HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-7-15-09 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
July 15, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel.
ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann.
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner; Sandy
Polce, Administrative Staff; Bruce Bates, Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Asst. Town Planner.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Comment made regarding the Town Board accepting the dock law.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of June 17, 2009 Meeting:
No changes made to the minutes. Eric moved and Fred seconded the motion to approve the minutes,
all in favor. Eva abstained, not present at June meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review and Discussion of Public Comments Regarding the Draft Stream
Setback Law:
Sue Ritter reviewed issues with the applicability section of law. Basically, we need to decide what we
want in the permissible list, what we want to allow to have happen within the stream setback law and
what we want to have prohibited. Sue R. also mentioned staff memo and Bruce Brittains list of ideas.
Sue explained the Stream Setback Law – Proposed Modifications to Permissible and Prohibited Uses
list mailed to members which includes what we already have in the law (in black ink), proposed
additions to the law – what would be permissible uses that would be added to the law (in blue ink).
What is in violet ink are editing within the existing language that we have in the law currently, mostly
these come from either Cornell comments, Forest Home comments, some of the comments that were
brought up at the last COC meeting and some of Sue’s own observations.
Starting with list: (a) is stream setback Zone 1 and 2, uses that would be existing, ongoing, or new and
would be permitted. (b) is stream setback Zone 2, uses that would be permitted for new activities
within Zone 2. The last section of the list includes prohibited activities in streams and stream setback
zones.
The committee went through the submittal, starting with items in blue (the idea is to replace current
draft with what’s in the submission).
(a): Stream Setback Zone 1 and 2 – Use that may be existing/ongoing or new and would be
permitted:
Page 1, (a) 1): Change made to read as: “Repair and maintenance of any lawful structure existing on
or before the effective date of this law”.
Page 1, (a) 2): Bruce brought up the question to add the effective date on or before to the law. Susan
agreed and will add effective date so people would know what existing means.
2
Page 1, (a) 3): Bruce had concerns with enforcement as far as camping. The discussion went on to
include allowing camping in back yards and what the current law says about camping. Is the Zoning
Code the place to deal with swimming or camping? The COC respond ed “No”. But the law could
include recreational activities and could have a definition of recreational activities in the definition
section. Susan and Sue agreed with this.
The discussion went on regarding private land versus public land, recreational uses such as camping,
motor vehicles or RV’s that park in your driveway or your lawn (and impacts on natural vegetation and
erosion), swimming, hiking was also mentioned, concern of activities such as baseball, softball,
someone who creates a dirt infield for a standard softball field. Water sport activities and water related
recreational activities were also mentioned. The committee agreed to come back to #3 for next time.
Page 1, (a) 4): Sue mentioned this was a Cornell comment and Bruce asked under who’s
interpretation? Questions regarding restoration and riparian stream side vegetation. Bill mentioned
that the current law # 15 and #16 describes restoration / stream stabilization. Sue said the restoration
of native vegetation is different than the restoration of habitat. Cornell wanted to go further but will
merge with #16.
Page 1, (a) 5: Change made to read as: “Conducting educational and scientific research activities, as
long as it is compatible with the purpose and objectives of the Law”.
The COC discussed who would make the determination of what is compatible and decided that Code
Enforcement Officer would. Bruce mentioned we might want to add in “related to a college, school or
private study”. But Susan said we don’t zone based on a person, we zone based on the use. Further
discussion on interpretation/determinations on activities and research activities. Sue noted that it is
hard to write the law to cover everything.
Page 1, (a) 6): Okay as is. Sue was specifically thinking of Six Mile Creek and dredging for dam
safety and not navigable waterways. The dredging for navigability is in the City not the Town. Bruce
mentioned that most dredging would have an engineering report.
Page 1, (a) 7): This was a Cornell suggestion and discussion on exempting xxx square feet or less of
disturbance. Susan said they had 540 square feet and we didn’t know where that came from. There
was a suggestion of xxx yards/feet over an xxx year period, otherwise they can do xxx yards/square
feet every year. The COC decided to delete this.
Page 1, (a) 8): COC decided this was not necessary, the law would not preclude any of those things.
Delete #8.
Page 1, (a) 9): Changes made to read as: “Installation of utility services such as electric, telephone,
cable, water, and sewer connections, provided that they disturb only the minimal area required for
installation and connection”.
The COC had concerns about water connection for gas drilling, mining, trucks, digging, moving of
soil, hydrofracking – a lot of water involved. Are we pre-empted by State Law? Need to read the
DEC regulations.
Page 1 (a) 10): Proposed modification to delete “emergency” repair was accepted. Repair should take
place as needed, not just for emergencies.
3
Page 1 (a) 11): No changes.
Page 2 (a) 12): Add wording in blue and replace “paving” with “repaving”.
The COC discussed the parking lot re-paving, curbing and decided to put in re-paving. There was a
long discussion on deicing with concerns of chemicals, salt in the parking lot - that would be a safety
issue. Bruce asked if most parking lots go to a drain, or if they just runoff into a creek? Sue said the
old ones would go into a drain that goes directly to a stream, the new parking lots would go to a drain
that goes to a stormwater facility that cleans it up supposedly before hand.
The discussion moved to maintenance, sand, leaving the word deicing in the law or taking it out,
winter maintenance, safety issues, not storing snow within a setback zone, friendly chemicals – least
impacting amount, existing parking lot maintenance, maintenance that promotes safety. Sue
mentioned that, for different staff down the road, she would like to have this all interpreted the same
way. Pat said we’re putting that in for Cornell’s benefit to be clear (and for us to be clear), otherwise
we could have left maintenance of any structure. Discussion on how to word #12.
Sue read #12 with proposed changes as: “Maintenance of impervious surfaces, if in existence prior to
the effective date of this section, maintenance to include parking lot repaving, restriping, plowing,
general repairs and a minimal amount of deicing material necessary to maintain safety”.
Bill and Fred made suggestions to word deicing as: “deicing material or application of the minimal
amount of deicing material, or use of the minimal amount necessary to maintain safety”. Susan added
“vehicle and pedestrian safety”.
Page 2 (a) 13): The COC discussed the word “existing” in terms of roads and bridges. The law should
read as: “The maintenance, repair, replacement and reconstruction of highways and bridges, electrical
transmission and communication lines and pole, utilities lines (such as water, sewer, gas, telephone,
cable), sidewalks, walkways, bikeways, multi-use trails, culverts, dams, hydro plants, and other
infrastructure”.
Page 2 (a) 14) [a]: The only changes are in blue. See the third line in the paragraph, and change public
utility lines to read “other utility lines”.
Page 2 (a) 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21 and 22): No changes. This would be allowed in existing uses.
(b): Stream Setback Zone 2, Uses permitted for new activities, page 3:
Sue said it stays the same except with some possible modifications.
First possible modification would be fences: This is Bruce and Doug Brittains recommendation, not
Cornell. Susan mentioned the fence law, and took out specific references to stream setbacks because
they would be dealt with in the stream setback law. So, now this law is basically saying, new fences
are not allowed in Zone 1 but are allowed in Zone 2.
COC had discussion on retaining walls, to keep water out, flood plains, flood damage, putting up a
retaining wall between the stream and the edge of your property. Sue said installing anything within
the stream can change the energy of the stream, causing erosion on the other side, and something like
that should have to be looked at by the Town engineering. Bruce mentioned that if it’s within a flood
4
plain they can’t do it unless they get an engineering report. Sue said she wouldn’t recommend that as a
permitted use.
Mowing and maintenance: Fred had a suggestion in Section 11 on Page 1, regarding the term non-
native invasive vegetation. Could we use the same language here, so instead of saying exotic invasive
species, we say non-native invasive vegetation (just for consistency)? Committee was okay with this.
Haying and grazing: The COC discussed grazing, new livestock operations within Zone 2. Sue was
concerned about how livestock tramples the ground and can be destructive. It’s different than growing
plants and bringing in a cultivator periodically. To bring in horses and cows, house them, feed them,
and maintain them, she is not sure if this should be in the law. Animal husbandry as a new use seems
excessive.
The committee discussed this further and the fact that Ag & Market may be unhappy. The committee
discussed chickens and how to word haying and grazing activity. Haying, and grazing reads as:
“Haying, and grazing of livestock, where livestock is other wise allowed in accordance with a
conservation plan approved by the Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District”.
Composting of residential materials: Allowed, no changes.
Stormwater ponds and constructed wetlands: Allowed, no changes.
Water wells: Allowed, no changes.
Growing of crops: Amended to read “Growing of crops for commercial, educational, research or other
purposes”.
Application of herbicides: Changes made to read as: “Application of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers
or other chemicals for the protection of human or animal safety, or for agricultural purposes for farms
in accordance with product label instructions and pursuant to applicable State regulations”.
Eva’s suggestions from the last COC meeting were then discussed, regarding mowing, chemicals and
maintenance.
(c): Prohibited activities in streams and stream setback zones:
Page 3, (1) (a through e): No changes.
Page 4, (f): Add “outdoor” as recommended.
Page 4, (g): Add “new” as recommended. Discussion went on to build new parking lots was
prohibited. If someone has a gravel parking lot, then they can’t repave it but if they can get to the
Planning Board, they can get a proper drainage system.
Page 4, (h): No changes.
Page 4, (i): No changes.
Page 4, (j): No changes.
5
Sue passed out the Cornell University comments – excerpted from the full length letter. Town staff
responses are in blue ink. The COC went through comments.
Page 1, C, Agricultural Activity Definition: Discussion of Cornell Orchard, Dilmun Hill Farm and
Bluegrass Lane. Susan mentioned that “production of agricultural products” is already in the law.
She suggested we eliminate “commercial” so that research and teaching uses are also covered. The
COC was okay with that.
Page 1, C, Non-Native Invasive Species Definition: Accepted as recommended.
Page 1, C, Centerline of Stream Definition: Discussion of: 1) do we want this definition? and 2) does
this definition work? The discussion went on to the definition of stream edge, centerline of stream,
using a surveyor. Ultimately it was decided not to add a definition for “centerline”.
The discussion went on to the second part of the definition regarding maps, database, streams. This
will take staff time to do the database mapping – in Sue’s lap.
Page 2 - Development Activity and Existing Development: The committee will be addressing many of
these concerns in the permissible uses section.
Page 2 – Riparian Area: It’s in the law to maintain riparian functions, but Sue would like to work on a
better definition. She will come back to COC with new definition.
Page 2 – Stream: Sue suggests adding some of the terminology. Kirk said, “but not including any
water course for the channel”. The term water channel was left off. COC was okay with this.
Cornell suggested that the Town may want to consider using the DEC list and maps of water bodies
found in NYS Law, Chapter 10, Subchapter B and they provided a website for the streams to which
this ordinance will apply. Susan and Sue looked up this website and it does not provide a map. So we
really don’t even know what streams this database refers to. Sue likes what Tompkins County has
done, the stream coverage (database) they use and that was the basis for our stream coverage.
Page 2 – Stream Setback Map: Sue thought this wasn’t a bad idea. COC was okay with this.
Page 3 – Wetland: Add “streamside” in front of “wetland” whenever it appears in the law, and is
appropriate. COC was okay with this.
COC left off with Wetland and will continue list at next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business:
None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
Agenda item for the next COC meeting will continue with Cornell University comments.
Next meeting date is August 19, 2009.
Submitted:
S. Polce