Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-18-PB-FINALTOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, April 18, 2017 Approved: May 2, 2017 Present: Chair David Blake, and board members Rebecca Schneider, David Tyler, John Wertis, and Sara Worden; Environmental Planner Darby Kiley. Benjamin LeWalter was excused. Call to Order: 7:02 p.m. Agenda Review; Minutes Review (3/21/2017) Ms. Worden asked about a deadline concerning the Town's solar law and if the Board intended to review the law. The Sustainability Advisory Committee has crafted a memo and passed it along to the Planning Board for review, Ms. Kiley said. Mr. Blake noted there are more urgent concerns to address at present time. Mr. Tyler MADE the MOTION to accept the amended April 4, 2017 meeting minutes, and Mr. Wertis SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was carried 3-0, with Ms. Worden and Ms. Schneider abstaining from the vote. Rural/Ag Zoning Discussion After a brief introduction from Mr. Blake, Ms. Worden noted that the previous meeting had concluded with a question as to whether any of the proposed zoning updates were necessary. She hopes that discussion will continue. She asked if farmers and landowners will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the zoning update. Ms. Kiley said the proposal has not been shared with the public yet, since the Steering Committee would like feedback from participating boards and committees first. Mr. Blake said the Town Board of Zoning Appeals has opted to craft resolutions in response to the zoning proposal. Should the Planning Board craft a memo or resolutions? He asked. Committee members ultimately chose to proceed with a memo. Ms. Schneider said she is concerned with the proposed 1 -acre minimum lot size and the likelihood of more homes being built along the roadway. This does not fit with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. One acre minimum lot sizes could work with cluster development, but it is otherwise not the best strategy for a sustainable landscape. Favoring development similar to Honey Bee Lane, she looked into road construction costs and found it would cost $15,000 for 100 feet of road, which could accommodate two houses. Once new homes are built, the road is extended systematically. It seems the cost of the road is driving why the Town has not considered this alternate strategy. It is possible there are grants to fund road construction. Planning Board 2 April 18, 2017 More lawns surrounding homes does not protect ag land or rural character, Ms. Worden said. There has been a lot of contention with the proposal's use of 10 as the dividing number to determine number of allowable subdivisions. Was this proposal formed by other success stories from other towns? Ms. Kiley said the Steering Committee looked at other towns, like the Town of Seneca, which determines number of allowable subdivisions by dividing the total lot acreage by 25; the Town of Ithaca uses the number 7 and has had relative success in protecting ag land. She said the Town of Ithaca has had just two or three ag land subdivisions in the last 20 years. On the subject of 1 -acre minimum lot sizes, Ms. Kiley said the Town's consultants — Randall + West — have explored other outside developments that have used smaller, alternative septic systems on small lots. Also, the County Health Department regulations require a minimum of 1 acre of usable land and they have been more understanding to smaller sized septic systems, but the systems are expensive. It seems that if the Town wants to encourage cluster development, Mr. Tyler said, it would have to pay for something, like putting in a road and maintaining it. If that is the case, the farmer should be required to layout a development plan. Ms. Kiley said a road similar to Honey Bee Lane would cost roughly $135,000, which represents around 10 percent of the Town's annual budget. It would take years to save for that. Also, constructing a road incrementally as houses are added is not cost effective, since a cul-de-sac would have to be installed, removed and installed again as the road is extended. Plus, there are key questions regarding a stormwater plan and determining which homeowners would incur the costs. We say we like open space and ag land, Mr. Tyler said, but do we like it enough to pay for it with increased taxes? Prompted by a question from Mr. Blake, the Planning Board reached a consensus to make a recommendation via memo supporting cluster development and a means to incentivize it for farmers. Ms. Schneider suggested additional language calling for alternatives to linear, along - the -road housing development. The Board briefly discussed estimated home values on Honey Bee Lane and weighed those values over the costs of putting in a road. Returning to the memo, Mr. Blake asked if the Board sought to request a justification for 10 as the dividing number to determine allowable subdivisions. Ultimately, Ms. Schneider offered to craft a draft memo. Ms. Kiley said the 10 figure came about over the course of many meetings. The Steering Committee felt property owners of 2 to 10 -acre lots should be able to subdivide at least once. Preliminary discussions included a proposal for no subdivisions on any parcels fewer than 10 acres. Mr. Wertis stated that the issue with density averaging is that it puts a cap on the number of subdivisions. His main objection is there are some agricultural parcels that are not suitable for farming, like wooded areas, and could accommodate houses. Capping the number of subdivisions, and thus disallowing potential development of these wooded areas, could cause a loss on property value. A use variance was discussed as a means for property owners to seek additional subdivisions, but it remains unclear whether this is a viable option. Mr. Tyler said perhaps the impasse over density averaging is a case of perfection being the enemy of the good. Mr. Wertis felt this was not the case, that the current zoning does not appear Planning Board 3 April 18, 2017 to be broken. In listening to local farmers, he said they do not feel the current zoning is taking land out of ag as quickly as some people think. How does the Planning Board feel about 2 -acre lot minimums with 400 feet of road frontage? Ms. Kiley asked. It seems local farmers are fine with 2 -acre minimums but are also okay with 1 - acre minimums. In having worked on the committee that helped craft the Ag and Farmland Protection Plan (AFPP), Mr. Wertis said the group saw no issue with building on a 1 -acre lot if it was feasible; it was simple arithmetic — developing on 1 acre was better than 2 acres. That was the thinking that went into lot minimums, he said. Ms. Schneider pointed to the Town's Conservation Zone and a stipulation that required 80 percent of a 5 -acre lot have vegetation and growth on it, thus diminishing large lots with big lawns. Perhaps the Town could do something similar with the Ag/Rural Zone. A brief discussion ensued regarding land values and whether or not there would be a difference in sale price if, say, a 5 -acre lot were sold off as a whole versus in five separate, 1 -acre lots. Mr. Tyler said current zoning has been on the books since 2005, and perhaps the Town should allow more time to see how it is doing. Is the current zoning achieving what the Town hoped it would achieve? Ms. Kiley said the Town currently sees about 10 new houses a year and stressed the housing need will only increase in the coming years. Prompted by a question from Mr. Tyler, the Board discussed what it would like to see done with the proposed zoning if politics were set aside. Mr. Blake said he would prefer a restriction on roadside development and allow for an incentive for cluster development. Ms. Schneider made the case for more tree plantings to both support water infrastructure and retain the natural aesthetic and viewsheds. But how do those strategies protect agricultural land? Ms. Worden asked, adding the Town is trying to juggle many voices at the table. The Ag Committee has said there has not been a lot of input on the zoning draft. The proposed name change for the ag zone to the "Ag/Rural" zone was briefly discussed, with several members stating it was a matter of semantics. However, some expressed concern about what rural actually means; as Mr. Wertis said, some may equate rural to farming, while others may equate it to open space and "living out in the country". Ms. Kiley provided a short overview of two upcoming projects to come before the Planning Board, one being a lakeshore home and the other a large project at the Taughannock Inn. Ms. Worden MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Ms. Schneider SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro II on April 28, 2017.