Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-03-19-08CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MARCH 19, 2008 PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann. 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; Darby Kiley, Planner. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Bill asked if any members had any changes to the agenda. Hearing none, Bill asked the Committee to consider approval of the minutes of the February 13th meeting. Agenda Item No. 1 – Approval of Minutes of February 13, 2008 Meeting: Moved by Eva, seconded by Herb, the Committee unanimously approved the Minutes of the February 13, 2008 meeting as drafted. Agenda Item No. 2 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Revised Draft Local Law Regarding Storm Sewer System and Surface Waters Protection: Susan referred to the revised draft law that she had prepared regarding “storm sewer system and surface waters protection”, formerly referred to as the local law regarding illicit discharges, activities, and connections to municipal separate storm sewer systems. Susan indicated that she had attempted to simplify the law and basically started over with the revised law. Bill asked if the new title was taken from a model or sample. Susan said no, but it seemed to more accurately reflect the intent of the law. Susan added that the purposes and objectives section mostly was taken from the State’s model law. Bill referred to the definition of “hazardous materials” in Section 2, which Susan had flagged for further attention. Susan mentioned that the terms “pollutant” and “hazardous materials” both need to be simplified and not tied to New York State standards. Susan indicated that she would look at sample definitions of these terms to see if they can be further revised. Eva suggested that the Committee consider adding “medications” or “pharmaceuticals” in the definition of “pollutants” because of the significant problems that can arise from these substances going into the water supply. The Committee agreed. The Committee reviewed Sections 3 Applicability and 4 Responsibility for administration and agreed that these look okay. In Section 5 Discharge prohibition, Bill referred to the example previously discussed by the Committee regarding house connections to the storm sewer system. Eva reiterated the example in which a laundry room has a drain connected to the sanitary sewer system and a garage that has a drain connecting to a yard or footer drain. Jonathan asked if a car is parked in the garage and leaks oil or gasoline that then drains into the storm sewer system, would this be considered an illegal or unauthorized discharge? Dan responded yes, it would be 2 illegal under the law. In Section 6 Authorized discharges, Herb asked about B(5) “existing diverted stream flows”, and said that including this reference makes it seem like the Town is saying that it is okay to divert streams. Susan said that was not the intent, and that inserting the word “legally” before “diverted stream flows” would help to clarify that the Town is not encouraging such diversions. The Committee agreed. In Section 7 Prohibited connections, Susan indicated that under this section, the garage drain mentioned in the above example would be considered legal if it discharges items listed as permissible in Section 6.B, but would be illegal if items listed in Section 5 (Discharge prohibition) are discharged. Susan added that Section 7 deals with physical connections like drains, and that if oil is discharged through a drain, the Town could pursue a violation under Section 5. In Section 8 Prohibition against activities contaminating stormwater, Bill asked about the reference to “pet waste” in sub-section C and wondered whether that was a standard term in the model law. Darby indicated that the Town of Lansing law that was adopted used the term “animal waste”. Bill asked if we used that term, whether there would be an exemption under the agricultural districts law. Sue said that she had reviewed the agricultural district provisions, and it contains provisions regarding waste management. Dan added that horse farms and equestrian centers are considered farms under the agricultural districts law. Susan did not think that the agricultural district law would exempt these uses from the storm sewer system and surface waters protection law provisions, and that this might be considered a policy issue for the Town Board. Bill suggested that COC could ask the Agriculture Committee for a recommendation. Susan suggested that COC first decide how it wants to handle this issue. Herb said that he could ask Debbie Teeter at Cooperative Extension for her opinion. Dan asked whether the provisions in Section 8.B came from the State’s model law. Susan said yes, and that 8.B triggers special conditions for regulation. The Committee reviewed Sections 9 regarding best management practices and 10 regarding industrial or construction activity discharges, and were okay with those provisions. In Section 11 Suspension of access to municipal storm sewer system, Dan asked why “notice of contest” of a determination by the SMO would go to the Town Clerk. Susan responded that the Town Board would be the entity that would decide on such a matter and that the Town Clerk is normally the office where Town Board matters are handled. Susan added that this separates the technical aspects of the regulation from the legal and administrative aspects. Bill referred to Susan’s notes at the end of the law regarding the need to add administrative provisions relating to access and monitoring of discharges, spill notifications, and enforcement and remedies. Susan indicated that she would draft those provisions and add the other changes discussed by the Committee. Herb asked if the further revisions should come back to the Committee. Bill suggested basing that on how much is added to the administrative provisions and seeing how the reference to “animal waste” ends up in relation to farm exemptions. Dan asked whether enforcement provisions would follow the approach in other Town codes (e.g., with respect to access to properties, right to inspect, etc.). Susan said that she would check other Town code chapters and the State’s model before drafting the enforcement provisions. Bill 3 suggested that he and several other Committee members review the revisions and then decide if the revised law should come back to the Committee for further review and discussion. Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Revised Draft of Small Wind Energy Facilities Law: Bill referred to the revised local law. Herb asked what “protected natural areas” referred to in Susan’s email message might include. Jonathan responded that this might include lands such as Cornell Plantations, State Parks, and Land Trust. On page 2, Susan pointed out that she had left blank the distance within ordinary high water line of Cayuga Lake that would determine whether a facility would need a special permit. The Committee agreed to insert “500” feet to reflect the presence of the bird flyway. The Committee also agreed to use 500 feet within a natural area as a threshold for special permit. Bill mentioned that the revised law includes the 145 foot maximum height agreed upon at the last meeting (page 3). Jonathan indicated that a second diagram will be added illustrating a vertical axis turbine. Bill asked how the provision in #4 on page 5 referring to the lowest extension of any blade of a roof-mounted structure being15 feet above ground level would work. Susan indicated that most roofs would be at least 15 feet above ground level, but that some flat roofs may be lower. After a brief discussion, the Committee agreed on the wording in the draft law. Eva asked about the co-location reference in #9 on page 5. Susan said that it would be good to add a reference to the telecommunication facility provisions in the Zoning Code. Herb asked the Committee about Susan’s question on page 6, # D(2) and whether wiring for roof mounted systems is okay. The Committee agreed that such wiring should be allowed to run along the side of a building. There was brief discussion about the height of a facility on a roof. It was agreed that there should be a maximum height of 15 feet for roof mounted facilities measured from the base of the mount. Herb asked about a facility mounted to the side of a house. The Committee agreed to change the provisions for roof-mounted facilities to allow building mounted facilities. This would allow a pole to be attached to the side of a building with a wind energy facility extending from the pole. Bill asked if the Committee was ready to send the revised law to the Town Board for consideration. The Committee agreed. Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion Regarding Lakefront Residential Zone Amendments Referred Back to Committee by Town Board: Bill reported that the Town Board heard a presentation by staff regarding the proposed Lakefront Zone amendments as well as hearing comments from representatives of the West Shore Homeowners’ Association (WSHA) at the March 10th Town Board meeting. Based on that 4 discussion, the Town Board decided to refer the amendments back to the Commit tee for further consideration. Kirk said that he thought that the Committee had been in agreement with the amendments that were sent to the Town Board. Jonathan handed out the three-page outline of WSHA comments and suggestions that had been presented to the Town Board. Bill volunteered to talk to Town Board members who are not on COC to see what their thoughts on the proposed amendments and WSHA suggestions are and to get a sense of what the Town Board would agree to adopt. Herb said that he is not sure how to discuss the WSHA comments on item #1 regarding dock building materials, but that it should be fairly straightforward to talk about items 2 - 4. Eva said that she feels the same about items 1 – 4 on the WSHA list as she did when the Committee discussed these previously, and that she would want the proposed amendments to go back to the Town Board without any further changes. Eric indicated that he felt that the WSHA made strong arguments about why roofs on boat lifts are necessary. Eva said that roofs cause potential visual impacts on neighboring homes’ views of the lake. Eric said that he has not heard any complaints from residents about views being blocked by roofs on boat lifts. Eva indicated that roofs are visual blight along the lake shore, and that the reason for strong regulations is to protect the character of the shoreline as much as possible. Pat said that the concern of residents is to protect boats in the summer when in use, and that it is not convenient for owners to place canvas covers over their boat every time they use it. Pat added that roofs over boat lifts can be made of canvas. Pat said that she does not see how a roof on a boat lift is any more offensive than the boat lift itself. Pat added that in some cases, a roof actually makes the boat lift look better. Kirk agreed with Pat, and indicated that the WSHA point # 9 in the roof section says that a low profile roof is more aesthetically attractive than vertical boat lift posts with accompanying equipment. Pat mentioned that the Committee should lean toward the needs of boaters, and that it is not a big impact to have a small covering on boat lifts. Herb said that roofs are not only an aesthetic issue as viewed from the lake, but more in how roofs can block views of the lake by neighbors, and that roofs take away from the value of neighboring properties. Herb added that because of the sun angles in this area, even with a roof, the sun will be shining on boats most of time anyway. Kirk felt that the proposed prohibition of roofs on boat lifts was mainly based on protecting the neighbors’ views of the lake, but that 79% of the residents in the WSHA survey said they favor allowing roofs on lifts. Kirk said in other words, the neighbors have spoken, and they like having roofs and want to keep them. Kirk indicated that the same is true for the 25 foot setback issue raised by WSHA. Eva wondered how many residents in the Town of Ithaca vs. Town of Ulysses said they wanted roofs in the survey. Pat indicated that she takes the residents at their word that they want the ability to have roofs, and the majority of residents have said that roofs help to protect their boats. Pat added that water is corrosive, and it is not just sun shining on boats that causes problems. Length of docks: Points raised on this issue were that other municipal regulations allow dock lengths of at least 50 feet or do not have any length restriction at all. It was also mentioned that water depth in Cayuga Lake varies so much that it is hard to use water depth as a basis to regulate dock length. The staff survey of lake front properties had shown that many existing docks are longer than 30 feet. It was pointed out that the staff recommendation for dock length based on the inventory was 50 feet maximum. 5 Shoreline setback: Points raised on this issue were that many residents talked about the need for a place to store equipment near the shoreline so that they do not have to haul it over long distances or over a cliff. The WSHA outline recommends permitting a small storage shed near the shoreline in cases where there are cliffs or steep slopes near the shoreline. Eric said that he agrees with Kirk and Pat that he does not feel that roofs on boat lifts obstruct neighbors’ views of the lake, and that many houses are not at the lake level anyway, so most views will be over the boat lifts. Herb asked if staff has the raw data from the WSHA survey so that the Committee can see how many resident responses were from Town of Ithaca residents vs. Town of Ulysses. Jonathan said that staff will check with WSHA and see if that information can be provided to the Committee. Herb also asked how many lots along the shoreline have existing houses, and how many lots are vacant, indicating that such information might help the Committee see how the character of the shoreline could change further based on the issues outlined in the WSHA list. Jonathan said that staff would provide this information for the next meeting. The Committee also asked that staff bring the large aerial photos of the east and west shores to the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 16, 2008. Proposed agenda items include continuation of review of Lakefront Residential Zone amendments, and possibly review of revised draft of local law regarding storm sewer system and surface waters protection. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning