Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-6-17-09 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES June 17, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann. ABSENT: Fred Wilcox. OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner; Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff person; Bruce Bates, Code Enforcement; Bruce and Doug Brittain (8:20pm); Susan Ritter, Planning (8:20pm). 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 May 20, 2009 Meeting: Minor changes were made to the minutes that were unanimously approved as amended. Eric moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of review of proposed draft Zoning Code Provisions Regarding Fences, including discussion of retaining walls: Chris opened discussion on Indian Creek Farms regarding fences. The orchard portion of the farm has 6 dogs to run off the deer and the vineyard next to Indian Creek Farms has a 6ft tensile electric fence with pie plates and peanut butter on it. Once deer lick peanut butter, they will get a shock and then learn not to go near fence. Committee briefly discussed the book Managing Whitetail Deer co-authored by Jay Boulanger and its recommendation that deer fences be at least 8 feet tall. Boulanger noted in the book that 9 and 10 feet high deer fences are better in some situations. Bill said that the two farms at EcoVillage have 8 foot deer fences and it seems to work well. Committee agreed that 10 foot high deer fences seemed excessive. Discussion then turned to Agriculture and Markets Law. Susan commented that variances could be received for higher deer fences, but that Ag and Markets may not agree that variances are needed. Bruce thought that farmers are to obtain permits from DEC to hunt deer out of season to help with deer problems on farms. Kirk added that farmers do what is cheapest and an electric fence seemed to cost the least. Committee discussed fence heights for farm operations and deer fences versus what the height for other fences should be. Eva expressed concern about fences obstructing scenic views. Bill thought the discussion would be better served when the Committee discussed scenic resources. Conclusion —8 foot height limit for lawful farm operations regardless of the zone and 6 foot height limit for all other fences. Page 2, paragraph 3. Committee discussed 10 foot right-of-way provision. Kirk thought that Ag and Markets might be concerned if the setback caused fence to occupy tillable land. Variances could be given for setback. Kirk suggested that the Town could argue that it is a sight-line safety issue; variance review will give Town an opportunity to make sure sight-line is not obstructed by fence. 2 Bruce asked how fences would relate to stream setback requirements. Susan suggested that the question be discussed under the next agenda item—proposed stream setback law. She felt that it wasn’t appropriate to discuss stream setback requirements at this time because the Town currently does not have the law in place. Next steps? Wrap up issues with law as drafted and refer it to Town Board. Town Board will then refer law to Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and Conservation Board for recommendation. Paragraph 7. Bill confirmed changes-8 foot height limit for lawful farm operations regardless of the zone and 6 foot height limit for all other fences encompassing accessory uses. He said that they should not mention stream setbacks at this time. Kirk moved, Eric seconded. Vote—carried unanimously. Page 2, paragraph 2. Pat recalled that changes were not made to paragraph 2. Bill recapped previous discussions about deer fence height and setback requirements. Bruce questioned whether there were different setback requirements for fence and deer fence. Pat expressed concern with small lots and the associated setback requirement. Committee discussed fence heights with regard to dense neighborhoods with small lots. Kirk said that deer fence may not be as imposing because of the openness of the fence. Bill talked about the lot sizes at EcoVillage and how fences can change the feel of the property. Bruce suggested that number 5 apply to the rear yard. He asked how many people wanted to put up a deer fence and noted that it is hard to see wire deer fence. 1356 Hanshaw Road has a 6 foot high deer fence that is hard to see; the owner has tied rags to it so the fence can be seen. Committee continued to discuss paragraph 5. Eric moved and Pat seconded that deer fence should be allowed up to 8 feet in rear and side yards. Eva disagreed—does not want fences up to property line. Eva thought that there should be a strip of land left so that it was easier to mow and maintain the fence. Pat disagreed and through it would be harder to maintain a strip of land. Committee continued to discuss maintenance of a strip of land and the problems associated with it. Pat commented that the most logical use of a fence is to delineate property lines. Bill suggested that the Committee pass the draft law on to Boards for their comments. He then called for a vote on Eric’s motion. Vote—carried (Eva opposed). Page 4, paragraph 2. Bill posed the question of whether or not there should be a setback for retaining walls. Pat felt that retaining walls should be treated like other fences and allowed to up to the property line. Eva commented on pictures of retaining walls taken by Chris. Bruce said that if a retaining wall is being used as a patio and it is higher than 30 inches, the wall has to be at least 36 inches above the grade. Kirk expressed concern regarding lot heights being raised by owners bringing in a lot of fill and gave the example of a house on the east side of the lake. Chris talked about lakefront properties that have retaining walls on both the east and west side of the property. Bill compared a 6 foot stockade fence to a 6 foot retaining wall and commented that it creates a different feel. Bruce asked if the Committee wanted to allow a retaining wall at a certain height by right and require a variance for a higher retaining wall. He said that a 3 foot high retaining wall was reasonable and that higher retaining walls require more engineering. Bruce gave the example of a 6 foot high stone retaining wall falling over compared to a 6 foot fence; the retaining wall will cause a lot more damage. Chris added that a retaining wall serves a different purpose than a fence. Bill suggested that the law permit one retaining wall per property with a setback of 5 feet, allowing the retaining wall to be up to 3 feet high by right, and require special approval for higher retaining walls. 3 Doug Brittain asked if the law could make it illegal to change the contour of the land by more than 3 feet. Eva suggested that several retaining walls be permitted to terrace a property if needed. Susan added that the 3 foot height limit would be measured from the lowest to highest grade. Kirk argued that it was common to have retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height. Susan clarified that the height limit would only apply when it was within 5 feet of the property line. Kirk asked how much ground there needed to be before the next 3 foot wall could be started. Susan responded that it would depend upon how far the wall was from the property line because there is no limit away from the property line. Discussion continued regarding Kirk’s question. Bill moved and Eric seconded to permit one 3 foot high retaining wall within 5 feet of the property line; special approval is required for a higher wall or additional walls. Vote—unanimous. Pat moved and Eric seconded to send the draft local law to the Town Board for consideration. Vote — unanimous. Agenda Item No. 4 – Review and Discussion of Public Comments Regarding the Draft Stream Setback Law: Susan Ritter suggested that the committee defer discussing public comments and take a step back to look at the applicability section of the proposed law. She explained that the law is an amalgamation of many laws and various members input over the years and this patchwork has led to some problems with the current draft of the law. Sue reviewed what the law currently contains and directed everyone’s attention to the whiteboard. Page 4, Section D, Applicability. Sue read paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are straight - forward. Sue explained that Paragraph 3 says that if there is an existing development activity and it does not disturb soil or expand impervious surfaces the regulations do not apply to that property. That means that the owner could dredge the creek or store manure next to the creek. Sue then went on to give the example that if a homeowner expands the impervious surface by building an addition anywhere on the property; the Zone 1 and 2 regulations would then apply to the homeowner, regardless of whether the expansion was within the setback zones or not . All regulations would take effect and the homeowner would not be able to mow an existing lawn in Zone 1 and all other prohibited and permissive activities would then apply. Bottom line—homeowner would not be permitted to continue existing activities in Zone 1, such as mowing or gardening, which was not what was intended. Sue proposed the following modification: House with parcels greater than 0.5 acre parcels would be regulated by the stream setback law. Under the new applicability section there would be exceptions for properties grandfathered because they are currently mowing, and maintaining their house and property. The section would then include permissible uses that are currently listed in the law. Sue said that the Committee needs to discuss permissible and prohibited activities to determine if this is what the Committee wants. Susan B. added that there are certain activities that should be prohibited from taking place within the setback of the stream that do not relate to development, i.e. snowplowing, dredging, storing hazardous waste, etc. Sue wanted to clarify the applicability section and review what COC wants and does not want. She thought the law should be set up so that it applies to everybody, but certain things would be grandfathered. Existing lawn maintenance, gardening, landscaping, etc would be permissible uses. 4 Susan B. questioned when the effective date of the law would be. She said that aerial photos will be taken on the Town Spring 2010 and it would provide a baseline for the Town. Sue added that the aerial photos will provide the Town with information regarding existing tree lines and mowed areas. Kirk said that the Town would have to archive the aerial photographs. Bruce said that the building code references a date of standard and suggested that the proposed law reference the aerial photos. Bruce Brittain expressed concern regarding confounding an existing use with use of a given date. He gave the example of someone coming in to Town Hall 10 years from now and wants to crop up to the edge of the field and use the excuse that the guy who owned the property ten years ago did that. Susan B. explained that there is a proposed clause in the law that says if a use is abandoned for more than a year, the use is no longer grandfathered; there would be exceptions for agricultural use. She thought that the current use as of the effective date of the law should be used. Pat asked if it would be simpler to not allow uses, such as mowing, in Zone 1 regardless of existing uses. Susan B. responded that that is a policy issue. Chris asked how Code Enforcement was going to enforce the law. Doug suggested that the area within Zone 1 be exempted from property tax if the owner could prove that no prohibited activities took place in that zone. Bruce added that some municipalities are offering such incentives for compliance; he’s read articles regarding it and it is working. Bill summed up that there are two issues: 1. what is the existing use and effective date; 2. what activities are prohibited in Zone 1 and would the activities be grandfathered? Kirk thought that the aerial photographs would be a good way for homeowners to provide positive evidence for an application; he didn’t think it should be used in the negative. Pat stated that the Town is losing a lot by grandfathering so many people out of the prohibited activities of Zone 1. She did not see why the Town should grandfather a lot of people from an activity that it decided was not good. Bill said the Town needed to balance the benefits of not mowing with how it would be enforced. Pat questioned how any of it would be enforced. Bruce commented that most of the enforcement would probably be done through complaints. Doug Brittain suggested that some activities could be tied to homeownership; when the property is sold the activity is no longer permitted. Sue said that many properties in the Northeast are 0.5 acre properties and will be exempt, but not all properties are exempt. She went on to say that if these lawns were not mowed it would result in tall weedy lawns that would not likely be acceptable to the neighborhood. Sue said that it was better to have trees and woody material; it is not that grass is bad, but it doesn’t protect the stream nearly as much as woody vegetation. She emphasized that the woody vegetation helps to hold the stream in and the goal of the Town in having this law is not to lose areas that have this existing riparian vegetation. If the property is already developed and the lawn is being mowed up to stream, while it is not great, through education the Town could teach people that it is better to put in woody vegetation. Sue wanted to see the prohibition of storing hazardous material within the setback as a prohibited use for everyone. Pat suggested modifying the 35 foot requirement. Sue explained that the 35 foot buffer is split; mowing is not allowed in the first 15 feet from the stream—Zone 1. 5 Sue went on to say that the law needs to be politically acceptable so that the Town does not have a lot of angry property owners. Pat questioned whether using change of homeownership as a threshold was fair to the new property owner. Sue felt that properties were more attractive with trees and riparian vegetation along the stream rather than lawn, and that this could enhance property values. Eva pointed out that a problem with having mowing right up to the stream is the use of weed control; people overuse weed control and it ends up in the stream. She thought that mowing the area can keep it green and pleasant and that it does not do as much harm weed control. Pat suggested that the use of chemicals could be prohibited. Sue explained that the law does not prohibit them, but prohibits excessive amounts. She pointed out that the law still contains the list of prohibitions, but that the Committee needed to review them. She felt strongly that the Committee needed to pinpoint the activities that they want to grandfather. Bill asked if Committee members had any suggestions. Eva suggested that the law say “lawn mow” instead of “lawn maintenance”. She thought that the term lawn mow did not include weed control application. Bill suggested the Committee review the list of prohibited and permissible items before it reviews public comments. Sue agreed. Committee briefly discussed reviewing of the lists. Sue suggested that the Committee review Cornell’s list of permissible uses along with Forest Home comments and what is listed in the draft law. Bill wrapped up discussion by saying that this would be the first item on the July agenda and it will probably occupy the entire meeting. Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business: There was no other business discussed. Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: Agenda item for the next COC meeting will continue with Stream Setback Law and comments. Next meeting date is July 15, 2009. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn: Pat moved and Bill seconded the motion, all in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted: S. Polce