Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1979-11-20O.Ajy\ h Ir tj TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J O I N T M E E T I N G NOVEMBER 20, 1979 The Town of Ithaca Town Board, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals met in working session for discussion of proposed revisions to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance on November 20, 1979, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street (second floor), Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Supervisor Noel Desch, Councilman Andrew McElwee, Council- woman Shirley Raffensperger, Councilman George Bugler, Councilman Robert Powers, -Councilman -Elect Marc Cramer, Liese Bronfenbrenner (Planning Board), Montgomery May (Planning Board), Barbara Schultz (Planning Board), Carolyn Grigorov (Planning Board), Bernard Stanton (Planning Board), James Baker (Planning Board), Lawrence Fabbroni (Town Engineer), Lewis Cartee (Building Inspector), Barbara Restaino (Town Planner), Jean Swartwood (Town Clerk Understudy), Gary Evans (Tompkins County Planning Department), Nancy Fuller (Secretary). Mr. Robert Powers, Chairman Committee, chaired the meeting. Supervisor Desch began with duction of those present, words the Town of Ithaca. of the Town Codes and Ordinances a few brief opening remarks of intro - of welcome and a history of zoning in Mr. Powers continued in this vein and described the background of the revisions under discussion and the history of the committee's work over the past one -and -one-half to two years. Mr. Powers noted that throughout this discussion, both the 176 Draft and the 168 Ordinance will be referred to. Mr. Powers stated that this revision now before the members of the Boards for the most part is based on the 176 Draft. He noted, however, that there is an area, primarily in Multiple Housing, where the committee went back to the 168 Ordinance. Mr. Powers stated that there has been a considerable amount of publicity in terms of letters from Mrs. Restaino to all Boards and people outside the Town Office itself, whose opinions the committee valued and from whom the committee has asked comments concerning this revisions this group is about to discuss. He'stated that, unfortunately, the committee has had virtually no response from anybody, including Board members. He wondered if anybody were interested or simply felt that the proposed revisions were jim-dandy. Mr. looking a Powers set the tone for'the discussion meeting and suggested t the proposed revisions from the point of view of concepts and 4Dchanges.made that if those Restaino, Mr. his copy and rather than dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s. He asked, however, present see such things, they make a note and get them to Mr.s. Fabbroni, or Mrs. Fuller. Mr. Powers suggested going through noting things he, himself, sees, starting with the first page. Mr. Desch pointed out that one thing this group might do, just before R Joint Meeting (Tn.Bd., P1.Bd., Zon.Bd.) 11/20/79 Page Two the discussion is brought to a close, is identify where we go from here -- (®those steps that need to be accomplished prior to, and including, the adoption of the revisions -- in order that the committee has clear direction. Mr. Powers described to those present the fact -that there is a considerable amount of information that.keeps coming into the picture for discussion by the committee for possible insertion in the revision, for example, information obtained at conferences such as the Planning and Zoning Institute held in Monticello, New York. Mr. Powers stated that it was his personal opinion that at some point you approve what you have and make a decision on what is at .hand, and still keep in mind that there is nothing about this document that precludes amendment. As the starting point, Mr. Powers asked if everyone were happy with the "Purpose". page 1. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that she had a question as one of those who has turned in comments and suggestions to Mrs. Restaino, and that is, probably more in the form of an opinion than a question, there should be an expanded "intent" section as in the 1974-76 draft. Mr. Powers commented that after two years, the committee has come up with this "purpose" paragraph, and stated that if there are elaborations they should be taken into consideration. Mr. Desch wondered at this point if there were any fundamental con- flicts with the revisions before the Board members now, that should be discussed and pointed out. He explained that he did not have in mind such matters as suggestions or improvements or particular wording, but he did have in mind basic, fundamental conflicts with what such member may see before him or her. Mrs. Restaino pointed out that such a fundamental conflict would be that point raised by Mr. Aron, who was not present due to an out-of-town business trip, but who had submitted a Memo to the three Boards meeting tonight. Mr. Aron stated in his memo that "the Residence Zones R-30, R-15, and R-91, should be written to allow a maximum of three units in each structure rather than two units. This should apply whether owner - occupied or not. The high cost of land, materials, and labor makes this mandatory." Mr. Desch wondered if there were any further fundamental conflicts. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he thought, for the benefit of everybody who has come on board in the last two years, it is important to know where he stands on this -matter. He stated that he was the author of the 176 version which was his best attempt at drawing together the 168 ordinance and the '74 revision, and so on. He stated that he has not been that involved with the committee on purpose, and, a lot of his comments may be to ask "why" the shift in direction or policies, and may show why he has not second- guessed Mrs. Restaino. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he sees very big problems from an enforcement point of view, that being the perspective he used _to draft the '76 version -- not so much to dictate what the policies should be,.but to "firm up" from an enforcement process. Mr. Fabbroni stated, for example, the residential zones are now all combined into one section and, if you review the problems that the public has expressed, it seems to open up the door to bigger problems, rather than closing those doors. Joint Meeting (Tn.Bd., P1.Bd., Zon.Bd.) 11/20/79 Page Three Mr. Fabbroni noted, as a more specific example, that a lot of uses have been permitted in only R-30 and under this revision R-15 and R-9 are all opened up to other uses. He stated that he sees this as a flaw in combining these particular uses. Mr. Desch asked if that were not a sign of the times from a socio- economic use? He used the Monkemeyer proposal for mixed residential - commercial as an example and asked again if that were a reasonable land use? Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that PRDs (Planned Residential Developments) and PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) are no longer in the proposed revision and these_ are mechanisms by which to accomplish that kind of mix. Mr. Powers stated that, number one, in the 176 Draft and the 168 Ordinance, we see the same thing about fifteen times -- there is a lot of duplication. He stated that if we are writing this as an. ordinance which individuals who come into this building need to pick up and read and understand, we need to eliminate some ambiguity. He pointed out that in this process we are likely to create sets of circumstances that make it difficult to enforce. Mr. Powers continued and noted that the proposed revision to the ordinance is less specific in many instances than the documents we have worked with. Mr. Powers stated that with the proper review from those present, Mr. Fabbroni and others, if there are areas in which the committee made life difficult in enforcement, the committee would like to have that input at this point as to how it can improve the proposed revision. Mr. Powers stated that he did not want to see us give up the simple document, but, he did not want one we cannot enforce. Mr. Powers added that as for basic areas of conflict, there is no one who is going to be dismayed if criticized. Mr. Desch wondered if it would not be impossible to evaluate this revision strictly on the basis of enforceability, and noted that looking at Article IV, residential zones, they are not particularly foreign to what we have known -- their identity is retained. Mr. Fabbroni stated that as one sits with the 168 ordinance and as one watches what the public has come storming through the door on in the way of variances, special approvals, you see concepts that have out- grown their time. He stated that we are going in a direction opposite to what the clamour for change is. Mr. Fabbroni noted for example that farming and animal operations in the 154 ordinance and the 168 ordinance are in R-30, and that 25 years later a lot of subdivision development is in R-30 areas and it is very objectionable to have farming operations 100 feet from your side yard. Mr. Fabbroni stated that meetings with West Hill people have shown objection to this sort of thing. He noted also that the Zoning Board of Appeals may allow further uses on the basis of special approval. He stated that to allow now these uses in R-15 is suicidal. Mr. Fabbroni said that another related example would be the clinic on West Hill and group homes. Mr..Powers said that it should be kept in mind that the clinic was SP fresh in the minds of the committee. Mr. Fabbroni noted that a clinic is not even allowed in this revision. Mr. Powers suggested that the discussion should go back to Article I, page 1. joint Meeting (Tn.Bd., P1.Bd., Zon.Bd.) Mr. McElwee suggested that these comments should be give the revision over to Mr. Fabbroni for his figuring enforce the problem areas. Mr. Powers agreed that this was a good idea. 11/20/79 Page Four taken and then out how to Mrs..Raffensperger stated that she had taken note that an elaboration of the "purpose" would be a substitute"intent". Mr. Stanton asked Mrs. Raffensperger what she sees as the problem with the intent. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that'it was considerably more in depth in the 174-176 Draft and seemed to tell what the Town is all about. She stated that the "intent" is important both from a public.. relations point of view and a legal point of view. Mrs. Raffensperger said that she would put her recommendations in writing and submit them to Mrs. Restaino. Mrs. Raffensperger suggested that there is a need for a definition of "Subdivision". Agreed, Mr. Cramer suggested that there is a need for a definition of a "Condominium". There was some discussion of just what a condominium is juxtaposed with an apartment which someone owns together with a certain portion of land, bearing in mind the Eastwood Commons concept, Mr. Stanton expressed some concern about the definition of "Agricultural District", and submitted what he considered to be a better definition to Mrs. Restaino, One of his particular concerns was the use of the term "County -wide". Several of those present expressed some concern about Definition #24, "Family", and it was agreed that the Town Attorney would have the last word on what a family will be, Mrs. Bronfenbrenner suggested that there is a need for a definition of "Site" and/or "Site Plan". Agreed. Mr. Fabbroni suggested that there is a need for a definition of "Open Space". Agreed, Mr. Fabbroni said that he had a question related to definitions. He noted that the definition of "Neighborhood" and the concept of neighborhood is gone, Mr. Powers discussed Mr. Fabbroni's comment in relation to the committee's thinking on Multiple, Percentage Density Scaling concept, floating zone concept, etc. Mr. Powers agreed that.it would be a good idea to be able to define a specific location for a specific use, if feasible and possible. Mr. Powers stated that until the Town had a "Master Plan" which was something a little more updated than our 1958-59 document, it was a little difficult for the committee to locate this sort of thing until it had a land.use plan of some sort. He stated that �® it was at that point that the committee decided until that has been.done, it is not advisable to rock the boat in an area that works pretty well, so., the committee went back to the '68 Ordinance and used it, but with the thought that when we get to this point we would like to strongly urge that the next move be a master plan which would be some indication as to what the Town has in mind in terms of documenting what the Town Joint Meeting (Tn.Bd., P1.Bd., Zon.Bd.) 11/20/79 Page Five has in mind as to what use goes in what place. Mr. Desch commented that it would appear that the new zoning map will not look much different from the present Zoning Map. Mr. Powers commented, "Probably.not." Mrs. Restaino stated that the neighborhood concept would be more appropriately stated in an over-all land use plan or master plan. Mr. Desch commented that the neighborhood element is in itself a floating element. Mrs. Raffensperger noted at this point that her concern about the "intent" is probably more like confusion as to what is a master plan and what is the "intent". Mr. Kugler suggested that there is a need for a definition of a "Service Station". Agreed, Mrs. Raffensperger expressed concern about definition #7, "Altera- tion", and wondered if such definition referred to "physical" alteration or "use" alteration. She asked if it should be defined as to "physical" or "use". Her concern was noted. Mr. Stanton said that he could see a problem with the definition of "Basement" and the definition of "Cellar". Mr. Powers suggested using "Basement -- See Cellar". Mr. Kugler suggested using the State Building Code definitions for basement and cellar. Mr. Stanton suggested simply adding the words "as per NYS Building Code". Mr. Fabbroni pointed out.that the proposed zoning ordinance revision is consistent with the Building Code, whereas the present one is not so consistent. Mr. Desch stated that he had a problem with definition #34, "Frater- nity or Sorority House". He said that the word "recognized" presented a problem for him. Others evidenced the same concern. Some discussion followed with Mr..Powers noting that there are other societies or groups such as the secretaries' associations (Business and Professional Women's Association) which may have such facilities, for example, the Women's Community Building which supplies housing as well as meeting rooms. He stated that there are organizations which might be acceptable which are not related to a university or college. It was clear that there is a problem with this definition. Mrs. Fuller suggested that there is a need for a definition of a � "group home". Agreed. Fo Mr. Desch expressed some puzzlement over definition #67, "Sub- stantial Improvement". Mrs. Restaino explained that this is a part of the State regulations for flood plains and has to be incorporated. It was agreed that referring to "a" floodplain, rather than "the" floodplain .would clear up the matter. It was also agreed that using the word "a" Joint Meeting (Tn.Bd., P1.Bd., Zon.Bd.) 11/20/79 Page Six instead of "the" when referring to "floodplain" would be better. Mr. Desch wondered about the rationale behind definition #73, "Yard". Both Mr. Powers and Mrs. Restaino stated that the words used are directly out of the 168 Ordinance. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the front yard has always been referred to as a distance as well as open space or area, and noted that later on in the revision it that the is referred would be that to as a distance words "enforce rather the Zoning Ordinance and to" would be inserted in than open space. Mrs. Raffensperger had a question in this regard which is where the yard being defined is located. She added.that there seems'to be a reference missing somewhere. Mr. Desch submitted that a front yard is the open space described by the set back line in the case of the front yard, or,,whatever other definition of distance you want to use. Mrs. Restaino noted again that the wording used is word for word from the 168 Ordinance. Mr. Fabbroni urged adding the words "at the set back". Mr. Powers noted that there needs to be a definition of "set back", which had been in one committee revision and removed. He suggested putting it back in. Agreed. Mr. McElwee noted that he had seen ordinances with diagrams setting forth set back requirements. There was no decision reached on this point. Mr. May suggested that there is a need for a definition of a "corner lot". Mr. Kugler agreed to draw up such definition and submit it to Mrs. Restaino. Mr. Desch led a discussion on definition #74, "Zoning Enforcement Officer and/or Building Inspector". Mr. Fabbroni explained the legalities of calling such official of the Town, Building Inspector. It was agreed that the definition would be that of Building Inspector and that the words "enforce the Zoning Ordinance and to" would be inserted in the definition following the words "by the Town Board to". Mrs. Bronfenbrenner asked that Mr. Aron's statement be discussed. Mr. Powers agreed. It was noted that a three-family structure and a multiple dwelling structure are allowed under the revision. It was noted that the two-family home restrictions are a little less restrictive under the revision insofar as which is the primary and which is the secondary unit -- they can be equal. It was noted that the problems are mostly with a non -owner occupied residence. Mr. Powers noted that the revision does not refer to primary and secondary dwelling units. Mr. Powers, Mrs. Raffensperger and Mr. McElwee expressed their disagreement with Mr. Aron's suggestion of allowing a maximum of three units in each structure in Residence Zones R-30, R-15, and R-9. There was a general consensus among those present.that allowing a maximum of three units in each structure was not appropriate at this time, however, there is a built- in alarm system through the Zoning Board of Appeals which would indicate a need for re -considering such allowance as time passes. Turning now to Article IV, page 15, Mr. Fabbroni noted that sub- section 1(b) is a repeat of what is said in sub -section 1(a), noting Joint Meeting (Tn.Bd., Pl.Bd., Zon.Bd.) 11/20/79 Page Seven again that the revision restates in (b) what is said in (a). Mrs..Restaino agreed that it is redundant, but it was done on pur- pose. The committee wanted to state that if there were.not a family unit and the family is one person, then you would not have more than three unrelated persons. Mr. Powers wished to be reminded of what they had in mind with (b). Mrs. Restaino that they were thinking of a group of people calling themselves a family. Mr. Desch suggested combining (a) and (b) and say "no more than four unrelated people". Mr. May felt there should be a definition of "owner". Mr. Powers did not agree and added that he did not see what it might accomplish. After some discussion, it was agreed that sub -section 1 of Section 5 (page 15) should read: "1. A one -family dwelling. ae a one -family dwelling may be occupied by one family and no more than two additional unrelated people, or one. family and three additional unrelated people provided that the dwelling is occupied by the owner of deed record, and by no more than a total of four unrelated people." Mrs. Raffens er er wondered if sub -section 2 a of Section 5 (page P g ( ) 15) means that there can be no two-family dwelling that does not have the owner living in it. It was agreed that the use of a semi -colon in the third line after the words "in. each unit;" would clarify the matter. Mr. Fabbroni wished to point out that this means there may be six unrelated persons in a two-family dwelling if owner -occupied. Mr. Powers agreed that that is what that sub -section says. Mr. Fabbroni expressed concern about the first paragraph of Section 5, Use Regulations (page 15) and the missing word "any". There was no decision reached on the insertion or non -insertion of this word "any", however, the discussion moved toward the question of utilizing the services of a professional editor at the appropriate time. That matter too was not decided and remains, do we or don't we engage the services of a professional editor. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he was very uncomfortable about just referring "Cluster" approval to Section 281 of Town Law. He felt that that Section (281) is the most generalized section that there is in Town Law, Mr. Powers wondered why Mr. Fabbroni made his statement and asked if it were because he thinks we should permit more or that he thinks there is a better place to do it. Mr. Fabbroni stated that if we do not do it with this document, then we must do it simultaneously with the subdivision regulations. Mr. Fabbroni noted also that the reference to 3.5 units per acre is out as well. He expressed fear that the proposed revision is too liquid in this 1 Joint Meeting (Tn.Bd., P1.Bd., Zon.Bd.) 11/20/79 Page Eight area. Mr. Powers.noted that we are waiting for a master plan and asked how Mr. Fabbroni would handle cluster in this document. Mr. Fabbroni suggested having the requirements at least as stringent as the subdivision regulations. He stated that it is necessary to give the Planning Board something to hang on to and suggested at least getting the criteria of density back in there and handle it in the subdivision regulations by referring it from here in the subdivision regulations. Mrs. Restaino felt cluster should be in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Desch pointed out that the intent of this zoning ordinance is to permit cluster and suggested not referencing Section 281, Mr. Fabbroni explained the "unwritten law" in connection with cluster of 3.5 units per gross acre. Mr. Desch noted that in the case of R-9, we are allowing a different density under cluster. Mr. Fabbroni noted that you can get a higher density with all two-family homes. Mr. Powers asked Mr. Fabbroni if he could buy Mr. Desch's statement for paragraph 3*on page 16 where he stopped and excluded the words "pursuant to Section 281 of Town Law". Mr. Powers wondered if it should be ignored completely or should reference merely be made to it in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Fabbroni stated that there needs to be a clearer definition of cluster residential subdivisions as the Planning Board is required to review such subdivisions. He stated that a clearer definition should be in the zoning ordinance or in the subdivision regulations -- it should be some place. Mr. Powers stated that it is a new concept as far as our zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations are concerned. Mr. Powers asked if Mr. Fabbroni could make a recommendation to Mrs. Restaino so that cluster is somewhere. Mr. Fabbroni said he would be happy to do so. Mrs. described Restaino said that she the cluster concept as really did not see the problem. She allowing the same density as if lots were laid out in a standard form meeting the requirements of whatever zone they might be in, dwelling open space. units being "clustered" together leaving Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that if you.lay out a subdivision and put a two-family home on the smallest lot, possibly that is the controlling density for the cluster. He repeated that two -families on the smallest lots would set the tone. It was agreed that this matter was a fundamental concept to be decided. Continuing on, Mr. Stanton pointed out in connection with Item #7' on page 16, that in order to be consistent with the definition, the second sentence should read, "A farm must include a minimum of 5 acres. used for crops." Joint Meeting (Tn.Bd., P1.Bd., Zon.Bd.) Mr. McElwee expressed some concern with regard to Item #8 10 16, having to do with special permits from the Zoning Board of He felt that it was unclear whether the Planning Board had to recommend a permit to the Zoning Board and how. 11/20/79 Page Nine on page Appeals. approve or Mr. Powers pointed out that what is important in her is that the. Zoning Board of Appeals has the final word in this case and the under- standing was that the Planning Board have secondary effect on it and be able not to respond at all if it chose, or, to respond and be over- ruled. Mrs. Grigorov stated that the has recommended strongly that the Planning Board handle special permits in order to, among other reasons, maintain the judicial atmosphere of the Zoning Board. Mr. Fabbroni referred to Items #7 and #8 on pages 16 and 17, these two paragraphs in particular, and, also #5 and #6, really. stating that these kind of uses have come to be problems in R-30 zones, which, back when the original zoning ordinance was written, were rural type zones. He stated that they seem to be misplaced in an R-15 and R-9 zone, much the same way as he felt about the farming uses. Mr. Stanton also ex- pressed concern that allowing farming in all residential zones could be a problem area in this revision. Mr. Fabbroni continued, noting Item of where, if you had a choice, you would R-15. Mrs. Bronfenbrenner did not agree ®such a facility out in the country. Mr. with that, but you might want a facility zone.. Mr. Powers said he did not agree. question any further. #5 on page 16, as an example not want a museum in R-9 or stating that you would not want Fabbroni said that he would agree such as this in a commercial Mr. Fabbroni did not pursue this Mr. Powers stated that he thought that objections, especially Mr. Fabbroni's, need to come back to the committee for discussion. Mr. Fabbroni agreed and added that the things he has mentioned have definitely been problems. He stated that 90% of the calls are concerned with enforcement in residential areas and by combining things in R-30, R-15, and R-9, it becomes more confusing than having a few extra pages. Mr.* Powers asked if he may ask Mr. Fabbroni to write a paper on the subject. Mr. Fabbroni said he would be happy to do so. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that Mrs. Grigorov brought up the substan- tial question of the Planning Board rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals granting permits. Mrs. Grigorov wondered if the committee had discussed this fully. She noted again the recommendations of the Department of State in this regard pointing out the judicial atmosphere of the Zoning Board and the Planning Board being a more appropriate Board concerned with land use. Mr. Fabbroni thought that it seems to hang on the maturity of the Boards -- at this point both Boards could probably do it as well. Mrs. Restaino said that it could go either way. Mr. McElwee stated that item #2 of sub -section "a." on page 17 may be too controversial. a• , ". Joint Meeting (Tn.Bd., P1.Bd., Zon.Bd.) 11/20/79 Page Ten Mr. McElwee also wondered which Board should handle special permits and if it were reversed, do the other points apply, PP Y• Mr. May, referring again to page 17, said that he thought that the 1130 days" could be a problem and that he thought it should be extended. He suggested 45 days. Agreed. Mr. Desch wished to add the words "by the Planning Board." to the end of the second paragraph on page 17, at the end of the second sentence. Agreed. Mrs. Fuller expressed some concern with the mechanics involved in the second paragraph on page 17.. Mr. Powers asked her to submit a suggested paragraph to Mrs. Restaino. Agreed. Mr. Fabbroni questioned the "lack of action by the Planning Board" sentence, second paragraph page 17, second sentence, as mobile homes.. being too strong. the people to look at Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that in this whole zone, the requirement of 10% open space is noticably absent. Mr. Powers noted again that these are the things the committee was looking for when they wrote.to everybody under the sun -- except Mr. Fabbroni. He stated that the committee needs a marked up copy or a letter from Mr. Fabbroni, Mr. Desch asked what the kind of interval is that makes sense between Cenow and receiving comments and the next meeting. Mrs. Restaino said at least a two week interval. She noted that she got back five responses previously. Mr. Desch stated that following the next session he would like this group to address the question as to what aspects of this matter the Town Board should take up, such as the Planning Board or the Zoning Board issuing special permits. Mr. Powers asked that those present think about "noise". Mr. Powers asked that they read carefully under "mobile home" and note the minimum size area is 25 acres and that one can do other things there other than mobile homes.. Mr. Powers also wanted the people to look at the minimum square footage on mobile homes and residential homes. Mrs. Restaino raised the question of, if legally the Town does not have to have a mobile home zone because of our non -conforming mobile home park, does the Town want to have a mobile home district referenced in the zoning ordinance. She noted that there has been a court decision on this matter. Mr. Fabbroni noted that if a proposal could meet the requirements the way -they are spelled out here, you have something other than what we have as a mobile home park now. Mrs. Raffensperger.asked which of these zones are going to be on the map and which are not, noting that one's comments on a particular section depend on whether it is going to be on the map or not. With that major question left to think about, Mr. Powers set the next meeting of this group for Thursday, December 13, 1979, at 7:30 p.m.