HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-20-PB-FINALTOWN OF ULYSSES
JOINT MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Approved: April 17, 2018
Present: Town Planning Board Chair David Blake, and board members Jon Ferrari, Benjamin
LeWalter, Katelin Olson, Rebecca Schneider, and John Wertis; Town Supervisor Liz Thomas
and Town Board members John Hertzler, Nancy Zahler, and Rich Goldman; Town Planner
Darby Kiley.
Public in Attendance: Nancy Emerson, Roy Luft, Linda Dresser, Bryon Moore, Shaffer
Schuhman, Deborah Gever, Jenny Stevenson, Krys Cail, Karen Hollands, Meredith Kimir, Tom
Myers, and Reba McCutcheon.
Call to Order: 7:02 p.m.
Agenda Review; Minutes Review (02/20/18, 03/06/2018)
Two new members were welcomed to the Planning Board. Mr. Ferrari grew up in Aurora,
traveled extensively, and now is a licensed architect in New York and Oregon, where he served
in a head of planning capacity. He currently works in architecture and building, and both he and
his brother have a small design company that builds two to three homes per year. Ms. Olson has
lived in the area since 2012. She arrived to attend graduate school in 2007 and fell in love with
the area. She is currently pursuing a PhD in planning and teaches in the preservation master’s
program at Cornell.
Ms. Thomas said the joint meeting stemmed from many comments at the Town Board’s recent
public hearing on the Moore’s proposal. The Town Board wished to hear from the Planning
Board on a number of issues. There will be at least one follow-up public hearing on the matter.
Ms. Schneider MADE the MOTION to accept the February 20, 2018 Planning Board meeting
minutes, and Mr. Wertis SECONDED the MOTION. The motion carried 4-0, with Ms. Olson
abstaining from the vote.
Ms. Schneider MADE the MOTION to accept the March 6, 2018 Planning Board meeting
minutes, and Mr. Wertis SECONDED the MOTION. The motion carried 4-0, with Ms. Olson
abstaining from the vote.
Planning Board members made note to review an item from Mr. Wertis concerning the minutes
approval procedure.
Privilege of the Floor
Planning Board
March 20, 2018
2
Ms. Cail read a prepared statement opposing the proposed rewrites of the Development District,
citing a number of negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, including noise and visual
impacts.
Ms. Kimir lives directly next door to the Moore’s. Though she does not want to affect the
Moore’s ability to make a living, she does have safety concerns, since she has small children.
Currently, there is no restriction on when customers can come pick up their boats, which means
pick-ups often take place outside of business hours. The Moore property has views into Ms.
Kimir’s backyard. Working from home, she deals with the noise. Extending hours on weekdays
and weekends would infringe on quiet time with family.
Mr. Myers read the remaining parts of Ms. Cail’s statement and added that boats are often stored
on the south side of the property, near the creek, for extended times, though the Moores say boats
are stored there for only a few hours. Some boats have been parked near the creek since the last
public hearing a month ago. He said it bothers him when people actively violate zoning.
Ms. McCutchen said she bought her current house in 2004, and she believes it has lost at least
$10,000 in value due to activity at the Moore’s. In reviewing the Development District, she
believes the business was meant to be small and to stay small. Perhaps the Moore’s have
outgrown their location. When she bought her home, the business had fruit trees that served as a
buffer. Those are gone now, and there is no visual buffer. Instead, it is only a big parking lot with
boats. The Moore’s business has a major impact on the surrounding neighborhood, she
emphasized.
Ms. Hollands lives across the street from Moore’s, who she said are great neighbors. However,
she has a problem with changing the zoning after years of being out of compliance. Having boats
serviced creates noise, and allowing such work at 8:01 a.m. on a Sunday does not make sense. If
I get pulled over for speeding through Taughannock, I cannot request the police officer to raise
the speed limit, she said. Where there once was an orchard to serve as a buffer is now only clear
views to boats and blue tarps. Homes are the property owners’ largest investment, and it seems
those investments are headed in the wrong direction.
