HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-10-15-08 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 15, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Eva Hoffmann, Pat Leary, Kirk Sigel
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates,
Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Pat raised a question concerning a memo that Susan Brock had distributed to Town Board members
regarding her research on moorings. Since not all the COC members had seen this memo the issue
was added to the COC agenda for further explanation and discussion. Bill offered to also forward
the memo onto non-Town Board COC members.
Herb explained that a “certificate of necessity” must be issued by the Town Supervisor in order for
the Town Board to vote on the Lakefront Residential Zone amendments at the October Board
meeting. This was due to a procedural error in which Town Board members did not receive the
revised Lakefront Residential Zone law in the required number of advance days prior to the Town
Board meeting. With the “certificate of necessity”, the Town Board will need a two thirds vote on
the law in order for it to be adopted. The super-majority vote is required anyway because the
County GML letter stated that the revised Lakefront Residential Zone would create inter-municipal
impacts.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of September 15, 2008 Meeting:
The spelling of two town names was corrected. Wording was added to the end of the 1st paragraph
on page 3 clarifying that the committee had voted on language “that included the sentence that
moorings would be tied to the property”. On page 4, 1st paragraph, in the last sentence before the
vote was recorded, the sentence was changed to state that further discussion took place on whether
it was proper “for Town Board members to state ahead of time how they would vote at the Board
meeting”. The Minutes were approved as amended.
Added Agenda Item – Moorings/Lakefront Residential Zone Amendment:
Susan Brock reported on her research concerning moorings. Susan prefaced by stating that Cayuga
Lake is owned by the State and that while a few landowners may have deeds that provide some
limited ownership of a portion of the lake, the vast majority of property owners hold claim only to
the high water mark. In terms of regulations, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation &
Historic Preservation has statutory and regulatory authority to issue “floating object permits” for the
placement of mooring buoys (as well as other similar floating objects) in navigable waters of the
state, including Cayuga Lake. The regulations state “any person who may desire to place such
floating objects at his own cost or expense can make application” for such a permit. There is no
2
requirement that the applicant own a waterfront parcel to apply for a permit. Susan stated that she
has been trying to contact a particular individual from state parks knowledgeable about the law to
learn several additional details, including how it applies to the town’s law.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Proposed Stream Setback Law
Sue reviewed the memo that she had prepared recapping the progress the COC had made thus far in
addressing comments on the draft Stream Setback Law. The committee then commenced to work
on the last four remaining comment areas. The following is a summary of the discussion
concerning each of the topics:
1. Reconsider exclusion for parcels one acre in size or less
The committee viewed maps and aerial photos of selected locations that contained one acre parcels
with stream setback zones shown and discussed the merits of keeping or eliminating the one acre
exclusion. The committee discussed the ability of a property owner to seek relief through the
variance process. Some members felt there would be a benefit of going through the variance
process where more oversight by ZBA or staff in the siting of a development proposal could be
provided.
After considerable discussion, the committee agreed to eliminate the exclusion for 1 acre parcels.
2. Consider controlling animals in streams
Herb felt it was important to protect water quality by keeping farm animals away from streams.
Susan cautioned about establishing prohibitions on agricultural uses, reminding members of the
NYS Ag & Markets Law. There was additional discussion by members, with questions on how
such language could be crafted to address the concerns.
Bill suggested that language be developed to address this issue for committee consideration.
3. Reconsider restrictions on stream crossings
The committee discussed various issues related to stream crossings. While most crossings used by
landowners will be above-grade crossings, there was some discussion and concern expressed for at-
grade crossings (“fords”). Not all at-grade crossings were considered problematic, it depends on
what the base is made of, whether it was rock or soil. For instance, Robert Treman State Park has a
stream crossing, but the base is bedrock and it therefore does not create any soil disturbance. The
committee did not want any restriction on crossings that would limit foot traffic. Eva suggested
using language that states that the activity “shall not cause any detrimental effect to the downstream
environment.
Members noted that Section G. (k) prohibited “motor vehicle traffic in any area not designed to
accommodate adequately the type and volume” and discussed whether this might adequately
address the concerns related to the construction of crossings. Susan pointed out that the law needs
to specifically state that crossings are allowed, otherwise, if removed, construction of crossings of
any kind would not be allowed. So some language needs to be incorporated into the law.
Bill asked Susan and Sue to research how other stream setback laws address the issue of crossings,
and come back to the committee with ideas.
3
Kirk raised the point that there may be a problem that the Stream Setback Law lists both permissible
activities and prohibited activities. The prohibited list is not exhaustive, and there are likely many
additional activities that would be prohibited, but because they are not identified in the law this
could pose a problem. He suggested that Section G. be written as examples, rather than trying to
appear as a complete list of restrictions.
4. Consider prohibiting development on slopes that are greater than 25%
After extensive discussion, the committee decided to leave the language as it is currently drafted.
.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business: The Committee briefly discussed the Conservation Board’s
written proposal/request for modifying the language of the Conservation Zone. The intent of the
proposal is to enhance environmental protection for conservation zoned areas, particularly in terms
of restricting tree cutting/clearing of the land. The committee will schedule this for the next
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The Committee agreed 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), as well as the Conservation Board’s request
for modification of the Conservation Zone language.
The committee requested that the information concerning signs and fences be redistributed for the
November meeting.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Submitted:
S. Ritter