Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin 2-11-09 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES February 11, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffman OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner, Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff person Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: The Lakefront Residential Zone regulations will be scheduled for the next COC meeting, as the Town Board referred the regulations back to the COC for discussion. Bill will do more background research and submit amendments for the COC to consider. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of January 21, 2009 Meeting: Eight minor changes were made to the minutes that were unanimously approved as amended. Fred moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes. Eva abstained because not present at last meeting. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of draft Zoning Code Provision Regarding Fences: The Committee began their review of the proposed fence provisions by discussing the definition of deer fence and discussed whether they should limit the types of fence materials that would be considered specifically deer fence materials. The COC discussed the effectiveness of an opaque fence compared to a regular deer fence in preventing deer from jumping the fence. One member asked if an opaque fence is more effective than a fence a deer can see through (as far as stopping the deer). The COC further discussed this, with some members suggesting that deer are more likely to jump a fence that they can see through and that they can see over to the other side. Members asked staff to find out if a deer will less likely jump a fence that is opaque. Staff will research this and report back to the Committee at the next COC meeting. The Committee talked at length about the various mesh types and sizes used for deer fences, including wire and plastic mesh (with various hole sizes), chain link, and other open wire or plastic fence materials. One member noted that the Cornell Plantations uses black plastic mesh deer fence materials for their deer fences. Another member mentioned that every deer fence that has come before the zoning board has been essentially the same thing, a very open, 6+/- inch holed, wire or mesh fence that is pretty standard and unobtrusive compared to most fences, with chain link fences much more noticeable. The COC further discussed chain link fences and decided to not prohibit them but to add to the definition of deer fences that chain link fences are NOT to be considered deer fences. The COC moved on to discuss whether or not to require deer fences to be a certain percentage of openness and to add that percentage to the definition of deer fence. Some members of the Committee were concerned with the impacts of a "solid wall" or stockade fence, rather than a more open fence. The Committee asked staff to find out the standard percentage of openness typically found in a plastic mesh deer fence. Staff will research this and report back to the Committee at the next COC meeting. The COC then touched on the subject of aesthetics of slatted wood fences, visual impacts of solid fences, potential blocking of scenic views, fence thickness, construction type, color, and cost. 2 Some members thought that allowing plastic mesh fencing in the front yard of a property would be ugly and unsightly. Some members were ok with plastic mesh deer fence in the front yard. The COC's final decision on adding fence materials to the definition of "deer fence" was to not specifically define the allowable materials, just to note the required % of openness. The COC decided on having the definition of deer fence to read "A fence commonly used to protect gardens, vegetation, and yards from deer and constructed so that at least ___% of its face is open when viewed from a position that is at a right angle to the fence" (and to add language in the definition referring to chain link fences as not being considered deer fences). The Committee then talked about the locations for deer fences (rear, side, and front yards), possibly allowing taller deer fences by right if they are wholly located in the rear yard, requiring Special Permit by the Planning Board for deer fences that do not meet certain setback requirements, and requiring an even larger percentage of openness for deer fences in a rear yard. Some members were concerned with the proliferation of deer fences in people's yards and the potential to trap deer inside. The COC discussed setback various scenarios and finally agreed to require rear yard deer fencing to be located no less than 5 feet from all property lines, and again, possibly consider a larger percentage of fence openness. If a property owner could not meet the 5-foot required setback, then they could seek a Special Approval by the Zoning Board. Finally, the Committee discussed walls (not addressed in the draft fence provisions), particularly retaining walls. Susan Brock asked the Committee if they would like to treat walls the same as fences, e.g. do stone walls function the same as fences? Code staff brought this issue up in an email to Susan Brock that stated that Code staff checked out and