HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-12-16-09 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
December 16, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann, Eric Levine.
ABSENT: Fred Wilcox.
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; Doug Brittain.
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 November 18, 2009:
Minor change was made to the minutes that were unanimously approved as amended. Bill moved and
Eric seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Approval of the 2010 meeting schedule:
COC agreed to the 2010 meeting schedule with two changes. Meeting will start at 7:00pm and the
February date was changed to February 24, 2010.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Consideration of Possible Amendments to Conservation
Zone Requirements (Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 - Article V, Sections 270-5 and 270-217).
Discussion will continue with fences/walls, extraction or deposit of fill, and other issues :
The COC continued discussion of the proposed Conservation Zone amendments. Materials previously
provided for discussion included: Article V Conservation Zone, Section 270-5 Definitions, Section
270-217 Extraction or deposit of fill and related products, and the November 13th email from Jon.
The committee started with consideration of proposed addition “J. Fences and walls” to Article V,
Section 270-12, as described in Jon’s email dated November 13th. Kirk expressed concern with the
Planning Board having the responsibility for determining the possible impacts of fences on the
movement of wildlife. Kirk questioned the Planning Board’s ability to make such a decision- wouldn’t
they need an expert opinion? Pat thought the language was okay and that the language just required
the Planning Board to consider whatever impact a fence or wall might have on the movement of
wildlife, and that it didn’t suggest that if it interferes with the movement of wildlife you can’t have a
fence or wall. Some places you want to have a fence or wall, such as a deer fence in a conservation
zone. Eva thought the language was too contradictory and would likely put the Planning Board in a
very difficult position. She provided a hypothetical example in which two neighboring property owners
want two different types of fences, one a deer fence and the other to protect the movement of wildlife.
There can be other situations, but she felt this would be a difficult situation and one that the Planning
Board would want more guidance on.
Bill questioned whether restricting fences and walls in a Conservation Zone would accomplish what
we want. Next to the Conservation Zone you have other types of Zones; in a Residential Zone next to
a Conservation Zone you could still put up a fence in your back yard and it would accomplish the same
2
effect as if you had the fence in a Conservation Zone. If we really wanted to do something about
biological corridors we would have to do more to protect it from people in residential zones too. Bill
recommended not doing anything right now. Eric’s concern was that a vindictive property owner
could put up a fence to ruin the intent of the Conservation Zone; do we have the ability to prevent that
from happening as written? Bill thought not, but Susan added; the very last criteria under special
permit says, ‘to the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the reviewing board the proposed structure
has to comply with all the criteria applicable to site plan review’. There is also, “looking at the effect
of the proposed development on environmentally sensitive areas.” So, there may be that ability, and
while other criteria under special permits do not seem to apply, the last criteria says that ‘if the
Planning Board deems it relevant they can go look at all the site plan review criteria as well’.
More discussion on the issue continued including: special permit definition/requirement, SEQR
requirements, impact of fences in biological corridors through its existing criteria in the code, what
kind of animals could be blocked by fences, animals that can go around fences, those that could dig
under a fence, interest in not blocking the entire width of the corridor, and cost of fences.
Sue brought up the proposed Conservation Zone in the Coy Glen area which is more densely
residential than other recently enacted Conservation Zones in the Town. How would this affect them
in terms of putting a fence around their gardens, would this require them to get approval from the
Planning Board? Kirk thought we discussed at the last meeting having a threshold, as to how much
area you are fencing in; allowing garden fencing to be exempt. Bill said we could exempt fences under
4 feet and any deer fences and closing an area less than ½ acre. Eric said that could block a portion of
a corridor. Bill would like to make it easier on residents so they wouldn’t have to come to Town Hall
every time. Eric mentioned; what if it extends more than 50% of the width of the biological corridor;
they need to come in for a special permit?
Bill said we don’t have any defined biological corridor and spoke of the Northeast area. Discussion
then focused on the Comprehensive Plan process. Sue stated that through the Comp Plan process we
will likely be identifying where there are large swaths of wooded undeveloped areas that might be
considered corridors and we will be thinking about what we can do to protect these areas. This would
include areas in other zones besides Conservation Zones, such as Ag Zone and Low Density
Residential Zones. Jon agreed and stated ‘why are we talking about just Conservation Zone because
biological corridors actually may affect other zones’. ‘Maybe we need to forget about this provision
that applies to Conservation Zones and look at biological corridors in the Comprehensive Plan process.
When we figure out where they are and what their functions are; then consider some overall
amendment to the fence and wall provision that we came up with that talks more specifically about
affecting biological corridors; as opposed to one situation in one possible conservation zone which
may or may not even become a conservation zone’. Eva agreed it should apply to other areas.
Bill liked the idea of figuring out the biological corridors first, then figure out what we need to do to
protect them, rather than trying to come up with a band aid approach. COC agreed to leave that out for
now.
The committee then moved on to Section 270-217 of the Zoning, “Extraction or deposit of fill and
related products”
For Section A: Susan suggested modifying the language to state ‘approval and issuance of a Special
Permit by the Planning Board”.
For Section C: Bruce expressed concern with trying to figure out a way to catch some of these that are
continuing to add or move fill up to their maximum every year, maybe change that to “in any one year”
3
to “within any 3 years”. Example that Bruce gave was a situation in which a person would do up to the
maximum every year, because they know they can move up to 50 cubic yards. If they do it every 3
years, that slows them down, something more that you can catch, that’s something from the
enforcement would help us, but again, if that’s the way you want to keep it, that’s fine.
Jon was looking at adjusting the threshold for the Conservation Zone, without changing the whole fill
permit system. Jon went on to say the main thing this was supposed to do was to make it so that the
first threshold of the fill permit system that allows someone to move up to 50 cubic yards in any one
year without any approvals would be adjusted so that in a Conservation Zone it would begin the
threshold for the special permit system.
Susan suggested changing ‘property’ to either ‘parcel’ or ‘lot’, depending on how the term is used in
other parts of the Zoning Chapter. Eva thought the suggestion of it saying 3 years instead of 1 year
might be a useful one to stop people who are trying little by little to do things without getting a review.
Bill asked Eva if she is suggesting changing it just in the Conservation Zone. Jon suggested that we
could modify it first in Section “A”. Bruce reiterated that it would be helpful to modify it, but if you
don’t want to change it to every 3 years, just reduce the yardage. Bruce also went on to say that it
would give them something to get on the property to see or ask ‘what is going on’ and then can get
engineering involved at that point. Discussion then turned to the Berggren property and the fill
problem there. Bill suggested leaving it as is for now until we can learn more about the implications.
Jon agreed that it’s easy to make more changes as you start looking at a section, but the real intent was
to try to make this applicable to the Conservation Zone. We can always change it later if additional
problems come up.
Sue asked if we can go back to Section ‘A’: ‘In any zone, no such disturbance shall occur in or within
100 feet of any wetland’. In the case of the Lucente property, the wetland delineation abuts many
existing properties, and Sue questioned how this would impact gardening activities and what the word
“disturbance” means. There are people who would be apt to “disturb” their yards with gardens or
landscaping that are within 100 feet of the wetland. Jon stated that the language is supposed to say ‘no
such disturbance’ relating to the above. Susan thought we should add ‘no such extraction or deposit’.
Discussion on fill continued regarding distance, cubic yards, and disturbance of 50 yards. Susan raised
the issue that ‘A’ is meant for ‘any’ zone. Within 100 feet of a wetland you can’t do any deposit or
removal of fill.
Doug Brittain suggested at the end of ‘A’, the last sentence, get rid of ‘such’ and say ‘in any zone with
deposition or removal shall not occur within 100 feet’. Eric asked if it was referring to 50 cubic yards
or less. Bill asked what the committee members would want to say. Kirk said 50 might be a lot, but
we might want to allow ‘some’, small gardening activities. Bill suggested allowing a ‘5 cubic yard
threshold within 100 feet of the wetland’. Kirk then said this should be a different letter, an additional
section, and state ‘in any zone no more than 5 cubic yards…. if within 100 feet of any wetland’. Eric
added ‘within a year’. Pat reiterated the committees proposed change:, ‘In any zone, no disturbance of
more than 5 cubic yards shall occur, in or within 100 feet of any wetland in any one year without
obtaining special permit from the Planning Board.’ Repeat the language from above. Bill decided to
let Jon and Susan work out the exact wording in “A”.
