HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-11-18-09 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
November 18, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann, Eric
Levine.
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning;
Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Asst. Director of Planning; Sandy Polce,
Administrative Staff; Stephen Wagner; Bill Sonnenstuhl; Adrian Williams; Peter Stein, Town Board
Member.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
None addressed.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of October 21, 2009:
Minor change was made to the minutes that were unanimously approved as amended. Fred moved and
Pat seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes. Eva abstained,
not present at October meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Consideration of Possible Amendments to Conservation Zone
Requirements (Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270, Article V):
Bill reviewed the materials that were provided for discussion of the Conservation Zone amendments,
included were: Article V Conservation Zone, Section 270-5 Definitions, Section 270-217 Extraction or
deposit of fill and related products, November 13th email from Jon. Each document showed proposed
language changes. These documents were reviewed by the Planning Committee last week. The
Planning Committee made no substantial changes.
Jon referred to his email which provided a description of what happened at the Planning Committee
meeting and provided a background on the proposed language changes for the COC. In review, the
proposal for amending the Conservation Zone language came from the Conservation Board. Proposed
changes for the definitions section included definitions for biological corridors and wetlands; in the
Article V Conservation Zone the proposal for adding more specific language regarding tree clearing,
re-grading/moving of earth and clustering. The other is Section 270-217 regarding “extraction or
deposit of fill”, which didn’t address anything specifically in the Conservation Zon es. There may be
some issues with this in the Conservation Zones and this is why there should be some specific and
special requirements regarding earth movement.
Pat made the general comment that she thought all was fine, but disagreed with one thing, she thought
the definition the Planning Department did was actually better than some of the more general
recommendations from the Conservation Board.
Bill starting with definitions in Section 270-V:
- ‘Biological Corridor’, page 3 and then looking at Jon’s email point #3 regarding “aquatic habitats”.
Jon agrees with the Planning Committee suggestion adding a reference to aquatic habitats and keep it
on that basis, that would be one way of doing it.
2
Sue offered a modification similar to what was written: “An essentially undeveloped linear stretch of
land consisting (could leave either the wooded areas, brushland, open fields or go to) of natural
vegetation, which serves to facilitate (could leave unhindered or just take it out and say) wildlife
movement between habitat areas (could add: including aquatic habitat areas)”.
Eva thought it was a good idea to include aquatic habitat in the paragraph if you are going to reference
it in some other way; you are trying to create a wildlife corridor for aquatic animals and you have to
include those words in the definition of biological corridor. Most of the aquatic habitats that would
form biological corridors are the streams where we are already trying to put in protection along the
edges. Sue was actually thinking of pond habitats, for instance, where salamanders move between the
pond and forest habitat.
Kirk was concern about some of the adjectives being used that make it more restrictive for the boards
that need to use this definition. Example: using the word “linear” could create a situation with certain
areas and restriction. Sue stated that ecologists often refer to “linear” in the definition, but she thought
perhaps as a municipality we can have our own definition.
Jon added that at the Planning Committee it was discussed that part of the Comprehensive Plan update
process will involve more specific identification of biological corridors that are significant in the
Town; at some point we will have an inventory of them based on whatever criteria. Looking ahead in
the future, we will have more specific geographic areas shown on maps and revert to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Eva added, one could write in addition to linear or in place of linear, one could write ‘an essentially
connected undeveloped stretch of land’ and then ‘connecting to larger wooded areas’ because you need
to have both. Sue was fine with taking ‘linear’ out and include just ‘undeveloped stretch of land’.
Discussion went on regarding using the word connect, connection between habitat areas, stretch of
land and definition.
Bill asked Sue to read the definition again with ‘linear’ taken out: “An essentially undeveloped stretch
of land consisting of natural vegetation, which serves to facilitate wildlife movement between habitat
areas, which may include aquatic habitat areas”.
After a short discussion, the COC agreed to take out reference to ‘aquatic habitat areas’ since ‘habitat’
is broad enough to include aquatic and other types of habitat. Discussion went back to ‘natural
vegetation’ and should we use this, corridors, using ‘significant biological corridor’ or ‘connect
significant habitat’, wildlife, the Greenways booklet, plants, habitat area, oak trees, dispersion, using
‘substantially’ instead of ‘essentially’.
Final agreed upon definition went as follows: “A substantially undeveloped stretch of land consisting
of vegetation, which serves to facilitate wildlife movement between habitat areas. Such corridors may
cross more than one land parcel”. COC agreed to this.
- ‘Wetland’: Jon reviewed the definition of ‘Wetland’ which came from a combination of the Town’s
wetlands policy document and the Town’s environmental review law. Some discussion on this
followed. COC agreed to the definition as proposed with a couple of spelling/grammatical corrections.
- ‘Woodland or Wooded Area’: Bruce asked the question what is ‘well stocked’ and discussion
followed on man made, healthy trees, value, the law, unhealthy trees and the suggestion of taking out
the word ‘healthy’ from the definition. COC agreed to leave ‘healthy’ in the definition.
3
Next: Article V, Conservation Zones, starting with minor changes in Section 270-10, Purpose.
- Jon handed out copies of the revised purpose section provided at the recent Town Board meeting,
with changes highlighted in red. This handout had similar modifications but offered additional focus
on natural drainage features. The COC adopted the changes in this handout for Section 270-10,
Purpose as follows: In ‘A’ using ‘as amended from time to time’; ‘their importance for natural
drainage features’ and ‘or poorly drained’. In ‘B’ using ‘preserve natural stormwater retention and
water quality functions’. In ‘C’, no changes were made.
- 270-11, Permitted Principal Uses:
‘E’ – Forest Management: Jon mentioned this is the procedure that is currently in the Conservation
Zone; basically by right, you can do forest management as a permitted principal use but forest
management on one acre or larger has involved submission of a forest management plan to the
Planning Board. Susan said: forest management and forest resource uses doesn’t necessarily mean
cutting. If concerned about the cutting; suggestion was to delete ‘E’ and deal with the cutting in ‘H’.
Jon spoke of forest management or forest resources on not more than a half acre; you can still do that,
without getting into the threshold that are in ‘H’. The committee discussed cutting, harvesting of
timber, clear cutting on a half acre, and ‘H’ dealing with cutting. Jon suggested the wording
“harvesting, cutting of timber or other forest management practices” as a fix, logging requiring a
review as does harvesting, cutting of timber or whatever purpose, is forest management listed in any
other zone as a permitted use, other harvest uses, suggestion of taking out the restriction ‘not more than
½ acre of land’ and cutting trees to grow tree crops.
Susan’s suggestion for E: ‘Forest management and other forest resource uses, subject to the
requirements in Section 270-12 H’. COC agreed with using this definition.
- 270-12, Principal uses authorized by special permit only:
‘H’ – Harvesting and cutting of timber: Susan’s concern for ‘H’ is that it doesn’t mention need for a
special permit, says you need a forest management plan and it has to be consider the same as a site
plan, so do they need a special permit or a site plan?
Jon referred to 270-12, first paragraph under the heading, which states that the listed uses are subject to
special permit from the Planning Board. The requirement for a forest management plan should be
comparable to a site plan submission in terms of details about the project. Criteria for review includes
topography of the land, the stormwater features, all this for reviewing the first forest management plan.
Discussion regarding site plan, site plan approval and special permit approval, what the difference was
between the two. Jon clarified that it is essentially a site plan that includes a forest management plan.
Question brought up in the Planning Committee meeting regarding ‘No such clearing shall occur in or
within 100 feet of any wetland as defined in this Chapter’ on the size of the buffer. Jon said the
question was raised whether there may be cases depending on the character of the wetland, whether a
buffer larger than 100 feet may be desirable, suggestion that the Planning Board could have some
flexibility. Bill referred to the email Jon sent out, suggest language ‘or such larger area if determined
necessary by the Planning Board’. Jon mentioned there are three different places in the regulations if
we decided to go that route where that could apply, this is one of them; one reference in the Excavation
Section and a reference later in the Conservation Zone Article.
Fred asked if the Planning Committee indicated what conditions they thought result in more than 100
feet? Reply was ‘no’. Sue talked about a large bog that is important for wetlands, wildlife,
biologically are very important and might want a larger buffer around them. Fred went on to say he is
more concerned about the vehicles in the buffer zone occurring within the 100 feet, that the tractors,
4
trucks, or the trees fall in that 100 foot zone. Eva mentioned the South Hill Swamp is one that requires
special consideration and probably could qualify for a larger area than, a 100 feet.
Fred said the problem is asking the Planning Board to decide with very little information whether this
requires a 100 feet, 150 feet or 200 feet. What information do you need to help make that
determination, may need an expert to tell you and why the expert came to that conclusion. Jon said the
100 feet would be the minimum but could be discretions to make it more in certain situations.
Susan said there could be legal issues extending buffers beyond 100 feet; the Town, in Chapter 161 has
taken over DEC authority to regulate freshwater wetlands, which are defined as wetlands that are 12.4
acres or smaller as designated by DEC having unusual local importance. Under that regulatory scheme,
if a local government wants to increase the buffer area around a freshwater wetland, there is a process
the Town Board has to go through on a 30 days notice after a public hearing, etc. Not sure if the
Planning Board would have the ability to, through its special permits and site plan process decide for
those wetlands that are on the DEC map, smaller wetlands are not freshwater wetlands under Chapter
161, they are not covered. The Town does have ability to regulate them and could increase the buffer
however they want through this law. Susan went on to talk about several different sections of the law
and what we could do, its complicated and if we do it, it may not end up being effective for the bigger
wetlands.
Discussion went on to recommendation to Town Board, Planning Board acting on submission, Town
Board looking to extend buffer area, deciding separately on 100 foot buffer, what language to put in
‘H’, might not be able put language of greater than 100 foot buffer in ‘H’, thought could leave
language in, could decide separately to go through process if determined the need to by the Town
Board to go greater than 100 feet. Bill suggested leave at 100 feet as is in the draft and deal separately
going beyond 100 feet. More discussion followed on this.
Bill suggesting to leave ‘H’ as is and asked group if there was any other concerns or comments. Eva
asked if we have definitions on all the words, like forest management, logging, cutting, clearing,
harvesting which all appear in this paragraph. Bill asked if we do need definitions. Peter suggested
putting in ‘any cutting of timber’. COC agreed to leave ‘H’ as is.
‘I’ – COC agreed to changes in ‘I’ to read as: ‘Extraction, deposit, or moving of earth, fill and related
products consisting of more than 50 cubic yards of material on any parcel in any one year, as described
and regulated in Section 270-217 of this Chapter’.
- 270-13, Additional requirements for special permits:
‘E’: Jon referring to section 4 from his email regarding the plan that has to be submitted, has to show
how to preserve healthy mature trees and to identify ecologically valuable trees, native species to be
conserved throughout the cutting or clearing operation. This may be enough to address the issue of
size, may want to discuss a little bit further now or at some other point.
Discussion on preserving trees, cutting a healthy tree, money from cutting trees, leaving important seed
trees behind, forest management, healthy forest, discussion on wording, needing a variety of trees, and
what the goal is.
‘E’ to read as: ‘Any modification of wooded areas requiring a special permit under this Article shall
demonstrate a clear plan to preserve healthy, mature trees, to maintain a sustainable stand of woodland
and to identify ecologically valuable trees of native species to be conserved throughout the cutting or
clearing operation’. COC agreed to this.
5
- 270-20, Clustering:
Jon indicated that the proposed is to require the Planning Board to use clustering in a Conservation
Zone. After a long discussion on the wording “and shall” in the definition, deciding to leave it in or
take out the words and letting the Planning Board have the option. COC agreed to delete “and shall”
but take it to the Town Board for discussion and a decision on whether to add “and shall” and if so,
whether to also add “substantially” before “further”.
- 270-22, Additional requirements and restrictions:
E: The following apply to vegetation and landscaping:
(1) ‘Existing native vegetation shall be maintained to the extent practicable with conserved areas to
be clearly defined on proposed and approved site development plans, subdivision plats, and
forest management plans’. COC agreed with this.
(3) ‘Invasive plant species designated on the Tompkins County Invasive Plant List are not to be
planted, and if present on a site may be removed by the owner or authorized agent’. Sue to get
wording from the stream setback law (e.g.: “as updated from time-to–time”).
F: (5) ‘Proposed and approved site development plans shall clearly demonstrate how the developed
site will harmonize with its surroundings’. COC agreed to take this wording out.
K: COC okay with ‘K’, intent is clear, but to take out reference to ‘forest management plan’.
From Jon’s email:
1) Fences/walls:
‘J’ - Fences and walls: ‘In reviewing an application for a fence or wall, the Planning Board shall take
into consideration the possible impacts of such fence or wall on the movement of wildlife in any
biological corridor in proximity of the site in question’. Discussion: bad to have an 8’ deer fence
cutting a corridor right down the middle, bad for other wildlife for a fence not to let them go through,
stockade fence would impact some wildlife, the two ideas are contradictory to each other, suggestion
of any fence or wall in a Conservation Zone would require a special permit, natural areas, Sapsucker
Woods area being fenced in, other crops grown in Conservation Zone, and concern about Coy Glen
that is coming up. Pat asked if the idea is to get this resolved tonight and send it to the Town Board,
also saw other aspects of the law for improvement to bring up for Town Board. Bill asked how the
Committee wanted to proceed. Pat went on with discussion of adult day-care facility and adult facility,
2-family housing, accessory buildings; Bill mentioned that this would be for another discussion at a
later time. Jon said there is no deadline. COC agreed to address these additional issues at the
December meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of review and discussion of public comments regarding the
draft Stream Setback Law (Cornell University comments and Bruce and Doug Brittain’s
comments): Will be on December 16th COC agenda.
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 with Conservation Zone Requirements, including fences, and continue
discussion of the Stream Setback Law, Cornell University comments and the Brittain’s comments at
the next COC meeting which is December 16, 2009.
6
The Board adjourned the meeting at 9:35pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
S. Polce, Administrative Staff