took pictures of several retaining walls in the Town of Ithaca. Many of the retaining walls were part of landscaping in flower beds, though many were also along property lines, walkways, driveways, and on slopes. Code staff recommended the Town restrict the retaining walls that run in the same direction as and within ___ feet of the property line. The Committee decided to discuss retaining walls in more detail at the next COC meeting. Staff will provide the Committee with the photos of retaining walls taken by Code staff prior to the meeting. The Committee then went section by section to review the draft fence provisions: Section 2(A)(1): The COC discussed the section of the Stream Setback Law that refers to the required undisturbed buffer area. The COC wondered if they should include language regarding fences in the specific activities allowed in Zone 2 of the Stream Setback Law. After a bit of discussion, the Committee agreed to add a reference to the Stream Setback Law in Sections 2(A)(1) and 2(A)(8) of the fence provisions. Section 2(A)(2): The COC made minor changes to some of the wording of this section (i.e. change “on a” to “up to”, change “site” to “sight”). Section 2(A)(3): The COC talked more about the required % openness for fences other than deer fences (like picket fences) and decided on requiring a maximum allowed fence height of 4 feet, with at least 50% of the fence face open, or a maximum height of 3 feet, with less than 50% open, if the fence is located less than 10-feet from the street right of way line. Also in this Section, Jonathan had sent out an email comment about fences along state highways and suggested the COC consider allowing fence heights up to 6 feet on a state highway with special approval from the Zoning Board, if they are less than 10 feet from the street right of way line. The COC agreed to add this suggestion to the law but to make it applicable to all streets not just state highways. 3 Section 2(A)(4): The COC talked about fences along corner lots and the need for this section, given that most street right of ways are 30-feet from the center line of a road, and that often provides enough unobstructed sight distance for all lots, including corner lots. The Committee asked staff to ask Fred and Dan to look at this part of the fence provisions and see if they have numbers they would suggest we put in or if we need the section at all. The COC also wanted to know about the intersection at Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road, as there is a very large and obtrusive hedgerow in the right of way that impedes visibility and negatively impacts sight distance (who enforces it?). Staff will research this and report back to the COC at the next meeting. Section 2(A)(7): The COC then explored allowing fences taller than 6 feet for farm operations in the Agricultural Zone, possibly allowing 8 foot heights by right for the keeping of horses or other agricultural uses. If the COC determines that agricultural uses should not be treated any differently than any other uses, then this section can be deleted. The question on fences being allowed in stream setbacks was raised again. The COC asked staff to ask Kristie if Codes staff feels there is any need for fences for farms and agricultural uses in the Agricultural Zone to be taller than 6 feet. Staff will report back to the COC at the next meeting. Susan Brock reminded the COC that the Town needs to be careful about Agricultural & Markets law provisions. Section 2(A)(8): Regarding fences in Industrial Zones- Does the Town want fences up to 8 feet tall to the street right of way in Industrial Zones? Industrial Zone proposals usually require site plan approval by the Planning Board and any proposed fences would be evaluated during site plan review. The COC therefore decided to allow 8-foot fences as of right in the Industrial Zone. An applicant may seek a variance from the Zoning Board if they desire a fence taller than 8-feet. Section 2(A)(9): Finally, the COC talked about excluding fences in certain Zones (i.e. no chain link fences in Residential Zones).One COC member spoke to the necessity for chain link fences for aggressive pets. After a bit more discussion, the Committee decided to leave the fence language alone and not restrict chain link fences from any zones. Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Possible Amendments to Sign Law (Chapter 221 Town of Ithaca Code): Sign Law review will be on the next month’s agenda. Chris asked the Committee to please save the material on signs! Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business: There was no other business discussed. Fred mentioned that there is a "deer" fence located at 110 or 112 Cobb Street and that everyone should take a look at it. Chris said she would take pictures of the fence and bring the pictures to next meeting. Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next COC meeting is on March 18, 2009. Agenda items for the next COC meeting will include a review of the proposed revised Lakefront Residential Zone regulation, review of the revised fence provisions, and (hopefully) continuing discussion of the Sign Law. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Submitted: S. Polce