HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-11-19-08 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Eva Hoffmann, Pat Leary, Kirk Sigel,
Fred Wilcox, Eric Levine.
OTHER'S PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code
Enforcement; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning;
Christine Balestra, Planner; Rich DePaolo, Town Board Member; Mary Shelley, West Shore
Homeowners Association; Dave Kerness, Town of Ulysses Town Board; Stephan Wagner,
Resident.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
None
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of September 15, 2008 Meeting:
Three minor changes were made and the minutes were unanimously approved as amended. Herb
moved and Eric seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes.
Agenda Item No. 3–Lakefront Residential (LR) Zone Amendments Regarding Response to the
Tompkins County Planning Department letter:
A modification was introduced for Section 6 of the Local Law to Amend the LR Zone
Requirements (Chapter 270, Section 270-43(K)(7)) in response to the Tompkins County Planning
Department recommendation letter dated August 8, 2008. Bill Goodman introduced specific
modified language for Section 6. Pat Leary moved to discuss the proposed modification and Eric
Levine seconded the motion.
The Committee discussed the proposed modified language written by Bill. Kirk moved to add the
word "substantially" before the word parallel and Eric seconded the motion. The COC voted 6 in
favor and 1 opposed to amend Section 6 of the Local Law to read (modifications in italics) "Any
extension, such as an "L," "U," or "T" extension, shall not exceed eight feet in at least one
dimension (length or width), and if any such extension has a portion which is substantially parallel
to the shoreline, the length of such portion shall not exceed 29% of the length of the mean high
water tie line of the waterfront lot (as determined in Figure 1 below)."
Planning staff will send the Local Law with the modified language to the County Planning
Department and request a determination letter from the County indicating that the modified
language meets the County's recommendation, thereby eliminating the need for a supermajority vote
when the Local Law next goes before the Town Board (in January).
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Review of Proposed Stream Setback Law
Sue Ritter distributed the latest draft of the Stream Setback Law, dated September 8, 2006, along
with a handout that contained two additional changes to the law pertaining to construction of
crossings and the prohibition of livestock in riparian areas.
2
One specific change to the law will allow crossings through streams but will require measures
intended to reduce negative environmental impacts on the stream due to the construction of
crossings (illustrated in handout, revised paragraph F(6), pages 7-8, "Permissible activities in stream
setback zones," and "Construction of crossings").
The other main change pertained to prohibiting the housing and/or grazing of livestock within
stream setback Zone 1 (handout, revised paragraphs G(1) and G(2), pages 8-9, "Prohibited activities
in streams and stream setback zones").
The Committee supported the revisions, feeling that the revisions were important for water quality
and public health and safety. The COC requested that the attorney for the town distribute a revised
copy of the law for review at the December COC meeting. The Town will plan to hold an informal
public information meeting on the draft law in early 2009.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continuation of Review of Conservation Board's proposed modified
language of the Conservation Zone: Bill Goodman read to the COC the Conservation Board
comments, suggestions, and goals for modifying the Town's Conservation Zone. The Conservation
Board hopes to modify the Zone language to increase vegetation and forest protection for uses other
than forest management. Eva added some background to the suggestions (Planning Board cases
where significant clearing of vegetation occurred in a Conservation Zone in areas where the
applicant was not approved to clear vegetation), stating that our current laws don't seem to have the
power to prevent the destruction from happening.
Staff added that the current Conservation Zone language also allows, by right, clear cutting of
vegetation for agricultural uses, but forest management uses or selective clearing of vegetation for
forest management purposes is not allowed without prior Planning Board review and approval.
Staff suggested that this might be inconsistent with the goals of the Conservation Zone.
The Committee appreciated the example language suggested by the Conservation Board for a
potential revised Conservation Zone regulation and decided to consider the suggested language as a
guideline. The Committee asked staff and the attorney for the Town to devise new language for the
Zone and bring the revised language back to the COC for consideration in the near future (which
would subsequently go to the Conservation Board for their consideration).
The Committee also agreed to put this issue as a high priority on the 2009 COC work priority list.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Consider Amendments to Zoning Provisions Regarding Fences:
Staff redistributed to COC members Susan Brock's handout dated July 10, 2008, regarding the fence
provisions in the Zoning Code. Staff described why the fence provisions were being suggested for
revision, explaining that the provisions are unclear, that there are almost no limits on fence heights
if a fence meets the required zone setbacks (fences could be up to 30-36 feet in height), and that
there may be issues related to placing fences right on property lines, etc.
The Committee discussed the handout and questions posed by Attorney Brock regarding fences:
Should the Town continue to exempt fences up to 6 feet high from all requirements, including
required setbacks? Should the exempt height be increased to 8 feet in some or all locations to
accommodate deer fences [allow heights up to x feet by right, special permit, or special approval]?
Should the Town Code list specific heights for fences in the various zones rather than relying on the
3
generic 30/36 foot limit for structures other than buildings? Any need to change the specific
provisions in the Industrial Zones?
The Committee discussed deer fence heights. Some members suggested that a 6-foot tall fence was
usually adequate to keep deer out, and that fences with angled tops also work to keep deer out.
Some members suggested deer fences should be 8 feet tall, but to minimize visual impacts, that the
top 2 feet of the fence should be made of some material that does not block views (i.e. open wire
weave at the top). The Committee then discussed the aesthetics of fences, of the value of keeping
"good side out," adding plantings to screen the fence from neighbors, types of fences that are
available, and the visual impacts of certain types of fences. The Committee seemed to be in
agreement regarding the potential negative visual impacts associated with tall, solid/opaque fences.
Bruce Bates mentioned that issues could arise between neighbors when a fence is built right on a
property line, that there could be fence maintenance problems or difficulty maintaining a lawn that
abuts a fence on a property line.
The Committee requested that staff research and gather other municipal regulations regarding all
aspects of fence provisions (aesthetics, height, setback requirements, etc) and to bring those
examples to the Committee to the December COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Continuation of Review and Revision of Sign Law:
The Committee continued their discussion of the Sign Law, focusing on the subject of banners (first
item on the handout entitled "Possible Amendments to the Sign Law" that was previously
distributed to members). Staff described the history behind the restriction of banners in the Town of
Ithaca, explaining that the Town wanted to prevent visual impacts associated with the proliferation
of large banners on businesses, banks, and other institutions. The Sign Law used to permit
temporary banners, but some businesses abused the regulation by putting up "temporary" banners
that were continually replaced with other "temporary" banners, thereby essentially creating a
permanent banner presence.
The Committee discussed permitting banners with Special Permit approval by the Planning Board,
or permitting banners as of right for non-profit or community events only and under certain
conditions; i.e. allowing banners on the Tutelo Park fence for certain time-limited (one or two day)
community events or festivals that would occur within Tutelo Park. Members also inquired about
ways to restrict commercial, institutional, or business banners while allowing non-profit or
community events banners. The Committee then discussed visual impacts of banners, regardless of
whether the banner is for a community event or a business, along with the freedom of speech issues
and the differences between political speech and commercial speech expressed on signs and
banners.
Staff passed around a copy of the "Municipal Control of Signs" document offered by the New York
State Department of State's James Coon Technical Series. COC members were interested in getting
the internet link to this document, so staff offered to email it to the members along with a copy of
the Town's current Sign Law (*note: staff emailed this link along with the law to COC members
just after the Thanksgiving holiday – please contact Chris Balestra if you did not receive the email).
The Committee decided to continue the discussion on the Sign Law at the December COC meeting.
4
Agenda Item No. 8 – Other Business:
No other business was discussed.
Agenda Item No. 9 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The Committee agreed to continue discussion on the Town Zoning provisions regarding Fences, to
continue reviewing the Town Sign Law (Chapter 221 of Town Code) for possible revision, to
consider the revised Stream Setback Law for referral to the Town Board, and to consider revised
Conservation Zone language provided by Susan Brock and/or Town staff (if ready).
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted:
C. Balestra