Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-23 - TB TOWN OF ULYSSES JOINT TOWN BOARD / PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 23, 2003 PRESENT : Supervisor Douglas Austic ; Councilpeople Carolyn Duddleston, Sue Poelvoorde, Lee Scott, and Robert Weatherby; Planning Board Chairman Richard Coogan; Planning Board Members David Tyler, Rose Hilbert, Lorren Hammond, Rodney Porter, and George Kennedy; George Frantz . Others Present : Roxanne Marino and Dolores Higareda. Supervisor Austic called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p . m . and turned it over to George Frantz who will explain the revised zoning map . Mr. Frantz reviewed how he came up with the new zoning map (previously explained in the minutes of October 16, 2003 — tapes available) . Mr. Tyler asked about the cluster of R1 that George had put on, Iradell Road and Halseyville Road. Mr. Tyler said he was trying to look at the air map to see what was there now. The one block between Halseyville Road and Podunk on Iradell where George has basically turned it into all -residential. David said by him looking at the map he thinks that area is open right now, a lot of farmland . Ms . Poelvoorde agreed. David stated that he is not arguing with the concept but he is just wondering if he hasn ' t gone a little to far on the map adding in more R1 (Rural Residential) . Ms . Poelvoorde stated that the other thing is just because there is something there it does not have to go to R1 from Al . Mr. Frantz pointed out some other areas — the area that they are talking about is inactive agriculture, some active and some brush . Several areas were pointed out and discussed as far as active, inactive agricultural land, different soil types, and wooded areas . Discussed Iradell Road, Indian Fort Road, Halseyville and Perry City Road. Ms . Poelvoorde pointed out at Halseyville/Perry City Road (R1 ) that area is actively farmed on both sides of the Road and not only that, it would not be an intersection that you would want to see developed, not a good intersection. Ms . Poelvoorde pointed out some areas to be put back to Al . Ms . Hilbert asked if the Unique Natural Areas of Tompkins County shouldn ' t be overlaid on to this map such as the north side of Indian Fort Road . They removed part of that R1 and put it back to Al . Several conversations going on at the same time and several areas on the map were being crossed out from R1 and put back to Al . Mr. Porter asked if they could review what has been crossed out/changed, because it seems like everyone is just bouncing around . George pointed different areas out on the map that had been changed — Indian Fort Road, Route 227 , Curry Road. Mr. Tyler stated that after discussing last week about not going with a minimum lot size in the Al district and doing something different, he does not think this equity thing is such an issue . Ms . Poelvoorde stated not doing the one in ten. David restated that last week we discussed a maximum lot size in the agricultural district . Ms . Poelvoorde stated to George Frantz that the Boards are going back trying to come up with the concept of a lot size in the Al zone that makes sense, do away with 100 acre you can do 4 lots or whatever that previous calculation was . It took the 1 in 10 out. George Frantz asked than what the minimum lot size would be . Ms . Poelvoorde stated that it has not been determined as yet — that still is being debated . . . _ . . Joint Town Board / Planning Board 10/23/2003 Discussed different lot sizes . Discussed the Al in general and the purpose. Mr. Frantz stated that the goal of the Al district was to give agricultural in the Town at least some chances to zone it. He stated that he does not deal with landowners he deals with land and so the goal of this Al District is to protect the lanai for agricultural regardless who owns the land. Mr. Hammond stated that adding the additional R1 districts from the previous map was by way of a concession of sorts to allow a greater density of development here as a concession for asking for a larger parcel . Mr. Frantz stated again it was an issue of equity. Mr. Austic states regardless whether it is a landowner or a farmer. Mr. Coogan stated that going back to the purpose stated in the Al District it does not say anything about the owner it says the economical operation liability of agriculture enterprises, that ' s farming. We defined it not to the landowner but to the practice.. Mrs . Hilbert stated than we need to stop talking about the person. So she asked how many landowners that do not farm their own land feel that they need to have their interests vested . Mr. Austic felt most of them would . Mr. Hammond said that he sees that it still works, whether it is the farmer that owns the land that is being farmed or whether someone is renting it to them because if it is a non-farmer landowner who ' s allowing a larger portion of that land to be used for farming if there is growth pressure and there is a small section of that persons land where there is greater density