Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2025-05-081 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of May 8, 2025 – 5:30 p.m. Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall Minutes Members Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Bill Arms; Chris Jung; Eva Hoffmann. Members and Staff Excused: Susie Gutenberger-Fitzpatrick; Margaret Johnson; C.J. Randall, Director of Planning. Staff Present: David O’Shea, Director of Engineering; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Senior Planner. Guests: none The meeting was recorded on Zoom and streamed live on the Town of Ithaca YouTube channel. 1. Member comments/concerns. Rob noted the previously excused absences of Margaret Johnson, Susie Gutenberger and C.J. Randall. He also mentioned correspondence to him via the Town Supervisor and Codes Director from a Renwick Drive resident regarding the Short-Term Rental law. He anticipates that the resident may attend a future COC meeting to address the committee with comments. Eva asked for the staff and Board members to please speak up and into the microphones to be heard better during the meetings. It is difficult to hear across the room in the Board room. Rob agreed and asked all to please speak up and project their voices. 2. Review minutes from April 10, 2025, COC meeting. Bill moved to accept the minutes; Chris J. seconded; Susan Brock submitted changes to Rob and Chris B and went over them aloud. All members voted in favor of approval of April 10, 2025, COC meeting minutes as amended. 3. Continued review of Draft Subdivision of Land regulations: The committee continued their review of the draft regulations, picking up where they left off last month, in the terminology section: Article VI. Terminology SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA- Staff will wordsmith this new definition and come back with a new version for the committee to consider. Rob asked if the word “manual” was needed in the definition. STORY-Marty noted the NYS Building Code has the “story above grade plane” defined in a very simple way, but not the single term itself. Eva and Rob asked about the exceeding 6 feet reference, Chris B suggested revising this definition to apply or cross reference with the current building code definition. STREET-Dave suggested this definition be tabled and revised by staff as they develop the Site Design and Development Criteria. Susan noted the definition as written includes driveways, this should be 2 considered in the revision. STREET WIDTH-Dave also suggested this be tabled and revised by staff, the right-of-way reference should be replaced with “improved surface.” SUBDIVIDER- Chris B noted this term is similar to the term “Applicant,” both definitions will be compared in context, and it is possible that only one will be needed and presented in the next draft. SUBDIVISION, EXEMPT- this definition is intended for simple two-lot (remove “or fewer” and the word “strictly”) subdivisions that would not go to the Planning Board but would fall into the internal- administrative review category. This definition will be revised to reflect the intent of the internal review process. Chris B. added that the name could be changed to be a “Minor” subdivision. Specifically, A. “Each lot is not less than one acre” was suggested to be removed by the COC at a prior meeting. C. Remove “C” in entirety. D. “No infrastructure is proposed” was questioned by Rob and Susan. Driveways are often proposed, and this should be more precise or possibly removed. All COC members agreed that “D” should be removed. E. Rob stated that every lot in the Town of Ithaca has been previously subdivided, so he proposed that “E” be removed. Dave suggested adding an expiration timeframe for exempt subdivisions, e.g., no additional subdivision of the property within 5 years. Otherwise, someone can request multiple “exempt” subdivisions for a property every year, which would defeat the purpose of the exempt status. SUBDIVISION- A. Marty mentioned this applies to subdivision of two or more lots; and noted that the “exempt” subdivision discussed above applies to two or fewer lots. Marty thought this overlap would be confusing and requested clarification. C. Conventional Subdivision: Susan questioned how a non-cluster subdivision would be classified if it did have common ownership of undivided open space? She asked if the common ownership part is relevant, as written it would prohibit a conventional subdivision. She also referenced a prior COC meeting note where it was asked to beef up this “Conventional” definition and then add the standards in which one could apply for this type of subdivision elsewhere in the document. The committee was comfortable with just the first sentence and removing last part “in which no provision is made for common ownership of undivided open space in the subdivision.” D. Cluster Subdivision: Remove the last line referencing conservation subdivision, not needed. Marty asked what is meant by “applicable area and bulk regulations of zoning are modified”? This reference will be flagged for follow up or clarification, possibly it is used in NYS Town Law 278. Rob interpreted “bulk” to be volume. E. Change “This term” to “Subdivision” and check the applicability of the sentence related to “Lots over 5 acres to be used solely for ag purposes are exempt from this definition.” This could be needed based on NYS Agriculture & Markets law. Chris will double check this term. Municipal utility extension was asked to be checked also, if now the exempt subdivision can include extension of utilities. Staff will revise the whole definition of “subdivision.” Bill asked for clarification again: where in the new draft does it say that a lot over 10 acres cannot be a conventional subdivision? Chris B. stated the Planning Board can decide if the classification is a cluster or a conventional. She referred Bill to Article IV-Subdivision Design Standards, item “C. Exceptions,” which is where the law states that a cluster subdivision will not be required if the total acreage of land to be subdivided into three or more building lots is less than five acres. The same section notes where there 3 may be reasonable basis for requiring a cluster. Marty read the proposed section out loud, noting that cluster subdivisions shall be the “preferred methodology in all cases of new subdivisions and re- subdivision in accordance with the requirements of the chapter...” Chris B. explained that the intent behind the draft language was based on the goal of the Town Comprehensive Plan to prioritize cluster subdivisions over conventional subdivisions. She reiterated that cluster developments follow the current housing trends; they save residents and municipalities money because infrastructure is not extended as far; clustering conserves natural resources; and it benefits the developer, the town, and residents. Bill noted that the revised regulation should include a simple statement that a conventional subdivision is still allowed under certain conditions, indicating that it would be easier for the applicant to follow. Chris B. assured that the next draft of the law would be consistent with the committee’s recommendations. TOWN PLANNER-Chris B. recommended this include the Director of Planning as the term is used in the law in instances. The committee recommended striking the definition if not needed. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY-Check to see if this is used in the law - in essence it is a double lot line modification between neighbors, no additional lots are created the size of each changes. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT is another newly added definition and may work for both actions and only one would be needed. Dana made a well-received suggestion to move the definitions section from the end of the subdivision law to the beginning, to be consistent with zoning and other Town of Ithaca Laws. There were no objections. The committee finished their review of the draft Subdivision Regulations. Staff will take the next two months to revise the law before it goes back to the committee. 4. Other business: The COC canceled its next regularly scheduled meeting (June 12, 2025). The committee will possibly cancel the July meeting as well. Up for possible discussion in July is the zoning law related to sheds, due to the quantity of variances sought. Marty also mentioned wanting to look at extending the time frame associated with variances as well. Staff will be working on proposals for both in the coming months. 5. The meeting adjourned around 6:45 p.m.