Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-09-17-08CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Town Board; Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Board; Peter Stein, Town Board; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Planner. GUESTS PRESENT: Don Smith, West Shore Homeowners’ Association (Town of Ulysses); Bob Barthoff, West Shore Homeowners’ Association (Town of Ithaca). 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 August 20, 2008 Meeting: Susan pointed out an error on page 3, first paragraph, second to last line, indicating that the wording “10-feet of the shore” should say “10-feet from the shore”. On page 2, last paragraph, first line, Bill suggested adding “and Bill Goodman” after “contacted the Town Supervisor”. Moved by Fred, seconded by Herb, the Minutes of the August 20, 2008 meeting were approved by all with Eva abstaining. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Lakefront Residential Zone Amendments: Bill referred to the handouts provided by Chris at the meeting. Chris reported that the Committee had asked staff to research what other communities have done regarding regulation of moorings. She contacted eleven communities. The approaches vary greatly. Chris found examples in four communities (as outlined in her handout “Example Mooring Provisions From Four NYS Municipalities”) that require that moorings cannot project over neighboring lot lines, as projected from the shoreline. Other communities that she sampled do not have specific mooring regulations. In Skaneateles, the Sheriff is authorized to issue mooring permits. Chris suggested that because of problems with measuring where in relation to the lot line a mooring would be located out in the water, that an approach might be to eliminate any setback requirement for a mooring, but just require it to be centered between the projected lot lines to the extent possible. Bill reminded the Committee that the current wording in the draft amendments requires a mooring to be setback at least 10 feet from an abutting lot line extended out from the shoreline. Herb mentioned that these types of provisions do not address moorings for people who do not own lakefront property. Tee- Ann mentioned that Aurora allows boats to be moored off shore by people who do not own lakefront property. Some on the Committee indicated that Aurora is a different situation because it has more public access to the lake than exists in the Town of Ithaca. There was extensive discussion about how far out into the lake do the rights of lakefront property owners extend, and what rights on the lake does the general public have. A number of Committee members expressed the view that the public has a right to moor a boat in the lake even if they do not own lakefront 2 property. Kirk indicated that they would have to access the lake from public land, and the only public access in the Town of Ithaca is at East Shore Park. Don Smith indicated that people will navigate their boats up and down the lake near the shore and sometimes fish close to the shore, but he has not seen any non-resident moor a boat and leave it off shore. Don added that because of the narrow width of many lots along the shore, a requirement to place a mooring midway between the lot lines might create a difficulty in relation to where a dock is located. Peter mentioned that he recently attended a lecture regarding water rights, at which it was indicated that beyond the low water mark, there is no private ownership of the lake – it is in the public domain. Several Committee members, including Kirk, Bill, and Pat, suggested taking out the provision regarding moorings. Susan reminded the Committee that under the NYS Navigation law, with the required authorization, a municipality can regulate uses out to 1,500 feet from the shoreline. Kirk said that he would favor a straightforward regulation such as saying that a moored boat cannot extend beyond the projected lot line. Eric agreed and said that he is not aware of any boat owners who moor their boat offshore who do own the abutting lakefront property, and that the regulation should be aimed at protecting the adjoining property owners’ right to access their shoreline. Eva added that the purpose should be to protect the character of the shoreline. Bill said that it sounds like at least three Committee members want some regulation of moorings. Pat indicated that she would be willing to go along with a simple regulation and does not like the centering provision – perhaps just restrict a moored boat from crossing the adjacent property line extended from the shoreline. Peter asked whether a mooring is just a buoy with a rope attaching it to the lake bottom. Chris responded that some moorings are larger - some have a swimming platform attached. Bruce suggested that it might be difficult to enforce a regulation that prohibits a moored boat from crossing an adjacent property line - it could be hard to measure. Herb suggested removing the reference in the current wording of the amendment relating to moorings “in connection with littoral parcels”. The Committee again went into discussion about who has the right to place a mooring and that