HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-12-22 Approved as amended.
Planning and Development Board
C Minutes
December 22, 1987
Present: Chair Blumenthal, J. Daley, T. Cookingham, S.
Cummings, Director H. M. Van Cort, Dep. Director P. Mazzarella,
J. Meigs , Building Commissioner Hoard, Press, Other Interested
Parties .
1 . Call to Order: ` 7 : 40 p.m.
2 . Privilege Of The Floor: Jagat Sharma, architect, 320 E.
Seneca Street, addressed the Board regarding Zoning Appeal
1815 . This request by B. Avramis is for an area variance
to permit the completion of a parking structure for 44
automobiles at 205-17 Linden Avenue. The committee
recommended that BZA action on appeal 1815 be deferred one
month to permit the Planning Board to obtain and examine
more detailed information on the proposed building. Mr.
Sharma is asking the Planning Board to hear the appeal at
this meeting because he would like a decision before
commencing an out-of-country trip; a month's delay would
necessitate a postponement in ordering materials and
proceeding with plans for the parking structure which is
50% complete. They would like to complete construction by
August with the work progressing while the students are on
-- vacation.
F
Ms . Blumenthal informed Mr. Sharma that a decision
would be made later in the meeting when the committee's
recommendations would be reviewed by the Board.
2 . Special Permit - 103 Homestead Road: J. Meigs explained
the request for a special permit for an accessory apartment
at 102 Homestead Road; R-la district. According to
Building Department records a second unit has historically
existed in this structure as a legal non-conforming use.
The previous owner had discontinued that use for more than
twelve consecutive months thereby terminating the non-
conforming original use.
Appellants, Joseph and Margaret Petrillose, were
present at the request of the Planning Board. Margaret
Petrillose explained that they purchased the house in
August 1987; it had been advertised as a property with an
income apartment. Neighbors, Mr. and Mrs . Gelberg, have
objected to use of the apartment because of unsafe
conditions (proximity of the apartment entry to the
adjacent ravine and the impact of the apartment's use on
the Gelberg's residence as well as their liability in the
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -2-
use of the driveway) . Mrs . Petrillose stated that they
have replaced the deck on the house; she distributed photos
showing the deck, entryways, and driveways . She stated
that the use of the Gelberg' s driveway when the tenants
were moving in was an isolated incident and if the
Gelberg' s refused use of the driveway for future tenants
(moving in and out) then an alternate route would be
taken. This response satisfied the Gelberg's who were
concerned about their liability and that use of the
driveway might become a permanent arrangement.
Motion: J. Daley moved to recommend granting the
special use permit for an accessory apartment with the
stipulation that a fence be erected in the affected area
if, in fact, it would not interfere with fire regulations
and that the City Attorney be consulted regarding liability
for the next door neighbors . Seconded, S . Blumenthal .
Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried.
4 . Zoning Appeals Report: T. Cookingham gave the committee
report (see memo of Dec. 17, 1987 attached) .
Regarding Appeal 1815, Mr. Sharma further explained
his position: he is the sole architect for the project; he
is leaving town for an extended trip; he wishes to proceed
with construction without delay; delay would cause hardship
for his client. He feels the same conditions and concerns
will be present one month from now and asks for a
recommendation to proceed. The Board felt that because of
the sensitive location of this project, they would like to
carefully scrutinize the proposed action.
Motion: J. Daley moved, seconded by T. Cookingham,
to defer recommendation for one month pending further
clarification of the project and requesting the owner to
appear before the Board at its January meeting. Vote: 4-0-
0 . Carried.
Since Mr. Sharma is leaving town, Mr. Meigs suggested
that a special meeting of the committee might be called
(with notice to the neighborhood) before the BZA meeting
and before Mr. Sharma' s departure.
4. H.O.M.E . S . , Inc. . Mr. Meigs explained the H.O.M.E. S.
proposal: the organization proposes establishment of a
supervised apartment for four adults at 502 W. Court St.
They are required by law to request comments (if any) from
the municipality involved. The community may approve the
site, suggest one or more alternatives, or object - within
40 days of receipt of the notice. The Mayor referred this
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -3-
topic to the Planning Board for comment and
recommendation. H.O.M.E. S. has another facility directly
across the street from 502 W. Court. Investigation further
disclosed one other H.O.M.E . S . apartment in the same
block. City regulations are not clear in differentiating
between a group home and a group care facility; no
specificity as to number of residents, or exactly what
additional conditions must be met before a permit is
approved. One such consideration is the matter of
supervision (residential supervisor) . The Ordinance does
not specify whether the supervisor must be an occupant of
the facility (full time) with their mailing address at that
location. After review of the Ordinance, the City Attorney
has indicated that it does not appear that a four-person
facility without a full-time resident supervisor falls
under the Ordinance description of a group care facility.
Mr. Hoard has indicated that the number of non-related
individuals living in the apartment could be a matter that
would require a zoning variance.
Janet Smith of the H.O.M.E. S organization was
present. She stated that this project is difficult because
it is not a clear cut situation (a group care residence
versus an apartment) . Because the State is inclined toward
smaller types of living situations/options for individuals,
the need for group care residences will increase.
H.O.M.E . S. currently leases a number of apartments
throughout the city which are two and three person
apartments, as well as certain group residences .
H.O.M.E. S. has endeavored to be sensitive to neighborhood
concerns, providing support for the individuals, and acting
as a buffer between residents and landlord. They try not
to congregate their clients in a particular area; they are
hampered, however, by contingencies and State requirements
as well as monetary constraints . They endeavor to place
their residences not only in the city but throughout the
County as well.
Ms . Cummings asked about the length of the lease; Ms .
Smith said leases are written for five years . When asked
about community response, Ms . Smith said that generally
their project were met with positive remarks; their seems
to be little neighborhood resistance.
Mr. Hoard commented that most of the H.O.M.E. S.
programs fall under the Mental Hygiene Law and thus all
that the city requires is meeting the special conditions in
the Zoning Ordinance. The BZA has approved H.O.M.E.S.
requests in the past but as more facilities cluster in a
given area opposition may develop.
i,
PlanningDevelopment i
& p ent Board Meeting
Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -4-
Motion: S. Cummings moved, seconded by T.
Cookingham, to comment favorably regarding the location of
the proposed facility at 502 W. Court Street; the Board
sees no problem with H.O.M.E. S. operating a supervised
residence at that site. Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried.
6. Valentine Four (tax map parcel 83-2-24 ) Resolution: A
draft resolution was presented to the Board in response to
their request of December 1 for review and possible action
at this meeting. The resolution encompasses the three
points discussed at the previous meeting:
WHEREAS, in 1987 a building permit was obtained for, and
construction begun on, a rental residential apartment on a
portion of Tax Map Parcel 83-2-24, which is commonly
referred to as 'Valentine 4 ' , and
WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development was asked by
concerned citizens to consider the issue of whether the
project constitutes a subdivision, although the Building
Commissioner had made a determination that it did not,
prior to his issuing a building permit, and
WHEREAS, Planning staff have consulted City and State legal
authorities, who independently concur that in light of
available; information and applicable- law, the project does
not appear to constitute a subdivision, and
WHEREAS, two members of the Board's Codes and
Administration committee discussed arguments pro and con
with staff, and reached consensus that in the light of
available information the project did not require
subdivision, and
WHEREAS, this Board discussed the matter at its regular
meeting December 1, 1987; heard further statements from
concerned members of the public; heard statements from the
City Attorney, Building Commissioner and City Engineer;
received input from the Director and Deputy Director; and
formally requested the assistance of the City Attorney in
further review and monitoring of the matter in order to
determine whether subdivision review might be warranted in
the future, and
WHEREAS, having given due consideration to all facts and
information made available to it. at that time, including
the views and concerns of the public; input from legal and
professional staffs; and applicable existing subdivision
regulations, a majority of the Board concurred that while
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued): -5-
the Valentine 4 project did not require subdivision review
as it stood, sufficient question and potential for change
in ownership status of the development remain to warrant
continuing oversight of the situation; therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and Development of the
City of Ithaca, in consideration of the above, recommends
that it at some future time action is taken to divide the
subject property, Tax Map parcel 83-2-24, into separate
parcels, and such action is brought before the Board of
Planning and Development for review, that that Board should
consider the subdivision a priori, as a proposal to
subdivide for the purpose of developing the project known
as Valentine 4 which was begun in 1987; and be it further
RESOLVED that the deliberations and actions of this Board
in this matter shall not prejudice or preclude the making
of an application for subdivision approval by any part, or
the consideration thereof by the Board at such time and in
such terms as said Board may determine appropriate, and be
it further
RESOLVED that this Resolution be filed with the official
property records of the subject property in the offices of
the County Clerk and the Building Department of the City of
Ithaca for the information of all interested parties.
Motion: S. Cummings moved, seconded by J. Daley, to
approve the motion as stated. Vote: 4-0-0 . Unanimous .
Discussion followed regarding the Novarr lease for
Valentine 4 . Reference was made to a letter from Martin A.
Shapiro, Esq. , counsel for Mr. Novarr, in response to a
request from City Attorney Nash for a copy of the lease.
In part, Mr. Shapiro says, "I regret that I cannot comply
with your request in that the base terms are proprietary
information. " The Board would like clarification of the
words "base terms" ; could this be perhaps a typographical
error? The Board would like Attorney Nash to continue
attempts to review a copy of the lease. Mr. Cookingham
stated his reluctance to defer action for another month
because as the Ordinance now stands the lease will not
affect the final outcome; he stated the resolution which
was just passed addresses the procedure should a
subdivision be requested in the future.
It was moved by J. Daley to request -the City Attorney
to continue investigation of the lease in order to
determine if there are contingencies relating to a future
subdivision and to report further to the Board concerning
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -6-
his progress . Seconded, T. Cookingham. Vote: 4-0-0 .
Carried.
7 . Site Plan Review: Discussion commenced with the question
of disseminating information to other boards/committees for
preliminary work on the draft document before presentation
to Common Council . T. Cookingham stated that he believed
the Planning Board would first obtain a working paper from
staff for review and then distribute the information to
other groups and interested parties for their input. S.
Cummings stressed the importance (when policies were being
formulated) of involving as many individuals as possible at
an early stage to assist in the decision-making process.
She stated that a number of Council members are very
interested in this topic and have asked for a status �L�
report. S. Blumenthal stated that (in her opinion) it was '
most important to send a complete package to Council after
the staff document had been revised/rewritten by the Y
Planning Board. She feels improvements are needed in the / yQ�d ✓
process of planning legislation and in the effective use of �
staff time.
T. Cookingham reported on the committee's review of
the draft document. One comment made was that the process
may be too unwieldy; requirements are comprehensive;
perhaps too much information is being requested. S.
Cummings questioned the enforceability of some
requirements; also, she felt the draft was quite broad and
inclusive; size of projects and definition of "large" need
further clarification. It was further stated that under
this Ordinance, a building permit would not be granted
until conditions were agreed upon and a Certificate of
Occupancy would not be .granted until the conditions
specified were met and finalized. Commissioner Hoard
explained that a Certificate of Occupancy could be issued
at the end of construction or for a change in use.
T. Cookingham said that some mechanism would be
needed to allow ministerial approval of relatively routine
requests; anything potentially controversial, however,
would not receive ministerial approval . Routine matters
should not be required to endure a long and cumbersome
process including public hearing and two appearances
before the Planning Board. This would be a waste of time
and money for all involved. In general, there must be a
balance between costs and benefits . Benefits include the
city' s aesthetic quality and resolution of environmental
issues . Costs include staff time and appellant time; a
lengthy process could also increase the cost of
development. J. Daley stated that given balances between
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -7-
costs and benefits, he feels that a strict Ordinance
(which, if circumstances warrant, could be lessened) would
be much more beneficial in the long run. He prefers strict
adherence to a Site Plan Review Ordinance even if it
demands additional staff for implementation.
Director Van Cort said that the Ordinance would not
make the city perfect, would not be a substitute for a
stronger environmental law, nor a substitute for a tighter
Zoning ,Ordinance - it is meant to examine how a building
permitted by the Zoning Ordinance will be sited and how
that site will be treated; it is not a Design Review
Ordinance. He is apprehensive that site plan review will
be viewed by many as a solution to all the concerns
mentioned; site plan review is but a part of a package of
ordinances that control land use development.
Commissioner Hoard commented on the amount of work
which will be generated by site plan review in light of the
continuous building projects/improvements throughout the
city. Routine project now take several hours of work
before a permit is approved. Mr. Van Cort estimated a
routine subdivision request (i.e. , lot line adjustment)
could take up to 20 hours of staff time.
S. Cummings suggested holding a joint meeting with
the Planning Board, and other interested members of the
Planning and Development Committee. A joint meeting would
eliminate repetition of the entire discussion at each
committee meeting. (P&D Committee will conduct two
meetings each month for a time to facilitate current
projects . )
T. Cookingham asked the Board for specific changes to
the draft. Deputy Director Mazzarella stated he felt the
process was too cumbersome and could be made simpler and
less time consuming to achieve the desired results. He
suggested a two-stage process : ( 1 ) developer to discuss
project with Planning staff; staff to identify potential
problems, (2 ) the Ordinance then would outline the required
submissions for site plan approval - all requirements would
have to be met before the application was considered
complete and ready for review by the Planning Board.
J. Meigs informed the Board that he has contacted the
State regarding model site plan review procedures and they
have indicated willingness to conduct a public workshop in
Ithaca for information and instruction. The State
officials would also be willing to review and critique any
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -8-
draft that was presented. Suggested time for such a
meeting is the later part of January or February 1988 .
T. Cookingham then suggested since the public would
be invited to the workshop, he would favor full
distribution of the draft document to facilitate additional
suggestions and input. J. Daley concurred.
S. Cummings moved to direct staff to contact the
Department of State to schedule a workshop for site plan
review at the earliest possible time. Seconded, T.
Cookingham. Vote: 4-0-0 . Unanimous .
8 . Valentine 4 - City Liability: J. Meigs stated that R. Nash
would like further direction from the Board regarding their
request for a definition of "city liability" in this
matter. J. Daley said he would like to know to what extent
the city is liable - the dollar amount - should litigation
ensue. Can the city afford the costs involved? Attorney
Nash is requested to relay his answer to the Planning
Board.
9 . 1988 Work Program: Deputy Director Mazzarella discussed :
the work program for the coming year. He stated that much
time has been delegated to implementation of the projects
identified in the Housing and Neighborhoods study. Also,
he added that more time has been allocated for Leslie
Chatterton (Historic Preservation/Neighborhood Planner) for
interaction/assistance to neighborhood groups; updating of
neighborhood membership lists; dissemination of information
regarding meetings and related issues . Other topics
highlighted were: Transportation and Parking (East
Hill/Permit System - other solutions to be researched) ;
Alternate Side of the Street Parking; Recreation and Open
Space (new hockey rink at Cass Park) ; Environmental
Management (mapping of critical areas - part of a two-part
project - updating zoning map using different scale,
investigating procedure and cost and adding to the map
critical areas referred to in the city environmental law) ;
Economic Development (no new projects - continuations and
close outs of existing projects) ; Strategic Economic
Development Plan (further investigation in procedure, who
will participate, and, if, in fact, plan should be
undertaken at all) ; Government Structure and Laws (continue
research and development of Site Plan Review Ordinance) .
S . Cummings suggested that periodically each staff
member should apprise the Board of their work projects
throughout the year. S . Blumenthal commented that Leslie
Chatterton' s time was heavy in historic preservation as
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued): -9-
opposed to neighborhood planner functions . S. Cummings
stated that many of Ms . Chatterton's projects overlap
because under historic preservation activities there is a
component of neighborhood organizations involved with the
built environment of the past. S . Cummings suggested that
Ms . Chatterton be the first staff member to come before the
Board to discuss her work projects for the year.
S. Cummings moved adoption of the 1988 Work Program
with the understanding that ( 1 ) the Board will meet first
with the Historic Preservation/Neighborhood Planner to
discuss and clarify that position, and (2) that because
this is an extremely full schedule Council members are
invited to abbreviate the schedule with the exception of
the actions proposed by the Neighborhoods and Housing
study. Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried.
10 . Strategic Housing and Neighborhoods Plan: P. Mazzarella
distributed the final report. This final version will be
distributed to Common Council by Chair Blumenthal at the
January 6 Council meeting.
11 . Subdivision Amendments : Jon Meigs commented on his memo
dated December 21, 1987 to R. Schlather, Chair, Charter and
Ordinance Committee. The memo was a redraft of certain
provisions and inclusion of others as requested by C&0.
These provisions were reviewed and further modified at the
last C&O meeting. There are no substantial changes; the
committee agreed to the subdivision sizes and fee structure
as mentioned in the 12/21 memorandum. The Board discussed
the fee structure and commented on the low cost to the
applicant.
It was moved by T. Cookingham, seconded by S.
Cummings, .to direct staff to reaccess the fee structure and
to make changes to more accurately reflect the actual costs
involved . (differentiating between building lot creation and
building lot line adjustment) . Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried.
12 . Board of Public Works Report: J. Daley reported that the
Stewart Park Advisory Group made their final report; a
Parks Commission is to be created wedded to the BPW and the
Department of Public Works . Park work authorized will be
undertaken by the DPW. The Planning and Development
Committee will assist in gathering information from other
municipalities regarding similar commissions;
representatives from various boards/committee/fields of
expertise will comprise membership of the proposed
commission.
13. Planning and Development Committee: Ms . Cummings said the
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued): -10-
latest item discussed by the committee was R-2c zoning
which would allow clustering under certain conditions and
allow other types of innovative housing solutions .
Southwest Park is being discussed for possible housing
development (as opposed to commercial use) . It was
suggested that Planning staff review and map the area and
research disposition of the land for housing purposes . The
Board discussed the alienation question: the land to be
acquired is being substituted for Southwest Park. Mr.
Mazzarella commented that some have criticized the
environmental assessment in connection with alienation. As
an outcome, a meeting was held with C. Peterson, A. Miller,
B. Darlington, and H. Jones to try to reach agreement on
what the environmental review should accomplish. It was
agreed to investigate the possible uses of the alienated
land including residential use in Southwest Park in a broad
sense. Policy issues, too, will be reviewed.
14 . Director' s Report: No report this month.
15 . Chairman' s Report: Ms . Blumenthal referred to a memo from
Sean Killeen in which he asked the Board to consider
establishment of a housing commission to address the issue
of affordable housing in the city. Chair Blumenthal will
ask Mr. Killeen to address the Board regarding this topic
at a future meeting.
16. Minutes 11/24/87 : Reference was made by S. Cummings to
page 2, item 5, Farmers ' Market. Regarding license
renewal, she wanted to clarify that the Council had
requested comments and research from the P&D Committee
regarding short term lease negotiations as well as long
term use. She believes the long term use topic was not
transmitted to staff and Board and, thus, was inadvertently
not discussed at the 11/24 meeting. She did not request a
change to the minutes since she believed they reflected
accurately what transpired. She wanted, however, to have
reflected in these minutes that the long range use topic
was discussed by the P&D Committee as Council directed.
J. Daley moved, seconded by S. Cummings, approval of
the 11/24/87 minutes . Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried.
Minutes of 12/1/87 : Action deferred with the request by
Chair Blumenthal for careful examination of the Ronsvalle
subdivision topic on page 5 . Motion made and seconded.
Vote: unanimous .
17 . INHS Subdivision/Floral Ave. : Mr. Meigs reported that the
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -11-
survey map for the INHS subdivision on Floral Ave. was in
error. The tentative resurvey indicates that the total
area being subdivided is just barely enough for two
regulation-sized lots . Therefore, accommodating the third
portion proposed to be released from the north end (for use
by neighbors Mr. and Mrs . Skalwold) would reduce the lot to
less square footage than is required. The City Attorney
has advised that to correct the error, INHS will have to go
through the subdivision process once more; because of the
undersized lot they will also have to proceed with a Zoning
Appeal.
18. Adjournment: 10 :50 p.m.
/mc
disk #9
Rp�R11TE0
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Planning and Development
From: Codes and Administration Committe
Re: Zoning Appeals
Date: December 17, 1987
The committee reviewed subject appeals December 16th,
and determined that Nos. 1811 through 1814 do not involve
matters of long-range or citywide planning; thus those appeals
are referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals for action, without.
comment or recommendation.
The committee recommends that BZA action on Appeal
1815 be deferred for one month, to permit this Board to obtain
and examine more complete information on the proposed action
than w,as. made available with the initial referral, and to hear
from the public concerning this matter, as the first test of
recently-instituted controls to mitigate the impacts of
development immediately adjoining zone boundaries . The
committee :asked that plans and elevation drawings for the
ultimate development of appellant's property at 205-17 Linden
Av. be made available for this purpose.
JM/mc
cc: Ralph W. Nash, Esq.
City Attorney
disk #4/mc
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program-
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board Members
From: S. Blumenthal,. Chair
Re: Correction to Minutes = meeting ofiDecember 22, 1987
Date: February 18, 1988
The following is offered as a correction, to the above
captioned minutes:
Page 6 - item #7. Site Plan Review:
Delete. last two sentences in the first paragraph - "S. Blumenthal stated
that (in her opinion) it was . . . . ." and substitute the following:
S. Blumenthal reported that she has been attempting to focus attention
on. the process by which site plan review legislation .would be discussed
in a systematic way among the Planning Board, the Common Council, and the
public. In her opinion it is the Planning Board's responsibility to hold
a discussion about the substantive .issues involved before the draft that
it initiated gets disseminated to all possible interested parties.
i
SB/mc
cc: H. M. Van Cort