Loading...
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