Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-01 - TB TOWN OF ULYSSES Joint Meeting Town Board / Planning Board Zoning, Al District 1 April 2004 Board Members Present : Town Board : Douglas Austic , Roxanne Marino, Lee Scott, and Donald Ellis (absent Robert Weatherby) . qr Planning Board : Richard Coogan, David Tyler, Rose Hilbert, Lorren Hammond, Rodney Porter (absent George Kennedy and one open position) . Also Present : Alex Rachun (CEO) , Sharon Anderson (facilitator), and George Frantz (consultant) Meeting called to order: 7 : 00 PM . Purpose : The joint meeting was called to discuss the proposed Al district for the new zoning ordinance/law. Mr. Frantz opened the meeting with the question, "what are the future lots [in the Al ] going to look like?" Mr. Ellis suggested that the currently proposed two-tier [agricultural and residential] lots be eliminated. The boards agreed in principle to define the Al district as one set of rules . Mr. Tyler stated that the Al zone is important to the rural character of the town. The Al district should strike a balance between the desire of the community for open space and the need to of the landowners to sell property to meet expenses or for retirement. Mr. Tyler noted that the boards appeared to agree on the issues surrounding the Al district but not necessarily on the methodology for achieving the balance. Mr. Tyler stated that his preference was for lots with greater frontage and less depth as a way to preserve the farmland and not have the frontage built out. Mr. Ellis stated that frontage and lot size must be fair in terms of expectations and legal rights of the property owners . Mr. Tyler restated that road frontage should not be built out. There was general agreement that frontage build out was not desirable nor was the lining up of houses on uniform lot sizes. Perry City Road from Route 96 heading west was given as a visual example of road build out with lots having 250 to 300 foot of frontage . The development along this stretch is still relatively new and the trees and other plantings are still young. It was agreed that this area would improve in appearance over the next twenty years as the plantings matured. Ms. Marino stated that if the 250-foot frontage expanded without controls there would be an increasing hazard with driveways and traffic , which is a concern, expressed by residents of that area. While there is a need for denser residential development, the Al district should remain visually attractive as part of the Town ' s rural character. Mr. Austic stated that trees make a big difference in preserving the feeling of openness in areas that have houses . Mn Hammond stated that the Town needs to have a portion of the land for development and another portion that is more restricted to preserve the open land. Mr. Porter asked if there was another way to maintain the farmland and open space other than using large lots with long road frontage. Ms . Marino said that what is needed is flexibility in the Al district so that the lots do not resemble a suburban development but maintains the wide variation that currently exists in that area of the Town. Mr. Austic reminded the group that currently the frontage in the Ag zone is 200 feet and that many of the lots have between 200 and 300 feet of frontage regardless of the acreage. Large lots do not necessarily preserve open space along the road. Mr. Ellis noted that small subdivisions do not come before the Planning Board and the Town should institute procedures for notification of all subdivisions prior to legal filing of the subdivision. Mr. Austic explained that the Town just recently requested reviews of all land subdivisions from the Tompkins County Assessment Office prior to the filing of Joint TB/PB 2 04/01 /2004 the new parcel . Before this request, the Town was often unaware of a simple subdivision until the following tax period. Mr. Tyler said that he felt rural character required more openness than what was on Perry City Road. When asked to give an example of such an area, Mr. Tyler said that to him the openness of Halseyville Road and MeKeel Road were good examples of rural development, Mr. Rachun commented that one problem with subdivision is that people come in with the intent of circumventing the process established in the Town. This can be done by not selling off more than three lots in a five-year period or by building without subdividing the land first, A concern is trying to track all subdivisions from an "original lot" as would be necessary if there were a maximum number of divisions based on total acreage. Mr. Ellis said that he was in the process of designing a database for municipalities that would track the subdivisions . The database would be governed by a several rules that would not be burdensome to those using it and would use the information from the county for updates . Mr. Ellis said that he would consider giving a copy of the program to the Town of Ulysses to use for tracking subdivisions . It would be a simple and easy take to keep the information up to date so the effort involved would not be burdensome. The major benefit to the Town is that subdivision information would be available in real time for planning purposes . Mr. Rachun said that the Town had a demo from BAS on software that was too expensive for the Town to consider purchasing. Mr. Ellis reiterated that he might be willing to give the Town a copy of his software in exchange for the Town being a beta site for testing it out. Ms . Marino asked if the software work track all subdivisions including residential areas like Krums Corners or Colegrove Road. Can known limitations be included as rules like health department requirements, etc . that are related to subdivision review. Mr. Austic asked what would the review look at in a subdivision and would the subdivisions be tracked over time? Mr. Rachun commented that the subdivision process in Ulysses is not restrictive for frontage and that it is used for divisions of multiple lots (more than 4 in a five year period) . Mr. Frantz said that currently the Town of Ithaca has a requirement that any lot line adjustment is subject to subdivision review . Town of Ithaca feels that this level of review is necessary when there is public infrastructure. Mr. Tyler brought up the original proposal of 1 in 10 acres for development in the Al zone as having merit. This idea needs an education component and better-articulated reasons for implementing this type of zoning. There was a digression into the background of this zoning and a call from the facilitator to return to task. Topography was discussed as having as much importance as layout on a flat map when considering lot layout. Mr. Hammond said that he would like to propose an idea for the Al district. He was thinking about 750-foot frontages and that ended up with a minimum lot of 6 . 5 acres, which really did not accomplish a workable solution. The lots would be too small to farm and too large to mow . Large lots would also change the rural character of small lots tucked into the larger landscape that is used for farming. A more reasonable approach could be ratio of development to farmland that would capitalize on the need for large landowners to sell lots while holding a percentage as open space . Landowners would not be constrained by a set lot size but have the ability to sell any lot that meet Health Department regulations . Ms . Hilbert: said that small lots would preserve more land as open space. She added that along with the fixed ration for development, the building lots should be contiguous so that houses would be built in clusters, which would also help preserve the open spacious feeling of the Town. Mr. Austic said that such a plan could work. Joint TB/PB 3 04/01 /2004 Mr. Ellis stated that using 500 linear feet of frontage or more in the Al district would need to be done carefully. Mr. Ellis asked what types of problems it would cause. Mr. Frantz said that 50% of lots in the proposed Al zone have less than 500 feet of frontage and that these would be nonconforming lots requiring ZBA variances for any construction other than farm buildings . Twenty five percent of the lots have between 300 and 500 frontages and these are the people who are most threatened by the large frontage requirement and would lose the most by having such a requirement passed into law . Area variances would not be an option in such cases because the subdivision would create the hardship . Mr. Frantz ask whether the Town of Ulysses should be concerned with "contiguous" lots as part of subdivision. Question was asked of Mr. Frantz as to how many lots are in the proposed Al district. Mr. Frantz responded with a total of 341 lots with 85 lots having frontage between 300 and 500 feet . Mr. Frantz stressed the point that zoning should not burden property owners with non conformance issues, burden the ZBA with variance requests, or burden the Town with the added expenses of meeting costs to resolve non conforming issues . Mr. Rachun added that it could be stated that such lots shall be considered as "conforming uses" with nonconforming frontage . Ms. Marino suggested revisiting Mr. Hammond' s idea for fixed ratios . With a fixed ratio , the frontage for any one lot could be much smaller. Mr. Tyler added that the ratio could be a factor of the frontage of the original lot . Mr. Ellis said that he developed sample layouts based on a 30/70 ratio (30% developed and 70% left open) . He used 200 feet as a minimum frontage to meet the Health Department criteria for septic systems . Mr. Ellis pointed out that a 200-foot circle would require a wider lot because natural features often prevent scribing a 200-foot circle in a 200-foot wide lot. Mr. Ellis provided sketches to illustrate the concept of fixed ratio scheme using frontage as the factor and not acreage . The sketch showed the "original lot" and how the frontage would be handled for subdivision of lots . He also included a brief idea of how "rights" to subdivision could be passed on. There would need to be rules established to accurately deed covenants when such rights pass from one owner to the next owner. Question was raised about parcels split by a road and how that would be dealt with under this scheme. This opened a general discussion with different ideas that seemed to suggest that it would not be a difficult problem to overcome . The main element of the plan was fixed ration frontage zoning with a rule that lots subdivided from the "original" lot would be contiguous . Mr. Frantz raised the question of best use for the land in regards to contiguous, since .on some parcels "best use" might dictate the lots not be contiguous. This could be handled as a part of Site Plan Review, which would provide the landowner with the option of not using the best land for lots . Mr. Porter asked what would happen to large lots that could no longer be subdivided and could no longer be maintained. Would they become "wild"? What would happen to the parcel since zoning cannot be changed for one individual parcel of land? Mr. Ellis asked that the boards keep in mind the value of the remaining piece of land after all possible lots are sold off The zoning needs to include a piece to make it attractive for people to purchase smaller parcels for residential purposes and leave the larger lots open. This will help the school district by increasing the tax base and preserve the rural character. Mr. Scott brought up the question of people who purchased land for speculation. He stated that 90% of the land on Halseyville Road from Route 96 to Perry City Road was owned by non-farmers and that the large landowners there bought the land as an investment. What do they do if they cannot sell their land as intended? The Town has an obligation to the people. Mr. Frantz asked if the expectations were reasonable for the purchase of land for speculation. These people would need to find a developer for the large parcels because that type of development requires a lot of expertise and financial backing. The actual financial impact to these people would be minimal if not imagined. Mr. Rachun said that the large remaining piece of property after selling off the lots could be left undeveloped. That would create habitat zones for wildlife. Joint TB/PB 4 04/01 /2004 Ms . Marino said that we need to find a balance for the use of the Al land that accommodates all needs and also takes in account the requirements for necessary services. Mr. Ellis stated that if sewers were extended out in the Al district that lot sizes could be as small as 150 feet. Ms. Hilbert asked where do we go with this idea, are we comfortable with it? Mr. Frantz asked if the boards wanted to develop a plan based on fixed ratio and wanted to some direction. He felt the concept could work but needed some specific details like 30/70 or 40/60 for the ratio . Ms . Marino said that it was important to see the ratio as frontage rather than acreage . ACTION ITEM : Mr. Frantz will work out a few scenarios for fixed ratio zoning using frontage. Minimum frontage would be 200 feet. Mr. Frantz thought that he could have the information ready by mid April . ACTION ITEM : Mr. Ellis will send Mr. Frantz a set of rules that would be used for tracking subdivisions . Short discussion on next steps - no firm conclusions . Meeting Adjourned at 9 pm. ' : . pectfu /submitted 20 April 2004 Ric : rd ogan Secretary to the Boards