allowed development is still going to go there rather than out in another area. So as a concession he still thinks it works to preserve farmland, but he said he understood it said that rural character and farmland are too separate things — large parcels preserve rural character, small parcels preserve farmland, but in all of the discussions it has been very clear that having an active farming community was part of rural character so how can we say you ' ll loose farming but will preserve rural character — that is a contradiction in terms . Mr. Frantz stated that when you go with five, seven, ten acre minimum lot sizes you carve up the farmlands to a point where it cannot be farmed any longer. It preserves rural character because it spaces houses out, it preserves lots of open space but carves up the agricultural land so it is not usable . That is why he had suggested the 1 in 10 . Mr. Hammond states that it does not address another issue that we are all very concerned about that is strip development, it actually encourages it, so we are trying to find a way to preserve farmland that does not encourage strip development. Mr. Porter stated that if you go back to the discussion a week ago about road frontage it would be the best tool. Ms . Hilbert stated because we talked about making the lot small and the frontage long. Mr. Porter said that having a somewhat long road frontage but not requiring a large parcel is probably the best tool to accomplish both. Mr. Hammond stated that in conjunction with having these areas mixed in (R1 ' s) that are allowing greater density. Ms . Poelvoorde stated that a lot of the areas made RI are wooded areas but a lot of them that George had put on the map are not, so you can accomplish that but there are still areas to put back as Al ' s . Mr. Porter feels that there is a fairly good agreement with the whole concept here, so probably the best thing to do is to go and look at the areas and see which ones do not make sense and x them out . Mr. Frantz ' s thinking, as far as the lot, the 400 ' foot, 500 foot frontage and maybe the minimum lot depth 170 ' , so that allows the two acre lot. Mr. Austic states that would give the maximum frontage without going back into the farmland. Mr. Tyler stated that we are looking like Al is the only zone in the Town, but Rural residential is going to accomplish the smaller parcels and more dense development and that is what the R1 is for. Mr. Austic stated that this would not be a dense development if you had 400 or 500-foot frontage, that is fairly open. If you reduced the depth into the field it would make this lot smaller. If you wanted 4-acre lot in the same thing (large frontage) you would have to go back into the field more . Mr. Hammond said that he thinks Mr. Tyler' s point is that if you make that even larger it discourages development even in the shallow edge of the field and encourages it places that already can have higher density that we have already talked about. It does not necessarily, just because the lot will be shallow it won ' t a- Joint Town Board / Planning Board 10/23/2003 interfere with the farming field and it will be long and be 400 ' between houses, it doesn't mean that everyone thinks that is the best place for development to happen and that we really ought to fill up all the edges of our farm fields with 400 ' parcels . He really thinks that it would be nice to see a whole stretch where there were no houses and farm right up to the road and than in areas where there is greater density let ' s encourage development there . Mr. Tyler said that the thing that came up last week, when Mr. Frantz was not here, was Mr. Rachun had said that the concept that Mr. Frantz has would be an administration nightmare and be basically impossible to administer and he also said it could become a disaster, unfair and be inconsistent . Mr. Rachun said that the Town has a sub-division requirement that is different from State Sub-division regulations and Health Department regulations . He went on to give the example of Hinging Post sub-division where originally it was large lots (8/ 10 acres) the original developer died and the family re-split the subdivision and made smaller lots . Mr. Tyler states that he was looking at the State Public Health Law, which talks about dividing acres less than five acres. He has been thinking about this all week, after he had suggested last week to have a minimum lot of ten acres and everyone thought it was foolish, he is now going to throw out the idea of five acres because that is what the NY State Public Health Law says as a rural lot . When a Town is selling off parcels of five acres or more than they do not get involved with regulating them . Mr. Tyler represents a number of people, farmers in rural areas and this area and frankly they sell off, typically four, five, six, seven acres . So if you say five acres are too much, in the agricultural area that is what is happening right now . You have these big blocks between (pointed out the Rl ' s on the map) the intersections and they are close to a mile or what ever, there are two things with five acres . If you have 600 ' frontage you would have a 363 ' depth and if you had a 750 ' frontage you would have 290 ' depth, that keeps it pretty close to the road and if you combine that with putting the houses on the far side of each lot you could get about • a 1200 ' area of open space and you allow people, in just the Al area, this is not in the rural residential and it seems to him that gives people with large blocks of land, if they feel the need to sell there is a market there and he sees it, he sees it every day, people want to buy larger parcels and he thinks that is a compromise, at least until the Town gets a sub-division law that is not a joke and frankly the law is a joke . He has been on the Planning Board since 1990 and the Town has had one sub-division the whole time he has been on. Than you look at the development in the Town since than and that tells you that our sub-division law is useless . Mr. Rachun said it is not useless it ' s used by developers to find how they can supervene it, but he thinks also there should be an incentive to some extent where people move to the country because they want the rural character and not because the land is cheap . He thinks what Mr. Tyler is getting at is basically a good way to define that. Mr. Coogan said he had a question that now we are up to 750 ' possible frontage and that sounds really great, but when you start looking at the way the parcels are currently broken up, there are a lot of existing parcels, those will not have the necessary acreage, will not have 750 ' frontage . Are you saying that those people now cannot sell a lot? Mr. Tyler said that they would have to look for a variance . Mr. Kennedy said than you would say that also about the land map four acres or less in the agricultural areas . Mr. Tyler would really like to see a map with lots of four acres or less, ten acres or less, and maybe twenty-five acres or less so we get a visual picture of how the density of the Town is in terms of acreage, he thinks that would be telling. Mr. Frantz said he would like to get back to the 1 in 10 concept being a nightmare as far as administration. He thinks the biggest problem is right now the way the sub-division regulations are written, the law has to tightened that loophole. Mr. Tyler said that ' s right but we are not going to do that right now . Mr. Tyler thinks that would take the Town another five years to do that . Mr. Rachun said that it could be done with one sentence . You make it that someone would have to come in for review after one sub-division. z Joint Town Board / Planning Board 10/23/2003 Mr. Tyler says even so if they come in you only measure the thing and let it go forward. Mr. Rachun states than you would know what is going on. Mr. Austic said if you were to have 700 ' frontage and you are selling one lot, any lot on your parcel than you would at least come into the zoning office:- and he would tell you that you have enough or not and that would be it. Mr. Rachun wanted to address variances. He stated that the Town requires now a one acre, 200 ' diameter foot circle lot on Cayuga Lake. There are variances granted on 50 ' lots, area variances on Cayuga Lake are almost automatic and you have to be careful when you keep saying that people would have to get a variance when the lot is smaller than the zoning allows because you do not want the Board of Zoning Appeals, first of all burdened with a ton of variances . Mr. Tyler stated that how many people would be selling off five-acre lots, say in the agricultural district. Mr. Rachun said that they are doing it now . Mr. Rachun said he thinks that there will be threshold were they will not conform . He would say set a lot size at a reasonable frontage where the Board of Zoning Appeals is not going to have to be granting variances all the time because either they are and it is becoming a meaningless exercise or they are not and than you have another problem. Mr. Hammond said what about large frontages with zm exception for a flag lot driveway, so if you have a 600 ' frontage and you want to sell off 575 ' of it to allow a section so you are not a land lock with what is in there you can be less than the 750 ' if you are providing a flag lot. So someone is not saying now that. I don ' t have 750 ' of frontage there to start out with, now this whole thing has to remain one parcel forever. Mr. Austic stated that a flag lot in the Al defeats the purpose ofpreserving the land. Mr. Tyler stated that a flag lot is a good way to get land developed. Ms . Hilbert stated that a flag lot protects the rural character and now she sees that the lots are being lined all up to ruin that part, taking another acre or two out. Mr. Hammond stated that a flag lot might allow access to some interior part of the parcel that isn' t currenily being farmed . Ms . Hilbert said like the wooded areas, so the rectangles on the map could go the other direction than the way they are. Mr. Coogan stated that it also could take the center out of the field so it has either possibility. Ms . Hilbert said you could put the rectangles (R1 ) F.. horizon along the roads . Mr. Austic said if you owned one of these clear spaces, Al , and you sold off the frontage and than you allow a flag lot by a variance you would be taking a lot of the land. Mr. Tyler stated that the problem is we are dealing with these kinds of various sort of restrictive or not restrictive straightjacket concepts and if you talk about a five-acre lot with 750 ' frontage you are talking about those lots of that at times will not work. The other thing that we are not dealing with and what all are allotting to is the topography impacts on this, look at the air map . The concept is good — make it a standard . Mr. Hammond thinks everyone missed his point of a flag lot — the problem with a lot of these parcels when you use 750 ' frontage and five acres — is that 750 ' might be just fine but 750 ' frontage may not take the whole lot, might not take the whole depth of the lot so landowners would be saying that they have way more than five acres but not enough frontage to sell off 750 ' of frontage and still be able to have a piece that is not land locked . So you allow the creation of a flag lot so that lot left behind is not landlocked. So the farmer or landowner or whatever still has access and you just allowed the smaller shorter section, still five acres, to be sold along the front, so that everyone that does not have 750 ' of frontage is not stuck with the size lot that they have right now . Mr. Tyler is saying something like that but a little further. If you make the standard five acres and that amount of frontage there will be a number that will not fit that, a flag lot solution might be good, there may be some oddball solution, am odd shape lot or whatever. He thinks it should be purposed a standard and than have a process where by someone ' s land that does not fit that because of topography or what they' ve got or whatever they could come in with a proposal and have to look at each one sort of a case by case basis . Some thought this would not work. n Joint Town Board / Planning Board 10/23/2003 Mr. Frantz stated that he thinks more importantly with this 750 ' minimum lot width, what are you going to do when you use up those two hundred or so lots, because that is how much road frontage you have . Mr. Hammond said why would this be such a crime to try and preserve the view somehow . Mr. Frantz is saying that you are taking the entire road frontage . Mr. Hammond said but not with houses stacked up . Mr. Tyler said but those two hundred lots you have houses 1200 ' apart. Mr. Frantz asked than how are you than preserving farmland. Mr. Tyler than said because hopefully the land behind will be farmed. He thinks one of the things to happen is that you have this large frontage and someone buys that the person that owns that may not want to use that and they could say let the farmer farm half of that frontage . Mr. Austic asked than what if you sold the entire road frontage and someone still owns large amounts of acres out back with no frontage, what happens to that. Mr. Tyler said the person who sells off the frontage had better plan ahead. Hopefully we will be doing some kind of registry, so someone is paying attention. Mr. Rachun says that it is happening now . Mr. Frantz said that the Zoning Officer keeping track of this might do this . After the adoption of this ordinance there would be what you would call a "mother map" so you would know what the Town looks like at the time of the adoption of the ordinance and tagged to each parcel will be how many subdivisions that would be allowed. So each time one of those parcels are sub-divided the people come in, Alex takes a look at it and 95 percent will be ministerial just like building permits . Alex looks at it and deducts the lot from what the property has on that particle parcel and that map is keep here in the Town Hall . Mr. Porter said that the question that came up last week is, suppose a farmer comes in and has a 100 acres and someone buys 50 acres, does that mean that is one lot coming off of his 1 in 10 — (Alex said that would be one lot off the "mother map") . Now the new owner of the 50 acres, does that give him the right with that 50 acres or does that stay with the original owner of the 100 acres . This was discussed with confusion because they are talking about non-agricultural lots. Mr. Tyler says you talk about this "mother map" and most people that buy property are not going to have any real concept of what they' ve got, because it could have happened several times . Someone would have to come in and study the "mother map" and they won ' t know. Mr. Rachun says keeping track would be a nightmare . Mr. Porter said that last week we went around and around about this and he thinks that you have to go back to the road frontage and forget the rest. Mr. Frantz said again "what is the intent of the Al district? Ms . Poelvoorde stated that there is two interests and that came out meetings ago , we are really talking about two things , one is to try to help out with the agricultural and the other and probably the bigger overriding thing is the esthetics . Mr. Hammond states what we are trying to do is preserve road frontage but with shallow lots using the depth of the lot as a method to also preserve agricultural . Mr. Tyler said we need to present something that is clear so that people can understand and live by it . Ms . Poelvoorde stated that is right because the boards cannot even figure out how to do the 1 in 10 . Ms . Hilbert said than why couldn ' t we go back to the large road frontage and not a lot of depth. Mr. Tyler than reviewed his thoughts on the five acres with either 600 ' frontage and 363 ' depth or 750 ' frontage and 290 ' depth concept . They figured several different frontages and depths and how that would come up with total acres allowed. Mr. Porter stated that he thinks the concept is going in the right direction but he feels five acres is still too large. Mr. Tyler feels five acres is good and repeated again why. Mr. c Joint Town Board / Planning Board 10/23/2003 Porter feels if you are trying to balance both protecting agricultural land and open space that lot size is too large . Many disagreed about the depth. Discussion went back and forth on size of lots, frontage and depth, many discussions going on at one time . There were a number of the board members that would not like five-acre minimum. Have a four-acre minimum with 750 ' frontage . Still some thought 750 ' frontage is to large, getting closer but feel still are too large. Maybe 200 ' depth would be reasonable but maybe somewhere around 500 ' or 600 for frontage . Last meeting there was a good consensus of 600 ' frontage and four acres . Mr. Austic said though 600 ' frontage with 3 acres would be over 200 ' deep . Mr. Tyler is pushing acreage because he is thinking density. Mr. Porter said you would limit density with the road frontage. Mr . Rachun states that what Mr. Tyler is putting out there is way over what the TC Health Department requires (they require 150 ' circle) we are throwing out 750 ' and that is a big number. What he is saying is that he thinks that would have a major impact on development, on the kind of development that would prevent visual clutter. The frontage is the key but go for a reasonable number and he is not sure that is it. More discussion followed with everyone talking at the same time. Mr. Kennedy would like to take a pole vote at 600 ' frontage and four acres . Didn' t agree. Mr. Tyler wanted to see more frontages and more acreage . Mr. Porter said he could agree to 600 ' and 3 acres . Mr. Hammond said last week everyone was agreeing to 600 ' and 4 acres . Mrs . Duddleston said that she knew not everyone was agreeing to that. Again back and forth on the size. Another time the frontage of 750" with 200 ' depth minimum lot was thrown out for a straw vote, with Mr. Hammond reminding everyone that the Al district already has a bunch of new areas that allow higher density, closer road frontage, higher density. Ms . Hilbert stated that the darker yellow stays that is the R1 proposed and now this is just about the Al left. Mr. Hammond said that we are talking about the Al that remains after the discussion where some of the R1 ' s were x ' d out. That is why he thinks the 750 ' frontage is not such a bad thing because there are a whole bunch of areas that will be a lot closer than that surrounding the Al . Mr. Coogan says providing that there is an exception that any parcel that exist at the time the ordinance is adopted; if their frontage is less than the 750 ' they have a right to put a lot there . No coming in for some kind of exception, if a parcel is there, has 500 ' of frontage and exists today it would be a legal lot. More of many discussions all at the same time. Mr. Austic throw out 700 ' x 200 ' — Mr. Hammond said than we would have to talk about the remaining R1 ' s exceptions in the before Al . Ms . Poelvoorde said that we might not have thoroughly gone over the new Rl ' s . Mr. Hammond said we will not add to them but may take more out. The proposal is 700 ' frontage and 200 ' minimum depth and with no more than what the R1 exceptions that have done now and what kind of exception for an existing lot that are smaller than 700 ' . Everyone agreed that the lots that are now less than 700 ' would be grandfathered in. Ms . Poelvoorde stated that we do need to change Mr. Rachun says that our sub-division does have a good incentive to , F our sub-division. Y cluster. Lots today, before this zoning is adopted that are legal lots to our current zoning ordinance would be legal non-conforming lots with less than 700 ' road frontage . Mr. Rachun stated that you just stated that any conforming lot under the current zoning ordinance existing at the time this new is passed remains a legal lot. Ms . Hilbert stated that she does not have a problem with that but she does have a problem by the time people hear about this they suddenly start dividing their property. She would go with that if a moratorium