Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-9-16-09 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES September 16, 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; Bruce Bates, Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Asst. Town Planner. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Bill introduced a change in the agenda to be discussed after the approval of the minutes, regarding the Town Code definition and description of basement/cellar. The issue was brought up at the most recent Town Board meeting and was referred to the COC from the Town Board to review and discuss. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of July 15, 2009 Meeting: Susan Brock suggested a few changes to the minutes, which Pat moved and Eric seconded. The motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes as amended. Agenda Item No. 3 –Discussion of the terms “Basement” and “Cellar” as defined in the Town Code: Bruce emailed information regarding basements to the COC members to review prior to the COC meeting. He explained that he brought up the issue at the most recent Town Board meeting that there is a loophole in the Town Code that would allow people to build a two-story duplex with a basement that is “below grade.” However, because “below grade” was not specified, someone could call a foundation a basement if it’s built as little as six inches below grade - and there’s nothing the Town could do about it. He also explained that there were developers in the Town who had become aware of the loophole and had used it to their advantage to basically create full story basement apartments that were not really at a basement level, resulting in more of a two-story, up-down duplex. Bruce added that the NYS Building Code defined “basement” differently than the Town Code did – the Town Code’s definition was taken from an old definition of the NYS Building Code. He explained to the Committee the existing definition, the NYS Building Code definition, and his proposed changes to the definition. Bruce proposed to change the Town’s definition of basement to reflect the current NYS Building Code definition and to add language that was consistent with NYS Building Code, particularly in regards to the term “grade plane.” Additionally, Bruce looked in the NYS Building Code for, but could not find, a definition for “finished ground level.” Susan noted that the Town Code used the term “exterior finished grade,” and asked the Committee if the Town wanted to simply replace “finished ground level” with “exterior finished grade,” to be more consistent with NYS Code and to use the same terminology throughout the Town Code. Bruce explained that the Town Code defined “cellar,” which, according to Town Code, was different than a basement. The NYS Building Code no longer had a definition of cellar, so they would consider the Town’s definition of basement the same as that of cellar. The NYS Building Code used to define cellar (prior to 2000), and the definition basically said that one couldn’t have a habitable space in a 2 cellar, but one could in a basement. The NYS Building Code has since eliminated their definition of cellar, but the Town Code, in some places, used the terms basement and cellar interchangeably, even though they were defined differently. Bruce explained that in order to have habitable space, one had to have egress outside the structure, which could be achieved by having windows at least 42” tall and/or window wells, and/or a cellar door. Natural light and/or mechanical ventilation were also important considerations for a habitable space. The Committee then discussed the definition of basement, cellar, and height from lowest interior and exterior grades, along with the language in the sections of the Town Code that allow single family residences with accessory apartments (“floor area of the second unit shall not be more than 50% of the floor area of the main unit, except where the second unit is constructed entirely within the basement”). The Committee continued with an in-depth conversation about the Town’s intent of the Town Code definitions. Eric thought that when this came up at the Town Board meeting that the intent was that the second unit should not be the same size as the primary unit. Kirk agreed and added that the 50% floor area figure was to make sure that 50% of the basement remained hidden so single family homes looked like single family homes - a neighborhood character issue. Bill suggested that the Town was possibly trying to prevent developers from building a two-floor duplex, mounding up dirt on the sides and calling the lower level a basement. He also thought the idea of the 50% rule was to keep density down. Other members of the Committee wondered how deep a basement should be dug in order to consider it a real basement. Fred offered that he thought the term cellar was introduced when the Town changed the building height definition because the Town was trying to solve the problem of developers pushing the fill up against the side of buildings in order to get a taller building. Pat thought that adding the grade plane definition to the existing Code was key, because it referenced the lowest point of the ground level. She suggested the Town keep both terms in the law (basement and cellar), but she was concerned about providing decent living conditions for those who live in basement apartments. She felt that basements that were too deep might also be very dark, and may not be the best living situation. She supported the idea of discouraging the pushing of a little dirt to call a level a basement, but also didn’t want to force people to create a living unit that is at least 4ft or more below grade. Bruce searched the Town Code to see where the terms cellar and basement occurred, thinking that if there wasn’t a significant distinction between the terms, then the Town could simply either eliminate one of the terms and associated definition or add “see cellar” in the d efinition for basement (and vice versa). The Committee supported this idea, but upon closer examination of the Code, Bruce and Susan discovered areas where eliminating either cellar or basement would have inadvertently resulted in substantial changes to the Code. Bill asked the Committee what their thoughts were about the proposal. The Committee was ok with the proposed draft definition changes/additions that were presented by Bruce and amended by Susan Brock. However, Kirk wanted to see an improvement upon what’s been allowed up until now – an improvement on what some developers have been doing, by using the Code definitions to construct homes with large masses of above-ground concrete and calling them basements. Kirk reiterated that the Town’s current and proposed laws would allow these types of development. He felt that this was a much larger policy decision that would likely need more research. The Committee agreed that the two issues should be considered separately (only needing to dig 6” or a 1’ and calling the level a basement versus building two-story homes with large concrete basement-esque first floors). The Committee decided to make the small change to close the loophole in the law now, and to table the policy change 3 discussion for a future date, possibly placing it on the COC priority list for 2010. Pat moved, Eric seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous. Susan Brock offered minor modifications to the amendment and Fred moved (no second). Again, the vote was unanimous. Bruce and Susan will make all the appropriate changes to the proposed draft language, will consult with Bill and other town staff, and will then present a new local law to the Town Board. Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of Comments received from the Planning Board (PB), Conservation Board (CB), and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) regarding the Fence Law, along with additional questions on the Law: The Committee discussed the comments received from the ZBA, PB, and CB regarding the fence law: The ZBA recommended allowing deer fences up to 8ft tall as of right in all yards, instead of allowing deer fences up to 8ft tall as of right in the side and rear yards, but requiring ZBA Special Approval for 8ft tall deer fences in the front yard. The ZBA argued that people might want to protect plants in their front yard as well as their side and rear yards, so why restrict them from doing that and why make them go through the expense and hassle of having to get a ZBA approval ? Some COC members saw 8ft deer fences in the front yard as a neighborhood character issue, stating that 8ft deer fences in the front yard would create a separation that would prevent people from talking to their neighbors. Other Committee members reiterated that our law requires deer fences to be at least 85% open, not opaque, so neighbors could still talk to each other through a deer fence. There would be fewer impacts with an open 8ft deer fence than with an opaque, 6ft tall stockade fence (which is allowed by right in the front yard). The Committee took a vote on the ZBA’s recommendation to allow 8ft tall deer fences in all yards as of right: Pat moved, Eric seconded, and the vote passed 3-2 (Pat, Eric, Bill-aye, Kirk, Fred- no). The PB recommended a minor language change in the electrification section of the proposed law (page 3, paragraph 9b), to read “electrification may be used for fences installed wholly underground that are designed to keep pets in yards.” The current proposed law contains the words “constructed or erected,” where underground fences are not erected…they are installed. The Committee agreed. Fred moved to change the wording, Kirk seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The CB recommended that the fence law provide restrictions on interfering with scenic views. However no specific language or changes to the proposed law were suggested by the CB. The views around the Pine Tree Road and Snyder Hill Road intersections were used as an example. The area is considered a scenic view, per the recently competed Scenic Resources Inventory, and some CB members felt that a fence constructed close enough to the property line in that area would block the view. The Committee understood the CB’s position, but questioned how the fence law could protect scenic views when the Town hasn’t yet legally defined what “scenic views” are and which views should be protected. The inventory and potential viewshed protection regulation are being discussed by the Planning Committee. So, the COC decided to table the discussion on protecting scenic viewsheds to a future date on the priority list. Fred moved, Pat seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. The Committee then discussed two new issues that were discovered by Susan Brock while drafting the proposed fence law: whether terraces should be considered retaining walls per the proposed fence law and what to do with paragraph “C” in the proposed law. Susan read the current fence provisions, which contain a paragraph describing what items for which the provisions of the law do not apply. 4 Terraces, in particular, were amongst the items that do not apply to the current law and also would not apply to the proposed law. Code Enforcement staff stated in an email distributed to the COC that terraces should not be considered retaining walls, although they were sometimes used when constructing retaining walls, and that they should remain on the items-that-do-not-apply-to-the-law list. The Committee agreed with Code staff. The second issue referred to the paragraph itself that contained terraces. The paragraph was moved from the old regulation to a new paragraph “C” (page 5 of proposed local law), but Susan felt that it didn’t seem to fit in with the new regulation, so she recommended that paragraph “C” be moved to another section of the law, possibly placing it in a new “Section 270-223.1” (for example). The Committee agreed to this change as well. Kirk moved, Eric seconded the motion to leave terraces in the law as is and to move paragraph “C” to another section of the law (possibly a new section 270-223.1), and the vote was unanimous. Agenda Item No. 5 – Review and Discussion of Public Comments Regarding the Draft Stream Setback Law: The Committee tabled this item to the October 21st COC meeting. Sue Ritter told the Committee that she received responses to the COC’s questions that came up at the last COC meeting, but that Cornell wanted to discuss these questions and responses further with Sue and possibly a member of COC. So Sue will set up a meeting with Cornell and Bill Goodman will attend as a representative of the COC. Agenda Item No. 6 – Other Business: No other business was discussed. Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The Committee will continue discussion of the Stream Setback comments at the next COC meeting, which is scheduled for October 21, 2009. The Board adjourned the meeting at 9:15pm (Fred-motioned, Eric-seconded) Respectfully Submitted, C. Balestra, Planner