning Board looking at the affect
of proposed development on environmentally sensitive areas, such as wet lands, steep
slopes, those types of things. Things that we pretty much do in the SEQR process
anyway, but they're a little more clearly states in this provision. Also there is an actual
site disturbance limitation provision, Section 2307, that indicates that no site plan shall be
approved which provides for construction of other disturbance of land in environmentally
sensitive areas which are listed there, unless the applicant demonstrates, with professional
eminence, reasonably satisfactorily to the Planning Board such construction may occur
without adverse environmental affects on such areas. Again, there are things that
normally would be looked at during the SEQR review and in the environmental
assessment, but I think it gives it a little more clarity and puts a little more burden on the
applicant to know that he has to come into the Planning Board and demonstrate that he is
not going to have adverse impacts on these area.
Chairperson Wilcox — It also protects us in case SEQR is applicable.
Mr. Kanter — Correct. We have found that, especially with some of the college facilities
now with type 2 exemptions that pertain to educational institutions under. 10,0000.
Special permits and special approvals; really the focus of that is, and you'll find this
throughout a number of the other zone descriptions where the special permit, special
approval process are evoked, but the main change there is that special permits would now
25
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED -. JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED
be all under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and many of the uses that currently
required special approval, that now require first coming to the Planning Board, Planning
Board gives the recommendation to the Zoning Board on special approval and then the
applicant.goes to the Zoning Board. Those things would actually be handled now just by
the Planning Board and would be done in conjunction with the site plan review. So it
would kind of consolidate that approval process.
Special approval would be a different approval process for certain selected uses like elder
cottages and home occupations that would remain with the Zoning Board because those
things do not generally involve site plan approvals. In some cases, I think we have found
that there are some benefits of having two different boards look at the same thing from
different perspectives, but there are also a lot of downfalls in terms of time involved. So
that's one of the big differences of the proposal.
Non - conforming uses; John, you might want to talk about this a little because there are
some legal aspects of that. Also I think that we wan to talk about how lots that will
become non - conforming because of lot size requirements now, how those will be handled
here.
Attorney Barney — The non - conforming uses are permitted to continue, which actually
under the constitution are preserved..But, in our current ordinance, if you have a non-
conforming use and want to enlarge it, the tests that are applied are much more analagate
than the area variance tests, which are much easier to meet. If someone has a gas station
in a residential zone and wants to add a bay to it, there's really a balance of what the
detriment to the neighborhood is, verses the advantage to the applicant. What this does
now is takes the non - conforming expansion and looks at it and says "is this an area
variance size that is appropriate for the uses ?" So if there is a situation where your
deviation of a non - conforming use and you are too close to a lot line and you want to get
even closer to a lot line, that's what we call an area variance, that still would be covered
by area variance requirements, which are easy to meet. But if it was expansion of a non-
conforming use, the use itself, we'll go back to my example of the garage with an extra
bay, that would now be governed by the variance criteria, which apply to use variances.
These are much more strict and really you have to establish there is no reasonable
economic return you can get from the property in order to be entitled to get the variance.
It's going to be harder to expand the use.
Chairperson Wilcox — Generally, the non - conforming lots are being created where?
Mr. Kanter — Probably the most will be in the low- density zone, where the areas not
served by sewer will have that three -acre minimum lot size requirement. Probably, to
some degree, not so much in the agricultural zone because again, the minimum lot size
requirements there are between one and two acres. So it's not that it's a seven -acre lot
size at all.
In special regulations; really not too many changes, except that we're proposing to delete
the regulations that deal with satellite dish antennas because the technology has gotten to
the point where antennas are basically a foot in diameter and they're pretty visually
unobtrusive now. Clarification of the extraction or the positive fill provision, where
we've added some wording to clarify that really digging and temporary storage that one
26
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED- APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
might do on a site, even if it was going to be put back in place at a later time. Still would
fall under the provisions of the permit requirements because there could be disturbance
and drainage during that temporary situation.
General provisions; probably the one that I thought was a highlight there was the side
yard on a corner lot, where we, in the commercial zones, are proposing that both yards
fronting on a road be treated as front yards. It would have a more restrictive set back then
it currently has. Right now the provision is that, basically, one side is chosen as a front
yard and the other is chosen as a side yard. The side yard is typically is of smaller
dimension.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think that is probably best examples of why it takes so long for a
group that meets two hours a month to get through the zoning documents. Those are the
soft of things we discuss; what's a front yard. You could have to front.yards.
Mr. Kanter — Then finally, the administration section. There are two new items. One is a
new provision that would allow for appointment of alternate board members, which is
now enabled by state legislation for both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. It
would allow the Town Board to authorize up to two alternate members for each board
who could substitute and be actual voting members when they substitute in cases when a
regular member has either a conflict of interest with a specific case or an extended illness
or otherwise might be disqualified from participating in a particular matter. The chair of
that . board would be authorized to designate the alternate member to substitute. So
basically they would be voting members when they we sitting in. That one we spent quite
a bit of talking about as well. Pluses and minuses maybe you want to throw a few of your
own ideas in that one Fred.
Chairperson Wilcox — I was against it and, frankly, still am against the provision. I'll tell
you why. I thought it put a responsibility on the chair that could be misused. The chair
could. possibly manipulate the vote on a particular agenda item by deciding which
alternative member chosen. That was countered by the members of the Town Board who
sit on the Codes and Ordinances Committee who said that you have to assume whoever
the Town Board appoints to sit, as the chair will not do that. If they do, then they are not
the chair anymore, they'll be removed.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, I think you raise a good point. I think they were being
very complimentary to you. I think you raised a good point, how does it work with a jury;
someone gets bounced or someone gets sick and they have alternate number one and
alternate number two. So there's no choice. You are alternate one or alternate two.
Attorney Barney -The Town Board, I suppose, could do that here. First alternate is
always Mr. Smith and second alternate is always Mr. Jones. I think the problem may be
that your alternates are not planning to be there and you may have to take whatever you
can get. We've had situations where we've been short and had to postpone. It doesn't
happen so much with this Board as it does with the BZA because they only have five
members. You get two members away and some disqualifies themselves because of a
27
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED- APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
conflict. I've sat at meetings for about 15 years and I have yet to see a chairperson that
has attempted to manipulate. I don't view that as a worry because we have good people.
Board Member Hoffmann — But there's another problem. If the alternates don't attend all
the meetings that deal with a specific proposal and then are called on for the last and final
decision, that's a tough situation. I know that from missing just one meeting that you can
miss a lot. You don't always have the minutes.
I. Board Member Mitrano — How is it written? Is it just for us or is it for all the boards?
Chairperson Wilcox — Just the two boards, the BZA and us. Let me give you an example,
I don't think you're going to have it on a meeting -by- meeting basis. Maybe someone, for
example, god forbid, they've got a cancer situation where they're going to need treatment
for four months and you know that you're going to need someone. Or, let me use
something more pleasant, maybe they're taking a sabbatical and going to be out. Also,
BZA most of their stuff is a one meeting issue, occasionally may go a little longer. By,
and large, most of what they see comes in that night, they look at it and make a decision
and that's the end of it. I think that the place that this will come into play most
importantly is when you have good people that you want to keep on the Board, but they
know that they're going to be away for a period of time and in good conscious they don't
want to tie up the Board, so they resign. We lose them. By having the alternate group, we
can keep them.
Mr. Kanter — This will probably be quite an interesting discussion at the Town Board
when it goes around to them. You pointed out though John that it would enable the Town
Board to consider these appointments, it wouldn't require them to do that.
Board Member Thayer — You would appoint them from a pool of volunteers? How would
they get the basis for the appointment?
Attorney Barney — They would appoint, I think it was contemplated, they would appoint
two people that were alternates. The people would agree to serve as alternates:
Board Member Thayer — But where do they get these two people?
Attorney Barney — They'd be interviewed just the same as we do for the Board Members.
Board Member Thayer — Well then they could be sent the minutes and so on regularly
and keep updated. .
Mr. Kanter — They might possibly be former members of the Board, who have knowledge
of the way the Board works and they just don't want to spend quite as much time as they
used to.
91
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED- APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Mitrano — So in other words we wouldn't have to act on this. The law is
there and we could just it if we wanted to or do we need to act on this specifically in
order to enable the enabling.
Attorney Barney — The law reads created by local law or authorized by local law, you
may appoint. This zoning ordinance becomes an enactment locally if it's adopted.
Chairperson Wilcox — It's really designed to get work done.
Mr. Kanter — And then the final provision is a transition provision that would deal with
how applications coming in close to the time of this new ordinance is adopted would be
handled. John, maybe you could outline what that would be about.
Attorney Barney — Well, briefly, it's basically a mechanism where it allows an applicant,
first off, we make the effective date of the zoning ordinance four months after it's passed
so that people have a period of time to conform to its requirements. During that four -
month period, you give an applicant the choice, you can either submit your application
and be governed by the provisions of the old ordinance or by -the provisions of the new
ordinance. Then, once you submit, if you want to be governed by the old ordinance, you
have to move it along. You can't submit it and then wait two years to come back and
finish it. You submit your application, then you have nine months to get your approval.
Otherwise, you've governed by the new ordinance. Unless, the Town Board, under
certain circumstances, serve economic hardship or something to cause the delay that is
really beyond the applicant's control, can be extended for up to four more months . So,
there's a provision to try and be fair to people would have invested a fair amount of
money and planning under our old law. Then this law passes and all of a sudden there are
these problems.
Mr. Kanter — So that's basically it. One thing you might wan to think about is how you
want to get comments back to the Zones and Ordinances Committee. Do you just wan to
get them back individually? Do you want to have another meeting were the Board gets
together . and comes up with some unified comments? That's pretty much up to you to
decide how you want to handle that. Again, the time frame that we're trying to get this
thing going now that we have the momentum and we have the draft completed, we want
to try to get this back in a timely fashion and start moving on to the public information
meeting, which we hope to start somewhere around February of next years. There would
be several public hearing involved. One, at the Planning Board for the recommendation
to the Town Board, when it gets to that point. Then, at least one by the Town Board itself
for enacting the new ordinance.
Board Member Mitrano — If we're not going to meet on the 18`h, that we put it on for the
next one for anyone who wants to address things group wise. I assume that you guys
would be available for questions or would be willing to receive any documentation. How
does that sound?
29
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED- APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — I think it might be helpful to have individual comments put
together first because if you start discussing things in a group without having written
down any of you thoughts first, the group will get bogged down with the first two or three
and don't have time for the rest.
Board Member Mitrano — Are you thinking more time then? Actually, that's more or less
what I was actually thinking. It may take more time then I was thinking.
Mr. Kanter — It will take some time to look through the whole version. Certainly, you
may and certainly we would encourage calling us directly for any questions or
clarification you might. I kind of like the idea of each of you outlining your initial
thoughts and marking up your version and then getting back together and going over
them.
As the environmental review process proceeds, we'll be talking with the Town Board
about this, but the Codes and Ordinance Committee has recommended that we do a
generic environmental impact statement to evaluate the potential impacts of the zoning
changes that are proposed and so we are going to initiate that at the upcoming Town
Board meeting. There will be a lot of opportunities in that process to really document a
lot of the areas that we've been talking about, particularly the on the zoning map. I think
it's almost going to have to be in a sense, a parcel -by- parcel analysis on a generic level.
We'll basically have to do some comparative analysis of areas that are being proposes,
especially the lower density areas, I think will be important. And how that's going to
affect the growth potential of the town, that would be one major category, I would think.
But we're going to have to come up with an outline of what the generic BIS will look at.
If you have any ideas on that too, let us know about that. Of course, we don't plan to hold
public sessions on that. If we did that, I think we could be talking about adding another
three, four or five months onto the process. It's also, in some ways, going beyond what
we think we have to do.
Board
Member Mitrano
— I just wanted to say that
I think
it was very nice of Harris,
Beach
to provide us with
folders this evening. My new zoning
ordinance notebook.
Chairperson Wilcox.— considering the cancellation of the December 18`h meeting, John.
Attorney Barney — We're okay to cancel that, we have nothing scheduled. Unless, our
option would be to get together and discuss this, but that may be kind of a short time
period.
AGENDA ITEM: Scheduling of January 2002 Meetings
Chairperson Wilcox -We have a memo from John, where he recommends.
Mr. Kanter — Not really factored into this is whether or not we want to talk about the
zoning ordinance more at one of these meetings.
WC
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — You recommend that we meet on the 8`h, are you comfortable with
that?
Mr. Kanter — There's nothing earth shaking at that meeting. What I was thinking is that
we could just schedule that January 8`h meeting now and then, on the 8`h decide if we
want to have another January meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox — And then decide the rest of the meetings for the year, at that time.
Mr. Kanter - Actually, one item that we may be into in January, although maybe not the
8`h, is College Circle. Which, you might have heard is in conjunction with Ithaca College
master plan which they're having their follow up discussion now. A few of us are going
up tomorrow morning at 10:30, actually, if any of you are available and interested in
hearing the status of their master plan. 9:00 and 10:30 Sossacci Associates will be
presenting an update on where they stand with the master plan proposal,. that will be in
Emerson Suite.
Board Member Mitrano — I can't make it, but that's a nice offer.
Mr. Kanter — It looks like their new housing initiative is going to be focusing on College
Circle Apartments. They've actually announced that in the paper and on Channel 7.
We've been talking with Novarr, he plans to sell the College Circle property to another
development group, who will then renovate the Phase One Apartments and construct the
Phase Two, approved development and then sign a long term lease agreement with Ithaca
College and the college would actually operate and retain the buildings as if it were
campus development. We're talking about a range of 600 to 800 beds in that facility,
which would meet their stated strategic planning goals. That probably is going to be
coming in for site plan modifications somewhere around that January time.
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracey Mitrano.
The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Howe, Thayer, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Conneman.
NAYS: None.
EXCUSED: Kevin Talty,
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Wilcox — Holiday luncheon's coming up on the 31"
Larry Thayer — Why did they schedule that New Year's Eve.
31
DECEMBER 4, 2001 MINUTES
APPROVED- APPROVED- APPROVED- JANUARY 8, 2002 - APPROVED - APPROVED- APPROVED
Board Member Mitrano — I can't go. My heart is broken.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think it has always been the last working day of the year.
Attorney Barney — The Town Board holds its year end meeting on December 31". They
hold it at 10:00 in the morning and this luncheon follows it.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, give my regards. I could not attend.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Larry Thayer, seconded by Tracey Mitrano
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the December 4, 2001 meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lori Quigley
32