Bill going back to “C”: the issue of timeframe; Eva and Bruce had suggested 3 years. Discussion on
the timeframe, keeping track of the long time periods may be difficult for staff. It may make sense to
lower the threshold for the Conservation Zone, if 50/year is too much. Suggestions were given for
lowering the threshold to 3 dump trucks, 30 cubic yards, or possibly 20 cubic yards. Bruce stated that
his Department keeps track of complaints by property. Would it be easier to keep track of the amount
4
of fill that was moved in or out or how often it was done? How often it was done was suggested by
Bruce. Kirk suggested that beyond a year is too much. After additional discussion Bill and committee
agreed to leave as is for now.
Changes in Section “E” regarding special permit: COC agreed. Other minor proposed changes to “G”,
“H” and “I” are okay.
Other changes the committee members would like to make at this time? Pat stated from the last COC
meeting that our second dwelling unit regulations apply everywhere in every zone, so changing it in
the Conservation Zone is probably not necessary. ‘I’m happy with the way it is’. Bill said that would
be a bigger issue after the Comp Plan, when making changes to the Zoning after the Comp Plan is
done.
Bill asked that a draft be prepared with the changes, based upon the committee’s discussions, and then
send it out for comments to Cornell and back to the Conservation Board.
Bill said that we would tell the Town Board that we are going to wait for comments on this second
draft before referring it to the Town Board for consideration. COC agreed with this.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continuation of review and discussion of public comments regarding the
draft Stream Setback Law (Cornell University comments and Bruce and Doug Brittain’s
comments): Sue referred back to the October 21, 2009 COC meeting minutes that referred to a couple
of to-do items that still needs to be completed. Getting back to the 9/9/09 version of the Cornell
comments review document, Sue reminded the committee that text shown in black are comments
provided by Cornell and in blue is the COC review status for the comment. Page 8 is where the
committee left off, this page refers to permissible activities in the Stream Setback Zone, in Zone 1.
- “Gathering fuel wood, with the exception of clear-cutting trees and vegetation unless the trees are
part of an agricultural activity”. Discussion of what gathering meant and how that differed from
clear-cutting or pruning of trees. Selection tree cutting within the stream setback zone is allowed as
long as the protected functions of the setback area are not compromised. Sue suggested not adding this
as it is already allowed with the selection cutting provision. COC agreed with this.
- “Maintenance and repairs of existing functional structures, bridges, roads, culverts, bulkheads, piers,
pilings, docks, utility right of ways, lawns, landscaped or paved areas water intake and outfall
structures”. This was previously considered and language modified from the July 15, 2009 COC
meeting.
- “Restoration or renovation of existing functional structures o r facilities which involve the disturbance
of less than 540 square feet”. COC chose not to adopt this language at the July 15, 2009 COC
meeting.
- “Dredging to maintain present navigation channels”. COC considered and modified the language at
the July 15, 2009 COC meeting.
- “Installation of electric, telephone or other utilities from an existing distribution facility to an existing
non-residential structure”. COC considered and modified the language at the July 15, 2009 COC
meeting.
5
- “An extensive list of uses is available through the NYSDEC Part 665”: Sue mentioned this got into
what is allowed in wetland areas and referred this website: http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4611.html for
anyone interested in the list. Sue to check on the specifics in the list to see if any would apply.
Zone 2:
1(b) (2) – “Suggest rewording so that the same limited tilling for landscaping purposes as is permitted
around a home is also permitted around a non-residential structure”. This item still needed to be
considered by the COC. The committee discussed residential use, commercial use, not agricultural,
flowers around classrooms, applicability to Plantations; what would be the positive or negative aspects
of allowing this? Gardening around classroom buildings was fine with Bill. Fall Creek and Cascadilla
run through Cornell campus. Susan said they were commenting on the permissive use in Zone 2,
which states: “landscaping and gardening to include decorative plantings and tilling for home
gardening, provided that invasive species are not used and that activities in this zone do not harm the
riparian area”. Susan went on to say we are allowing all landscaping and gardening, not just
residential, but then our example is limited to home “to include decorative plantings and tilling for
home gardening”. That’s actually confusing when you read it; we should get rid of that illustration and
just say ‘landscaping and gardening’, provided that …..” Bill asked if we needed to specifically saying
tilling for some reason. Bill looking at a prior draft saying, “landscaping to include mowing and
decorative plantings” and the question was, “do we allow or prohibit tilling”; we wanted to make sure
that tilling was allowed. More discussion on tilling for gardening, one could include wording ‘limited
tilling’ to make it clearer, Bill suggested to take out ‘home’, Sue replied can it say, “landscaping and
gardening provided that exotic invasive species are not used and that activities in this zone do not harm
the riparian area’. Sue then said, ‘mowing and maintenance of lawns, landscaping and gardening
provided that exotic non-native invasive’; and does that sound okay with group. COC agreed.
Next comments: 1(b) (7) and 1 (b) (8), both comments considered and language modified at the July
15, 2009 COC meeting.
G: Prohibited activities:
(1) (c) – Should specify “outdoor” storage.
This was not considered for section (1) (c) of the prohibited uses section, it was only considered and
added in (1)(f). The COC discussed and agreed to add it to (1)(c).
(1) (e) – Storage and disposal of manure in compliance with an approved CNMP or AEM Plan under
NYS SPDES CAFO program/regulations. Discussion included the definition of CAFO, different
categories of CAFO, issue along the creek between Ellis Hollow Road and Route 366, management
plan from the State DEC, mention of Genex. It was suggested that the committee not put it in the law.
Cornell argues that the state statutory buildings at Cornell are exempt from zoning requirements, and
some of these projects are not going through Planning Board review or getting building permits. It was
suggested that there be a higher level of discussion with Cornell about this. Bruce mentioned meeting
with Cornell regarding their upcoming plans for a new barn off Route 366. Other examples included
the modifications to the Dairy Bar building and the trailer on Bluegrass Lane, both of which did not go
before the Planning Board. Changes in CU personnel may be a factor.
There was discussion regarding storage of manure, and Sue looked back at the law and it stated that we
prohibit in both zones the storage and disposal of manure. CU is saying that if DEC says it’s okay,
then can’t we (Cornell) do it. Sue’s suggestion was ‘no’. DEC is a minimum standard. Bill and COC
were fine with not allowing it in Zone 2.
6
Next section H. led to discussion on variances. Susan stated that the COC had already addressed this
and it was determined that variances for setback activities would be area variances. This will be
written into the law.
COC completed the Cornell comments and started reviewing comments submitted by Bruce and Doug
Brittain’s.
Sue suggested starting with the list of comments they had submitted rather than the redlined version of
the law that they had also provided. First comment regarding the law as it is currently written; did not
allow the storage of hazardous or noxious materials within the house. We have addressed that by
including ‘Outdoor’ to the ‘storage or disposal of hazardous or noxious materials’. Doug Brittain
brought up the question of keeping a garbage can outside with the material in it. Discussion followed
regarding if it is a temporary garbage can, cover on the trash can, storage cans, not storage if throwing
it away. The COC agreed to the following wording for paragraph G (1) C regarding prohibited
outdoor waste storage: “except ordinary household trash stored in a covered garbage can.”
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 with discussion of the Stream Setback Law - Cornell University
comments and the Brittain’s comments at the next COC meeting which is January 20, 2010 starting at
7:00pm.
Motion to adjourned meeting. Eric moved, Pat seconded the motion; all in favor. Meeting adjourned
at 9:30pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
S. Polce, Administrative Staff