HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-01-06 G Page One of Two
Sandra J. Roberts
185 Jersey Hill Roan
Ithaca , N . Y .. 14850
J'anuar_ y 6 ,. 1977
Danby Town Planning Board
Danby ,. N . y .
•
Here are some of my ideas for changing parts of the new proposed Danby
Zoning Ordinance . I realize that zoning rules will never please every -
o ne , but they should not be so strict as to make the towns ' people
• hostile . They should just be good workable rules and guidelines design -
e d for the small township of Danby . .
The biggest change that Danby needs is to control the number of neonle
living in a residense . Maybe we• should have people units ; People units
per sq . ft . or per bath rooms or per rooms in the house . Please give
this some thought .
Sec . 213 - Schedule of Fees - Special permit fee of $ 50 . 00 is too high .
Change this to apnrox . $ 25000 or less . People in the conservation
( cc ) district should not have to pay $ 50 . 00 for special permits , They
should not be • subject to special permits .
•
S ec . 701 Art , VII - Special Permits Applicability - 1 . Add : except in
• Agricultural District when combined with conservation district .
Farmers and those in the Agricultural District should not have to nay
• $ 50 . 00 for a special permit every time they wish to build something .
The way it is now proposed means : All facilities and activities allowed
in combining districts ( in Art . VS ) need a Special Permit which is
$ 50 . 00 . Article VI - Sec 601 , 7 clearly states : Residential Buildings ,
( HOMES ) ; ; Sec 601 . 8 - Agricultural Activities , etc .
We in the Agricultural District worked hard to get in the Agricultural
D istrict to Protect our Agricultural areas and keen them rural and low
density in development , It gives us financial relief from water and
sewer line taxes per sq . ft . etc . Do you realize these new pronosed
zoning rules will now mean additional and very strict rules for the
Agricultural District farmers that will wipe out all we ' ve all worked
so hard to get ? If you all read the new proposed zoning rules very
carefully , it is all stated there in various parts in black and white
The way the new proposed zoning ordinance is written means : $ 50 . 00 and
a Special Permit for a home , a corn crib , a tractor shed , for small and
large animal shelters , tool sheds , etc . etc . All facilities & activities :
Read sec . 701 , 601 . 7 , 601 . 8 , 600
P lease read Art . VII , Sec . 700 and on carefully . It definately needs
careful study and changing .
S ec . _418 . 2 - 1 . 000 so . ft . renui. rement f. or a residential building .
I believe this square footage should he changed to 750 or. 800 sq . ft .
This would help the retired and low income people and also the young '
people just ' starting out to build homes in Danby .
Sec . 426 - Animal Units Delete for ' all areas except dense development
areas along Danby Rd . , Gunderman Rd . , Ridgecrest Rd . , etc . Or , just
h ave animal units apply to people owning on acre or less of land . Then
animal units would be of some help .
continued -
A . • •
' Propose Zoning Changes - continued -
Sec . 427 - Keening of Animals : Reaulations
# 5 , is too strict : pee Possibly change to : No animals are allowed to be
kept in a front yard in tightly populated area where housing and build -
ings are very close together . You could cite a distince . The wording
n eeds work . Some houses are set way back and want their animals in the
f ront to keep track of them . Front , back , what ' s the difference , as long
as it is not a nuisance - then it ' s a civil matter , a health dent matter .
S ec . 429 . 8. Non Conformance as to Keening of Animals - Delete Entirely : :
Two years or any amount of years is still undue hardship to the owner
w ho would have to move barns or buildings , maybe worth $ 4 , 000 . 00 or
$ 6 , 000 . 00 and fencing enclosures worth hundreds of dollars plus all of
the labor involved in the original buildings , etc . , plus moving labor .
It is totally unfair to ask people that are peacefully situated now to
tear things down and move them to become into conformance because of a
n ew zoning ordinance that states that after it ' s adoption these people
with their buildings and fences are now Non - conformers .
N ew zon :ina revisions should only effect new buildinas and new activities
w hich are begun after adoption of the new reaulati_ ons ' ' ' ' ' "
S ec . 600 - District Regulations , Combini_ nci District Regulations .
The additional control ( quote ) over development should not apply to the
Agricultural District , Agricultural District rules should take first
priority over and supersede any other rules . This should be stated as
a rule . Include it in the ordinance . It ' s not stated as so now .
End