Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-05-21-08CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MAY 21, 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; Sue Ritter (Sue), Assistant Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of April 16, 2008 Meeting: Susan pointed out a correction on page 2 in the paragraph referring to “page 15” regarding Eric’s comment on the 9% interest rate. Eric indicated that the 9% interest rate does not refer to the standard used for insurance claims, but is currently the statutory interest rate for court judgments. Fred and Susan pointed out several typos that need to be corrected (on pages 2, 3 and 4). Moved by Fred, seconded by Eva, the Committee unanimously approved the Minutes of the April 16, 2008 meeting as corrected above. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Lakefront Residential Zone Amendments: Susan referred to the revised draft law (dated 05/09/08) that she had prepared regarding Lakefront Residential Zoning Requirements, based on the Committee’s direction at the April 16th meeting. The Committee went through the revised draft. The following are highlights of that discussion and the decisions made by the Committee. Pages 2 & 4: Local Law revised to allow covered boat lifts and hoists with roofs that do not exceed 15 feet in height and roof pitches not exceeding 3 inch vertical rise for every 12 inches horizontally; boat lifts shall not have a second floor level under a roof, and boat lifts/hoists not to be used as a dwelling, sleeping, lodging or boarding place. Page 3: Deleted reference to acceptable materials for piers, docks, boat ramps and similar waterfront structures. Page 4: Revised dock length to allow maximum length of 50 feet (previously 40 feet). Page 9: Allow accessory buildings (100 square feet maximum) within required 25 foot setback from the shoreline where cliffs or embankments prevent them from meeting the required 25 foot setback. Such structures are to be used only for storage and as a changing area, and shall contain no habitable space. 2 In reference to the setback revision (page 9), Kirk suggested that accessory structures should be allowed no closer than 10 feet of the Ordinary High Water (OHW) line of the shoreline, indicating that this is what the West Shore Homeowners Association (WSHA) had suggested. Susan confirmed that this was WSHA’s recommendation. Eva wondered how large a typical shed is. Chris indicated that she spoke with Kristie Rice who said that 100 square feet is a large shed. Jonathan thought that a typical shed might be about 6 feet wide by 8 or 10 feet long. Bill asked why sub-section F.2 on page 9 required that the rear wall of the accessory structure would have to be located a minimum distance from the cliff or embankment. Susan indicated that this had to do with the protection of the cliff or bank. After brief discussion, the Committee felt that it would be better to separate the structure from the cliff as much as possible, and agreed to delete sub-section F.2, and leave it up to the owner as to how close the structure would be located to the cliff. The Committee also agreed on the minimum 10 foot setback from the OHW line in these situations and to leave 100 square feet as the maximum size for an accessory structure in these cases. Herb referred to Steve Williams’ email regarding flood elevations, and suggested that any structures within this setback area should have a base elevation at least two feet above the flood level, especially since these structures could be used to store gasoline and other hazardous materials that could end up in the lake during a flood. Dan indicated that the State Building Code requires that all structures in the flood zone must meet the two foot elevation above flood level requirement. Susan suggested adding wording to sub-section F.4 indicating that such structures must comply with all applicable NYS Building Code requirements. The Committee agreed. Bill asked whether the Code Enforcement Office could have some suggested language regarding the flood elevation requirements to amend Town Code Chapter 157 (Flood Damage Protection), as had been suggested by Steve Williams. Dan responded that they could work on a proposed amendment, but that he did not think that it would be ready for the next meeting. In reference to allowing roofs on boat lifts and boat hoists (page 4), Eva asked how the maximum 308 square feet total area for boat lifts/hoists was determined. Jonathan responded that this figure came from the WSHA, based on measuring the space required for a certain size boat. Eva then asked why there is a difference between the 8 foot height limit for uncovered boat lifts and hoists vs. 15 feet for covered lifts/hoists (page 8, section 8.B). Chris indicated that the WSHA had suggested the 15 foot height limit for roofed structures. Bill thought that this might be a State limit. Susan mentioned that this figure was used in the Canandaigua and Keuka Lake regulations. Fred indicated that he did a quick calculation showing that a boat lift/hoist would have to be at least 12 to 13 feet in height to allow for the pitched roof and clearance of the boat under the roof. Kirk added that posts and other extensions on a boat would most likely need the additional clearance under a roof, and that a total height of 15 feet to the roof peak to allow this clearance does not seem to be unreasonable. The Committee agreed to leave the maximum height for covered boat lifts and hoists at 15 feet. Bill asked if the Committee was ready to send this revised law back to the Town Board for consideration. Eric made a motion to send the revised local law, as discussed by the Committee, back to the Town Board to refer it to the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and Conservation Board for recommendations. Pat seconded the motion. The Committee voted unanimously to approve that motion. 3 Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion Regarding Proposed Stream Buffer Law: Sue indicated that the last discussion by the Committee regarding the proposed stream setback law was at the June through August 2007 meetings, and that the Committee left off with discussions about comments that had been received from water resources professionals. The review of the stream setback law had been interrupted by work on the State-mandated stormwater regulations. Sue mentioned that the setback provisions would primarily apply to new development and modification of existing developed properties. Sue summarized the major remaining elements of the law that need further attention. Fine-tuning criteria for what streams are to be regulated: Sue reported that staff had analyzed drainage areas associated with streams, and regulation would start with streams having at least a 50 acre drainage area. The Committee had previously decided that a map showing the different categories of streams would be important, and such a map has been prepared. Sue added that since staff had last looked at this, a number of communities have adopted stream regulations based on drainage areas. How to measure setback from streams: Sue indicated that the Committee had left off with several issues needing to be resolved. The first is that it is difficult to measure setback from the bank - full mark (top of the bank) on some streams. Sue and Darby Kiley had gone out on some field visits to look at examples of streams and determined that it might be better to measure from the centerline of some smaller streams, but the centerline would not work well for larger streams. Sue mentioned that Vermont had addressed that issue and came up with guidelines for how to measure setbacks for different types of streams, including diagrams illustrating possible procedures. Bill asked whether such guidelines might become part of the adopted law. Sue responded probably not, but that they could be used as a staff resource. Headwaters: Sue indicated that another issue that had been raised was whether the law should include regulations for headwaters of streams and whether a 35 foot setback would be adequate to protect headwaters. Sue added that Todd Walter at Cornell is completing a mapping study of surface waters, which might be helpful. If ready, Sue will bring information from this study to the Committee at the next meeting. Sue indicated that there are several streams on Seven Mile Drive that are easy to get to that illustrate some of things she has been thinking about, and that based on observations, it seems to make sense to apply setback provisions to smaller streams, perhaps in the 35 to 50 acre drainage area category, which are not currently proposed to be regulated in the draft law. Sue added that hydric soils might be another indicator that could signal the need to add protections to certain streams. Bill referred to Sue’s memo, in which she suggested the possibility of setting up a field trip for Committee members to see the characteristics of some of the streams. The Committee agreed to schedule a field visit for Thursday, June 5th, meeting at 9:30 a.m. at the Public Works Facility on Seven Mile Drive, and visiting several of the streams in that area. Susan suggested that it might be helpful to distribute minutes of the 2007 meetings at which the stream setback law was discussed so that new members can see what the discussions were. 4 Jonathan said that these could be sent to Committee members as email attachments if that sounded okay. The Committee agreed. Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 18, 2008. Possible agenda items include continuation of discussion regarding proposed Stream Setback Law, possible discussion of amendments to Chapter 157 of the Town Code regarding Flood Damage Protection, possible amendments to the Zoning Chapter regarding height and setback provisions for fences, and possibly return to review of Chapter 221 of the Town Code regarding Signs. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning