HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-4-15-09 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
April 15, 2009
*Please note that the minutes for this particular COC meeting are verbatim*
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; Bruce Bates, Code Enforcement, Peter Stein, Town Board
member; Laurie Kimball, Cornell Campus Planner
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of February 11, 2009 Meeting:
Three minor changes were made to the minutes that were unanimously approved as amended. Pat
moved and Eric seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review and discussion of proposed Town Board revisions to the Lakefront
Residential Zone:
Bill handed out copy of an email from the West Shore Homeowners Association with two comments
on that.
Peter: It occurred to me listening to the debate at the Town meeting, that there was a way of coming
to grips with both concerns, mainly Herb’s concern for polluting the visual polluting of long docks that
stick out in the lake and the homeowners concern for being able to use the lake for their own recreation
if they had a big boat. It occurred to me that the one size fits all didn’t make a lot of sense, that there’s
no reason to allow a person to make a longer dock than a certain minimum amount unless they
happened to own a boat that required more draft than that, so that’s what was written. There was an
objection made that there was no way to actually reckon how much dock you needed. It seemed to me
that wasn’t true, after the meeting I talked to Dan and talked to Rich and some other people and
decided, yes there was a straight forward way of figuring that out. You send an engineer out to
measure the depths and you know what altitude the high water is, it’s reported daily by some official
body reports daily what the water level is. You go out on that day and measure the water level with a
sounding chain and then look and see what the water level is in feet on that particular day and then you
know in feet what the high water level is and so you make that calculation. Now that calculation is
hard for a person who doesn’t know how to do these things because it requires surveying equipment
and Bruce said he didn’t want to have to go out and do that measurement so (Bruce commented he
didn’t actually word it that way), that’s how I understood it. It’s a burden on his operation there and if
the person has a boat and they want it, then they ought to pay an engineer or surveyor to go out and
make these measurements. Their reference to a marker, it requires them to put a permanent marker in
there, which is indicated on a site plan and so anybody can go out and measure from there afterwards.
Anyways, that is what’s in there.
2
Now, I originally wrote it as 30 feet because I was impressed by the gentleman who came up and said
he didn’t see any reason that we needed them any longer than 30 feet but I was talking then to Bill and
Bill said there was a good reason to extend it out to 40 feet because some places the lake doesn’t get
deep enough fast enough to allow people to jump off the docks into the water without hitting rocks.
He thought 40 feet was reasonable so I changed that to 40 feet. So, that’s the whole story.
Bill: Okay, thank you. Comments; questions?
Kirk: Would you require someone to remove their length of dock if they sold their boat?
Peter: No.
Kirk: Would you allow someone to get approval to build a dock if they had planned to buy a boat?
Peter: No, it says they have to have the boat.
Kirk: But where can they put the boat, they don’t have the dock yet?
Peter: People can moor them off shore, and have a dinghy and they can do that until they build a boat
(dock?).
Kirk: I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but it seems a little silly to me, I think that you should just pick
40 or pick 50. All this measuring the depth, in the judgment of the code enforcement officer, and
trying to determine how many additional feet below the draft you need to accommodate wave action
and seasonal variation. You’ve got a lot of subjectivity here, a person buys a boat and they don’t know
if they're going to get approval to build a dock long enough to accommodate a boat, someone could
sell a boat and the dock is there.
Peter: Yes, all this is true. That puts a burden on the dock owner, but frankly, I think if a person
wants to have that kind of a boat and boats are expensive and we’re just talking about money. You go
out and just hire somebody to make all these measurements and then you find out whether it’s going to
require, you know all the facts when you go in. You know it can’t be more than 50 feet, you’ve got 40
feet, you’ve got to decide whether it’s willing to spend the money to get that extra 10 feet to
accommodate this boat. Before you purchase the boat, I suppose you know these facts. I guess if you
are a boat owner, you know what the facts are.
Kirk: This doesn’t specify how much additional depth you get beyond the draft of the boat.
Peter: To accommodate.
Bill: That was the comment from West Shore Homeowners Association was getting at. About having
some type of guide line rather than just saying to accommodate the boat, having saying something to
make sure there’s enough depth for the keel so it doesn’t hit the bottom.
Kirk: They recommend at least an additional 2 feet beyond the draft of the boat. It just seems the
owner to me can’t even get approval until they bought a boat, then you have no where to put it.
Peter: Well, you do have some place to put it if you, you can even get a bigger boat, there are boats
people buy that won’t fit on a 50 foot dock. So they moor it and use a dinghy.
Kirk: Now you are requiring someone to go to the expense of buying a mooring that they're going to
use while their dock is being built if, they're hoping it will get approved.
Peter: I happen to think better that, than either the alternatives, there’s nothing perfect in this world.
So either you could say 40 feet, 50 feet or 50 feet if you can show you need it. Forty feet in any case,
50 feet if you can show that you need it. I think that’s giving them more flexibility that they may want
to use and it doesn’t allow the extra visual pollution that Herb was concerned about when he went to
the resolution that wanted it lower to 40 feet. I said it, I’ve got nothing more to add.
Bill: I’ve got a bunch of people now with comments.
Eric: First off, I agree with what Kirk said, it’s certainly much better to have 50 feet. Unfortunately
50 feet failed when it went to the Town Board so, when we went to 40 feet, the people with the
sailboats are the ones who really felt that this hurt them. We’re here to accommodate the people with
the sailboats, unfortunately I wish there was a way to accommodate them, it wasn’t so onerous because
I think sailboats are the best way to boat on the lake. If someone is on the fence on what kind of boat
they're going to buy, I don’t think they should have to say, it’s really a pain and expensive for me to
choose to have a sailboat. So I wish there was a less onerous way to accommodate sailboat owners,
3
but Peter is the only one who made a suggestion how to do that and that’s what we have in front of us.
I think we have to somehow figure out a way to work with this or we won’t be ready to go to the next
Town Board meeting with this law.
Peter: I did ask Dan, did he think this was a big expensive deal to go through this thing and he said he
didn’t think so.
Eric: It reads worse than it is.
Peter: Sounds complicated okay, but particularly if its, you don’t really understand what’s going on.
It didn’t sound all that complicated to me, who hasn’t done a lot of surveying but has done a little bit of
surveying-it didn’t look like that big of deal.
Eva: I think this is a very good attempt trying to accommodate most people who have boats, even
though some of the larger sailboats probably can not be accommodated with this. I do think some of
the people mentioned, or, rather, that this lakeshore is probably not conducive to large sailboats
anyway because it’s rather shallow and the people who choose to have boats like that have the option
of having a mooring and a dinghy to keep their boat out permanently. As far as the sequence of boat
first, dock later or the other way around, a big sailboat especially is quite expensive. So I would
imagine that people plan ahead to buy one and so they can know ahead of time what kind of boat
they're going to have and then have time to build a dock for it. To apply for a permit and build a dock
before they get it.
Kirk: But that’s not allowed.
Eva: Well, maybe one could have something in there that says; if somebody has a contract with a boat
manufacturer to buy a certain boat then they can get a permit to build a dock.
Bruce: I guess the only thing I want to, jump in here, as far as enforcement, you have to give us clear
and definite items to enforce. If a judgment of, that’s a bad terminology, give me specifics so that I
can say, okay it says this, this or this, to leave it vague in any way is going to make my job harder. It’s
going to mean more you’re going then to the ZBA because if they don’t agree with my interpretation,
they're going to go to the ZBA and say 'we don’t agree with him, we want your ruling'.
Susan: I think the Town Board’s directive back to the COC at the last meeting when they discuss this
might address a lot of the issues that are being discussed. The Town Board said 'we want a 40 foot
length maximum but up to 50 feet in length would be allowed if less than 5 feet of depth exists at the
40 foot mark'. So you get away from, if someone already owned a boat or not and what do they need
and having it really scaled to what size boat you have and it's just a very objective clear standard if
somebody has a boat that doesn’t need a lot of draft, they may be perfectly happy with the 40 feet and
they won’t come and ask for the 50 feet but if they need it for whatever reason; they can come and ask
for it and you might get someone who doesn’t really need it because they have less than 5 feet and they
can get ten more feet to build on to the lake, they have more room to party on the deck. Maybe some
people will do that. I don’t know, it doesn’t seem like a big price to pay to have something that has
very bright lines in it, gets completely away from your judgment, gets completely away from what size
boat do you own or you're planning on buying, or have a contract for, and gets away really from the
idea that we’re trying to accommodate everybody’s boat. Because this says to provide a water depth
necessary to accommodate the boat, but even in this, you can’t go out pass 50 feet and that might not
be enough for some people in some locations with certain sizes of boats. The other thing, Peter that I
thought was a little bit difficult with this, is you’re going to make them go out and get that survey, and
put the marker in, as part of their application before they even know if they're going to end up getting
the boat or not, or the dock or not, and so, if that one ends up not being acceptable for whatever reason,
they may have to go back and do it in a different location on their property with another. I don’t know,
it just seems like that was a little confusing to me too. I guess I want to know why people feel we can’t
just go with what the Town Board directed.
Peter: The Town Board didn’t direct that, I was there at the Town Board. No.
Susan: That is what I had in my notes.
4
Peter: Your notes are wrong, because this was a idea of how, there was a whole lot of discussion of
could you (Peter asked if he was speaking out of turn – Susan was done speaking).
Peter: That’s not what I remembered going on at the Town Board, that people said that we had to do
it the way you describe because it was no way of measuring it and I said I think there was a way of
measuring it and we had a conversation across the table with me and Dan about whether there was a
way of measuring it, other people didn’t understand the conversation but I did and volunteer to go and
try to draft something that would be both specific. I don’t think you’re right about that was the
direction.
Susan: Maybe it wasn’t the direction and that’s just me thinking it was. What’s wrong with that idea,
regardless of who it came from?
Peter: Well, it may be nothing wrong with it, but this is what the direction of the Town Board was to
see if there was some way of figuring it out how to accommodate the larger boats with as little
pollution to the lake as possible.
Pat: It was specifically sailboats and I remember months ago, I think Rich DePaolo was trying to
come up with a way to do it. That did take into account the depth the draft of the boat at that point we
couldn’t find a way how to do it. You’re right in the course of the conversation we had, I remember
the 5 foot depth came up again. I was having trouble following these comments from Don Smith but
he seems to be saying 5 feet isn’t enough, he wants it maybe 7 feet or something. I don’t know where
to write that in. The point about the permanent marker, could we just take out permanent and just say
maker, could be a temporary marker?
Peter: No, it has to be a permanent marker.
Pat: After it’s granted, it becomes permanent but just pending the…(inaudible)
Peter: Point of permanent marker means, there’s a word called monument, when you actually do
surveying and you, what I meant was monument, can’t just put a stone in the ground. You actually
have to fit something in that doesn’t move after you do it that can’t be tampered with. It’s not that big
of a deal, it’s just a stake, a steel thing that you drive into the ground. It means that an engineer was
there that particular day and measured from that particular point using that monument and determined
something or other about a height and you just want to have to do that once because it requires a piece
of surveying equipment in order to do it.
Pat: Can we get the 7 feet referenced in there? Is there a way to actually get the intent in there to take
it away from the judgment of the code enforcement officer?
Peter: No, there’s no judgment.
Bill: I think that might be a good idea.
Peter: Where is the 5 feet? I don’t see any 5 feet in there.
Pat: That’s what we’re trying to put that in there. That was the intent, basically the intent.
Peter: No, there was no 5 feet. It’s to accommodate the draft, now if you want to say that whatever
the draft is they need 2 feet more, then that’s fine. You can put in there to say that they have to be
allowed whatever the draft of the boat is plus an additional 2 feet, but I certainly wouldn’t put in 5 feet.
That’s completely arbitrary. That’s fine to put that in there if in someone’s judgment, that’s a sensible
thing to do. I’ve never been on a sailboat, so this is all news to me.
Kirk: First, I want to point out, the measuring that goes on between your proposal and Susan’s is the
same exact measuring. There’s no magic involved in your measuring versus hers. You’re going out
and measuring the depth of the water. Susan’s proposal is; if it’s not 5 feet you get to go further. Your
proposal is; if it's not your draft plus 2 feet- which draft is a known constant, not a variable - whatever
you plug it in, you get a number. There’s no fundamental difference between the measurements going
on, Peter. You said yours was different.
Peter: It’s boat specific.
Kirk: It’s boat specific, but the measuring, the actual measuring that goes on, is the same exact
measurement between the two proposals. And the other thing I want to point out is, that there’s a
5
natural dis-incentive for anyone to build a dock longer than they need and have it cost more money.
Right? Why would someone build a dock longer than they need?
Peter: It isn’t what you need, it’s you need for a boat. I’m trying to understand everything people
have said, this is not my lifestyle. If they didn’t need it, why would they build it?- and the answer that
came up, is no, they want somehow- it’s a mark of success to have a long dock and people party on
them and one thing and another. I’ve heard that often enough to believe there may be some truth to it.
Kirk: That may be true, I just don’t agree with tying the length of the dock to the boat that you
happen to choose.
Peter: To me that sounds like partying. Frankly, I made a judgment. Seems to me that a legitimate
use of the lake is to have a sailing boat, that’s a legitimate use and to muddy up the viewshed by a
longer dock because you want to have a party on it, is not a legitimate use.
Kirk: But the dock with a sailboat is more obstructive than a dock without a sailboat.
Peter: Well, I know that, but I think there may be a lot more people who have party interest than are
people who have dock interest. That’s the assumption.
Kirk: I like things to be simple as possible while still accomplishing the goal. I think either just a
fixed length or maybe Susan’s proposal, you allow out to a fixed depth, it accomplishes most of the
goal and is much simpler.
Bruce: I think I’ll wait on my comment, I guess, until we get through how we want to measure it. My
concern is just giving me the tools to do it properly and the permanent marker is something that Peter
and I discussed and the engineer involved is something that we discussed. Once we get one issue
resolved what we’re going to do, then we can discuss how we’re going to do the next part.
Susan: Those all can be overlaid into this other idea.
Eva: We were talking about variables and the measuring and so on. I think one thing that is variable
as a speculative anyway, and I wanted to ask about that from staff, is the depth of the lake. Depending
on where it’s deeper and where it’s shallower and depending on what kind of boat people have to the
dock needs to be shorter or longer. The people from the West Hill Home Owner Association have
come in a number of times and they will ask for this and they ask for that, sometimes they will worry
about the boats, sometimes they worry about the space for parties, whatever we try to accommodate
they come in asking for something more after that. That’s been a repeated pattern that I’ve seen. So, I
think there’s no way of pleasing everybody there. I wanted to ask you, do you remember from your
studies, from your research what the typical depth are at the end of the existing docks and are they as
deep as 5 or 7 feet?
Chris: None of them were 7 feet deep at the 30foot length, I can tell you that. We measured them up
to 30 feet long because that’s the way the existing regulation is written- and depth varied even on an
individual property. There were a couple of properties that had two docks on their properties and the
water depth at the end of one dock was different than the water depth at the end of the other dock.
There was one specific property that had docks, two docks that were exactly the same length, and there
was a water depth difference between the two - that’s on a single property. Water depth will vary
greatly.
Pat: To be fair, I think having heard the West Shore Home Owner Association several times, I think
their totally overriding concerns are accommodating boats, not partying on the docks. I think partying
on the docks has been something that people who oppose the length of the dock has brought up. These
are boat owners and they're especially concerned about sailboats and they’ve had boats for years.
Every comment that they made has gone to accommodating the boats and the lifestyle which they have
with the boats. I didn’t hear one comment from any of them about partying on the docks.
Eva: I must have heard that at the Planning Board, but I heard it.
Bill: I’m going to make a suggestion and I’ll call on you guys and figure out if we can come to some
way of doing a provision for; I think going back to the idea of, if you don’t have 5 feet at end of your
40 foot dock, then you can go out to 50 feet, make it simple like that. Then people will know what size
boat they can get, if they know what the depth is at the end of their dock whether it’s a 40 foot dock or
6
if they can get up to 50 foot dock. They will know what the depth is at the end and then they can
determine what size keel will work with that type of dock. If they want to dock their sailboat at the
dock whether than having a mooring and trying to get away from the requirement that you have to get
your boat first, then you tell us how big your boat is and then we let you try and figure out how far to
go out. That seems just a little more complicated. I do want just to remind everybody, most of the lots
on the lake already have docks. Unless somebody is buying someplace with a very small dock and
they want to bring in a big boat, I don’t know how often that happens. I don’t know how often this is
really going to become an issue, so I’m just a little leery about spending a whole lot more time on it
and just trying to figure out a way to make it very simple and straightforward.
Peter: I'd just like to make a plea. I’m getting embarrassed about this issue. I have really no
particular dog in this fight. I’m just trying to make this the last time it comes to the board and there are
very strong feelings out there. We’ve gone back and forth, back and forth and we’re trying; I don’t
feel proud of us when we go out there again. It did seem to me that this particular way of doing it was
acceptable to the people sitting around the table. I would really hope that a new approach not come in,
just because I think this will pass and not be the greatest and most efficient ordinance ever done. It’s
written down what you have to do, the rules are clear. Bruce’s objectives are met, people with big
boats have got some kind of an out. It may not be the best thing, but I see that this will pass if it comes
up. You may want to take this concept and make it better by adding another 2 feet if that seems like
the right thing to do, that seems fine to me. I don’t really think we ought to go away, that we should
come back with something that isn’t tied to what’s needed by people with a particular boat.
