HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-10-21-09 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
October 21, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel.
ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann, Eric Levine.
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates,
Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Asst. Director of Planning; Sandy Polce, Administrative
Staff; Doug Brittain.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Bill said at the last Town Board meeting that the changes to the basement definitions/provisions
passed. A public hearing is set for the Fence Ordinance- that will be on the November 9, 2009 Town
Board meeting. At the last Town Board meeting, the Town Board discussed making changes to the
definitions in the Conservation Zone and including looking at wetlands, clustering, trees and forest
management. All of these issues are likely to be discussed at the November COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of August 19, 2009 and September 16, 2009 Meetings:
Minor changes were made to the 8/19/09 minutes that were unanimously approved as amended. Pat
moved and Bill seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes.
Also, minor changes were made to the 9/16/09 minutes that were unanimously approved as amended.
Pat moved and Kirk seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of review and discussion of public comments regarding the
draft Stream Setback Law (mainly Cornell University comments with Planning staff/COC
responses highlighted in blue):
Bill reviewed the contents of the COC packet and started the discussion with the Cornell comments
and the meeting Sue and Bruce had with Cornell staff. Sue reported that the last time the COC met
they were discussing the portion of the law pertaining to slopes and wetlands. Cornell had provided
several comments that the COC had questions about and needed clarification from Cornell on. Sue
emailed the questions to Cornell staff and they responded to several of them in writing, but also
suggested a follow-up meeting with Town staff.
Sue summarized the handout that she prepared following the meeting with Cornell staff (original
Cornell University comment; written response, and staff subsequent discussion with Cornell
University) as below:
1 - Paragraph (8) (a): Sue asked if the COC was okay with Cornell University’s suggested clarification
of switching 8 and 9. COC members agreed with this.
2 - Paragraph 8 (b) [1]: Cornell University wants GIS / LIDAR professionals to measure slopes. Sue
attended a meeting regarding LIDAR and we may get this data before the Stream Setback Law is
enacted. This will have data at 2 foot contours and slope maps based on 2 foot contours. Sue
suggested we get rid of Soil Conservation Service maps, but keep the USGS topo maps for landowners
to use. COC agreed to this.
2
The last paragraph of 2, regarding the use of additional resources in determining slope as long as they
are equal or greater precision: Fred brought up a concern about the confusion of the terms “precision”
and “accuracy”. He didn’t want to require the use of “precise” resources but was comfortable with
“accurate”. Sue suggested adding more than just the three resources listed, such as adding “other
methods acceptable to the Town staff of equal or greater accuracy”. COC agreed with this addition.
3 – Paragraph (9) (a), regarding Cornell’s wetland and slope comment: Sue stated that law is worded
such that there is no established end of the setback adjustment for wetlands as there is for slope. The
COC noted that, although the Town doesn’t currently have a wetlands law, the Town still desires to
protect wetlands and if Cornell proposed a project that would involve placing a structure in Zone 1
where there was a slope and a wetland (i.e. raised walkway), that they could seek an area variance from
the ZBA. Fred gave an example of the Waldorf School who, years ago, wanted a viewing station in
the wetlands for the students to use. They applied for a permit from the DEC/State and the DEC/State
didn’t really care. So, it is really up to the Town to make sure the smaller wetlands are protected.
Susan Brock looked at the law and said the variances granted under the Stream Setback Law are area
variances. COC okay with this, leave the paragraph as is with no changes. This concluded discussion
of the slope and wetland comments needing clarification.
COC decided to go return to full list of Cornell comments before addressing Bruce and Doug Brittain’s
comments. The COC discussed many of the written comments at the September meeting, but there
was not a quorum of members.
Bill first read from the Draft Stream Setback Law, E-10, pg. 8, regarding requiring an applicant to
delineate and identify stream setback zones on all subdivision and site plan applications. The COC
then referred back to the written Cornell comments, paragraph (10) of the 9/9/09 revised version of the
Stream Setback Law, on page 5. Cornell stated that delineating setbacks on site plans/subdivision
drawings should not apply to projects involving only interior modifications or those projects located on
large parcel very far from streams where it will not impact the stream setback.
The Committee discussed setting up distance requirements such that if a development occurred “x”
number of feet from a stream, that the applicant would not need to delineate the stream setback on the
application. After a long discussion, the Committee agreed to require applicants to roughly calculate
where the setback zone is on their property for all applications (except subdivisions), and if the zone is
150ft or more from the development project limits, then the applicant will not be required to delineate
the stream setback. The COC also decided that applicants must always show the setback for
subdivisions. Staff will work on the specific wording for this for the next COC meeting.
The Committee discussed, at great length, the question of projects that only involved interior work,
which could include existing structures that may have renovations in the future. The Committee also
discussed what items should be shown on a building permit application for a project with only interior
work, and decided that even projects with only interior work should show stream setback information.
However, applicants in this case wouldn’t need to get a professional survey prepared; they could
instead provide more rudimentary drawings. The COC ultimately decided to not change the law to
accommodate interior renovations, but to change the wording in the repair and maintenance section of
the law to read “repair and maintenance of any lawful structure” as opposed to “existing on or before
the effective date of this law”. The COC agreed to the changes.
3
Regarding the road frontage question posed by Cornell (they basically want the zone to magically end
at the road if their parcel is split in two by a road). The Committee decided to keep the law as is – no
modification based on road frontage.
The COC then moved on to Paragraph F, page 6, General Comments: The COC addressed all of the
items on page 6 and made changes at the July 15, 2009 COC meeting.
Page 7, first two paragraphs were addressed, but under “Additional permitted uses that should be
included”:
- ‘Deconstruction or demolition of existing structures should be allowed’ comment was discussed. The
COC felt that the law should allow it. Discussion on demolition, having a permit, will need to meet
soil and water protection plan, allowable activity, having conditions, have a timeframe, dismantling,
restoring demo area, stream setback zone, protecting the riparian area and site plans. The COC
decided to change the wording here, from “deconstruction” to “removal, dismantling” and to eliminate
“existing,” so the sentence would read, “Removal, dismantling, or demolition of structures should be
allowed.” Add to permissible uses, COC okay with this.
- ‘Any operating & maintenance activities under the authorization or a permit from DEC or ACOE
should be allowed’. The group had a small discussion on this comment, but didn’t really know what
Cornell meant. Sue Ritter will ask Cornell what they meant and will report their answer back to the
COC.
- ‘Recreational activities such as boating, hiking, swimming and camping and associated existing
structures that might be used such as docks, moorings or trails that are in compliance with state and
federal permits’: The Committee had a long discussion on the wording of this part of the law,
especially in regards to recreational activities not listed and in the many meanings of the term
“camping” (RV’s, bonfires, tents, etc). The Committee also discussed residential activities, fishing,
community setup, recreational activities that involve motorize vehicles, state park regulations,
peaceable enjoyment, non-motorized activities. The COC decide to change the wording of this section
to read, “Non-motorized recreational activities such as boating, hiking, swimming, fishing and
associated existing structures”. COC okay with this.
- ‘Establishing scenic, historic, wildlife preserves’: COC chose not to adopt the language.
- ‘Erection and maintenance of temporary shelters and blinds used for education, recreation, fishing,
agriculture, hunting or trapping’: The discussion mainly covered structures like temporary shelters, tree
stands, blinds, lean-tos and using the structures for educational uses like observing ducks, etc. Many
of the other items listed were addressed either under recreation or educational uses. The COC was
leaning towards not adding this comment/suggestion to the law.
Susan Brock went back a bit to the decision to add “non-motorized” to the recreational activities
above, and wondered about non-motorize recreational activities like kids’ electric cars - the Town
doesn’t want to prohibit those. The Committee went into all sorts of discussion about this and Bill
noted that one option was to keep “non-motorized recreational activities” and just ignore the kids’
motorized vehicles, since we are going to ignore the kids’ camping because we’re not including
camping. COC agreed to sleep on this and try to come up with other language at the next meeting.
-‘Conducting educational and scientific research activities’: COC addressed this.
4
The COC left off on page 8 of the Cornell comments. Some comments on page 8 have already been
discussed, but the Committee will continue the discussion, hopefully wrap up Cornell’s comments and
then move on to the Brittain’s comments at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of possible amendments to Sign Law (Chapter 221 of Town Code):
Not on next COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business:
No other business was discussed.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The Committee will continue discussion of the Stream Setback Law, Cornell University comments and
the Brittain’s comments at the next COC meeting. The COC was asked to save materials and bring
them to the next COC meeting - which is November 18, 2009. The COC may have need to also
discuss the Conservation Zone and will not do Signs at all.
The Board adjourned the meeting at 9:30pm (Pat-motioned, Bill-seconded, all in favor).
Respectfully Submitted,
S. Polce, Administrative Staff