Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-01-16-08CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2008 PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel. OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney for the Town; Sue Ritter (Sue), Assistant Director of Planning; Rod Howe, Planning Board Chair. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Bill asked those present to introduce themselves. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of December 19, 2007 Meeting: In regard to the draft Minutes of the December 19, 2007 meeting, Susan noted a correction on page 3, Agenda Item No. 4, 6th line down, deleting “Susan” and substituting “Sue”, so that the sentence begins, “Sue researched this and found that …”. Subject to this correction, the Committee unanimously accepted the Minutes of the December 19, 2007 meeting. Agenda Item No. 3 – Approval of 2008 Meeting Schedule: Bill asked Jonathan to go over the proposed 2008 Meeting Schedule that had been distributed to the Committee. Jonathan proposed changing the February date from February 20th to February 13th because a number of Town officials will be attending the NYS Association of Town s meeting in New York City the week of February 18th. The Committee agreed to change the February meeting date to February 13th, and accepted the revised 2008 meeting schedule. Agenda Item No. 4 – Consideration of Possible Revisions to Draft Stormwater Management Laws Based on Public Comments Received : Bill asked Sue to give a brief history and background on the draft laws. Sue indicated that the stormwater laws are a requirement of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Phase 2 stormwater program, which was required by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Sue added that after initial discussions among staff, a draft law was forwarded to the Committee for review, and after a number of meetings, a revised set of laws was sent to the Town Board for consideration. The Town Board referred the laws to the Planning Board and Conservation Board, both of which provided positive recommendation on the laws. Sue mentioned that the Town held a public information meeting on the proposed laws, and the Planning Board held a public hearing in conjunction with their recommendation, and several public comments on the laws were received. The main comments were provided by Linda Aarismaa from Cornell’s Environmental Compliance and Sustainability Office. Sue referred to the memo she had prepared for the Committee, dated January 19, 2008, summarizing 2 those comments with the memo from Ms. Aarismaa attached, and including “staff responses to comments received on the …law”. The following is a summary of the Committee’s discussion regarding these comments and modifications to the laws that were accepted by the Committee. 1. Agricultural exemptions - Section 228-7 Exemptions: Ms. Aarismaa’s comment was that the law should exempt agricultural and/or agricultural activities regardless of whether they occur within an agricultural district. Sue mentioned that staff and the Committee did not think about lands outside of agricultural districts when the exemption section was drafted, and that Cornell does own agricultural lands that are not in ag. districts. Pat thought that the staff suggested revision was too vague and could be interpreted to mean that a homeowner’s property with a small vegetable patch might be exempted from the stormwater requirements. The Committee agreed to keep the current definition of “farm” in the law and have the exemption apply to any farm that is three acres or larger if not in an ag. district, and also apply to a farm of any size in an ag. district. 2. Timeframe for approval – Section 228-8 Administration: Sue indicated that Ms. Aarismaa had expressed concern that projects that fall under the new regulations that are not subject to site plan approval or special permits do not appear to have any timeframe in which the Town has to issue approval. Sue added that none of the Town’s other permit approvals (e.g., building permits, fill permits) have a timeframe, and those processes work very well without a timeframe specified. Staff did not recommend any changes to this section. The Committee agreed. 3. Definition of “qualified licensed professional” – Sections 228-11 and 228-5: Ms. Aarismaa had commented that restricting stormwater inspections to be performed only by licensed professionals could lead to unnecessary expense to projects, and suggested that CPESC’s (Certified Professional in Sediment & Erosion Control) and CPSWQ’s (Certified Professional in Storm Water Quality) are trained and tested to do inspections, and the definition of “qualified licensed professional” should be expanded to include CPESC’s and CPSWQ’s. Sue indicated that CPESC’s are recognized by DEC, but CPSWQ’s are not. Sue added that staff’s opinion is that neither a CPESC nor a landscape architect should be responsible for the preparation of a Full SWPPP because these require a full understanding of hydraulics, which requires the expertise of a professional engineer. Based on this, Sue recommended that a new definition of “qualified inspector” be added. Which would include CPESC’s, and that the only “qualified licensed professional” authorized to prepare a Full SWPPP should be a professional engineer, deleting “licensed landscape architect” from the definition of “qualified licensed professional”. The Committee agreed with this. 4. 14 day inspection period – Section 228-11: Ms. Aarismaa commented that the new State SPDES permit will change the inspection frequencies to every 14 days, and that the Town’s regulations should be modified to be consistent with that pending change. Sue indicated that the 7 day inspection requirement in the law conforms to the current DEC requirements, and that the proposed SPDES modifications are only draft modifications at this time. Sue added that staff actually prefers to keep the 7 day inspection requirement. Dan mentioned that a lot of problems can arise on a site even over seven days. As an 3 example, it took only three or four days for the excavation and fill violations to occur at the Wedemaier site on Slaterville Road. Bill asked what happens after a storm event. Dan responded that DEC requires an inspection by the next business day after a storm, and added that if a storm system becomes clogged during a storm, and then a second storm occurs before an inspection is done and corrective measures are taken, then serious damage and problems can occur. The Committee agreed to leave the seven day inspection requirement for now, and see how it works and whether DEC does change their requirement to 14 days. 5. Easements and deed restrictions - Section 228-11: Ms. Aarismaa commented that the requirement in the law for formal easements and deed restrictions seem unnecessary and cumbersome, and that the proposed requirements regarding O & M (operation and maintenance) practices is sufficient. Sue indicated that there are several reasons why the Town requires easements: the model NYS law requires separate easements and O & M agreements; it has been the Town’s practice to require both easements and O & M agreements; and it insures that new property owners can readily determine through a deed search that easements or restrictions are in place on their property. Susan mentioned that the Town and Cornell are working on a comprehensive O & M agreement to cover all of Cornell’s stormwater facilities. Sue added that staff recommended no changes to this section. The Committee agreed. 6. Performance guarantees – Section 228-14: Ms. Aarismaa commented that the law requires the owner to maintain records demonstrating compliance with the law, and suggested that the law should specify what records are required and how long they must be retained. Sue indicated that there is no specific requirement for records, but that the law could be modified to clarify the Town’s intent that records would be provided to the Town, as specified by the Town. Dan mentioned that DEC requires the project sponsor to keep plans and inspection records available on the site so that an inspector has easy access to these records, and that these records should be maintained indefinitely. Bill indicated that the Town would have as built drawings and design criteria in our permanent files. Fred thought that it does not seem reasonable to require that these records be kept forever. Susan indicated that this requirement is a safety net for the Town and that the Town does not have to require, but may require records. Susan suggested that if the Town does require records, it should indicate so in a letter to the project sponsor. The Committee agreed to leave this requirement in the law. 7. General comment regarding “additional requirements: Ms. Aarismaa commented that any additional requirements that may be applied to a project at the discretion of the SMO or the Town must be made in writing and early in the approval process. Sue indicated that staff recommended no changes. The Committee agreed that no changes should be made. Additional modifications were recommended by staff in Sue’s memo. These were discussed as follows. 1. Notification to Town prior to land disturbance - Section 228-11: Sue suggested adding new language as referenced in the memo. Susan suggested changing the word land 4 “disturbance’ to land “development”. The Committee agreed to the changes recommended in Sue’s memo and changing “disturbance” to “development”. 2. Definition of streams: Sue referred to her recommendations in the memo to modify references to “permanent or intermittent” streams, by just referring to “streams”. The Committee agreed. 3. Reference to “stop work orders”: Susan mentioned that Kristie Rice had spoken to her about use of the term “stop work order” in the stormwater laws, and indicated that Kristie had recommended changing the term “stop work order” to “suspension of work order” to avoid confusion between the provisions in Chapter 125 and the new stormwater Chapter. Susan added that she saw some other provisions in Chapter 125 that she thought would be good to add to the stormwater laws. Dan indicated that he would prefer to see the same terminology used for both Chapters and saw no problem with using the term “stop work order” Dan added that the Town will need to address the need for charging fees in conjunction with SWPPP’s once the laws are adopted. Dan added that it will involve significant staff time to implement the new stormwater regulations, and that the Town needs to look at the administrative elements, funding, staffing, etc. Jonathan suggested that the entire fee schedule needs to be updated because the same fees have been in place for quite some time. The Committee agreed to leave the term “stop work order” in the stormwater laws, and that the form on which the stop work order is issued can specify under what authority that order is being issued. There was further discussion regarding whether the Code Enforcement Officer has the authority to stop all work on a site if there is a specific violation, or whether the stop work order can only apply to work related to that violation. The Committee agreed that the revisions discussed and agreed to during the meeting should be incorporated by Susan and sent back to the Town Board in time for the scheduled public hearing on February 11, 2008. Dan added that he will talk to Kristie about the use of the term “stop work order”. Susan asked Committee members to send her any additional minor revisions so she can get the revised law to the Town Clerk’s Office at least 10 days before the public hearing on the laws. Bill asked if the Committee had any more suggestions for the stormwater laws. Hearing none, the Committee closed this discussion. Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion Regarding 2008 Work Plan Priorities: Jonathan referred to the discussion list of proposed work plan priorities that had been distributed to the Committee, which includes status updates on items that have been completed by the Committee or are underway. Pat suggested that the Committee should start working on affordable housing regulations soon, and that should become a high priority for the upcoming year. Jonathan indicated that the Planning Committee would be discussing the subject of affordable housing in general, and that perhaps the Codes & Ordinances Committee could address specific regulations after the Planning Committee looks at possible strategies and recommended polices. Pat asked about the status of the Carrowmoor draft local law for a Planned Development Zone and whether that should come to this Committee for review. Jonathan responded that Susan Brock has just completed a first draft of a law that is initially 5 being reviewed by staff. The question then was raised whether that draft law should go to this Committee or to the new Planning Committee for review. Fred thought that the Carrowmoor draft law should not be handled by this Committee because of the make up of members, including himself and Eva, who are members of the Planning Board, which will have to review and approve plans at a later stage. Fred felt that this could pose a potential conflict. Herb stated that he would like this Committee to concentrate on the several projects that have been pending for several years, such as the stream setback law, wind energy facilities law, and Coy Glen Conservation Zone as the highest priorities. Dan asked whether this Committee should be looking at policies and technical issues, or just the legal aspects of laws and codes. Fred reiterated that Carrowmoor would involve both the drafting of a law for a rezoning, which would be the responsibility of the Town Board, and the review and approval of a site plan for the development, which would be the responsibility of the Planning Board. Kirk added that if this Committee gets involved in the review of the Carrowmoor law, it would involve Fred and Eva in a way that other Planning Board members would not. Jonathan recommended that Planned Development Zones are more appropriate for the new Planning Committee, which consists of three Town Board members, to address. Pat suggested removing the noise law amendments from the priority list because the current law seems to be working pretty well, and there have not been any recent complaints regarding the law. Pat recommended adding a review of the taxi ordinance to the work plan for possible amendments – the City had started reviewing their taxi law, but that hasn’t gone anywhere. Pat indicated that the provisions of the taxi law dealing with rates for trips that originate in and outside of the City need to be updated. Pat thought that the Town can regulate trips that are not entirely in the Town, but added that the State law is somewhat vague in this regard. Fred wondered if this Committee is the appropriate one to address the taxi law. Jonathan suggested that the following should be considered as high priority items on the work plan because they had been initiated by the Committee and significant work has already gone into them: stream buffer law, Coy Glen Conservation Zone, wind energy facilities law, and amendments to the sign law. Jonathan mentioned that the viewshed protection regulations that had been listed under “next priority” on the list could become a priority after the Planning Committee reviews the Conservation Board’s report “Saving Ithaca’s Views” – that report was referred by the Town Board to the Planning Committee for review and recommendations regarding possible strategies to protect important views. Bill asked about the items listed in the “high priority” category on the list that have not yet been started, such as updating the subdivision regulations, tree preservation regulations and wetland regulations. Fred suggested that these items could be deferred to the “next priority” category. Jonathan indicated that tree preservation appears to be something that many Planning Board, Conservation Board and Town Board members have been talking about as an important issue that needs to be addressed. Sue indicated that the Conservation Board is discussing possible amendments to the Conservation Zone to strengthen the tree preservation aspects in that zone, and that perhaps Planning staff could do some research and preliminary work on drafting a tree preservation law, and bring it to the Committee at a later time. Dan asked what a tree preservation law would include and what would the rationale be. Sue responded that there are many reasons to preserve trees, such as ecological and habitat protection and scenic resource 6 preservation, but that staff would need to do some preliminary research to investigate this further. Bill suggested that the Committee continue the discussion on work plan priorities at the next meeting. The Committee agreed. Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: Bill asked Jonathan to report briefly on the status of comments received regarding the draft Wind Energy Facilities Law. Jonathan indicated that the draft law was sent out in early November to a number of installers, environmental interests, and others, and responses were received from about eight people. Comments on the draft law included concerns with the proposed maximum tower height, the noise decibel limitation, the restriction of only one facility per lot, the possible need to allow mid-scale facilities for institutional and commercial uses in addition to the small, residential scale facilities, and concern that a special permit process would discourage homeowners from pursuing wind energy facilities. Jonathan added that staff will prepare a summary of the comments received and send that to the Committee with all of the specific comments for discussion at a future meeting. Susan then reported on the status of work on the revised draft law regarding illicit discharges, activities and connections to storm sewer systems. Susan indicated that she hopes to have the revisions to the draft law available for the Committee in February or March . Sue added that she hopes to at least include a description of the work done on this law in the Annual Stormwater Program Report that the Town is required to submit to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 13, 2008. Proposed agenda items include continuation of discussion of the proposed law regarding illicit discharges and connections into municipal separate storm sewer systems, report on comments received regarding the draft Wind Energy Facilities Law, and continuation of discussion regarding 2008 work plan priorities. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning