HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-06-PB TOWN OF ULYSSES
PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
03/06/12
APPROVED 03/10/12
Present : Acting Chairperson Rod Hawkes, Members- Stan Beames, Peter Fry,
Rebecca Schneider, John Wertis, Environmental Planner Darby Kiley
Excused : Sarah Adams, Ken Zeserson
Mr. Hawkes called the meeting to order at 7 : 01 pm . He stated the items on the agenda are
reviewing the Lakeshore/Conservation Zone and minutes of 02/07/ 12 . He stated he would
like to review the minutes first. Edits to the draft minutes included a few minor word
changes and a restatement of the resolution that was submitted by Mr. Wertis via email
on February 17 .
Mr. Wertis made the motion to approve with edits, Mr. Hawkes seconded the motion.
The vote was taken :
Mr. Beames Aye
Mr. Fry Aye
Mr. Hawkes Aye
Ms . Schneider Aye
Mr. Wertis Aye
MOTION APPROVED
Mr. Hawkes stated the next item on the agenda is the Lakeshore/Conservation Zone draft.
He noted Mr. Fry had agreed to do research on cubic content for additions which was an
item of concern from the last meeting .
Mr. Fry presented a spreadsheet with data indicating Requirements for LZ/CZ site plan
review related to size of additions . The current LZ and CZ proposals require site plan
review for additions that exceed 20% of cubic content of the existing dwelling . The table
analyzes the site plan review threshold for buildings of various sizes . A 10 ' story height
is assumed . The smallest structure considered is single story and has a 500 SF footprint.
This would represent a 20 ' x 25 ' cabin. The largest footprint allowed in the proposed
zones is 4,000 SF and the maximum building height is 32 ' . Therefore, the largest
structure considered would have about 12 ,000 SF of living space .
This chart demonstrates that the threshold would vary significantly relative to the existing
footprint and the number of stories. The cubic content threshold would vary from 5 ,000
CF (or even less) up to almost 20,000 CF for a 3 story, 3 , 330 SF house adding 670 SF .
The footprints of additions that would trigger site plan review range from relatively
insignificant areas of 50 SF or less, up to a 1 , 500 SF , single story addition to a 3 story
building with a 2, 500 SF footprint.
In some cases, these thresholds would force site plan review of additions when they
should not be required. In other cases, construction that could have considerable negative
impacts would not be required to undergo site plan review. These deficiencies could be
avoided by adopting a code that requires site plan review at a reasonable and consistent
threshold ; independent of existing building size. Since natural resource impacts are
primarily dependent on the area being developed, the size threshold should be based on
footprint and independent of addition height. If the obstruction of view sheds is a
concern, then a separate threshold for height could be added .
So what size addition should trigger a review? The size should be related to potential
damage to natural resources at a given scale . There are many variables to consider. Why
1
was an 800SF threshold selected for accessory buildings? Is there any reason the same
threshold shouldn ' t apply to primary structure?
The members stated they appreciated the effort Mr. Fry had put into gathering the data.
The members had a lengthy discussion regarding what would be an acceptable size . They
agreed the percentage was not appropriate . Question as to why the 800 square feet was
being used, this would be large for an addition. It was noted it may have been the size for
a 2 car garage . The members stated they have a lot of concern for this size due to the
steep slopes in the Lakeshore area. A 600 square foot addition would be one large room
or several small rooms which the Board felt would be a suitable size . Why would they
allow a larger amount for an accessory building, they could not see any rationale for
allowing this . Question regarding setbacks was discussed, it was noted all setbacks would
have to be met or be reviewed by Zoning Board of Appeals .
Mr. Fry made the motion, seconded by Mr. Hawkes
Whereas, the Planning Board have reviewed the Lakeshore Zone and Conservation Zone
and after research and discussion
Therefore be it resolved the Planning Board would change section 2 . 6 . 6 of the
Conservation Zone and 1 . 7 . 7 of the Lakeshore Zone -Permitted without Site Plan Review
to allow an addition to existing dwelling not to exceed the footprint of 600 square feet of
existing dwelling .
The vote was taken :
Mr. Beames Aye
Mr. Fry Aye
Mr. Hawkes Aye
Ms . Schneider Aye
Mr. Wertis Aye
MOTION APPROVED
Mr. Fry made the motion, seconded by Mr. Wertis
Whereas, the Planning Board have reviewed the Lakeshore Zone and Conservation Zone
and after research and discussion,
Therefore be it resolved the Planning Board would change section 2 . 6 . 6 of the
Conservation Zone and 1 . 7 . 7 of the Lakeshore Zone- Permitted without Site Plan Review
to allow accessory building not to exceed the footprint of 600 square feet.
The vote was taken :
Mr. Beames Aye
Mr. Fry Aye
Mr. Hawkes Aye
Ms . Schneider Aye
Mr. Wertis Aye
MOTION APPROVED
Mr. Fry stated another item of concern was the use of clear cutting in the document.
There is no definition of clear cutting yet it is used in the document several times . He
would like to add a definition of clear cutting as removal of woody vegetation beyond
what is necessary for construction of structures or grading related to construction.
The members reviewed and discussed where clear cutting is used in the document. The
term clear cutting is a Silvaculture term . The committee ' s were trying to eliminate large
amounts of trees being removed. The use of thinning trees can be good forest
management, would using a percentage for removal be a better strategy . Lakeshore Zone
2
f!
would probably not have a large wooded area removed this would be more likely to
happen in the Conservation Zone . When they hear clear cut they envision 35 acres being
clear cut in the Northwest forests . An area this has happened is near Glenwood Pines, it
was not clear cut but large old growth trees were removed. This is what they would like
to try to prevent from happening again. If they only allowed the removal of trees that
allow construction, additional tree removal would require a forest management plan.
What would happen if a property owner wanted to garden. It was noted this discussion
has been a problem for both committees that were trying to draft wording for tree
removal . It was discussed that the Town of Ithaca were working on a timber management
plan for their conservation zone .
Mr. Wertis stated since they would not be finishing the review of this document tonight,
he would like to confer with Sue Ritter regarding the timber management plan and draft a
proposal for the next meeting . The members agreed with Mr. Wertis .
Mr. Fry stated he had done research on docks, staircases and how/when they would be
reviewed. He noted he come across the Wood Deck Construction Guide . It is based on
international building codes . Docks/staircases were discussed at Lakeshore Committee,
that Committee had members who were adamant staircases should not be subject to Site
Plan Review. The issues if staircases would fall under building code requirements and
would they require a building permit was raised . Mr. Fry and Ms . Kiley will verify the
procedure with Mr. Rachun and report to this group at the next meeting . They will
continue discussion at the next meeting and may consider design guidelines . When they
get to a certain height would they require an engineer' s stamp?
Mr. Fry brought up the next topic of building on slopes greater than 25 % . This group was
concerned with allowing this and they agreed the soil erodibility was a concern. He
studied the soil survey done by the county and compiled a list of the soils and areas that
are involved. There are two soil types that he felt needed to be a concern.
The soil types HsD3 and HuD are highly erodible and erodible . The HsD3 instability of
the soil creates special problems in some kinds of construction this soil is subject to
continuing serious erosion. HuD depth to bedrock generally less than 10 ' moderate
erosion hazard when forested.
The areas from Town of Ithaca line north to Maplewood Point are H2D/RO-covered by
25 % rule or HdD/Gn-suitable for building . North of Maplewood Point to Willow Creek
HsD3 on upper slopes, also BtF covered very susceptible HsB safe . Willow Creek north
have more complex associations, large areas of HsD3 and HuD . Garrett Road south
significant areas of HsD3 above Route 89, coincides with Maplewood and Glenwood.
Discussion of an overlay district for erodible soils for the town was discussed . It was
noted that the Stormwater Committee, Conservation Zone Committee had discussed this
for the Town and felt that they maybe successful in getting this passed in the Lakeshore
and Conservation Zone but maybe not for the entire Town. They members discussed the
soils issue and believe they have excellent defense in not allowing building on slopes
25 % . An overlay district would be beneficial but agree historical decisions are probably
correct thus would like to continue with Lakeshore/Conservation Zone . There is about
25% of the Lakeshore Zone that would qualify for this area. The members discussed
drafting a map of the soils that are erodible as their next step in this process . Mr. Fry
agreed this would be necessary and stated he would prepare the map with soils and
slopes .
The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 30pm .
Respectfully submitted,
Robin Carlisle Peck, Secretary
Approved at 3/20/ 12 meeting
3
1
E
1
i