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