Ms. Emerson said she is sympathetic to the Moore’s, but we are all subject to current laws. There
should not be any zoning change without commissioning studies to examine impacts on air,
water and soil, as well as lighting and noise. When the Development District was established in
1991, the business was intended to handle small motors only. That has changed, and the list of
zoning changes is extraordinary.
Privilege of the Floor concluded at 7:28 a.m.
Ms. Schneider thanked residents for their comments and explained that the Planning Board did
not have such information from neighbors when first reviewing the Development District
rewrite. Non-compliance from the Moore’s has been going on for years. Why were there no
comments from neighbors during that time? she asked.
Planning Board
March 20, 2018
3
There were not 100 boats being stored there, Ms. Cail said. When there was excessive noise
about a year ago, Ms. Cail called and emailed Ms. Kiley to inform her. Ms. Cail also mentioned
dirt fill at the Moores site. How the boats were stored also changed, Ms. McCutchen added.
Before, a fruit tree orchard provided a buffer. The number of boats stored at the site has
increased since 2004, she said.
Responding to a resident’s question, Mr. Wertis said the Planning Board does not have a
particular position or opinion on the matter until it passes a resolution. The Planning Board’s
process up to this point is outlined in previous meeting minutes.
At this time, Town Board members expressed their concerns. Mr. Goldman began by addressing
the principal concern of changing zoning for a non-compliant business. He thought Ms.
Hollands’ analogy of speeding to be apt. Though he has sympathy for people doing business, the
Town’s job is to enforce zoning, not reward 25 years of ignoring zoning. If I bought a property in
that area, and the neighborhood changed as it has, I would be furious, he said. He does not see
how it is possible to expand provisions within the Development District and hold no one
accountable.
Ms. Schneider said nothing has yet to be decided. When the Planning Board was first brought
this, the issue was presented as having been going on for many years. The Planning Board did
not know about any concerns from neighbors. There is also an environmental concern, since
many boats from the 70s and 80s used anti fouling paints that likely leached into the soil over the
course of many years. Toxicity and clean-up are different from zoning, Mr. Goldman said. Just
because there were not complaints does not mean you rewrite zoning law. If you do that, what is
zoning for? he asked. Bryon and Kim Moore recognized they were out of compliance, Mr. Blake
said. Based on complaints, their only redress was to come before the Planning Board and apply
for a zoning change. They are pursuing their options. The original complainant has left the area,
and the Planning Board was not aware that anyone else was concerned, he said.
Mr. Hertzler cautioned not to exaggerate what is happening at the Moore’s business. Having
visited the site, he counted roughly 80 boats total – not 100 – and four parked on the south side
of the building. The house to the north side of the business should never have been split off,
since a mere 10 feet or so separates the Moore’s property from the house. To lessen the visual
impact, perhaps Moore’s could use a material greener in color – rather than blue – to wrap the
boats, he said. Mr. Hertzler also asked about the process of decommissioning a Development
District.
The history of the Moore property was discussed. Ms. Cail said the business used to be a packing
house for the orchard, and it was eventually used to repair engines. We were promised that Town
zoning law would protect neighbors permanently from further development at the site, she said.
When the orchard was there, you did not have any complaints? Mr. Blake asked. No, the orchard
was fantastic, Ms. Cail said in response, and it provided a sufficient visual buffer until the fire.
Mr. Moore explained the fire, beginning by saying burning rags, cardboard and pallets was what
people did 27 years ago. At the time of the fire, it took responders 45 minutes to get to the site.
The trees were not burned, he said.
Planning Board
March 20, 2018
4
Toxicity of the site was briefly discussed. Mr. Moore reported the State Department of
Environmental Conservation visited the site when the Moore’s opened up almost 30 years ago.
Conservation then turned to process. Does the Town Board want to hand this issue back to the
Planning Board? Ms. Thomas asked. She would hate to see a business that has been in that area
for a long time be unable to continue due to Development District changes. Some of the concerns
include things like buffering and hours of operation, and the Moores could live with some
changes and still thrive.
Mr. Goldman reiterated that Moores is out of compliance and questioned why the Town would
reward 25 years of non-compliance. Responding to a question from Mr. Hertzler about whether
he wanted to eliminate the Development District, Mr. Goldman said no; only limit the number of
boats to 20. Ms. Zahler said there are ways to find a compromise and added that it did not make
sense to allow Moore’s to add additional buildings. No more development should be considered,
she said. Elsewhere, concern over access during non-working hours could be solved
inexpensively with a fence. A smaller storage tank size for oils and lubricants makes sense too,
as does a fire suppression plan, she said. Mr. Hertzler and Mr. Wertis agreed that compromises
could be found.
Mr. Ferrari said he sees the Development District as a way to allow for the use of a small
business that historically existed. However, allowance was granted with the notion that the
business resides in a residential district. He said he is not opposed to changes but feels the area
where Moore’s is located is a residential neighborhood, with property owners who have rights to
things like a quiet neighborhood and viewsheds. If a small business then turns into a larger
business within existing zoning, it becomes problematic. All concerns voiced by neighbors are
important to hear, he said.
Mr. Blake felt confident the Planning Board can come up with new language that takes into
account both neighbors’ concerns and Moore’s right to run a successful business. There will be
another public hearing to allow further comment on the draft Development District language.
A more general conversation ensued, and the need for better zoning enforcement was brought up.
That would require more staff, Mr. Goldman said, though, as Ms. Thomas noted, recent changes
have improved zoning enforcement. Mr. Goldman suggested the Town Board provide guidelines
to the Planning Board in its future deliberations on the Development District. Both Mr. Blake
and Ms. Schneider agreed with the suggestion.
Ms. Zahler MADE the MOTION to adjourn the Town Board portion of the meeting, and Mr.
Hertlzer SECONDED the MOTION. The motion carried unanimously.
The Town Board meeting concluded at 8:33 p.m., and the Planning Board continued with its
remaining business.
Draft Zoning Discussion
Planning Board
March 20, 2018
5
Ms. Schneider requested Board input on the following zoning questions: Allow one primary
house per lot or two? Thoughts on the 80/20 proposal? Thoughts on ZUSC’s original plan to use
15 as the divisor to determine number of subdivided lots? 200 feet or 400 feet minimum road
frontage? Viewsheds?
Mr. Wertis felt the 80/20 plan from the BZA is where many things fall out of agreement among
stakeholders. Ms. Kiley felt similar, that the 80/20 concept presents some key issues, namely the
difficulty in tracking subdivision rights among parent and fragment parcels. The 15 divisor
approach seems easier.
Ms. Schneider repeated her concerns with the proposal for a one-size-fits-all approach in the
Ag/Rural zone. This proposal does not address the other 95 percent of the Town, she said.
Any amount of scientific data to help with zoning decision is helpful, Mr. Ferrari said. He also
cited Oregon as a national model for smart planning; the state promotes urban growth boundaries
around nodal areas like cities, villages and hamlets, and has strict rules about subdividing ag
land. However, this creates equity issues, Ms. Olson said; because land is so restrictive, people
get priced out of areas like Portland.
Ms. Kiley reminded the Board that the Town Board needs to adopt a new zoning law in August.
Minutes review process
Mr. Wertis readdressed his concerns with offering and accepting changes to draft minutes. The
Planning Board reached a consensus to add the following language to its Rules and Procedures:
“The most efficient way of approving minutes is for the chair to assume the motion and obtain
unanimous consent that the minutes be approved as distributed (or as corrected). The chair says,
“The minutes have been distributed to you. Are there any corrections?” If corrections are offered,
the chair handles each by offering the correction to the membership, just to be sure everyone
agrees that the correction is accurate. The clerk then enters the corrections on the master copy.
When no further corrections are offered, the chair officer says, “If there are no further
corrections . . . (pause) . .. the minutes are approved as distributed/corrected.”
At this time, Mr. LeWalter raised the question as to why he was not made a permanent member
of the Planning Board when Sara Worden stepped down. He had asked to be moved up into a
permanent position and is uncomfortable with how the situation was handled. Nobody got back
to him, he said, and the whole process moved too quickly.
Mr. Wertis suggested Mr. Blake contact the Town Board and ask about the situation. Ms.
Schneider agreed with the suggestion.
Mr. Blake MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Wertis SECONDED the
MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
Planning Board
March 20, 2018
6
Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro on April 12, 2018.