HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-04-16-08CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 16, 2008
PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Kirk Sigel, Fred Wilcox, Eva
Hoffmann.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan
Brock (Susan), Attorney for the Town; Chris Balestra, Planner.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Fred complimented Jonathan on the preparation of meeting minutes.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of March 19, 2008 Meeting:
Susan pointed out a correction on page 2, in the second full paragraph changing the reference
from “Susan” to “Sue” in the fourth sentence. Moved by Herb, seconded by Pat, the Committee
unanimously approved the Minutes of the March 19, 2008 meeting as corrected above.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Revised Draft Local Law Regarding Storm
Sewer System and Surface Waters Protection:
Susan referred to the revised draft law (dated April 10, 2008) that she had prepared regarding
“storm sewer system and surface waters protection”. The Committee went through the revised
draft. The following are highlights of that discussion and the decisions made by the Committee.
Page 2: Susan indicated that she included references to the New York State statutes in the
definition of “hazardous materials”.
Page 7: Susan mentioned that she added the word “legally” at the Committee’s request to clarify
the intent of sub-section B.5 regarding stream flow diversions.
Page 9: Susan reported that she and staff are recommending deleting former section D for
agricultural exemptions. Susan indicated that Darby Kiley had checked with the Town of
Dryden on their law, and Dryden exempted some agricultural uses from their law because of
possible legal restrictions in the Agriculture & Markets Law. Susan added that the State DEC
model law had no agricultural exemptions, so staff is suggesting that the Town see if NYS
Department of Agriculture & Markets has an overall problem with regulating agricultural uses
under the storm sewer and surface waters protection laws, at which point we will hear about this
as a statewide issue. Dan mentioned that it is better not to have agricultural chemicals runoff
into storm sewers and streams anyway. The Committee agreed.
2
Page 10: Susan mentioned that the term “institutional” was added to section A because of the
presence of Cornell and Ithaca College.
Susan stated that the rest of the law (pages 11-18 are new sections she added regarding access to
properties, notification and records of spills, and enforcement. Bill asked whether the
Committee had questions or comments on these new sections.
Page 13: Herb referred to the new section 13 “Notification and records of spills”, and indicated
that the notification to “relevant emergency response agencies” was too vague for the av erage
person to know who to notify. Susan responded that it was assumed that the owner of the facility
where a spill occurs should know who to contact. Jonathan mentioned that the only ones who
would know who to contact would be large institutions or businesses, and that small businesses
and homeowners are not likely to know anything about this. Eva suggested that people should
contact the E-911 Center when a spill occurs, and the Center would contact the proper
authorities. Bill agreed. Dan added that it is likely that the Fire Department will be the agency
who responds to a notification of a spill. Eric thought that some people will not notify anyone of
a spill because then they will have to clean it up. Jonathan and Dan both indicated that education
is an important element of this law, and that the Town will have to have a public information and
education element once the law is adopted. The Committee agreed to revise the law to require
notification of the E-911 Center of any spills. Jonathan suggested that the Town should alert the
E-911 Center that the law will require people to notify them of any spills.
Herb added that notification to the SMO by facsimile might result in delays in the Town
knowing about a spill. The Committee agreed to delete the reference to “by telephone or
facsimile as soon as possible” in the provision requiring notification of the SMO (section 13.A).
Page 15: Bill asked whether the law should use a per annum rate of 9% for unpaid costs and
expenses. Eric stated that 9% is currently the statutory interest rate for court judgments, and our
law should reflect that rate. Susan said that she would check to see what the statutory interest rate
is in State regulations.
Fred asked whether there are other instances where the Town Board is the appeal agency
(referring to section C). Susan responded that the Town’s Stormwater Management Law also
has such a provision. Susan added that the NYS model law simply said that an appeal should be
filed with the municipality, and that staff felt that it would be better to specify who the appeal
authority should be. Fred was okay with this approach.
Page 16: Susan explained that she used the term “violation” in section D, which is the lowest
level offense, and that the next level would be a “misdemeanor”, which was not used. Susan
added that she used a maximum of 15 days imprisonment and fines of up to $500 and $1,000,
which is the same as in the Noise Law that was recently amended. The Committee agreed with
this approach.
Page 17: Referring to section F Alternate Remedies, Susan indicated that because she did not
think that the Town has the authority to impose a remedy on a violator without going to court,
this provision allows for an agreement between the Town and violator for alternate remedies,
3
such as attendance at educational workshops or stream cleanup activities. Dan added that the
Town would likely only pursue civil penalties if a violator had repeat offenses. The Committee
liked the idea of alternate remedies.
Jonathan asked in reference to section E whether it might be better to say that the Town may
revoke or suspend a building permit or withhold a certificate of occupancy in conjunction with a
violation. The Committee agreed, and Susan said that she would revise that wording.
Page 4, definition of “Pollutant”: Susan indicated that the definition of “pollutants” needs to be
clear because it relates to section 6 on page 6 regarding authorized discharges. Without a clear
definition, it would be difficult to quantify when levels of a specified substance exceed the
standards that result in pollution of receiving waters. Herb asked why not eliminate the term
“pollutant” and just use the term “hazardous materials”. Susan responded that there are
substances like sand that would not be considered a hazardous material, but that in sufficient
quantities, could be considered a pollutant. Susan indicated that Sue had tried unsuccessfully to
contact DEC to get feedback on the definitions of pollutants. Jonathan mentioned that he likes
the approach of not specifying a level of a substance in order for it to be considered a pollutant
because one of the main purposes of the law is to minimize the cumulative addition of pollutants
to the Cayuga Lake. Herb asked whether the State attorneys approved the wording regarding
pollutants, and if so, we should be comfortable with it. Susan responded that the State contracted
with an outside firm to prepare the model law, and that it included a lot of unclear provisions.
Susan suggested trying again to check with DEC or possibly with Deb Curaco.
Bill asked if the Committee was ready to send the revised draft law to the Town Board for
consideration. Susan said that the Town Board could be asked to refer the proposed law to the
Planning Board and Conservation Board for recommendations. Bill asked Fred and Eva
whether the draft needs to be sent to the Planning Board. Eva and Fred felt that the Planning
Board did not need to provide a recommendation on the law, but that an informational discussion
with the Planning Board at some point after the laws’ adoption might be a good idea. The
Committee agreed to send the revised draft to the Town Board with the changes discussed at this
meeting, and to suggest that the Town Board refer the law to the Conservation Board for a
recommendation.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Closed Session to Seek Advice of the Attorney for the Town:
Moved by Eric, seconded by Pat, the Committee voted to go into closed session to seek the
advice of the Attorney for the Town. The motion was approved unanimously.
Moved by Herb, seconded by Fred, the Committee voted to go back into open session. The
motion was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Lakefront Residential Zone
Amendments Referred Back to Committee by Town Board:
Bill asked Chris to describe the memo and materials that she had distributed to the Committee.
Chris referred to her memo dated April 8, 2008, and indicated that she had provided the
4
information requested by the Committee at the last meeting, including a breakdown of Town of
Ithaca residents responding to the West Shore Homeowners’ Association (WSHA) survey and
information regarding the number of undeveloped parcels on the Cayuga Lake shoreline in the
Town. Bill reported that he had spoken with Peter Stein and Jeff Cowie, and that both were
comfortable with the WSHA recommendations for modification of the Lakefront Residential
Zone amendments resulting in a majority of Town Board members supporting those changes.
Fred indicated that he originally thought that roofs should not be allowed on boat lifts, but now
that he has seen the requests from lakeshore owners, he now supports having roofs on boat lifts.
Herb said that the Committee should be cautious about the results of a survey that only
represents about 13 percent of the owners, and that the survey is not a good representative
sample. Herb then said that in response to Question #11 of the survey, 50 percent of respondents
in the Town of Ithaca said that neighbors’ waterfront structures obstruct their view. Eric
mentioned that the Navigation Law does not say that a municipality can regulate boat lifts or
hoists, and that it only refers to boat houses, moorings, and docks. Both Dan and Herb said that
a boat lift is a type of boat house or mooring.
Pat thought that the survey comments on dock length were interesting and that it would be better
to simply revise the maximum length of a dock rather than to try to come up with a regulation
that would link dock length to water depth. Pat added that the WSHA survey did not address the
issue of allowing storage sheds or similar structures in the shoreline setback area. Pat mentioned
that much of the lake shore area is already modified by human activity, and that evidence of
people’s docks and boats should not be considered a bad thing.
Herb reiterated that percentages in survey results can be misleading, and suggested that the
actual numbers responding should be looked at. As an example, Herb indicated that most
respondents in the survey indicated that 40 foot dock length is adequate, and that it does not
matter what the staff recommendation regarding dock lengths was. Pat countered that 50 foot
dock length seems like a good compromise.
Pat indicated that the Committee had asked staff to provide information on how many parcels
along the lake are vacant, and that the results of the staff analysis show that there is only one
vacant property on the East Shore and two vacant properties on the West Shore. Chris
mentioned that the presence of the flood hazard zone should affect whether a structure should be
permitted along the shoreline.
Bill tried to get the Committee to focus on each of the four issues raised by the WSHA. Starting
with roofs on boat lifts, Bill asked whether the concern is with the protection of adjacent home
owners’ views. Eva indicated that it was a more general concern regarding the visual character
of the shoreline. Bill then asked about the length of docks, and that staff had made a
recommendation to allow dock up to 50 feet – why did the Committee decide on 40 feet. Herb
said that the Committee looked at this issue for a long time, and went with a compromise from
the original 30 foot dock length to increase it to 40 feet. Pat agreed with the need for a standard
maximum dock length, but said that she never agreed to 40 feet. Pat indicated that regulations of
other municipalities included 65 foot dock lengths on Keuka Lake, 50 feet on Oneida Lake, 50
feet on Lake George, 60 feet on Canandaigua Lake. Pat added that almost none of the other
municipalities looked at have 40 foot maximum dock lengths. Eva said that if one looks back at
5
the meeting records, there was a lot of discussion about why 30 feet was chosen as the original
maximum dock length. Eva added that one reason had to do with the desire to prevent long
docks from jutting out from points of land. Kirk reiterated his position favoring roofs on boat
lifts. Kirk added that he would support going to a dock length of 50 feet, but that he would also
support 40 feet, and added that if we set too short a length, the Zoning Board would end up with
a lot of variance requests. Kirk suggested that if we start out with a 50 foot length, it would be
harder for an owner to justify a longer dock.
Bill indicated that the Committee needs to make some decisions on these issues, and said that
Eva and Herb feel strongly about more restrictive regulations, but that they are in a minority.
Bill added that he would support roofs on boat lifts and a larger maximum dock length. Herb
indicated that there is much data that had been collected during research and that Committee
members should not make a decision without seeing this data. Jonathan indicated that all Town
Board and Committee members have received the research information and data, so everyone
has had an opportunity to see all of the information. Jonathan reminded the Committee that the
original shoreline regulations were adopted in the absence of any real analysis of existing
conditions along the lake, and that in particular, the more recent staff recommendation regarding
dock lengths was based on an analysis of numerous regulations in other municipalities.
Pat said that she is not sure about the provision regarding dock materials. Chris indicated that we
could refer to the State DEC guidelines. Kirk suggested that we could simply delete the
reference to materials, since it is difficult to know what we are regulating.
Bill asked the Committee to vote on each of the four items raised in the WSHA memo so that
staff would know how to revise the Lakefront Zone amendments. The Committee voted on these
items as follows:
1) Materials of docks: The proposal to delete the reference to restrictions on materials used for
docks and other similar structures was approved by the Committee by a vote of 5 “yes”, 2 “no”.
2) The proposal to allow roofs on boatlifts was approved by the Committee by a vote of 5 “yes”,
2 “no”, with the conditions that there be no sides enclosing the lifts, roofs have a low pitch, and
maximum height of the lift and roof not to exceed 15 feet.
3) The proposal to revise the maximum permitted length of docks to 50 feet was approved by the
Committee by a vote of 4 “yes”, 3 “no”.
4) The proposal to allow storage sheds and similar structures within the required shoreline
setback area in situations where there is a cliff or steep bank next to the shoreline was approved
by a vote of 5 “yes”, 2 “no”, with the conditions that such structures not exceed 100 square feet
in area. Herb protested this last vote, indicating that it was not specific enough.
Susan indicated that the Committee should also consider amending the Lakefront Commercial
Zone to address the permitted number of docks on non-residential lots.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
6
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 21, 2008. Proposed agenda
items include continuation of review of Lakefront Residential Zone amendments, and discussion
regarding proposed Stream Buffer Law.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning