HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-1-21-09 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
January 21, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel.
OTHER'S PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning
(8:30pm); 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:
Bill mentioned that the dock ordinance was amended by the Town Board at the last Town Board
meeting and the Town Board did not refer the regulation back to the COC. Fred asked questions
regarding Pat’s change in vote. The COC discussed the amendments and the need to hold another
public hearing. The Town Board should vote on the amendments at the February 9th meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of December 17, 2008 Meeting:
Six minor changes were made to the minutes that were unanimously approved as amended. Fred
moved and Eric seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Zoning Code Provision Regarding Fences:
The COC continued their review of the Town's Zoning Code provisions regarding fences. Chris
directed the COC to the materials that were in their packets and also the materials that were previously
distributed. The materials included a letter from Attorney Brock, outlining the possible issues with the
existing fence provisions, along with a variety of fence definitions and fence regulations from 10+
other municipalities in New York State.
The COC discussed the history of Code staff and ZBA interpretations of the existing fence provisions
and the staff's frustration with the vagueness of the existing regulation. Susan said that besides the
fence specifications in the Industrial Zone, there’s nothing in our Code that really addresses fences
except to say the Code doesn’t apply if fences are less than 6 feet high. She went on to note that our
Code Enforcement Officers and the ZBA ultimately have to deal with this and the ZBA has made some
interpretations which have led to some strange results. For example, if you have a fence outside any
particular setback requirement, the height is limited by whatever that zoning district's height
restrictions are for structures other than buildings. A fence is considered a structure other than a
building, and typically the residential zoning districts allow either 30 feet or 36 feet tall structures other
than buildings. According to the current interpretation, someone could theoretically install a 30 foot
high fence in a residential zone if it's not placed within any yard or setback. Also, people will need a
variance if the fence is within the setback and over 6 feet tall. If the fence is under 6 feet tall, though,
it can placed anywhere on the property, including on the property line, without any variance or
building permit. This has been an issue with Code Enforcement Staff and they would like some kind of
town approval whether it be a variance or Special Permit to go hand in hand with those fences that do
need building permits.
Finally, Susan noted that a lot of our zones don’t actually have setback requirements in them. They
have required yards but they don’t say one cannot have things in yards. Code Staff would like
clarification on that issue too. Susan noted that the COC can deal with these issues easily by saying
where fences can and cannot be located within yards. The Committee agreed to address this issue at a
2
later time and to prioritize instead on what the town wants for their main fence provisions - do we want
to allow 6 foot fences up to the property line, even in the front yard?
The Committee then discussed various definitions for fences and looked at how other municipalities
regulate fences. Bill noticed other municipalities have a number of provisions and some have actual
fence ordinances. Some municipalities also go into a lot of detail in their regulations. For example,
some towns require shorter fences (3 or 4 feet) in the front yards, shorter fences on corner lots (in the
front yard) to address sight distance issues, some require open space in fences to be no more than 50%,
some allow solid wood fences in the back yard and even the side yard but not in the front yard. This
lead to a discussion about Whoopee Goldberg's boyfriend's wood fence on Taughannock Blvd., and the
way it looks like a stockade fence.
The COC then transitioned into a conversation about deer fencing and if the Town might want to
prohibit stockade or opaque fences along the front yards of properties. Bill mentioned that many of the
towns with regulations require a 6-foot maximum fence height, but a lot of the people say deer fences
need to be at least 8-feet tall. The Committee then discussed at length the pros and cons of allowing 8-
foot deer fences by right, by Special Permit, by ZBA variance, allowing up to 6-foot tall fences in the
front yards and deer fencing (with open lattice or open wire) up to 8-feet in the side and rear yards, and
the various types of deer fence material that is used.
The Committee also discussed the various general fence materials available and what should be and
should not be permitted in the Town. The Committee agreed that chain link fences and metal fences
should not be outlawed, but deer fences should be required to be open wire or at least not be opaque.
The Committee also agreed that the regulation should require placement of the "good side" of the fence
out.
The COC then discussed whether the Town should consider hedgerows and vegetative barriers as
fences and should thereby be regulated as such. Some of the other municipalities made a distinction
between natural and man-made fences. Some Committee members thought a hedgerow served the
same purpose as a fence by blocking views and sight lines on corner lots and therefore should be
regulated as fences. Other Committee members noted the privacy and wildlife value of hedgerows and
their hesitancy with the Town regulating landscaping. What is the objective of the Town here? What
are we trying to regulate? After a bit more discussion, the Committee agreed to define fences as only
man-made and not consider hedgerows and vegetative barriers as fences to be regulated.
The Committee chair then brought the Committee back to taking one piece of the proposed regulation
at a time, beginning with front yard requirements and the Committee's recommended height for fences
in front yards. After more discussion about privacy fences, fence heights varying from 3 to 4 to 6-feet
in the front yard, plantings, deer fences, and what is defined as a front yard, the Committee agreed to
allow the following:
Fences in the front yard – Up to 6-foot tall of any material, allowed by right.
-If fence is 4-foot tall and open (certain percentage), then it can be placed less
than 10’ from the street line.
-If a fence is 6-foot tall and opaque, then it must be placed 10’ back from the
street line.
Fences in other yards – Up to 6-foot tall of any material, allowed by right.
-Deer fences over 6-feet tall up to 8-feet tall, allowed by Special Permit of the
Planning Board EXCEPT, a deer fence that is wholly within the rear yard and
setback __ feet from property lines is allowed to be 8-feet tall as of right.
3
Other provisions – Fences can be placed up to and on property lines (in side and rear yards)
-“good” side out
-fences on corner lots will require additional regulation, to be determined. Staff
will report whether there are specific highway AASHTO site distance standards
for obstructions on corner lots.
The Committee then discussed the other Zones in the Town. Susan brought up the Agricultural Zone
and asked the Committee if they thought any of these regulations should apply to the AG Zone or
should the Town let anything go? The COC agreed that barbed wire or electric fences should not be
prohibited in the AG Zone, since they are a necessary element for herd and livestock control. The
COC also agreed to allow any fence styles, heights, etc. for agricultural purposes, but were concerned
with a non-agricultural property within the Ag Zone being allowed to put up whatever fence they
wanted.
The Committee also discussed the Industrial Zone. Susan suggested the Committee re-do the Industrial
Zone section of our Code. The Committee then discussed and considered Planning Board Site Plan and
Special Approval requirements. Jon mentioned that a fence may become part of a necessary buffer
from residential properties/Zones located adjacent to an Industrial Zone and that’s another purpose of
an Industrial Zone fence. Kirk suggested giving as much flexibility to the Planning Board as possible
and to require their review as much as possible in the case of fences in the Industrial Zone. After more
discussion, the COC agreed to allow fences up to 8-feet in height as of right in any yard of an
Industrial Zone, but subject to Planning Board Site Plan Approval.
Staff will draft a new fence regulation given the COC discussion and will submit that draft for review
at the February COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Review of Sign Law (Chapter 221 Town of Ithaca Code):
This item was skipped over to discuss work priorities.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion of 2009 COC Work Priorities:
Jon said the format last year worked well. The COC Work Priority List has been broken down by the
highest priority group first, followed by the next priority and then other work plans. The last section
contains other work items for consideration.
Highest Priority:
1) Stream Setback Law: Comments have been sent back to the Conservation Board for their
review, then we’ll set up a public information meeting, bring comments back to the COC, then
to the Town Board for consideration in May/June to adopt.
2) Enact Coy Glen Conservation Zone: Planning staff is putting together a report to outline the
resources in the area. Darby and Sue are working on it together. Coy Glen is going to be a little
more complex.
3) Sign Law: Needs major overhaul.
4) Zoning Code, Fence Provisions: COC is currently working on this.
5) Conservation Zone Amendments: COC will work on to clarify tree cutting, property owners’
major clearing of properties, and other language.
6) Update/Revise Subdivision Regulations: Existing regulations are outdated. The COC and/or
staff should start looking at them – identify parts that could be done individually. Some things
we would like to look at are minor subdivisions, simple 2-lot subdivisions, lot line
modifications, simplified pieces to do research on, road standards, (Engineering and public
4
works facility are revising road standards), cluster subdivision and design guidelines. Let’s
work on one piece at a time.
7) Tree Preservation Regulations: Community has all different approaches toward those,
development review, landowners’ situations, etc. The Planning Committee also may be
interested in this subject and will have meeting with Rich DePaolo. Will take staff time, but an
intern could start working on this.
Next Priority:
8) Wetlands Protection Ordinance: The Conservation Board is not having much progress putting
things together.
9) Viewshed Protection Regulations: Planning Committee is looking at the Conservation Boards’
viewshed study. Preserving views – recommended out of the Planning Committee.
10) Revision of Chapter 243 “Taxicabs”: From last year, is the City doing any updates on their
regulations? Our laws refer to City rates. Pat will look into the City rates. It’s a transportation
issue –whether to have zones, a metered cab system, number of passengers, exclusive rides, etc.
Fred stated that 3 of the 6 members of the COC do not care about taxi cab issues (Planning
Board, Zoning Board and Conservation Board).
Other Work Plan Tasks Initiated or Completed in 2008: Done.
Other Work Items for Consideration:
i) Affordable Housing Regulations: Comprehensive Plan Committee will be looking very
closely at this and will come up with some recommendations.
ii) Amendments to Chapter 129, Unsafe Buildings: Code Enforcement Staff is supposed to
update some things in this chapter and bring them to the Committee. Jon stated Bruce
should look at this.
iii) Amendments to Building Height Regulations: Code Enforcement was going to take a look
at drafting something on this. It’s regarding the measurement of roof heights.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Other Business:
Committee will discuss the Sign Law at the next meeting, but briefly reviewed materials handed out by
staff.
Many of the COC members will not be at the regularly scheduled February 19th COC meeting, due to
an Association of Towns Conference. So the Committee discussed rescheduling or cancelling the
February COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The Committee agreed to hold the next meeting on February 11, 2009. Agenda items for the next
COC meeting: Review Draft Fence Regulations, Begin Review of Sign Law, with possible submission
of “good” signs laws from different areas along with photo samples.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Submitted:
S. Polce