Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-09-PB TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD 02/09/05 Approved August 18, 2005 Present : John Wertis- Chairman, Planning Board Members-Margot Chiuten, Lorren Hammond, Rose Hilbert, David Mean , David Tyler. Town Board Member-Roxanne Marino . Excused : Rod Porter Chairman Wertis called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 pm . Town Board : Roxanne Marino announced she will no longer be the liaison to the Planning Board ; Lee Scott has been appointed to serve as the new liaison . Ms Marino will now be serving as the Ulysses representative on the Tompkins County Municipal Officers Planning Committee. Ms Marino left the meeting at 7 : 25pm . Mr. Wertis stated that if voting action is needed Mr. Hammond ' s vote may be suspect as he has not been sworn in after his reappointment . Mr. Wertis informed the members he felt this would be stupid to hold up progress . Mr. Hammond questioned if he had been sworn in before why is this necessary. Mr. Tyler stated that since his prior appointment he needed to reaffirm his oath. Ms . Marino informed the members the Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 4`h , for the Zoning Ordinance . The target date for Final Draft is March 15 `h . Ms . Marino stated that the Subdivision Regulations is scheduled to be included with the Revised Zoning Ordinance . Subdivision : Ms Hilbert asked Ms Marino if anything had been addressed within the Subdivision that had not been presented to the Planning Board . Ms Marino stated that the Trigger time issue was addressed by Mr. Tyler and her. The concern being the three (3 ) year time limit. Mr. Tyler is concerned that the limit not be allowed to reset every three (3 ) years . Ms Marino is still concerned and working on getting information if the revised law goes into effect it should not reset the three (3 ) year look back period for current subdivisions . Ms Marino stated a clause that stated if major subdivision triggered by NYS then major subdivision should trigger the Town Review as well . Mr. Wertis distributed a summary of the conditions that accompany the Zoning map to be used at the Planning meeting Tuesday, February 15 `h . Mr. Wertis stated he distributed it to the members to get ahead of the Town Board-he pulled out and listed - the main objectives . Mr. Wertis informed the members that he hoped to use these as a starting point; review the Zoning Map and prepare a list of questions . Mr. Hammond stated that Ms Hilbert and he had compared the last map with this one and there are without question very serious discrepancies . Mr. Hammond further stated that in comparing R1 and Al he was surprised how similar they are; there is a remarkably small difference in Agricultural vs . Residential . Mr. Hammond stated if these headings are up on a wall and state this is the pyridine through which we should be looking at decisions to be made within the ordinance ; this would be hard for him to state Al and R1 areas zoned essentially the same fulfills the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Board 2 02/09/2005 Ms Hilbert requested Mr. Hammond specifically address the areas he doesn ' t feel are fulfilled. Mr. Hammond asked if the goal for this part of the meeting to actually review map and draft questions/comments to the Town Board. Mr. Wertis stated that the Town Board and Planning Board will be meeting on Tuesday, February 15 `h L the goal is to develop a consensus of questions to be presented at this joint meeting. Mr. Hammond stated he would like- why so many additions on this map from the last ' map which was mutually agreed upon by both boards to the R1 district; for example items have been moved from Al to RI —why? Mr. Hammond commented that when he reviewed the January 2004 map compared to the September 2003 map-which was the last map all jointly worked out and both Boards reached consensus on; the additions would all almost without exception be characterized as strip development-why? Mr. Hammond questioned if this is a wise decision and how could it be justified since it runs contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tyler clarified by offering two maps one dated October 2003 which had strips all over the place, the Planning Board pared this map down; the other map is the one that predicated the October 2003 map-the map on the wall is halfway between the two . Mr. Wertis stated he wondered why along the roadside and questioned Mr. Coogan regarding this issue . Mr. Coogan informed Mr. Wertis , he and Mr. Frantz had identified that these places had houses on them after onsite reviews were done . Mr. Coogan stated Mr. Frantz was asked to put the lots/dwellings on the map ; Mr. Coogan asked are the houses not on the map and Mr. Wertis replied they were not. Mr. Hammond stated they are enormously long stretches along the road which by lot sized could then be split into new curb cuts . Ms Hilbert asked if there is a residence why make an entire lot R1 which encourages strip development. Mr. Wertis stated that some of this related to tax issues related to farm homestead and residence . Mr. Tyler offered history as far the above changes-in November 2003 the Town Board gave the Planning Board the map to work on; the Planning Board through the course of 3 or 4 meetings reviewed the items piece by piece. Mr. Tyler stated these results were given to the Town Board . Mr. Austic stated he did not feel comfortable with some of this for political reasons ; he was concerned with owners in the Southwest part of the Town being unsatisfied with the results . Mr. Tyler stated the results of this "giving the Southwest owners a bone" are the January 2004 map . Ms Hilbert requested the specific parts of "the bone" . Mr. Wertis asked what was changed. Mr. Tyler stated that the distinction between Agricultural residence and Rural Residence are miniscule; they both are 2 acres but Agriculture has different frontage . Planning Board 3 02/09/2005 Mr. Hammond offered that the entire thing has been watered down to the point that it is nearly pointless to call it an Ag District and then some added pieces of color have been thrown in. Mr. Hammond reviewed the Study Commission done in 1988 by the Town of Ulysses . The study stated the residents viewed the following as key to superior quality of life - 1 . Scenic beauty and closeness to nature, 2 . Rural atmosphere and predominant farm setting 4 . Peace, privacy and open space-this is the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan . Mr. Tyler stated we are talking about Legislative activity; the Town Board is the local legislature- this is the Town Board ' s "baby" . Mr. Tyler stated if you want to have impact, the way to do this is to find people who understand and get them to the Public Hearing and get the information on the record . Mr. Tyler offered that the best action is to ask hard questions relating to the documents . Mr. Hammond stated that he would like to know the thought process regarding the changes to the map . Mr. Tyler stated he agreed. The following questions were drafted after discussions to be presented to the Town Board for discussion during the February 15th, 2004 joint meeting. 1 . What is the name of the district found in Article 13 ? There is a discrepancy between the different versions of the zoning ordinance. 2. What benefit is there to the town to keep existing PDD 's ? Why don 't we either legitimize them by giving them their own district designation or decide that it is not best for the town and remove their PDD 's from the map. 3. What happened to the floating Mobile Home and Multiple Residence district ? 4. Has the town created a legal problem for themselves by not having a Mobile Home Park? 5. What benefit is there to the town to change Al ! to RI since the 2003 map ? The Town Board and the Planning Board in 2003 were in agreement to the district designations. 6. How does the town benefit by the lack of substantive differences between all districts especially RI and Al . 7. There seems to be two philosophies in this zoning ordinance. The first philosophy is do what is best for the town now and if the future regardless of what the land is presently zoned/used for. The second philosophy is an application of a district designation based on the present use of the site regardless of what is good for the town . How can we apply two different philosophies and not find ourselves in a lawsuit in the future. Subdivision/Drainage- Mr. Wertis addressed that questions were raised back in September 2003 , specifically 286 . 2 and 286 . 3 Drainage requirement should be reviewed further one required a 10 year storm and another a 5 year storm . Mr. Wertis offered that he does not understand why all family dwellings do not have some regulation related to Stormwater. If you put on a roof, put on a patio, put in a driveway then the rain will run off, go downhill either into the town system or onto the neighbors property. The MS4 district is encountering this in part and may find its way back as buffers did. Mr. Wertis stated this is problematic in large areas with multiple dwellings . There is a case on the corner of Waterburg and Curry that is on a flood plain; however the Zoning Officer never addressed any of these issues prior to permit issuance. Thus, question of buyer beware or how can this be applied to the subdivision to alleviate these concerns . Ms . Chiuten offered that these are addressed by the DEC ; thus appears to be a "policing" issue versus regulation. Planning Board 4 02/09/2005 Mr. Tyler offered that. if part of DEC — then we are covered but could also address in subdivision ; an ordinance that addressed each individual case cannot be done. Mr. Hammond stated that Mr. Wertis had previously proposed a simple declarative statement no net increase in rate of water runoff predisposed site development and drainage system to accommodate . Mr. Hammond asked if something small , clear and concise be formulated now ; or instead try to get something more comprehensive to be added later. Mr. Wertis stated that the clear and concise approach and on single family homes the some reference to standards of Best Management Practices as described. Mr. Hammond offered we should ask to have this added into the ordinance as it is a three sentence item Mr. Tyler stated that builders should conform to the then current Best Practices . Mr. Wertis questioned is this a no brainer asking that this be incorporated. Ms Chiuten stated that it puts the burden on the builder to hire an engineer to review it. Mr. Wertis stated that this is a good point. Mr. Hammond offered that the architect does the building plan. Ms Chiuten informed the members that there is an equation ; they would need access to stormwater drains, etc . Mr. Hammond stated that it could feasibly be done by the Code Enforcement Officer-a preliminary review basedl on drainage issues upon application for a building permit ; if there is a net increase the permit would be denied and Site Plan required . Mr. Tyler stated that he thought it was part of the current ordinance; stormwater has become such a labyrinth due to federal clean water legislation. Mr. Wertis stated that it is true that every bit of impervious surface you create and every development you put in creates stormwater runoff Mr. Tyler agreed that it should be addressed, he questioned not having standards contributing / to the document; he believed a statement. Mr. Hammond stated that unless offered to the Town Board as a package they would hesitate to develor it into the plan due by March 15 `" Mr. Tyler asked if the subdivision Stormwater relates specifically to roads , Mr. Wertis informed him no it does not. Mr. Hammond asked Mr. Wertis what specifically he was asking the members. Mr. Wertis stated that they had found specifics for 286 are inconsistent; perhaps what needs to be given to the board is a philosophical yet practical approach to the problem . Mr. Hammond stated that he is concerned the Planning Board is already getting bogged down by this issueiand believes the Town Board will also feel this way. Mr. Wertis stated that it will become an issue in the future. Cluster Housing- Ms . Marino requested any creative ideas regarding cluster housing and how to make it more desirable . Mr. Wertis asked about the term incentive zoning. Planning Board 5 02/09/2005 Mr. Tyler offered an example of 100 acres for 50 houses , cluster would allow 75 houses . Mr. Hammond offered that prior to Ms Marino coming on a year was spent dealing with this ; Mr. Frant: shot down every single thing put forward-even books from the National Planning Council . Ms Hilbert stated that examples of zoning that occurred where there was pressure, tax free parcels to continue farming if developed specific areas with lots of little houses thus leaving open areas . Mr. Hammond stated that the 70/30 plan is the same kind of plan to do this encouragement, yet it was • shot down. Mr. Hammond offered that they were never able to get any type of smart development regulation into the ordinance . Mr. Wertis expressed that he hears the discouragement in their views . Mr. Wertis stated that the message to Ms Marino is that there have been many ideas discussed but they probably will not get anywhere as they have already been discussed . Mr. Tyler offered that now might not be the time . Mr. Means expressed that at the meeting a lot of things had been tried but nothing they could firmly recommend that would work. Ms Hilbert expressed that this was not true; the plans were not explained properly to the public and the public was roused up and came out in force . Mr. Hammond stated that Mr. Frantz had been unwilling to look at anything proposed; and so many times it was asked he come up with something as that is what he is being paid for. Reference Library- Mr. Wertis asked if a file cabinet were installed to store reference items, by the same token come up with hard cover books that could be housed at the Town Hall or the Library. Ms Hilbert and Mr. Hammond felt this would be very beneficial ; Ms Hilbert felt the Library would be very suitable. Mr. Wertis asked that if anyone has reference material , ideas for books please get these to him. Mr. Hammond suggested the American Planning Council has a website with a lot of information . Future Business- Mr. Wertis stated that we may have a Site Plan Review for a child care building; but it is not ready as of this point in time . Motion to adjourn made by Ms . Hilbert , Seconded by Mr. Means Approved unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9 : 32 pm . Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Secretary Planning Boatd 6 02/09/2005 . 1 ; CI U : , ; LS �I �: i..' _ _. .:a : _jJ .J • .. . 3i ._. _ i i. �� 1i, a .