Eric: Would you just repeat the last sentence that you said? You do think it should be tied to that
particular boat or you don’t?
Peter: I think it should be tied to a real need. I think there is a sense among a lot of people, of the
environmentalists, conservationists, those who want to preserve the views that even though the
pollution, the view pollution is terrible at the moment.
Eric: You’ve answered my question.
Peter: Okay, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to make a speech.
Eric: I kind of agree with a lot of that. I think what I like about the 5 foot depth as of right is that it’s
so simple, you don’t have to go through all of this.
Peter: Go through all of what?
Eric: All of a, b, c and d.
Peter: Yes you do. You have to go through all of it, whether it’s 5 feet or not.
Eric: You don’t have to buy a boat and…
Kirk: Eric is talking about Susan’s proposal I think.
Eric: Yes, yes.
Peter: Five feet from what?
Eric: I’m sorry. If someone does not have 5 feet of depth at 40 feet that they should be able to go out
further than 40 feet up to 50 feet to get it. Or they should just be able to go out to 50 feet, I like that.
But, that could be an alternative if somebody needs, does have 5 feet of depth at 40 feet and wants to
go out to 50 because their sailboat has a large draft; then they can maybe show this and say they need
to go out to 50 feet. I’m saying we should have an either or, you have a simple way to get to 50 feet
and then a hard way.
Peter: Where does 5 feet come from?
Kirk: The depth of the water.
Susan: Do you have the minutes? February Town Board meeting minutes.
[Too many speaking at the same time]
Bill: It was at the January, public hearing in January. The sailboat folks from West Shore were saying
that for both sailboats that they use on the lake here, I think they were saying they might have a 4 foot
keel and you need at least 5 foot at the end of the dock to get there. That’s why we were talking after
7
the public hearing about what if people don’t have 5 feet at the 40 foot length dock. Is there a way we
can accommodate, so that’s where that 5 foot depth comes in.
Peter: Okay, alright. I didn’t remember it from the last board meeting. That’s why I wonder where it
came from.
Fred: I have three issues. I’ll state them as simply as I can. One, we need to define repeatable
process with no discretion this does not meet that. I believe it can be; it can be rewritten so that it has
no discretion, that’s possible. Second objection, a person with a big sailboat gets up to 50 feet, why
shouldn’t a homeowner with no sailboat get 50 feet? Frankly, that’s just the way I feel. Third, if I buy
a bigger boat, this implies that I’m entitled to greater dock length. Well, if I buy a lot and want to
build a big house, then I should be entitled to less setbacks. I see that as being equivalent and nobody
would ever agree to that.
Pat: I think I can answer the second point. What was the second point?
Fred: Just because I own a big sailboat, I get 50 feet.
Pat: You’re saying that people without…..
Fred: People have no boat.
Pat: Because if you think of the word dock, the main purpose of a dock is to dock a boat. So, it’s not
like a large porch over the water, some people may think of it that way. There is a justification that
you can come up with that I think is legitimate that would tie the utility of the dock mainly to a boat.
So, that's why we’re trying to get to the idea of a boat. Some people object to docks as party porches.
Fred: As extended living rooms.
Pat: So this keeps it, it’s a compromise, keeps it to, you have to respect the visual appearance from a
distance of the shoreline but you want to accommodate people who use the water with boats. So that’s
why we’re limiting it to the purpose, the main purpose of the dock, which is to dock a boat.
Eva: That makes a lot of sense and I agree with that. The problem with the partying I think is fairly
clear; I think I would add that we don’t allow people who own land elsewhere, not on the lake to build
things that extend over public property to party on, so why should we do it over the public body of
water. I think that’s a good reason to not allow long decks for that reason, they can be small decks and
there have been people who have come in and talked about decks being used for swimming that is
easier to get out into swimmable water for a dock, but a dock like that doesn’t need to be as long as
even 40 feet. So, I think there’s no need to have it 50 feet long dock for everybody, I think the need
for having a boat is the main reason to allow it.
Bill: So, how about in a way to try and simplify things if, I’m one of the ones who says let everybody
go to 50 feet if they want but realizing that there are others who don’t like that. Let's say anybody can
go up to 40 feet but then to get away from all of this measuring and making codes check surveys and
maps and everything. Lets say if you have a boat that’s got a keel or a sailboat or something, you can
go up to 50 and lets not worry about was it a 4 ½ foot keel so you need a 6 ½ foot depth or you know is
it 45 feet and you get to 45 foot length that you get to a 7 foot depth so you can bring your boat in.
Lets just say if you got a sailboat then you can go up to 50 feet if you want and you don’t have to do all
this measuring depth and stuff. We accommodate those people with boats and yes, maybe there is an
extra 10 feet out on the lake and maybe sometime were going to set up a deck chair there and sit on it,
not just going to use it to get out to their boat but let's just make it simple.
Peter: You can’t get rid of all of the surveying because there’s no way you can measure the depth
without knowing if the depth is 50 feet from the high water mark. So you have to establish where the
high water mark is and you can’t do that without a monument and surveying.
Bill: We do it currently. I’m saying forget about depth, just show us you have a boat with a keel and
we will let you go up to 50 feet if you want to, doesn’t matter what the depth is.
Peter: What?
Pat: We have two classes of boats now. We have motorized boats and we have sailboats. We have
boats with keels and if you have a motorize boat or no boat you get 40 feet by right. If you have a
sailboat, you get 50 feet.
8
Peter: There’s another issue I’m talking about which I may be confused but, 40 feet from where?
Pat: That’s in the original law.
Peter: But from where?
Bill: The ordinary water line.
Peter: How do you establish where the ordinary high water mark is?
Bill: The codes enforcement department …….
Bruce: That’s what I’m saying……
Peter: That’s the crucial point.
[Too many speaking at the same time]
Chris: That’s specifically outlined in the proposed law as part of the submission requirements.
Peter: What.
Chris: An accurately scaled plan that shows the ordinary high water line.
Susan: That’s already there, you said.
Chris: That’s there.
Bill: That’s from 2003 when this law was adopted.
[Too many speaking at the same time]
Peter: So, how is that done?
Kirk: Peter, you don’t have to measure the depth of the water, to know where the high water line is.
You just have to know the current height of the lake, let's say its one foot below ordinary high, so then
the surveyor knows to just measure where one foot above the current water surface intersects the land.
They don’t have to go out into the lake and measure the depth of anything.
Peter: No, I understand that but they have to put down a marker …….
Kirk: They’ll [inaudible] put a stake in to show where they determine the high water line is.
Bill: There’s been docks built in the last five years and we figured it out somehow.
Peter: I didn’t realize that, so a lot of this writing has to do with exactly how do you go about making
these measurements. If that’s the case, if there’s no problem at the moment knowing where the high
water mark is, then you could say sufficient depth to accommodate. Take out all this stuff about the
monument and the surveyor, so on and so forth. You can just go out and see where you get to 4 feet
and see how far that is from the high water mark. If you have a boat that…..
Bill: Eric wanted to speak also.
[Chris saying something in the background]
Eric: Are you done?
Peter: No, I wasn’t quite done. I’m a little confused at the moment because a lot of this writing was
because people said that there was no way, Rich said at the meeting, that there was no way of
determining where the high water mark was. So you couldn’t make any measurements 40 feet from
where and that wasn’t answered okay, now if that’s wrong.
Chris: That’s wrong.
Bill: I thought Rich was saying at the meeting was, it’s difficult to measure the depth.
Peter: It’s not difficult to measure the depth, you just go out with a sounding chain and you measure
the depth, that’s not hard.
Bill: Right. Anyway, I wanted to ask what do people think about the idea I suggested because if that’s
a way that might move us forward. I like to explore that so we can move forward and get on with it.
Eric: I like the idea except I find an inefficiency in it that, if I feel like if I want to have a 50 foot
dock, then I could go onto Craig’s list, buy myself a one thousand dollar used sailboat. I get my
approval for my 50 foot dock and build it and then I get rid of my sailboat. People do it. I want to
keep it simple and that’s real simple. I think that’s a little too simple. I like the idea of being able to
go out to a certain depth. I think that if some people at 40 feet have sufficient depth, then great, keep
them at 40 feet. But if they do not have sufficient depth they should- what is sufficient depth? Is it 5
feet? Then let's let them go out to 5 feet without having to go through all this. But, if 5 feet isn’t
enough and they're still under 50 feet then they can go through all of this.
9
Chris: And what if they want a 65 foot long dock with 8 feet of water depth? Then they would need to
go…
Eric: No, up to 50 feet.
Chris: Would they need to go to the Zoning Board and would the Zoning Board also look at the depth
in their area variance criteria?
Susan: The length, the dock length would need an area variance.
Chris: What about the depth? What if they wanted 6 feet of depth?
Susan: They regulate the length and area of the dock, the variance is for those things. The argument to
support that would be that, I guess.
Chris: Then how do you get a variance for depth?
Kirk: I’ll start by addressing that. Someone’s desire for a particular depth certainly goes to why they
would want the dock to be longer. It’s a benefit to the homeowner to be able to dock their 40 foot
sailboat that requires 7 feet of draft say. So, that’s a benefit to the applicant, so that would go against
the detriment to the community. That wasn’t my point. What if I wanted my kids to be able to swim
safely off the end of my dock? My kids like to dive into the water. I need 5 feet, so that my kids don’t
hit their head and become paralyzed. I’m not putting a big sailboat out there that’s going to block the
view, my kids just want to jump off. At 40 feet it’s only 3 feet, they're going to be paralyzed, so I want
50 feet. Why is that any less allowable a goal than a sailboat? I would say that it’s not. Would you
allow me to build a long dock if I leased a boat? Do I have to buy it? I can’t afford to buy it. I’m going
to lease it. I’m going to lease for, maybe a couple of hours, just while I’m here getting my permit,
maybe 2 days, maybe 2 weeks, maybe 3 weeks, maybe a year but with 11 months revocable. This
whole thing gets ridiculous.
Pat: I think these crazy cases are very unlikely. We want to write the law in a way that will apply to
the vast majority of cases. I have a hard time thinking that somebody is going to lease or buy a boat so
they can get 5 feet or 10 feet longer on a dock.
Chris: It would be cheaper for them to go to the Zoning Board for a variance.
Pat: We’ve got a couple of different possibilities here. One is, you go 40 feet and test for depth at the
end of the dock, if it’s not 5 feet then you get up to an extra 10 feet for whatever reason you need the
depth for jumping off and swimming that’s a good point or if you have the kind of boat that you need,
so we do take in to account depth at the end of a 40 foot dock So that’s the first thing. Is there any
other possibility, Eric you were saying that might be too simple? Excluding the person who …..
Eric: I like measuring.
Pat: I think if we come up with some reasonable compromise where you’re not automatically giving
people 50 feet but you are taking the depth into account, I think most of the Board, especially since 4
of us are here, most of the Board will see that as a compromise and go along with it. I don’t think
anybody on the Board wanted to see as complicated a solution as we could come up with. It’s just that
finding a way of measuring the depth is the sticking point.
Susan: I just have a response to your proposal about if you own a sailboat you get 50 feet, without
looking at types of keels. Does that mean if I have a little sunfish, which does not need a big dock, still
get 50 feet? To me that’s not a crazy possibility at all.
Bruce: Even a sunfish, their keel is probably at least 3 foot, so 5 foot is going to be what’s needed for
that.
Kirk: But it’s removable.
Bruce: Agree, but you didn’t say removable.
Kirk: It’s removable. A lot of smaller sailboats have removable keels.
Susan: Pulling back from the more specific to more general. It seems a little strange to me to have a
zoning law pegged to ownership of personal property. It’s such a strong way to say if you own this
kind of personal property we’re going to let you do this and if you don’t, you can’t. It feels funny to
me. I was proponent to this. I went back to my notes and wrote this down and I really thought the
Town Board said this, but it just seems to me when we say you don’t have 5 feet you can go out further
10
isn’t tied quite so much to what you own. People could say it’s related to other uses of the dock as
well for safety reason, so I’ll just leave it at that comment.
Peter: I have a question of fact: Does anyone know actually how much the level of the lake varies
over the course of a year? Or the course of a summer?
Eva: It said something about that in this handout we got tonight.
Peter: What does it say, just how many?
Eva: It says the winter level is typically 380 to 382 feet and the summer level is typically 383 to 384
feet.
Chris: Ordinary low water line is 380 feet, ordinary high is 384.
Peter: That’s an important 2 feet. It doesn’t bother me so much if your keel gets scraped but if your
kid jumps in thinking it's 5 feet and it's actually 3 feet.
Susan: But that’s winter.
Peter: But that’s winter. When does the winter season start?
Bill: September 1st for water temperature.
Peter: That’s just a concern that popped up into my mind.
Kirk: Hopefully the homeowner would be aware of the depth of the water.
Peter: Probably too drunk from all that partying on the dock.
Bill: So how about if we do go to this idea: say something like anybody can go up to 40 feet. If at the
end of a 40 foot dock there's not 5 foot depth, I guess we should say from ordinary high water, which is
in summertime when people have sailboats out, then you can go up to 50 feet.
Fred: Then you can go as far as necessary to get to 5 foot of depth, no greater than 50 feet. Is that
what you’re saying?
Bill: No, I’m saying just go up to 50. Let’s not get into, well if it’s 5 foot at 45.5 feet. Just say you
can go up to 50 and if you don’t have 5 foot at 50, then you are out of luck. Then you’ve got to moor
it. Don’t want to try and figure out exactly where you get to 5 feet. Just say, if at 40 you don’t have 5
then you can go up to 50. As I said before, this is not going to apply to a lot of people. As Kirk said,
most people aren’t going to be spending a lot of money to build a long deep dock. Because it is
expensive to put in those pilings and get out there unless they needed it and we’ve got the overall area
restriction, so if they go out to 50 at least we know they're not going to have a big huge party area at
the end because they’re limited in total area.
[Too many people speaking at the same time]
Peter: Couple of questions. Does this open up a variance procedure for somebody who doesn’t have
5 feet at 50 feet to say I want a variance so I can get my 5 feet like everybody else? Would that be a …
Kirk: Just like anything else in the law that would be open to a variance.
Peter: So what you’re saying …..
Kirk: I don’t think you could legislate that away.
Susan: No, you can’t, constitutionally we have to allow variances.
Peter: What would the Zoning Board of Appeals do? If a person says, you’ve given everybody else 5
feet, I want my 5 feet, its going to take 75 feet to get out to 5 feet depth but I want it. Would you give
them the variance to do it? Because if you’re doing that, we’re back to the same mess we always had.
Kirk: The variance is always an option. Obviously the law’s not giving them right, we wouldn’t write
it so that they had the right to 5 feet of depth; they have the right out to 50 feet. So then, if they went
beyond 50 feet, it would be a balance between benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the
community and there would be some context taken there. Say their neighbors had existing docks that
were out at 60 feet and there was very little if any visual impact for them to go out to 60 feet maybe
there would be very little detriment to that portion of the community, maybe all the neighbors have a
30 foot dock and they want to go 60 that’s quite aberrant, maybe there, they wouldn’t meet the test. I
can’t say.
Pat: And that’s where you get in to a case by case basis. But when we went down to look at the dock
length to see really up close what the difference between 40 feet and 30 feet and 50 feet is - when
11
you’re there, the difference between 40 feet and 45 feet, you’re talking about how to fine tune it. You
almost can’t tell at all because everything is so uneven and the difference gets even less the further
away you get. Somebody on the other side of the lake is not going to be able to tell the difference
between a 40 foot dock and a 45 foot dock, only maybe in an aerial photo you might. I think that’s a
very practical solution.
Eva: I think that depends on where the docks are built, if you have a spit of land sticking out and you
build a dock at the point furthest out, that sticks out 65 feet, you’re going to notice it. Especially the
neighbors and the bays in between their docks that are 30 to 40 feet, and the shoreline is not a nice
straight line.
Pat: But as a compromise, the 50 and then the depth, the 40 and then the depth up to a maximum of
50 seems simple that the depth can be measured.
Peter: Does anyone know; how many people would be affected by this? When you go out 40 feet
from the high water line, anybody have any feeling for what the depth usually is when you do it? Is it
really all over the lot?
Chris: It really is; it’s all over the place.
Peter: It’s really all over the place.
Chris: It is.
Kirk: Do we have a topo map of the lake?
Chris: Yes, it’s over in the Town Board room. Do you want me to grab it?
Peter: It will confuse me. Wonder if someone who knows what the data looks like? You could say
80 percent of the places it will be.
Chris: Yes, the dock inventory. We did give that information to the Town Board a couple of times.
Susan: But they measured it 30 feet and not 40 feet.
Chris: We did measure it at 30 feet and I just rechecked my notes and I apologize -it’s been a long
time since I’ve look at that dock inventory. We did also measure the water depth at the end of existing
docks.
Peter: What did you get, what are the numbers?
Chris: On the east side of the lake: almost all of them are under 5 feet of depth on the east shore. On
the west shore, it varies greatly. You’ll have properties with 45 foot long docks that have 3 ½ feet of
depth at the end of 45 feet and you’ll have properties with - there’s a property with an 83 foot long
dock and I think they probably have 8 feet of depth at the end of their dock. It varies between
properties and within properties.
Peter: In your estimate, if you take this formula that seems to be reaching a consensus will that mean
40 feet or 50 feet in most cases? What would it translate into in terms of action?
Chris: I think it would probably be more likely 50 feet than 40 feet.
Peter: Okay, I’m opposed to it then. I don’t like that criteria, I want to limit it to people who need it
for a boat.
Chris: There are two parcels currently that do not have docks in the Town of Ithaca. If you’re talking
about new construction, you’re really only talking about affecting two parcels. All the other parcels ....
Peter: Then what are we talking about, why do we spend all this time talking about two parcels?
Bill: This was said at a Town Board meeting a couple of months ago, this affects very few lots.
Kirk: Anyone with an existing dock, if it becomes dilapidated, they can rebuild it.
Bruce: To where it was or to the new specs.
Chris, Kirk and Peter: To where it was.
Susan: Fortunately, (inaudible) to specification if it allows more than what ……..
Kirk: Right, if it allows more, but if they have a 60 foot dock and it becomes dilapidated, they can
repair it. Just like you can repair a legally nonconforming house that goes in to disrepair.
Bruce: Remove it and rebuild it.
Pat: Peter if you look at it the other way, it shows that most of the docks are inadequate for the depth
they need. If most of the docks on the east side, the east shore, are not coming to apply for depth.
12
How useful is that for what people need for either diving off or for a boat. That’s what started this
whole thing. The 30 foot limitation wasn’t adequate or useful use of the dock.
Peter: I’m totally confused now. What I remembered was, there was this onslaught of people asking
for permits to build long docks and they got variances and the Planning Board said 'enough is enough
and so let’s rewrite the ordinance'. Now you’re telling me we’re rewriting the ordinance for two
houses, for two properties.
Pat: The basic idea is that 30 feet isn’t enough and 30 feet was just this figure.
Bill: Currently, it’s 30. Some people were asking for variances because they wanted more than 30.
Peter: The point of what we’re doing is allowing them essentially to go to 50 feet on the east shore of
the lake; we’re going from 30 to 50. I’ll vote against it then. It failed the last time.
Susan: The current law isn’t a variance, it’s a special permit from the Planning Board- very, different
requirements - which said 30 feet, but if you can come in and show you need more, the Planning Board
will give you more-and the Planning Board did. I think they approved a special permit for 60 feet.
Chris: Sixty feet.
Kirk: On the east shore.
Susan: So, if you’re comparing this to the current scheme that's actually in effect, it could be more
stringent than what we right now have with the 30 feet limit in there, because that limit was very soft.
It was written into the law that the Planning Board could grant more, if the applicant could show they
needed more.
Peter: But he told me the same thing, “We’ll come in now.” If people want longer than 50 feet they’ll
come in and they’ll say they want a variance, or is this the subtlety of the difference between a
variance and …
Susan: That’s different, that’s different…a variance is different from a special permit. It’s granted by
a different body and they have a set of criteria that are very different that have to be met, that’s harder
to get.
Eva: You were asking why we were talking about this and it’s true that all those things happened on
the Planning Board and it will probably continue to happen because docks wear out, ice and wind and
rain and weather make them wear out fairly quickly. But I think that another major reason as to why
we are talking about this is all the pressure from the West Shore Homeowners Association, most of
whom, who come in and talk to the town don’t even live in the Town of Ithaca, they live in the Town
of Ulysses. But that’s- I think a lot of our reaction comes about because of that. I have two other
things that I want to say before I’m done. In case you start talking about this diving business on the
Town Board, if you talk about this again, I would like to know if 5 feet is actually a safe depth for even
children to dive into the water in.
Kirk: Well, I was just putting up a strong answer.
Eva: Right, but I mean, this has come up on the table and I don’t think that’s safe probably for
anybody to dive in.
Kirk: Five feet is pretty typical for a pool.
Peter: Yes, that’s not jagged you know, the bottom of a deck isn’t like a bottom of a pool.
Eva: Anyway, the other thing is, yes, I was wondering if in our current law Chris, when we ask for a
accurately scale drawing as is mentioned here under point D, whether we require that the drawing also
has the name of the person who prepared the drawing?
Chris: I think so, it's actually not in our current law, but proposed that’s been on the table for awhile –
and I handed my copy to Bruce.
Bruce: And I have some (inaudible).
Chris: We added the same requirements that the Army Corp of Engineers requires when people apply
to them for dock permits.
Bruce: This is the part that you are referring to if I may. This is what I don’t agree with, also myself,
but 'at the discretion of the code enforcement officer', plans approved by a licensed engineer or
architect- that’s at our discretion and I don’t think it should be at our discretion. I think it should be
13
mandatory, that’s what you do and then there’s no question about “you like me and not him, so you’re
making me do it” or whatever. That’s just my own personal opinion as being a code enforcement
officer. When it says discretion, it allows me to make a judgment and it’s hard for me to say “Okay,
give me what you got” and okay it’s reasonable, whatever, but if it’s black and white, I don’t have to
make that judgment. It says, it must be this and I can defend that versus …..
Eva: That’s what I was going to suggest actually, that it require to have the name of the person who
prepared the plan and it also should be signed and dated by that person. I have seen a number of
papers that have gone through that has a scribbled signature but no name written on it and I have not
been able to figure who it was who signed that paper and so, I think its important to have the name
written out, either typed or printed as well as signed.
Chris: You’re right.
Bill: So then, Bruce is that another amendment to our existing draft that you want us to make; is that
what you’re saying?
Bruce: I would like to see that, yes, that 'at the discretion of' it and just make it as part of, up there’s a
couple, a couple paragraphs up that says “Must submit drawings or plans whatever” ….
Chris: Right, 'an accurately scaled plan view map showing the existing shoreline, waters edge,
property line and length of property between the lines, north arrow, ordinary high water line, location
and dimensions, existing structures' - goes on and on and on, but you’re suggesting…
Bruce: And at that point ….
Eva: I’m talking for the dock, all of that information. At the Planning Board, I remember this guy
who kept coming in with little approximate drawings which didn’t even have accurate measurements.
Fred: Mr. Knewstub.
[Too many speaking at the same time]
Chris: That’s why this was added.
[Too many speaking at the same time]
Bill: Before we get into the detail of the law, I’m just trying to figure out having any type of
consensus or anything that’s going to get four votes at the Town Board level and the macro problem
we’re dealing with.
Bruce: That’s deal with that first and then ….
[Too many speaking at the same time]
Bill: So Peter, you’re saying you wouldn’t like 40 feet but if you don’t have 5 foot depth at 40 feet
you can go out to 50.
Peter: Well, I guess it, my current understanding listening to this colloquy is that, that would actually
turn into in practical terms, that people could go out to 50 feet and so, it ….
Bill: Probably a lot on the east shore and some places on the west shore.
Kirk: On the east shore you’re probably mostly, that’s probably mostly true. On the west shore
though it may not be in every place, there are probably places where you can get to 5 feet depth at 40
foot.
Peter: But, I'd be wondering about what fraction of the, what fraction of the water line would that just
be an automatic extension to 50, would that become equivalent to 50 feet. That’s the question I’ll ask
at the meeting when this comes up. If it’s not tied to the use of a boat, which I think would be quite
restrictive, but just tied to a depth, then I want to know what fraction of the property would then be
restrictive to 40 feet. If this just becomes a way for sounding like you’re restricting it to 40 feet but
actually you’re allowing 50 feet, then I wouldn’t vote for that. I'd rather have it say 50 feet.
Chris: It’s not going to be an easy answer because if depth changes on each property, the water level
also changes- seasonally, daily. It’s going to depend on what day you want the data.
Susan: Well no, isn’t it 5 foot depth at, when…..
Kirk: From ordinary high water ….
Chris: Oh, I guess I misunderstood.
Susan: Ordinary high water line, ordinary high water level.
14
[Many speaking at the same time]
Peter: Well, sure I understand that, but somehow- otherwise I’m not legislating, I’m just sitting here.
But if I were here, I’d say I’m legislating in the dark if I don’t know what the actual effect of this
particular formula is going to be.
Bill: Right. I just want, I see Pat and Bruce, but I just want to try and clarify. So what you’re worried
about, why you would oppose this, is because you’re worried about suddenly lots of people on the east
shore extending their current docks out to 50 feet?
Peter: Yes.
Bill: Okay.
Kirk: Because they would get that by right.
Peter: Because that would get it by right.
Kirk: Because it’s shallow.
Peter: Yes, because it’s shallow, so…
Bill: I just don’t think practically that would happen.
Peter: Probably not, but I mean it’s an argument that’s going around about the tension between the
needs of boat owners and the desire to, to make the lake more pristine than as it once was. And I’m
accepting that the tension is there and we ought to try and balance it; but if we have a formula which
neglects the point of view that says we shouldn’t have long docks because by right you’re granting
almost everybody the right to extend it to 50 feet, then I oppose it on those grounds.
Pat: But you were; I think you were ready to vote for the 50 foot ….
Bill: Originally.
Pat: Originally.
Eric: You did.
Peter: Yes, but I was moved by the people saying 'why should you vote if people don’t need it?' That
sounded to me like a sensible argument because there’s a cost to it. I changed my mind.
Pat: Okay, we’re working back from that. This doesn’t go that far automatically, okay. This does tie
it to a need, okay. So it was; I can very clearly ….
Peter: What’s the “this” mean?
Pat: The point, the point of this measuring it. Measuring the depth at 40 feet and seeing if it’s
inadequate. That does tie it to a need for a certain draft for sailboats-and everyone kind of agreed
sailboats were more environmentally appropriate use, so it’s not granting everybody 50 feet, it would
be cutting back from a blanket 50 foot.
Peter: But not by much - it’s effectively equal, it’s effectively granting people 50 foot docks.
Pat: Well, when you rebuild your dock 40 or 50 feet, we’re talking about two properties. But it does
tie it, it’s rational, because it ties it to a need where….
Peter: No, it isn’t a need. It’s not a need if you don’t have the boat. That’s what I’m saying.
Pat: Well, but the diving point came out.
Peter: Well, I mean, I don’t know enough about that. I haven’t heard that, nobody said. This is the
first time I ever heard about the diving problem.
Eric: Would you rather to jump off a dock that has 5 feet of depth or 3 foot of depth?
Peter: I wouldn’t jump off either one, to be honest with you.
[Laughing in background]
Eva: This is different from diving.
Peter: And if I did, it would be feet first.
Eric: Still would rather jump into 5.
Bruce: I can wait, I guess. One thing you need to figure out how you want to regulate this part of it
and I have a lot of questions still in regards to how that’s going to be measured from and where. I
think we need to deal with just the, your depth issue right now, or the length issue, and then we can
figure out the rest of that from there.
15
Bill: Looking at our time, five of nine, just wondering what we can, if we’re going to be able to
accomplish something tonight that we could then get published for public hearing in May and if Bruce
is saying there’s some further things he’d like to see us change, I know we’re probably not going to be
able to get to that stuff.
Peter: I mean, I have a feeling we ought to, we ought to have a discussion that you ought to prepare
something for the two week, next two week Town Board meeting, not to vote on but talk about.
Bruce: The study session?
Peter: The study session, I mean it sounds to me like there’s a lot of thought that a lot of people have
doubt about this. I would hate to go with a public hearing on something and have it fail once again. I
just don’t want to do that. So I think we really need the whole thing hashed out and I think it would be
best if we could- I know I said an hour and a half but it’s not going to be an hour and a half, it’s going
to be more like three hours. But that’s what I think we need, to avoid the kind of disgr ace that we put
on in the past.
Bill: Okay, that sounds like might be a good idea. Did you want to say something Chris?
Chris: I have a question. If the committee doesn’t think they’ll get to any stream setback discussions
tonight, then I'd like to let Sue Ritter know that she can go home.
[Others talking]
Eric: After talking about fences first, right ….
Bill: We could decide to change that around. If we wanted to hear from Sue briefly about the stream
setback, we can just move that up on the agenda before fences.
Eva: That should probably be moved along I think, it’s been worked on for so long.
Bill: The stream setback law?
Eva: Yes.
Bill: I’m hearing an idea of bumping this back to the Town Board.
Peter: Well, with some options laid out or something like that, so that we can have a sensible
discussion.
Fred: I like to offer a motion, but I don’t know if I would be out of order or not.
Bill: No.
Fred: Can I offer a motion?
Bill: Yes.
Fred: Whereas COC is composed to six voting members, whereas the COC consists of three elected
Town Board members, and three appointed members for various committees and other boards.
Whereas, the Town Board has been unable to agree on a proposal, that can garner four votes on
lakefront residential zoning, especially docks. Therefore, the COC recommends that the Town Board's
Planning Committee now take up this issue.
Bill: I actually proposed that one time. I don’t know if people remembered that, but that was an idea.
Fred: So moved.
Bill: Is there a second?
Peter: No second. Nay.
All: You don’t count.
[Too many speaking at same time]
Kirk: I’ll second.
Bill: I do remember. Okay, discussion on the motion.
Fred: This will allow this board to get on to fences and stream setbacks and let the Town Board come
to an agreement.
Bill: I had mentioned that a couple of months ago too.
Pat: As someone who has been working on this for all these months, if this gets thrown to the
Planning Board- the Planning Committee- it’s not going to happen because, the people on the Planning
Committee are dead set against this.
Bill: Well, no.
16
Pat: The Planning Committee.
Peter: Who?
Bill: Me, Peter and Rich.
Peter: I’m not dead set against this. Rich is dead set against this but I’m not. Who else is it?
Bill: Me.
Peter: Yes, I don’t think that’s true. I think only Rich is dead set against it.
Bill: Okay, discussion on the motion.
Eva: For someone who has been working on this topic since before we even had the first rules about
this shoreline protection and docks and so on, I think there’s enough knowledge in this group that we
can, if we try really hard, we can come to a conclusion on this topic. Whereas, if we give it to another
body, that body has to go through the whole thing again and it’ll take much longer.
Pat: Part of the problem is the changes, the constant changes in this committee, even the people on
this committee, and if we can’t, if we can’t solve this, and come much closer in a discussion with full
Town Board in two weeks, then I don’t know what to say. I don’t think having another subcommittee,
another committee of the Town Board work on it is going to resolve anything. I think the problem is
we’ve just had so many people looking at it and so many different opinions that’s why its’ never gotten
anywhere.
Eric: I don’t think the problem is the committee that’s working on it. I think the problem is the Town
Board. I think that …..
Peter: Let’s have a push against the Town Board.
Susan: Against yourself?
Eric: What I’m saying is the consensus is made by the Town Board. We’re not, I don’t think another
committee's, going to come up with something that the Town Board is going to agree to either. Some
people on the Town Board want 30 or 40 feet and some people want 40 or 50 feet. I don’t really think
reinventing and going through it all with another committee is going to change the basic disagreement
that’s on the Town Board.
Bill: I was going to say, I think in some ways I think it’s unfair to Kirk and Eva and Fred to be putting
them through this over and over again because we as a Town Board can’t make up our minds. So I
think getting it out of this committee is a good idea and whether we try and work on it at the Town
Board work session with all seven of us there fighting it out or whether we try and get the Planning
Committee, you know, me and Peter and Rich to try and come up with some, some suggestion that
might fly with four Town Board members, this is probably the best idea because I don’t think we’re
going to be able to do anything more with COC on this.
Fred: This committee has continuously adopted by votes of four to three, and five to two legislation
to pass to the Town Board which have not been approved. I don’t see that stopping at this point.
Bill: Discussion on the motion?
Pat: I just want to say on every time it comes back to this committee, including tonight, points have
been raised by members of the other boards in the Town - the Planning Board, the ZBA- that I thought
were useful. I thought they brought up things that Town Board did not necessary think of. So I don’t
agree that this has been completely useless. It may be frustrating for some of the people, but I think
some of the perspectives added to this discussion.
Kirk: I agree the committee as a whole has added useful input. I don’t want to speak for anyone else
but all my ideas are out there and we’ve passed versions of this that have not passed the Town Board,
so obviously the Town Board has to figure out what they want. This committee has decided what it
wants, and, based on Town Board feedback, we’ve decided again we could modify it and we’ve
changed things and we sent things back and they still don’t pass.
Peter: So is your vote close on these things, the last time you sent it to the Town Board it got rejected,
was it a very close vote?
17
Kirk: As Fred said, I think we’ve had four to three and five to two. And they haven’t passed. What
can we do? We keep coming up with similar ideas that we think are similarly good and they don’t
pass. I think our work here is done.
Bill: The motion for us is to recommend to the Town Board that they refer this to the Planning Board,
the Planning Committee.
Kirk: We could eliminate that and just say …..
[Too many speaking]
Peter: You don’t want to do that.
Bill: The Town Board can decide whether to accept that recommendation or not. We at Town Board
can decide whether we want to keep it in the full Town Board work session or send it to the Planning
Committee. That’s up to us to decide.
Kirk: Exactly.
Bill: Shall we take a motion? Is there any further discussion? We’ll take a vote on the motion and of
course, you can’t vote.
Peter: I know that, but I wonder if I could just say something. It seems more useful to me for you to
say, if I’m interpreting what you said as being the feeling of this group, that it isn’t that you want
necessarily refer it to the Planning Board. You don’t want to discuss it anymore, and that what you
might say is that you think that further discussion by your board is not a useful thing and not try and
tell the Town Board what to do with it. Either they find another committee or they decide it themselves
at the work session or something like that. Just a friendly suggestion, it sounded to me more like what
it was you were thinking.
Kirk: That’s more my consent, I don’t know about Fred.
Bill: Fred was the mover.
Fred: Clearly, I’m frustrated and as Kirk said, this COC board has provided information, has provided
feedback, has passed recommendation on to the Town Board and they’ve been unable to act. We need
to move on and look at other things on our plate. The Town Board now needs to figure what they need
to do to get four votes.
Kirk: So, we'll replace part of your motion which refers it to the Planning Committee and just say that
we will refer it ….
Fred: Recommends that the Town Board, yea, recommends the Town Board take up the issue.
Eva: As a member of a third board, which incidentally didn’t get mentioned with the Planning Board
and the Zoning Board; namely the Conservation Board, I’m mainly concerned about the environmental
aspects of this and I’m not at all tired of talking about it. I’ve been on the COC for a lot of years to
know things move very slowly here for a reason- that’s democracy, that’s how it goes.
Bill: Any other discussion on the motion? Fred, you might get your wish.
Fred: No, I have nothing to say.
Bill: Let’s vote on the motion: The COC is going to recommend the Town Board take up this issue
again. All in favor: Kirk, Fred, Bill and Eric. All opposed: Eva and Pat. We have two opposed, no
abstentions. Okay, motion passed. Thank you all, thank you Peter for coming in.
Peter: You’re welcome. I want to say that I told my wife, I said that there was no way I would be
home later than 8:30.
[Too many speaking at once]
Bill: You don’t know this committee, do you?
[Too many speaking at once]
Eric: Thank you for (inaudible) us Peter.
[Too many speaking at once]
Bill: So now, we’re going to move the agenda a little bit. I see Sue is here, thank you for waiting. So
we’re going to move stream setbacks #5 up in front of fences. I’m sorry, was it Laura? Laurie, okay.
Susan: Are you with Cornell Planning?
18
Laurie: Yes, but I’m pretty much here more as a resident. Just to learn more about how you
(inaudible)…
[Inaudible – too many speaking at once]
Bill: Maybe we could all go around and say our name and who we are (inaudible – cell phone
ringing). Laurie knows who we are and where we’re coming from, so I’ll start off. I’m Bill Goodman,
I’m the Chair of the COC and I’m on the Town Board.
Pat: I’m Pat Leary. I’m on the COC and I’m on the Town Board.
Eva: I’m Eva Hoffmann. I’m on the Conservation Board and for many years I was on the Planning
Board.
Eric: I’m Eric Levine. I’m on the COC and I’m on the Town Board.
Bruce: Bruce Bates and I’m Director of Code Enforcement for the Town.
Kirk: Kirk Sigel, I’m on the Zoning Board and also a member on this board.
Sue: Laurie and I are friends.
Laurie: I know you.
Fred: Fred Wilcox, I’m on the Planning Board and a member of COC.
Susan: Susan Brock, I’m the Attorney for the Town.
Fred: And Sandy is the boss.
Sandy: I’m Sandy Polce and I work in the Planning Department.
Bill: And that was Peter Stein and this is Chris Balestra who is ….
Fred: Peter is a member of the Town Board.
Bill: Not a member of COC.
Laurie: I’ve kind of been following along [inaudible] trying to put faces to names.
Bill: Chris is on our Planning Department. So, Sue, ready to start off?
Sue: Well, with twenty minutes I don’t think we’ll get too far here. I think; I don’t know if people
have looked at all the material, but there is a lot here. So, there was a lot of comments and I think ….
Fred: God bless the Brittain brothers.
Sue: So, instead of perhaps going through any- you guys have had a long night. Maybe I could just
get some reactions from people and try to figure out a work plan. What I did do was put the comments
in order that actually made sense in my head. I don’t know if it made sense in other peoples'. The
Tompkins County Planning Department had some comments about the width of the stream setback and
Jim Semp, a resident, also had kind of some comments about width. I kind of put those two together
along with these individual comments- just single, various specific comments that some residents had
and sent me e-mails. Followed that with the Cornell, no- yes, followed by the Cornell comments
which I thought were very comprehensive. They covered the entire law versus being just very specific
to address particular items. And that was followed by the Forest Home residents, quite a few of those,
followed by Bruce and Doug Brittain, who, it was somewhat Forest Home oriented but it was also
comprehensive comments, I think, as well. That was followed by just some Conservation Board
meeting minutes and the public information meeting minutes.
This worked in my head how to organize it and perhaps this was a way to go through some of these
comments as well, kind of want to get your reaction. A lot of this I will say- let me step back a
minute- I don’t know if you saw in the paper but we did do a pubic information meeting in March. We
didn’t get a lot of turnout, but we did get some good press release from it and that’s how we ended up
with a fair number of comments. So from there, it’s maybe some reactions from what people are
thinking if it just sounds like we just slog through these, or maybe we- I think this is going to take
awhile to get through. It took us a little while to get through the comments that we had from some of
the professionals in the Water Resources Organization, some of them you might remember. This is
going to take a little time and I’m also wondering, you know some of this, looking at some of these
makes me think there may be some analysis or further work you would like me to do, in the meantime,
19
before a meeting where we discuss something in particular. Anything comes up I guess, that would
also be something I would want to know.
Bill: Okay, open it up to comments.
Pat: One comment, I think the major theme that came through was the need for homeowners to be
able to repair, make repairs on existing structures. Also, the idea of the small lots is troublesome, that
there are houses that cannot be located near even intermittent streams. There’s so many intermittent
streams and my concern, also, what would it do to future development? What it would mean for future
development in town? I don’t want to go for the model of vast open spaces or very, very, very dense
almost apartment complexes as the only choice for people to live. The concern with most of the
people- people who are already living in neighborhoods with houses already built- they want to be able
to make repairs and enjoy their property on their very small lots. I’m wondering what this will do to
the ability to develop small lots in the future and I’m thinking affordable houses. Affordable housing is
usually on a smaller lot. You know, I see the direction of our planning going to one lot, one house per
seven acres and conservation zones versus cluster development where that’s the only thing you can do.
I don’t want to take land away that may be affordable because it’s all near streams and you need at
least a 100 foot to build on because you can’t be 50 feet in either direction near a stream. So I don’t
know how to get around that, maybe not as much as a setback on the smaller streams.
Sue: Remember, on the smaller streams you only have a 35 foot setback, or it would be 70 both sides
of the stream and that is on your smaller intermittent streams. It’s only on the very largest. Maybe next
time I need to bring in a big map.
Pat: I’ve got the maps in here.
Sue: Yeah, so it’s only on the very largest streams, the big name streams, the Cascadilla, the Six Mile
Creek, the Coy Glen, those are the ones that have the 100 foot stream, or 100 foot setback from them
and those, you know I don’t see the small parcels being impacted by those.
Pat: Well Forest Home though, a lot of ….
Sue: Forest Home. Okay if you’re talking about developed versus undeveloped, I see two different
issues there.
Pat: Well, no I don’t. Because, obviously the developed areas have people to speak for them and I’m
thinking of the areas where there aren’t people yet but there could be.
Sue: So, maybe it would be helpful for you to see what the lot sizes are adjacent to the undeveloped
for instance. I look at these maps all the time, so I guess I’m not feeling that there’s a lot of
undeveloped small lots next to a lot of these perennial streams. There is the Forest Home situation and
I’m aware of that and I don’t see a lot of small parcels next to the large perennial streams.
Pat: Couldn’t they be subdivided?
Sue: Pardon?
Pat: Couldn’t they be subdivided, if someone wanted to?
Sue: Well if they were subdivided and we had this regulation, we have this regulation enacted, then
they would be looking out for, they would have the setbacks from the streams.
Pat: Right and what I’m saying is they wouldn’t be able to subdivide and build near a stream.
Sue: Right.
Pat: So, that’s where you’re getting in to ….
Kirk: That’s the point of the law.
Pat: Yea but I don’t want, I don’t want that to rule out small lots, building on small lots because that’s
where you get affordable housing. Okay, I don’t want the only affordable housing in the town to be
basically apartment complexes because that’s what we’re calling cluster development. Well, it’s
people living very close to each other.
Bill: What you’re trying to get at Pat, then, is having some type of exemption for small lots, because
that’s what we had before. Right, we had the ….
Sue: We did it one time but they were not going to be undeveloped- I’m sorry- they would be existing
small lots that exist today. That could be something that I could do some analys is to look at, for
20
instance, parcels that are, say, three quarters of an acre in size and see what that and maybe bring in
some maps show you how that may help or not. That might help some situations, especially in the
Forest Home area but it would not help, we would not propose that for the undeveloped parcels. I
don’t know if we need to step back a little.
Bill: Yes, that’s what I was going to say.
Sue: None of you came to my public presentation, where I described, Laurie was there….
Fred: That was a shot.
Kirk: That was right there.
[Many speaking at once]
Sue: I have to say, some of you have been here for a long time. Kirk, Fred and Eva have heard my
whole spiel, my educational spiel that I’ve given before. We saw a video and some of the Town Board
members have seen the video and heard me and so, I’m not sure if everyone has and maybe, I don’t
know if we need to step back a little bit and talk about, or maybe I just talk about it at the next meeting
“What is the purpose of this law” and “Why do we have it”. I don’t know if we need that or not.
But Pat when I hear you say we should be able to build next to streams, the whole purpose is there’s
some specific reasons that I think many people recognize for why you don’t want to have development
next to streams. I don’t know if we’re missing some of that, some of the objectives that you’re trying
to achieve when you have stream setbacks. Anyway, you can put that out there we can have a little
reminder, I could make it short if you want me to.
Pat: I know that you’re trying to prevent erosion into the streams; you’re trying to not build
impervious surfaces too close to the streams, because then you get a lot of runoff and again erosion.
I’m just saying as I think about it, I want to balance it with some of the other needs and I don’t want to
zone out smaller lots and just say okay where we have development its okay but we’re going to freeze
small lot development where it is. I’m thinking of the scenic views, I’m thinking of conservation zone,
I’m thinking of all the different ways we’re taking land away from the possibility of having houses
built on them. That’s all.
Sue: I’m not sure we have- we have lots of streams in this town- but I’m not sure we have so many
streams that we are eliminating the possibility of having small lots in the town. That’s not the case. I
mean if you look at this map that’s associated with the law, I don’t see that happening. Now on a case
by case basis if something were to come in, it was a larger stream with a 50 foot setback, it could have
some constraints.
Pat: It’s also the idea of being able to enjoy the stream, just from the illustrations. Okay, it’s really
hard to judge the feet, it was easier; it didn’t seem that far when we actually went out in the field to
look. It’s nice to have your house or have a porch or some structure close enough to a stream, to be
able to enjoy it not just know that it’s somewhere on your property to see it and to sit near it and look
at it and I’m not sure from the illustration whether the setback would allow that.
Sue: When we went out in the field, we saw what 35 feet looks like, for instance.
Pat: Not too much.
Sue: Right, and 50 feet is a little more than that. Again, I guess I would just get back to the objectives
and it seems like the Town Board- when we got this thing started- were in sync that these objectives
were important. Its more than just erosion, it’s also just water quality in general. The water is able to
infiltrate into the soil into these riparian areas, it’s kind of a cheap inexpensive ways to have
stormwater management at least where it’s not real steep or (inaudible). So again, it just gets back to,
some people have unfortunately build right up to the stream- and yes, they can hear it, they can enjoy
it, but it also becomes a real problem for water quality, it also becomes - we certainly have houses in
this town built too close and now they want the Town to come out and fix their eroding creek problem .
It’s getting closer and closer to their driveway or their house. Those are the kind of things that we are
trying to eliminate by having stream setback law. So it’s kind of a give and take.
Bill: I want to talk a little bit about process in this seven minutes that we’ve got left. Figure out
whether we want to devote our entire next meeting to this or do we want to take this in chunks. Do we
21
want to spend a little time going over some comments next time and then in June? What are the
feelings of the Committee? I’m going to say Sue, personally I like to hear your spiel , because I
haven’t heard it little over the year that I’ve been on the board.
Sue: Okay.
Bill: So I was thinking maybe what we can do is for a meeting I don’t know if we’ll do it in May or
June but maybe at seven o’clock those of us who want to hear it, unless everybody wants to hear it
again. It sounds like some people who have been here in the past, maybe already know this stuff. But
those of us who want to see the video or whatever, you could come in at 7:00.
Sue: The video is just twenty minutes and that would be a great idea, we could get this TV set up and
just have it going early for those who haven’t seen it and would like to.
Bill: So we could get some of the background; that I personally don’t have, outside of our regular 7:30
to 9:30 meeting time. What are people thinking in terms of the process, how do people want to attack
this, given the number in length of comments we have to deal with?
Eva: I would like to hear if maybe you Sue, have a suggestion yourself about how to divide it up into
segments because it’s obviously very big to talk about this in a meeting.
Sue: Yeah, my suggestion might be to go through as I listed them on this sheet. Someone could argue
with me if you want to do it a different way ….
Kirk: I think we should start at the end and work to the beginning. Seems as good as any.
Sue: Okay, we have one for starting at the beginning, one for starting at the end. Middle, middle?
Fred: Where’s the Brittain brothers; at the end? Let’s start at the beginning.
[Too many speaking and laughing at once]
Susan: They’re last.
Bruce: I’m not a voting member here, but I think it would be nice if you did allow that, your 7 o’clock
and just have that; just maybe, just refresh our minds. Not conducting any business, not everybody has
to attend. If you want to attend, you’ve got a chance to attend and go from there.
Sue: It would be inspiring; it’s a great little video. Water sounds.
Kirk: Should we still try and keep the fences moving along? I got the feeling the fences may not take
that long.
Bill: I would hate to lose the momentum on it.
Kirk: Exactly.
Sue: Also wonder sometimes, if you just get burned out on the same subject ….
Fred: Docks.
Sue: It could be maybe you want to devote an hour to stream setbacks and an hour to fencing. I don’t
know, does that make sense?
Bill: I think I would like to at least get fences done before we start signs. So maybe we can do signs
and streams, sorry, fences and streams and try to get fences out of the way. Then we can move on to
streams and signs and then work on those.
Sue: Okay. So next time, video at 7:00 then you’ll get into fences for awhile and then get back into
stream setbacks.
Bill: Or if, you would just be here for streams or would you be here for fences? Chris is working on
fences.
Sue: I can always either stay or go find something else to do for a little while, don’t worry.
Bill: (Inaudible). We can talk about that, when we set up the agenda. Any other thoughts from
people on how to process all this?
Susan: I just have a question for you as to what kind of information you want Sue to bring back next
time because I’ve looked through the comments, especially the Forest Home people.
I did wonder, if we did decide to put in an exclusion for an existing lot in a certain size or less, that
might take care of a lot of those concerns. As we mentioned, one of our earlier versions of the law did
have an exclusion for one acre size lots or less and the committee voted to remove that exclusion.
Would you be interested in considering an exclusion of three quarters of an acre, half an acre or less?
22
Would you like Sue to bring in maps showing you the lots that would be affected by that and that it
would be removed from coverage, so that she knows what type of mapping to bring back next time if
you want to consider in exclusion of something less than the acre? Yes.
Kirk: That could be useful.
Susan: So, do you want her to bring you two maps; one showing what the effect of a three quarter
acre exclusion is and one showing half an acre, or do you just want to see a three quarter or just a half?
I mean….
Eric: How much time will this take us?
Sue: My thought was maybe just be Forest Home that I bring in. I could bring in a zoom in of Forest
Home, of course, but I think maybe like to show you the entire Town if possible, so we could see
(inaudible).
Susan: The northeast I think and probably have some ….
Sue: And just show: where are those, where are those quarter acre lots? Where the streams that are
being regulated? And try to put it on a 11 x 17 map. I could also zoom into Forest Home and have a
separate little analysis. I don’t think it would be a real big deal for a half and a quarter.
Susan: A quarter or three quarters?
Sue: Three quarters.
Susan: So, you could do it for both and it wouldn’t be a lot of work to do both?
Sue: Nah.
Bill: That would be very helpful.
Sue: Okay.
Bill: For the next time.
[Too many speaking at once]
Bill: Anything else then? Looks like we’ve got a good plan for our next (inaudible).
[Too many speaking at once]
Sue: Optional start at 7:00.
[Too many speaking at once]
Bill: So, no other comments for streams? Let’s get out a few minutes early.
Fred: Motion to adjourn.
Bill: Second – Pat. All in favor? All. Thank you.
Agenda Item No. 4 and Agenda Item No. 5:
Items were not discussed. Items will go on the next months’ agenda.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Other Business:
There was no other business discussed.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
Agenda items for the next COC meeting will cover stream set-back, fences and signs.
Next meeting date is May 20, 2009.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Submitted:
S. Polce