HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-8-19-09 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
August 19, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary.
ABSENT: Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, 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:
Chris had a question regarding the fence law and discussion on the fence law followed. The Town
Board has referred the fence law to the other various Boards. Fence Law will be on the September 14th
Town Board agenda.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of July 15, 2009 Meeting:
There were no minutes provided and there was no quorum at the 8/19/09 meeting. Minutes will be
distributed at the September COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review and Discussion of Public Comments Regarding the
Draft Stream Setback Law – Cornell University Comments:
The COC left off on page 3 at the last meeting. Sue has updated the document to reflect where things
were as of the last meeting, and she also took out her comments to reflect the update.
The COC then discussed and reviewed the new document (Cornell Comments), including discussion
on updating the stream setback rules, ideas on slopes from the COC members and better wording for
slopes along the stream setback.
Bill mentioned that the review won’t be the COC’s final look at the law and that he will bring the other
COC members up to speed at the next meeting.
Sue received an e-mail from Bruce and Doug Brittain with two comments. Their first concern was
regarding Cornell University and the Committee agreeing to include ‘education and scientific research’
as permitted activities in the permitted uses section. Sue went on to read from the Brittain’s e-mail.
Susan, Sue and Bill discussed the Brittain brothers’ first concern and made a decision to leave
“Applicability, Paragraph 3” alone.
The Brittain brothers’ second concern was in regards to page 5, Paragraph (12) of the Stream Setback
Law, regarding demarcation. Sue will wait till the COC reaches that section before she addresses it.
Page 3, E. Stream Setback Standards: Sue read the general comment and she didn’t quite understand it
and asked if any other members had any thoughts. The COC decided to skip the comment for now.
Paragraph (5) (a) [3]: Sue thought what the commenter was saying was to use their (Tompkins
County) GIS database. They are looking for a precise location of the streams, in calculating all the
2
drainage area, creating the map that the Town is using. The database did it in a raster instead of vector
(squiggly lines) when it did the calculations.
Sue made the suggestion that maybe the Town should make the streams curve nicely along the same
route as the County streams. Sue said it will take awhile and has started to do it with the big streams.
The big streams would have a better centerline and people may be able to see that on the map. People
would like a nice looking, stream coverage when they bring the map up on their computer. This could
take some time to do and may hold things up moving the Law along. The map would be included with
the law. Sue went on to say she does have some modifications to make to the stream setback map.
Regarding the comment to hire a licensed surveyor to measure the centerline of a stream, all COC
members and staff present agreed it would be a waste of money and time for this. Sue’s concern was
the bank full flow mark for the larger streams - for the streams that have a 50 ft setback and a 100 ft
setback. The Town would need to determine where the bankfull flow mark was for those because
that’s where staff would to measure from. For a guidance document to help explain bankfull flow
marks, Sue sent for a CD ROM through the Forest Service called a “Guide to Identification of Bankfull
Stage in the Northeastern United States”. Sue felt this would be helpful to the staff and to property
owners and was waiting for the CD to come in.
Paragraph (8) (a): Sue agreed with the second part of sentence and thought they would want to change
the order of how the wetland and slope appear. If one had a wetland and a steep slope, one would first
measure the wetland, then delete that out of the setback and then measure the slope. The COC was in
agreement with that portion.
The COC then discussed how any wetland doesn’t count toward the setback, where to measure slope,
wetland, stream side wetland and how it’s more protective to do what Cornell University suggests. The
COC was in agreement to change the order in the law as it appears on wetlands first, then slopes.
Regarding needing clarification on the procedure for measuring slopes, the wording took time for the
COC to develop and to revise the section to clarify will take additional time. Sue had no suggestion on
how best to modify the section and was looking for ideas or recommendations from COC members on
how to clarify. Sue suggested holding off on this and coming back to it later. Bruce asked “what are
they looking for?” The discussion went on with how one would account for the 25% slope (Sue read
from the Draft Law, Section E (8) (a)), and COC decided to go back to the Cornell University General
Comments for clarification.
The COC then discussed clarification on “land containing”. The COC only cared about the portion
that had the steep slope, that’s what that language was trying to get at. Susan drew an example on the
whiteboard to show the stream and what the slope and setback would look like between Zone 1 and
Zone 2. The Town didn’t want residents to think they had to extend their setback because part of the
land had slopes. Bruce mentioned “putting an example with this” or “describe where the bank may
vary”. The COC may want to add a graphic and a few words to go along with the graphic or say where
the slope occurs within the setback. Staff will contact Cornell to get a better understanding.
The last sentence of Subsection (8) (a) needed modification. “Setback widths for Zone 2 will remain
the same as specified in Table I”. COC discussed the setback at the start of the slope, large slopes
losing land on the flats, erosion problem on the slope, buffer between the t op of the slope and the
bottom. Second part of sentence “Does the term “setback” here mean “the dimensions of”? Susan said
“the dimensions of the setback width are fine”. Sue said “the dimension of the setback width for Zone
3
2 will remain the same”, that’s what Cornell was suggesting. Bill said the existing law was obvious
and no change is needed. Staff will follow-up for clarification.
Paragraph 8 (b): The “methods” for determining slopes greater than 25%. Sue mentioned that one
method was to get a registered engineer out there to determine slopes greater than 25%. One could use
the maps prepared by the Soil and Conservation Service or the USGS – but those aren’t methods, just
resources. If looking at the USGS map, can one know what the slope is? Those maps not used as a
topographic map. Chris asked “wouldn’t the slopes be determined on a case by case basis?” Slope is
easily calculated using a mathematical formula.
Sue talked about next year using LIDAR (used to collect topographic data) and how this would be a
great resource and suggested that this is what the Town would use. Sue recommended that we keep
Soil and Conservation Service resources even though it is not precise; it is more to help us identify
where there are 25% slopes. Sue thought of changing the terminology and modifying it when the
Town has the LIDAR. Susan suggested stating LIDAR in the Law now. The COC agreed to put in “to
be determined by using one or more of the following resources or methods, as appropriate”.
The second part of Paragraph 8 (b) which states: “A procedure needs to be provided to ensure a
consistent method of identifying slopes (and wetlands). A detailed worksheet to guide the
determination would be a useful tool for the Town to provide since setback delineations must be
complete at the time of application.” The COC decided to see how this would. If there is a problem,
the Town could develop a worksheet. Regarding the discussion on determining a 25% slope, Bruce
showed an example on the whiteboard. The COC did not foresee a problem with identifying 25%
slopes, and if there is a problem in the future, the Town will modify the regulation to clarify it.
Paragraph 8 (b) [1]: “Where applicable, we suggest the use of accepted GIS data for the initial
application, to be followed up by on-site measurements by licensed professionals”. Staff will follow-
up on this question. Bill then read from Paragraph 10, page 5 and discussion followed on identifying
stream setbacks using GIS map, identifying streams on plot plans for all building permits, how it will
effect interior work, delineation, applications and permits, using some type of range, where stream
setbacks are on the property, subdivision plats, project location, figuring out slope, lot size, staging and
using the GIS information for applications. The COC decided to wait on all of this until after Sue talks
to Cornell.
The COC was okay with Paragraph 8 (b) [2] and Paragraph 8 (b) [4]. Bill mentioned that COC had
covered these two comments earlier, so they moved on to the next comment.
Paragraph 9 (a): “Clarification is needed on the procedure to be used to measure the wetlands existing
within the stream setback zones”. Bill and Bruce understood this and the comment was clear to them.
Bruce thought the graphic, Appendix A, Figure 4 included in the law was clear as it told them how to
do it. Sue said if it was a DEC wetland, it’s the wetland portion and some buffer, then we are not
including the buffer area. Most wetlands do not have a buffer, they are less than 12.7 acres and
therefore there is no State established buffer around them. The group was unclear to what Cornell was
asking but suggested they should read (9) (a), (b) and (c) of the draft law. Staff will follow-up for
clarification.
Paragraph 9 (c): “We suggest that the accepted Federal definition of a wetland be used with further
explanation of how the applicant and Town can come to agreement on whether a wetland delineation is
required”. The COC agreed to no changes for this. Group did discuss allowing flexibility to
landowners and to avoid the expense of hiring a professional. Cornell will not be affected by this.
4
COC agreed that the flexibility was intended to help homeowners so there would be an agreement
between staff and landowners. Sue will contact Cornell to ask about Paragraph 9 (a) question in terms
of what they mean.
Bill said Paragraph 10 was discussed earlier but needs further discussion when other COC members
are present.
Paragraph 12: “The requirement to mark out the “setback zone” with fencing, staking or other material
would make it clear where the zone exists. The draft language seems to assume that this is the total
setback (Zone 1 and Zone 2 combined). However, the requirement to have the markers remain
undisturbed for the duration of the project may not be feasible in all cases, especially given the nature
of activities permitted within the zones (both existing and permitted in the future). This requirement
could be modified to read something to the effect of “…remain undisturbed to the maximum extent
practicable”. The COC discussed this comment and the one that the Brittain brothers had on
“demarcation” regarding stakes and fencing. Would a person need to fill out a SWPPP report, adding
more language, marking out a zone using stakes to keep out equipment, removing the word
revegetation, timing when to remove the stakes, leave stakes in to show where stream setback lines
are?
The COC agreed to add the following wording to “until the Town Engineering staff or Code
Enforcement staff determine that soil disturbing activities are completed within and adjacent to the
stream setback zone”.
The Committee stopped here and will continue at the September COC meeting. Sue will revise pages
3, 4 and 5.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Possible Amendments to Sign Law (Chapter 221 Town of Ithaca
Code):
Moved to the September 16th COC meeting if time allowed.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business:
None
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The main agenda item for next COC meeting will be the continuation of the draft Stream Setback Law-
Cornell comments, and the Fence Law. The next COC meeting is September 16, 2009.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.
Submitted:
S. Polce