was placed on dividing lots so no one could divide up more A 1 Joint Town Board / Planning Board 10/23/2003 than it already is before the ordinance gets passed . She is okay with the lots today but she is not okay with lots that will be divided tonight. Mr. Hammond stated that there really is talk about that. Mr. Austic says you can place a date on a moratorium, but it would not be legal until you pass the ordinance . Ms . Poelvoorde stated that it might take, as long to pass a moratorium as it does to pass the ordinance, it is not a simple process to do a moratorium . Mr. Austic thought it would take six to eight weeks to get a moratorium passed. Mr. Tyler thought it could be done in two weeks if you really wanted to . Mr. Austic said normally speaking that does not happen, the attorney would first have to prepare the legal document, the Board would have to have a meeting to set public hearing, and document would have to go to the County for 2391/m review . Mr. Frantz does not see a reason for a moratorium in Ulysses . Mr. Hammond said that there are a bunch of projects already being proposed out there that could be a concern. More discussions about moratorium and how it would affect the whole Town. It was asked about the projects or parcel sales that are in the works right now that are not harmful to the Town. It would stop all sales of parcels once that moratorium is passed . Ms . Hilbert asked for a raise of hands that might be for this moratorium. Mr. Scott stated that the concern is in the proposed Al but what happens to other areas . They would have to wait. The moratorium would be gone when the zoning ordinance is passed. There was a voice of concern regarding property splits that may be in the works right now and have not closed. Ms . Hilbert asked again for a show of hands . Ms . Hilbert stated that we are worrying about a very few number of people and the moratorium is concerned about the majority of the people, the majority of the Town interests . Mr. Coogan asked how she was speaking for the majority of the Town interests . He feels that at a public hearing you should ask if the people are interested in doing a moratorium Mr. Tyler stated than you would have to have a public hearing before hand . The purpose of the moratorium is to level the playing field, what would be the objection to doing that or do you prefer people playing games . Ms . Poelvoorde stated that yes there may be people, who may complain, but as a Board we are also responsible for the good of the whole town and typically the whole town does not show up to a public hearing, so we have to take it into consideration when we make that decision. Discussion of a moratorium . Ms . Hilbert demanded a consensus , by a show of hands , for who is for a moratorium — Ms . Poelvoorde asked for a show of hands . The majority, with a show of hands , was for a moratorium on any division of property. Supervisor Austic will contact the attorney to draw up the paper work and than the Town Board will schedule a meeting to set a date for a public hearing. The majority of Planning Board and Town Board members are also in favor of the 700 ' frontage and 200 ' depth as a minimum lot in Al . A few still felt that 700 ' was still too large . Supervisor Austic advised the Town Board members that a Special Town Board Meeting would be held at the Town Hall Tuesday October 28th, 2003 at 6 : 00 p .m . , which will be prior to the Special Joint Town Board/Village Board Meeting scheduled for the same evening at 7 : 00 p .m . He will call the attorney tomorrow and have him put something together for the Board on a moratorium so this can be done legally. The moratorium and the zoning ordinance will go hand and hand. The work on the zoning ordinance will not stop waiting for moratorium . Joint Town Board / Planning Board 10/23/2003 Many different discussions on the map and some more Al ' s were added and the proposed R1 ' s removed . Supervisor Austic stated that he sees the best approach is to have the Town Board meet and work on the language of the ordinance, get all the changes that have been made over the last several joint meetings, get the Administration back from the attorney and any other legal issues . In the meantime have the Planning Board meet to review the map further. The Boards decided to work separately on the ordinance. The Planning Board will meet to keep reviewing the map with George Frantz joining them, seat a tentative date to have the map done by the 10th of November. They set a meeting for the following week and the Town Board will meet to fine tune the ordinance on October 29th, 2003 at 6p .m . Mr. Tyler stated that it would be nice to try and set a date to get this passed before Christmas like the 20th of December, because if you have a new Board you may have to start from scratch. Mr. Austic stated that if any Planning Board Member sees anything that they feel is wrong or would like to change in the language please put it in iwriting so that it can be reviewed . Hearing no further discussion the meeting was closed. Q