Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2025-09-111 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of September 11, 2025 – 5:30 p.m. Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall Minutes Members Present: Susie Gutenberger-Fitzpatrick, Acting Chair; Bill Arms; Chris Jung; Eva Hoffmann. Absent/Excused: Rob Rosen; Margaret Johnson. Staff Present: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning; Nick Quilty-Koval, Planner; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town. Guests: Three students. The meeting was recorded on Zoom. 1. Member comments/concerns. None. 2. Review minutes from July 10, 2025, COC meeting. An addition by the Attorney to the Town was read aloud. On a motion made by Susie, seconded by Eva, the July 10, 2025, minutes were unanimously approved as amended. 3. Presentation and Review of proposed amendments to Accessory Buildings in the following Zones : Conservation (Town Code § 270-17); Low Density Residential (Town Code § 270-60); Medium Density Residential (Town Code § 270-71); and High Density Residential (Town Code § 270-82). Town Planner Nick Quilty-Koval shared a visual presentation of the proposed code changes for accessory structures in various zoning districts in the town. Slides showing various shed types and sizes in comparison to one- and two-story homes were shown and explained. The visualizations included the shed size, material and setback information and the Planner verbally identified which zoning districts would permit each visualization with the proposed changes. For context, a visualization was included of an accessory building which would not be allowed with the proposed change in most zones due to the height exceeding 14 feet. The next set of information was broken down by LDR, MDR and HDR zoning districts relative to side yard shed/accessory structure placement. The potential for additional rear yard placement depending on the zone was also identified. Each zone has a different proposed total square footage, the visualizations showed how the total could potentially be utilized in multiple (up to three) structures per zone. Conservation zone proposed the largest square footage and showed a larger parcel as an example with side and rear yard structures. A Roof Pitch Diagram chart was shown with Roof Pitch angles for quick reference and review. C.J. explained that while the committee proposed changes relative to the side yard placement of sheds at the meeting prior that did not include any additional restrictions, she had a conversation later with the Chair Rob Rosen about materials, form, roof pitch and other design elements related to accessory structures. He asked the committee to reconsider the flat roof piece and for the presentation to be 2 prepared to show the different roof pitch possibilities. C.J. shared the proposed additional amendments on screen in each zone related to roof pitch. These materials were also distributed to the committee in the meeting packet. Susie noted the committee’s previous intent to not micromanage the materials and design of the sheds. The roof pitch and height part is what is being presented and shown as the additional amendments to the ones approved to move onto Town Board at the previous meeting. She thanked Paulette for her comments and experiences with the variances that have been applied for related to sheds. Marty noted that the committee previously approved a 12 ft. max height recommendation with the proposed amendments. The current visualization and proposed amendments show 14 ft. height max. He confirmed that in most zones not more than 3 accessory structures are permitted, however a garage or accessory dwelling unit may be permitted depending on the situation. There was some discussion about garages and detached accessory dwelling units or more than one dwelling unit on a single lot. This was unrelated to sheds but no changes were proposed to that language. Susie asked if staff had any other recommendations or things to consider related to sheds? Dana commented that measuring roof pitch to specific degree may be difficult to enforce as a Code Enforcement Officer and without being a builder or having been trained in that specific area. C.J explained again how this discussion came up and stated if the committee wants to allow a flat roof, the proposed amendments to the sheds in side yards previously recommended to move forward to Town Board will stand. Bill was not in favor of adding roof pitch, nor did Chris J. Eva felt it was up to the homeowner to choose the roof pitch. The discussion concluded by leaving the previous recommendations as originally proposed with 12 ft. height max. The committee thanked the Planning staff for the visualization which helped confirm their previous recommendations. Susan mentioned the town has specific provisions for woodsheds in various zones that allow them in side yards. Does the committee want to remove the woodshed provisions? It seemed redundant and confusing to leave them in, and codes staff did not identify any reasons against the removal of the woodshed provisions although staff should take a look to see if they affect any other yard provisions or related sections. Susan noted also not every shed variance has been approved by the ZBA in the past. Marty and Chris recalled and named a couple with unique circumstances. Committee confirmed the additional recommendation to the Town Board to remove the woodshed and related pertinent sections along with the initial recommendation discussed above (from July meeting minutes). Susan and staff offered to provide red lined version to the COC for confirmation of what will go to the Town Board. The COC felt staff had enough information from both meetings to draft the proposed amendments to the Town Board. If staff felt the woodshed provision removal caused substantial additional changes, they would present it back to the committee. 4. Review of proposed amendment to Zoning Administration: Permit to Build (Town Code § 270-233B). Marty explained there are often situations when the Code Department cannot issue a building permit due to other zoning violations that are found. These violations are often not a detriment to the building. For example, someone applies for a needed electrical permit and upon inspection, an unpermitted shed is seen 3 in the side yard. Another example is a heating unit needs to be replaced, but an unpermitted roof repair was observed. The heating unit does not affect the structural integrity and the new roof without a permit is in violation. Where a violation exists on a parcel. the current code is restrictive because a permit to build is only to be issued when the Code Department makes a determination that withholding the permit is a detriment to the structural integrity of the building. This narrow categorical exemption does not allow for other instances where a permit needs to be issued; it is also not practicable to include an exhaustive list within the Town Code. The draft language submitted with the packet is an initial attempt to accomplish the goal of flexibility in discretion for the Director of Code Enforcement to authorize non- structural improvements. Susan has some recommendations, and the committee was agreeable to reviewing a second draft of the proposed language at the next meeting. Other business: The next regularly scheduled meeting is October 9th however staff proposed to cancel the meeting to allow staff to work through the various projects and be prepared for drafts of Subdivision and the above Zoning changes for the November 13, 2025, COC meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.