HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-5-20-09 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
May 20, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, Eva
Hoffman
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner; Sandy
Polce, Administrative Staff person; Bruce Bates, Code Enforcement; Bruce Brittain and Doug Brittain.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Bill reported that the Town Board, at their most recent working meeting, reached a compromise on the
dock regulations: allowing docks to be 40ft long by right, and 50ft long if one cannot reach 5ft of depth
at 40ft. The Board also decided to set the public hearing regarding the dock regulations at their June
Town Board meeting for the July Town Board meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Approval of Minutes of April 15, 2009 Meeting:
Minor changes were made to the minutes that were unanimously approved as amended. Eric moved
and Kirk seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of review of proposed draft Zoning Code Provisions
Regarding Fences, including discussion of retaining walls:
Chris mentioned in regards to the local law, any questions staff or town attorney had from the last
COC meeting were bolded yellow in the current fence law draft.
Chris passed around two mesh samples/style of a deer fence showing the openness of it, along with
example sheets. Generally most deer fence openness is in the range between 85% up to 95%.
On page 2 of the law #5: COC discussed what the height of the deer fence if should be 6 feet or 8 feet
and percentage of openness. Currently is written as 85% on page 1, Section 1, “Deer Fence”. Leave
as is.
Pat mentioned if the deer fence is 85% open or more, do we need to require at least 5ft from the
property line in the rear yard or would we want to take that out? Why not allow fences right up to the
property lines?
Discussion on deer fences 8ft tall located up to 5ft from property lines, notifying neighbors, special
approvals, variances, and fencing in a garden. Should the law be made clearer regarding fencing
around a garden? Why not limit the 8ft height to only the rear yard?
Bill mentioned that the law could say something specifically about deer fences around gardens to make
it clear to people who are reading the law. They would then need a special approval to fence in the
whole yard.
Eric is in favor of 8ft tall as of right for a deer fence, located in side yard and rear yard and up to the
property line and 85% open.
2
Kirk is fine with the 85% openness but 5ft from the property line is negligible - on smaller lots,
neighbors are closer together, so right up to the line is not appropriate. Requiring special approval
gives neighbors a chance to express their opinion.
On page 3 of the law #7: COC discussion on Kristie’s note highlighted in yellow (height of fence and
fence located up to property line). Bill stated that, currently any fence can be up to 6ft in the back yard
by right. The question is deer fences won’t give privacy at all, but people want to deer fence the entire
back yard. Should we allow them to put an 8ft deer fence entirely around the property?
Discussion about fences being up to property line and neighbors concerns and restriction, or not liking
the fence (i.e. no room to plant screening if neighbors don’t like the fence). Bruce mentioned problems
that would come up if the fence is up to the property line - piling stuff up against property line and
encroaching on neighbors’ property line. He doesn’t like that there would be no setback requirement
from property lines, because there would be complaints. Eva agrees with Bruce regarding the need for
a setback from property lines for fences. But how much? More discussion is needed in general on
fences up to property lines or setbacks from property lines.
Bill asked: should there be some setback for fences? None suggested.
Susan gave example from Town of Clermont definition (see definition). The COC could modify our
law to say deer fences are allowed “up to the common lot line and, if necessary, with adequate setback
to provide for maintenance for lawn and/or field mowing.” One might have a fence that allows one to
maintain it from the inside, so one might be able to get right up to the line as long as one is not
encroaching on the line - and if you’re right up to the line, you don’t need to mow. That’s one way to
deal with the maintenance issue.
Discussion on who decides if maintenance is needed and type of fence and showing how to maintain it.
Questions on permit for all fences for maintenance. If a permit is denied, then the person has to go to
the Zoning Board of Appeals; COC doesn’t really want that.
Bill suggested the Committee let this discussion simmer. No decision made.
Committee moved on to the other two highlighted areas of the law. On page 3: the issue of fences in
agricultural areas. What height should we allow for lawful farm operations? Chris wanted to clarify
where it says “Planning staff believes deer fences up to 10ft tall are needed for crop protection from
deer”, that was actually advice given to staff from Jay Boulanger, who is a deer expert in the town who
is involved with the whitetail deer management. He says deer will jump fences 8ft tall and that he
would recommend 9ft tall fences. Chris also referred to other documents that stated up to 10ft tall
fences were more effective. She didn’t want to give the impression that planning staff really wants
10ft tall deer fences, it’s just what the local experts are saying.
Bill asked if we had any examples from other Towns about how they dealt with agriculture and
residential fences. Chris stated other examples mainly dealt with industrial zones.
Discussion on lawful Ag purposes, if needed, of height of fences, expense, livestock, residential zone
and horses. Should we allow whatever height we want for farm uses? If so, how tall, 10ft? Would
that be necessary? Most farmers figure in crop loss from deer into their production unless it’s a fruit
farmer or something like that, then it would be a big loss to deal with. Other than a small organic or
small vegetable farm, no one knows of farmers putting up deer fences. Could specify a higher height
for deer fences and a lower height for other fences. It was mentioned that Steve Cummins of Indian
3
Creek Farms lost thousands of trees his first year. Chris will confirm Indian Creek deer fence height
(if any).
Question asked: could the law allow deer fences up to 10ft in height for local farmers? What would
Ag & Market say? Bill suggested the Committee wait to get a little more information on the Indian
Creek fence and think about if the COC wants to have a separate height limit for non-deer uses. No
decision made regarding fences in Ag farming areas.
Final highlighted area of law, on page 4, regarding retaining walls: Chris handed out pictures of
retaining walls and Bill asked if anyone had any thoughts off the top of their heads to give us some
ideas to think about between now and the next meeting. Any quick answers or questions?
COC then moved on to discuss retaining walls and the Stream Setback Law. Retaining walls closer
into the stream could prevent flooding, but any kind of wall along the stream would create erosion
further downstream; flood plain could also be affected in regards to that - where it would normally
spill out in one area, it’d be worse downstream. In the definition for retaining wall; retaining walls are
designed to restrict the movement of water. We don’t want them in Zone 1 but maybe we want to
allow them in Zone 2?
Other than the stream setback question, does the COC want to have a height limitation for retaining
walls? Fred said 6ft tall seemed consistent with a stockade fence. Discussion of land on a hill, wall
may need to be higher than 6ft because of sloping. Bruce spoke of proper design, proper footers to
make the wall last. Any wall, retaining wall, structural wall have to have the proper footers in
there…without the proper footers the wall isn’t going to hold up. Will have to dig down to put that
wall in to make it a viable wall that’s going to last. Measure height from th e grade, not from
underground.
Eva asked if there were certain locations where it may do more damage to dig down enough to build
the proper footers than it’s worth. Bruce responded that that is something to consider when putting a
wall in. Good engineering practices would have a wall built at or below the frost line.
The Committee further discussed retaining walls close to property line, sloping of area, flat yard, wall
not any higher than 6 ft, or not higher than allowing deer fences. No decision made…think about ideas
for next month.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Review and Discussion of Public Comments Regarding the Draft Stream
Setback Law:
Sue Ritter spoke of comment list and maps. Sue created two maps looking at different parcel sizes in
the Town. One map shows the analysis with .75 of an acre in size and the second map shows the
analysis with parcels .5 acre in size and less. Sue discussed the blowup map and explained the color
chart for the parcels and what they mean. The 35ft setback was bumped up to 45ft - that would be 90ft
as opposed to 70ft wide. The intent was to capture as many houses as possible that might be affected
in real life as opposed to just looking on maps. The blowups are the right size and the aerials are the
right size for the buffer lines.
With .5 acre in size or less map, there were approximately 245 parcels that intersected streams in some
way. There were 25 parcels found to be undeveloped. In the .75 acre in size map, there were
approximately 338 developed parcels and 35 undeveloped parcels. Sue also discussed using or going
by Tompkins County Assessment information, as the RPS numbers are not very accurate. That was a
consideration of why she wanted to bump things out for any errors.
4
Sue said she personally was a little conflicted on the idea of exempting versus not exempting the .5 or
the .75 acre parcels from Stream Setback Law. Pat brought up concerns about the undeveloped
parcels, housing going forward in the Town, keeping housing affordable, allowing smaller lot sizes,
making it harder for less than .5 acre or less parcels while not a concern for .75 acre lots, if the result
would be increasing the cost for development in the future for housing. She would like to see an
exemption for the .5 acre or less parcels.
Exemption would only be for existing parcels at the time the law is enacted, developed or not. Any
future development, Planning Board will look at how to divide up the lot lines, and the developer
would factor that in to the housing size. Staff will work with the developer regarding setbacks.
Question with existing parcels, the 35 undeveloped ones: would it help to exempt them, since they are
individual parcels? Someone who is trying to build on a parcel like that, might not be able to. Could
be tough for the .5 acre areas. If the Town is going to exempt any parcel based on parcel size, we
would have to be fair to either exempt all or none. Concern was the ones that haven’t been developed
at all.
Eric asked: what effect is this going to have on with the exemptions; how much stream setback are we
going to lose, percentage wise? Sue replied, not a lot.
Fred questioned: Deer Run Townhouse lot sizes for the people who own townhouses are 1/10th of an
acre or less; could someone come in and put .06 acres in? Could you come in and put 10 of these at
1/10th of an acre and all would be exempt? Reply was no, it’s just the existing parcels that would be
affected, until the law is enacted.
Bruce Brittain stated that he was looking at the map of Forest Home and noticed some lots are included
and some are excluded. He thinks we’re going to get neighbor to neighbor (inaudible), “you are
excluded, but I have to play by the rules!” A lot of those lots are real close to the same size and if one
is just a little bigger than another, how would you address that? Susan replied that existing
development activity is also exempt. Whatever they are doing right now they would be able to
continue doing.
Bruce and Doug Brittain had concerns as far as development activity goes, soil disturbance, exempting
properties with junk trucks along the stream in one example. Do we exempt them because they are
already existing? (Kirk mentioned illegal activity). What about the existing storage of 55 gallon drums
(toxins)?
Bill stated, regarding the exemption in terms of Forest Home, it doesn’t look like there are any
undeveloped parcels. Forest Home is built up already, so he doesn’t think the exemption rule would
have much effect. If in Forest Home they did not get the exemption and they wanted to add on to their
house, they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to change that. With the exemption they
would no longer have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If they wanted to add some new
development activity, they will need a building permit.
Bill stated that it sounds like there were no big objections regarding possible exemptions for .5 acre lot.
Forest Home is a Historic District and would need the LEAF and if development is too close to the
road, too close to the side lot line, folks would have to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
5
Bill suggested the COC add that exemption, regarding the .5 acre lots. Discussion of defining .5 acre;
deeds saying size of acre is .5 acre; having accurate survey; minimum requirements, etc.
Stream Setback Law discussion from received Comments:
Tompkins County Planning Department
Sue read from their key points regarding setbacks on perennial and intermittent streams. They do not
like the Town’s 35ft setback. They prefer we use scientifically proven data to determine setback and
make the setbacks 50ft.
Response: In terms of perennial streams that run year round, on a USGS map they identify what’s a
perennial stream. In our stream setback map most but not all the areas identified by the USGS map are
perennial. Sue believes the Town of Ulysses and all these little Towns should use the USGS map if
they want to have a stream buffer law. Sue went on to talk about drainage areas and felt comfortable
leaving our maps alone and not following the County’s. Basically the USGS map is out of date.
The COC discussed not having any setbacks on small streams and then decided to have 35ft setbacks.
Decided that there were three different categories of streams; really big streams, medium size streams
and small streams. The 35ft setback came up in regards to small lots, developed lots and that the Town
shouldn’t require 50ft setbacks on those lots. The County believes the wider the buffer, the better,
more benefits, more land the water is going to filter over and sediments being discharged into the tall
grass or forested area. They also think that a 35ft setback is not defensible; setbacks should be 50ft for
all streams.
Sue explained that for small streams, banks need to be stabilized, but with the 35ft setback, banks
could be stabilized. Anywhere between 25ft and 50ft setbacks provide stabilization, according to the
Chesapeake Bay program.
Pat likes keeping the 35ft for intermittent streams, balancing out for smaller lot sizes.
Discussion on how big the Aurora conference room is, 35ft under 200 acres, 35ft on each side, 20ft for
Zone 1 and 15ft for Zone 2. Fred made a comment that 50ft may be better on paper but 35ft works
better on the ground. Asked about 25ft, the COC thought that was too narrow.
COC decided to keep law as is.
Next County comment is in regards to mowing in Zone 1, COC agrees with the comment to prohibit
mowing in Zone 1. Also, Tompkins County is looking to update the listing of invasive plants and want
us to reference it and word it. Finally, the County’s Planning most recent drafted model stream buffer
ordinance borrowed some ideas from the Town but changed the variance criteria when considering
area variance approvals. Susan noted “it’s illegal to vary the variance criteria”.
Jim Semp
Property owner who lives on East King Road wrote to the town regarding a stream on his property that
is contributed by a ditch diversion built by the County and as a result, the drainage area has changed on
his land. What is the natural watershed now and how should the Town deal with this? Need to figure
out what the true drainage area is versus what the natural drainage is. Staff will try to help. Mr. Semp
lives on East King Road and the Troy Road and East King Road culvert pipes drain into his stream.
It’s a good-sized stream with a drainage area that is possibly over 200 acres. But staff will need to do
calculations. If it’s not over 200 acres drainage area, what do we do with those streams?
6
Sue is concerned about the adjacent parcel slated for development of the Heritage Park Townhomes. If
we were to enact the Stream Setback Law tomorrow, there would be a 35ft setback on that stream. We
might need to have a 50ft setback. Will need to do calculations and look at it more closely.
Susan added regarding making accurate drainage area calculations: if one is looking at a diverted
drainage area as opposed to a natural drainage area, where drainage is adding on one end, one must
subtract drainage from other end too.
Discussion about the Stream Setback maps being incorrect, possibility of other engineers/organizations
challenging the map to the law, doing calculations by looking at the map and tying the map to the law.
People should be able to challenge the maps and provide their own analysis. If we don’t tie the map to
law then we can change the map without having to make minor revisions or having the Town Board
address the revised law. The COC decided to continue this discussion at next COC meeting.
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 fences and more Stream Setback comments.
Next meeting date is June 17, 2009.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Submitted:
S. Polce