the public has the right to use the lake even where they do not own lakefront property. Herb added that unless there is a distance restriction, an owner of lakefront property could place a mooring as far as 1,499 feet from the shoreline. Another suggestion was to limit the number of moorings per lot. Bill mentioned that the current law limits the number of moorings to one per 100 feet of shoreline. There was continued disagreement over rights of the public vs, rights of the homeowner on the lake. Peter suggested that the Attorney for the Town should research the question of rights to the lake. Tee-Ann indicated that it would be important in whatever regulation we come up with to clearly state that the regulation allows the property owner to place a mooring off of their shoreline under certain conditions, but that in no way precludes the rights of the public to place a mooring in the lake. Susan pointed to the examples on the handout provided by Chris, and read the portion of the Canandaigua example that says that each moored vessel will avoid contact with any other moored vessel or structure. Bill said that he likes the Canandaigua and Penn Yan examples. Pat urged the Committee to proceed to come up with proposed wording tonight. Rich asked how one distinguishes between “water use” and “water rights” mentioned in both of the examples. Eric emphasized that the references to “lot line extension” is just for measuring where the boat should be moored, not for creating any ownership rights to the lake. Herb agreed. Eva said that she is concerned with a mooring extending out too far from the shoreline – that it could interfere with other boating activities such as water skiing. Don recommended that moorings be placed no more than 100 feet from the shoreline. Others agreed on such a restriction. 3 Susan read some suggested language based on the Committee’s discussion, which is a blend of examples 1 and 4 on the handout, adding that we would need to define water lines as not conveying any owner rights, and a provision could be added limiting placement of moorings to no more than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water line. After some further word smithing, Susan read proposed language for the mooring regulation to replace section L.1 in the current amendment to the Lakefront Residential Zone as follows: “Moorings shall be placed within the water rights lines of the parcel so as not to interfere with the waterside usage of adjacent parcels, provided that such moorings and boats secured to such moorings shall not extend more than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water line, and further provided that such moorings may in no case be placed in any location in which they may pose navigation hazards or interfere with navigation or access to adjoining lots. Moorings shall be placed in such a manner that each moored vessel will avoid contact with any other vessel or structure. At no time may a moored vessel or part thereof extend outside the limits of any water rights line of a parcel.” Eric made a motion to accept this wording suggested by Susan. The motion was seconded by Pat. Bill asked if there was further discussion of the proposed mooring language. Kirk indicated that the deletion of the reference to littoral parcels would allow any non-resident to place a mooring in front of anyone’s property. Bill indicated that the regulation assumes that the mooring is related to the parcel where it is placed. Jonathan suggested leaving it to practicality and common sense because we have already heard that people do not place moorings off of property that they do not own. Don added that the limitation of no more than one mooring per 100 feet of shoreline will further control this situation. Jonathan mentioned that some communities have permit systems for placement of public moorings. These are typical in areas where there is competition for mooring space. Bill asked whether the issue of legal rights on the lake could be clarified before the October 20th public hearing on the Lakefront Zone amendments. Pat indicated that she likes the wording proposed by Susan. Bill asked if the Committee was ready to vote on the motion for the proposed wording. The Committee voted as follows: Four in favor of the motion, including Pat, Kirk, Fred and Eric; three opposed, including Herb, Eva and Bill. (The vote was on the language referred to by Susan including the sentence that moorings would be tied to the parcel.) Herb said that he could support the language if the reference to littoral parcels in L.1 is deleted. Pat said that she does not have a strong feeling, but would go along with deleting that reference also. Bill and Eva both expressed reservations about voting on language that they had not seen before the meeting. Bill then referred to the West Shore Homeowners Association (WSHA) suggestions on the handout dated September 16, 2008. They were addressed by the Committee as follows. 