Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1978-05-02 Pon h� lk ®cva1` e 45 TOWN OF ITHACA " JOINT MEETING TOWN BOARD , PLANNING BOARD , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 20 1978 A Joint Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Town Board , Planning Board , and Zoning Board of Appeals was held on May 2 , 1978 , in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ( second floor ) , Ithaca , NY , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Supervisor Noel Desch , Councilman Andrew McElwee , Councilman Robert Powers , Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger , Councilman Victor DelRosso - - Town Board . Chairman Peter Francese , Member Edward Austen , Member Joan , Reuning - - Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairwoman Liese Bronfenbrenner , Member Henry Aron , Member James Baker , Member Bernard Stanton , Member Patrick Mackesey , Member Carolyn Grigorov , Member Montgomery May - - Planning Board . Lawrence Fabbroni , Town Engineer , Robert Bonnell , Assistant to the Engineer , Barbara . Restaino , Planner - - Town Staff , ALSO PRESENT : Joe Gentili , County Planning Department . Beverly Livesay , County Board of Representatives . John Barney , Town Attorney . Joel Meltzer , WTKO . DISCUSSION - PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE : THE DIRECTION AND BASIC PRINCIPLES THEREOF . Supervisor Desch stated that the members of the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee are : Robert Powers , Chairman Victor DelRosso Liese Bronfenbrenner Peter Francese Lawrence Fabbroni Barbara Restaino , and stated that this Committee wishes to arrive at a consensus as to the direction in which the Town is to go with the revision of or amendments to the zoning ordinance . He noted that the Committee , at this point in their deliberations , needs a . . clear direction as to their responsibility . He stated that the basic question is : Shall we pursue the so - called 111976 Draft " ? Supervisor Desch pointed out that the 1976 draft preserves the R- 15 and R- 30 ( residential ) zones and incorporates a lot of the zone changes that are now required by law in terms of making provision for mobile home parks . Councilman Powers referred to the question of R- 9 ( residential ) and asked - - should it be in or not ? He stated that the feeling of the Committee is that with the cost of housing increasing , cost of municipal services , etc . , now is not the time to say we must have bigger lots . We , i . e . , the Committee , are recommending that R- 9 go back in the zoning ordinance . Supervisor Desch stated that there appeared to be a consensus that - 2 - May 2 , 1978. Joint Meeting the Committee go forward with the 111976 Draft " . . ® Councilman DelRosso agreed and spoke briefly on the matters of l ' variable density , agricultural zone district , mobile homes , B- 0 , B - 2 ( Business ) and pointed out that a lot of the ground work has been laid . He drew to everyone ' s attention the " preface " that had been evolved by the Planning Board during its work on the matter of a new zoning ordinance . Some members did not have one handy and the secretary was directed to see that more are distributed . Supervisor Desch moved on to the matter of proceeding on detail development in order , as follows : 1 . Agricultural Zone District 2 . Mobile Home Park District 3 . Institutional Use District 4 . Special Flood Hazard District 5 . Industrial Districts 6 . Business Districts 7 . Residential Districts Councilman Powers pointed out that the State of New York and various other governing bodies from Tompkins County to the Federal Government issue edicts from time to time and probably most of such eicts will stated that the in the area of residential development requirements . He order of development of the ordinance noted by Supervisor Desch was carefully decided upon in order to get the least controversial portions out of the way first and get them to the Town Attorney and have them done . ® Supervisor Desch commented that the " Intent " section would probably be done last . Councilman Powers agreed that that is the way the Committee sees it now . Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Francese stated that several sections of the draft ordinance should be virtually untouched . Mr . Francese had been the planning consultant during the years of the - development of the proposed ordinance . Councilman DelRosso agreed as did ' Councilman Powers . Councilman Powers turned to the matter of " proportional density " or " percentage density scaling " as it is sometimes called . The proposed i ordinance sets a number of 30% multiple residences of the total resi - dential units in a neighborhood " ( defined ) . Councilman Powers noted that this is a controversial area of discussion . I Mr . Francese explained how the density percentage was arrived at . ' In essence it is a population ratio . He stated that the Planning Board arrived at 30% after much consideration and calculation of services , ented that the Northeast neighborhood , population , costs , etc . He comm i for example , is already around 30% multiple . i The concept of the neighborhood was questioned and Mr . Francese definition of neighborhoods tol : the Boards ' described the manner of ® satisfaction . Councilman Powers noted that there is proposed a " floating zone " - multi - family . He pointed out that another approach is to draw multiple residence districts on the official zoning l map and" ll stare PoweThaadis where they are and that is where they Joint Meeting - 3 - May 2 , 1978 those present that at this point in time the Committee is not so much interested in the " boundaries " of the neighborhoods as the concept of the _ density . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that it seems to her that the 1130%" limits more the type of housing rather than limiting density . Mr . Francese described the concept in terms of , say , 10 acres of land to be developed wherein three of every ten units may be multi - family . Mrs . Raffensperger continued and said that on , say , ten acres in East Ithaca , she could see a reason to limit density , i . e . , number per acre , but , why is it more desirable to have 40 units of cluster rather than rows of single family homes ? Mr . Francese pointed out that " his " proposal does not say that . It . merely recognizes that a small number of multi - family units on a large tract is not economically feasible - - desirability is not the point , economics is . Supervisor Desch stated that it appears that the consensus is that the best approach in this area is the continuation of the floating zone concept with a method of density scaling vs . . putting each use on the map . Most of those present agreed . Councilman Powers questioned if Mr . Desch were suggesting allowing a certain number of single family dwellings to rise before a particular ® formula applies ? Mr . Desch said he . was suggesting a formula which would set a percentage at the early stage and then once the area develops at a certain percentage you then apply another percentage . Mrs . Raffensperger expanded on . this to point out that if the final percentage _ were 30% in an area you would have 100 single family units and 30 multiple - - but -, at the beginning of the development that percentage could be something else - maybe 80% , maybe 120% . Mr . Francese commented that the Planning Board in its years deliberations did try several formulae and it is his recollection that there would be a nightmare of administrative tasks . Mr . Desch reflected that that is really not realistic where it applies to very sparsely developed areas . In this connection , Mr . Powers cited West Hills Mr . Francese cited the judgmental processes and pointed out that the 1130%" was a guideline . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out one of the problems he sees and that is - that there are a lot of cycles in development , whether multiple or single family . When the lending rate is up , you have a big demand for multi - family . One approach could be , for example on South Hill , the first developer in with 100 units of multiple is approved and the next one is denied . Mr . Fabbroni also suggested dividing the neighborhood , maybe take half of a neighborhood and load it up with single family and multi - family . Supervisor Desch said that that would be a way of achieving the basis for the percentage and the concept . Again , there appeared to be a consensus that the Committee go with the floating zone concept with some definition of mix which limits the growth of multiple housing within a given neighborhood . Joint Meeting - 4 - May 2 , 1978 Planning Board Member Stanton stated that if he were hearing correctly , his impression is that after neighborhoods are defined , you ® could have a " real " number . Mr . Fabbroni agreed . Mr . Desch tossed in one -, quarter South Hill and one - quarter West Hill as a way of pinpointing division of neighborhoods . Mr . Francese noted that the pace of development at the time of the writing of the proposed ordinance was much greater than it is now and stated that this fact should be considered here and now . He stated that studies show that there will be a 40% decline in the number of 18 - year old high school graduates in the next 15 years . Those present found this piece of information highly interesting and noteworthy . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that some areas of the Town will feel more pressure for multiple residence than others and felt that this will probably continue . Turning to the " preface " , Supervisor Desch asked if those present agreed with the Committee that it makes sense to do further work on the preface and intent . It was so agreed . As to the method of outside review and timetable , Supervisor Desch stated that there is a question of whether or not this revision is of sufficient magnitude to require an environmental assessment statement to be written , and , there - is also a question of whether it is significant enough to be submitted to County Planning Board review . ® Councilman DelRosso was of the firm opinion that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca can and should amend the Town of Ithaca - Zoning Ordinance and that ' s it . Supervisor Desch pointed out that the Environmental Assessment State- ment for the sewer project cost $ 20 , 000 . 00 and THAT was a very simple one . Several - , of those present wondered if an environmental assessment statement would be called forif there were an increase in density from . that of the prior ordinance . Councilman Powers commented that the ordinance we now have is pretty good . Town Attorney Barney stated that an environmental assessment state - ment should be considered all along - - from the conservative point of view . Attorney Barney also suggested that the Board can work with the ordinance now in force and amend a particular section if required . Supervisor Desch suggested , for discussion purposes , that a section be written for addition to the present ordinance , add it and have it subject to an EAS and then add - - another and so on . Mr . Barney noted that the law refers . to " significant " revision - - this is the word . Mr . Barney suggested adding one section and if it turns out that there should have been an EAS then you only have one section 'to cover instead of a whole , entire , rewritten document . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that all of the existing ordinance is incorporated in the 1976 draft and that the Committee is working with basically the document presently in force and amending it . It was pointed out that Noel Desch , Larry Fabbroni and Barbara Restaino could write the Town ' s own EAS . Joint Meeting - 5 - May 2 , 1978 Turning to the matter of a timetable for the producing of the ordinance , Supervisor . Desch stated that we have been talking about Septem- ® ber .. l , 1978 . Councilman Powers suggested that we stop talking about September 1st . He stated that this is not a realistic date in view of the quantity of Town Board meetings . He said that the earliest we should talk about is January 1 , 1979 . Councilman DelRosso pointed out that the Committee has the thing rolling now and should schedule regular meetings and just keep . moving along . Mr . Powers felt that we should be careful not to have a document that is engraved in bronze and suggested a mimeographed type set - up into which amendments may be inserted from time to time . Mr . Fabbroni referred again to all the discussion about the change in family size , the change in energy costs , the change in the population , the change in the birth rate itself , and asked - - are these kinds of things to be considered in the individual changes in the individual sec- tions , or not ? In response to this , the question was put that the Town cannot really deal with those , but that should be our most important basis for change : Councilman Powers now referred to the " selective communities plan " which appears to be a way to avoid hop , skip and jump development and encourages development where there are already services available and keeps ® your communities compacted , and pointed out that if the Town uses that approach it is taking care of the matters that Mr . Fabbroni is talking about . He recalled the great number of complaints he has heard over the years from persons who have purchased a one - , two - , or three - acre lot and when the Town Board comes to consider a development of some sort in that person ' s neighborhood , they hear - - " I moved out here because I wanted to get away from all of this : " Mr . Powers noted that the Board has said that there is nothing they can do about it , and the inference is that for persons who want to be isolated they should be prepared to purchase large parcels of -land to surround themselves by . Mr . Powers pointed out that the selective communities concept speaks to this question and says that development is going to be encouraged in areas where services are available and leave the open land for those who want it . An example of this approach would be to bring back the 11R - 9 " zone into the new ordinance . Planning Board Chairwoman Liese Bronfenbrenner felt strongly that the matter of the R- 9 zone had . not been discussed enough and pointed out that the 111976 " version basically supports large lots . She asked if the Boards are willing to support small lots on an over - all basis ? Supervisor Desch put the question to those present and asked if it could be agreed that there is a need for the R- 9 zone . It appeared that there was agreement that the R- 9 concept should be a part of any proposal . Councilman Powers continued in this vain and asked if the Committee ® should move in the direction of " zero " lot lines - row houses , town houses . He asked if the Town should encourage such developmental approaches . There appeared to be no reluctance on the part of those present to following up on such zoning approaches . Mr . Stanton asked if the Committee would want to show just the present R- 9s on the zoning map or add some in particular areas for the future? , Joint Meeting - 6 - May 2 , 1978 It was agreed that only those R- 9 zones presently existing would be delineated on the map but that there would be provision for R- 9s to be developed in the future . Mr . Fabbroni ' noted that lot sizes in the present zoning ordinance are very specifically described as to size , e . g . , 100 ' x 1501 . , not square footage . Supervisor . Desch asked the Committee Chairman if he felt that he had had some points clarified to his satisfaction and that the Committee now had a clearer direction ? Councilman Powers stated that he did . After discussion , it was agreed that the zoning ordinance Committee would meet on Tuesday , May 30 , 1978 , at 5 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary Planning Board Zoning Board of Appeals