Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-12-16-08 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 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. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Herb mentioned that the microphones on the digital recorder will pick up the slightest of sounds. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of November 19, 2008 Meeting: Corrections: None. Minutes approved unanimously as written. Fred moved and Pat seconded the motion. Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of revised Stream Setback Law, Recommendation to Town Board: Susan Brock and Susan Ritter presented revisions/additions to the Stream Setback Law, specifically referring to pages 3 and 4. The proposed revisions were in blue highlighting and suggested discussions in yellow highlight. Additional comments/edits were in the blue and gray areas. The COC then discussed the Stream Setback Law page by page, starting with page 3. The question of allowing brand new tilling of soil within the buffer/setback zones came up and the Committee briefly discussed allowing/limiting agriculture activities. Page 3: Bill asked if there were any questions and if the COC needed to decide on logging: Sue Ritter noted the intent of the revisions was to try to minimize disturbances to setback buffers. The Committee decided to add “grading and clearing” in the definition of “Development Activity”. Susan Brock said that it would be good to make the law clear as to what activities are covered by the law, and that some suggestions could run into trouble with Agriculture and Markets law. This is a “gray” area, so we don’t know if it would be challenged. Herb was not clear on mowing and logging in the buffer areas. Sometimes mowing in the buffer is okay (e.g. bird habitat) – logging: do we mean commercial logging? Do we want to limit cutting of a lot of trees in buffer, not just a few? Susan Brock responded that the law could say “development activities do not include mowing." Fred suggested that soil disturbance might be the underlying issue and that we might want to discourage grazing of animals and livestock in the buffer zones, but planting crops may be okay. Bill asked the Committee for comments on the structure of law. Eva responded that the law can be more restrictive in Zone 1. Herb's main concerns are soil disturbance and use of herbicides and pesticides. Susan Brock feels it would be better to leave examples in. Susan could look at how other laws define "development activity" and suggested that this is an important part of law. Jon said the law could also add a definition of “logging." 2 The Committee then discussed the various aspects of logging. Bruce said managing a forest would be a benefit to natural habitat, but clear-cutting wouldn’t. He explained what a forest management plan is and how it allows tax benefits for the way property is assessed. Sue suggested the law might need to define “clear-cutting." Herb suggested using “commercial logging” as a development activity to which the law applies. This would cover most “bad” activities. Pat agreed the law could include logging as development activity, but we should be clear in the permitted activities on what kind of tree cutting is allowed. Bill noted that we are allowing “selection tree cutting” even in Zone 1. Any parcel having commercial logging would be covered by the law. Pat asked: do we want to say it's okay to cut a tree that presents a safety hazard? Eva pointed out that F. 3 (pg 8) of the law already covers Pat's question. Bill asked if the Committee was okay to add logging as development activity but not include mowing. Sue suggested including a definition of logging and saying that heavy equipment is what we want to limit. Susan Brock feels okay to add logging (without definition of logging) because then you go to Section “F” to see what you can do. Add a phrase under the definition of development activity relative to soil disturbance or expansion of impervious surface (see law). Don’t need to say anything about mowing. Don’t need to say anything about agriculture. The Committee agrees with this approach. Page 4 D: Applicability – The Committee agreed to clean up the section and add that the law applies to all zoning districts. Page 5: Committee agreed with suggested changes. Susan Ritter is working on the graphics that will add measurements from the center line of small creeks and will measure larger creeks from the banks. Bill mentioned that this graphic will be added to Appendix A. Page 6: Committee agreed with suggested changes. Page 7 (c): Discussion on slopes and wording. Committee agreed to delete (c). Page 8 E (13): Added provisions for Planning Board to regulate stream setbacks for streams with drainage areas less than 35 acres. This is to account for sensitive headwater areas and accounts for the unregulated streams. Kirk noted that it doesn’t make sense to allow the Planning Board unlimited authority to go beyond what the 35 – 200 acre drainage area is. The Committee agreed that the Planning Board’s authority should be limited to apply the same conditions for <35 acre steam as apply to 35 – 200 acre stream. Pat likes the idea of the Planning Board having flexibility to be stricter than the law if certain conditions apply. Chris mentioned that the Zoning Board of Appeals should be included in this flexibility too, for variances and special approval. Jon referenced Section 270-189 in the Site Plan procedures that gives Planning Board authority to limit disturbance/construction in environmental sensitive areas, including steep slopes, water courses. Bill asked if the Committee was okay with adding Zoning Board of Appeals reference for variances and special approvals. The Committee agreed to the addition. Page 8 F (a) [3]: Committee agreed to delete “mowing” and add "damaged and dead trees" to the list of trees that can be removed. Page 9: No suggested changes. Page 10 (b) [2]: Discussion on “tilling”, Committee agreed to add “tilling” for Zone 2. 3 Page 10 (b) [7]: There was discussion of adding agricultural growing of crops as allowed in Stream Setback Zone 2. Committee thinks is should be allowed. Jon brought up the issue of non- conforming uses. If a use exists prior to the enactment of the law, it is allowed to continue. But if it discontinues for certain time, it cannot resume. Should this apply to agriculture? Eva believes the original reason for law is to protect streams and water quality and doesn’t see the need to use thin strips of land for agriculture. Fred sees Zone 2 as okay for agricultural activities. Bruce also sees Zone 2 as okay for agricultural activities. A large farm could potentially lose a lot of land if they couldn’t use 50’ around the stream. Also discussed was researching pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers or other chemical disturbance of land in Zone 2. Pat said we don’t want to discourage people growing their own food and would lean toward allowing this as long as we restrict the types of chemicals used. Bruce said enforcement of this would be very difficult. Jon said that education will be an important factor in implementing this law. Eric agrees that unless we know that there is a negative impact to agriculture in Zone 2 on water quality; he would feel very uncomfortable legally justifying a prohibition of agriculture in Zone 2. Sue mentioned that research done showed that 45’ – 50’ setback is where you start getting benefits to stream function. Pat thinks it's important to allow homeowners to grow their own food, to allow them to till their gardens. Bill asked for a vote on adding the growing of agricultural crops in Zone 2 and adding tilling of commercial crops. Four members voted "Yes" (Pat, Bill, Eric and Fred), and there was no show of hands for "No." Herb mentioned that he would like more information. He also suggested a clarification in this section regarding agricultural district, rotation, organic and management plans. Bill was comfortable with existing farms continuing. Jon suggested that for existing farms, we should add some clarification that if a field lays fallow for a year, it does not lose its non-conforming status if it’s part of farm management plan. Susan Brock will draft language. Page 11 (c): Committee agreed to delete “yard wastes”. Page 12: No changes. Bill asked if the COC needed to send the law back to the Conservation Board. Herb felt comfortable having Susan Brock make the changes and then send the law on to the Conservation Board for suggestions/reviews. The Committee agreed. Sue mentioned having an information meeting for public review, then bringing the law back to COC if needed and then finally to the Town Board for a public hearing and vote. Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Review of Zoning Code Provisions Regarding Fences: Chris handed out material she collected on other municipal fence regulations for the Committee to review before the next COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 5 – Continuation of Review of Sign Law (Chapter 221 Town of Ithaca Code): Was not discussed - continue review at the January 21, 2009 meeting. Agenda Item No. 6 – Consideration of Proposed 2009 COC Meeting Schedule: COC approved the proposed 2009 schedule and agreed to meet on the third Wednesday of each month. 4 Agenda Item No. 7 – Other Business: No other business was discussed. Agenda Item No. 8 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The Committee agreed to hold the next meeting on January 21, 2009 and to review the Zoning Code Provisions regarding fences, continue review the Town Sign Law (Chapter 221 of Town Code), and to discuss the 2009 COC Work Plan Priorities. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted: S. Polce