1. Dock should be 350 square feet: Don indicated that the WSHA recommends changing the maximum allowable area of a dock from 300 square feet to 350 square feet mainly because of safety issues. He explained that if a dock is 50 feet long, then its width woul d have to be no more than 6 feet, and if an “L” is added at the end of a dock, that would further reduce the width of the dock if the overall area is limited to 300 square feet. Don added that this could create safety problems. Fred said that he has no problem with the additional 50 square feet. Eva said that the Committee has talked about dock length and area a lot, and if an owner wants a wider dock, they should make the dock shorter. Kirk and Bill agreed that they could support changing the area to 350 square feet. Herb said that he would vote against such a change. Herb added that the survey of lakefront owners indicated that owners were happy with a dock length of 30 to 40 feet, and the Committee has 4 already increased the length to 50 feet. Bruce mentioned that the Building Code requires a corridor to be not less than 44 inches wide so that two people can pass safely and this is also the minimum width that a wheel chair needs. Bruce added that although four feet in width is probably safe, the Building Code does not address docks. Bill asked Tee-Ann and Rich to weigh in on this, since they will have to vote on it if it goes back to the Town Board. Rich said that he does not want to pre - judge it and wants to hear from the public on their comments. Tee-Ann said that she has no opinion at this point. Pat indicated that she is concerned that the proposed amendments have been passed back and forth between the Committee and Town Board several times. There was further discussion about whether it was proper for Town Board members to state a head of time how they will vote at the Board meeting. Fred made a motion to revise the local law to increase the maximum permitted dock area from 300 square feet to 350 square feet. Kirk seconded the motion. A vote resulted as follows: Five in favor, including Bill, Eric, Pat, Fred, and Kirk; two opposed, including Herb and Eva. 2. Size of storage sheds: Don stated that the WSHA suggests that storage sheds on the shoreline be allowed to be up to 150 square feet, not 100 feet as in the proposed amendment. Don added that an owner of a wood canoe needs a longer shed, and that canoes can be up to 15 to 18 feet. Fred mentioned that it would have to be a very narrow shed to store a canoe. Rich mentioned that there is a variance process in which the Zoning Board could grant a variance for a larger shed if the proper criteria are met. Kirk concurred. Pat said that the Committee should be setting the rules based on reality. Pat reminded the Committee that every time the law is sent back to the Committee, additional comments come in that starts new discussion. Tee-Ann thought that sheds were added as permitted structures mainly for the convenience of the owner to not have to carry things to and from the house. Tee-Ann added that she has a problem with the suggested increase in size of sheds. Kirk made a motion to increase the permitted size of a storage shed on the shoreline from a maximum of 100 square feet to a maximum of 150 square feet. Pat seconded the motion. A vote resulted as follows: Three in favor, including Bill, Kirk and Pat; four opposed, including Fred, Herb, Eva and Eric. The motion failed to carry. 3. Boat lift at end of dock: Susan reminded the Committee about this issue. Bill said that at the last Committee meeting, it was indicated that most people do not place a boat lift at the end of a dock. The Committee agreed by consensus that the dock length wording should be changed to include a boat lift in the overall maximum permitted length of 50 feet. As a follow up to the discussion at the last meeting, the Committee also agreed unanimously to change the maximum height of a boat lift from 8 feet to 15 feet. Chris reported that she had checked with the Code Enforcement staff regarding whether a stairway on the shoreline would require a building permit. The response she got was no, the NYS Building Code does not require a building permit for a stairway, and the Town has no regulation regarding stairways. They are considered to be projections, and if they are not three feet or more above grade level, they are not regulated. Chris reminded the Committee that at the last meeting, they said that if stairways are not regulated by building permits, then they should not be addressed in the Lakefront Zone. The Committee concurred. Bill asked whether the Committee was ready to send the revised amendments regarding the Lakefront Zone, discussed and voted upon at this meeting, to the Town Board for consideration. Eric made a motion to send the revised local law to the Town Board. Pat seconded the 5 motion. The motion was passed by a vote of four in favor, including Eric, Pat, Fred, and Kirk; two opposed (Eva and Herb), and one abstention (Bill). Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The Committee agreed to hold the next meeting on the scheduled date of Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 and to continue discussion on the proposed Stream Setback Law, consider amendments to the Town Zoning provisions regarding fences, and continuing review and revision of the Town Sign Law (Chapter 221 of Town Code). Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning