Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-04-19-06CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES APRIL 19, 2006 PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Kirk Sigel, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Diane Conneman. OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of March 15, 2006 Meeting: The Minutes of the March 15, 2006 meeting were approved as submitted by consensus of the Committee. Agenda Item No. 3 – Report Regarding Proposed Amendments to Noise Law: Pat Leary reported that a draft amendment to the noise law was reviewed by the Town Board and was modeled after the City of Ithaca’s recently revised law. Pat explained that violations are based on “unreasonable” noise, normally pursued after someone files a complaint. The Sheriff’s Department will also be able to issue a ticket even without a complaint if they observe the noise. Eva Hoffmann asked what the Sheriff does now. Fred Wilcox indicated that there are not a lot of Sheriff’s deputies to be able to cover parties and gatherings where noise may be a problem. Herb referred to the highlighted draft that had been provided to the Committee. Pat said that the suggestions in Susan Brock’s email message appear to be fine. Pat noted one revision she would like to see added: in Section 184-8 (Construction and Other Machinery) – “During the nighttime hours as defined in Article I, Section 184-4, it shall be unlawful for any person within a Residential Zone, or within 500 feet of a Residential Zone, to operate or cause to be operated any pile driver, steam shovel, …” (editor’s note: boldface and underlined wording added). This would cover a situation where the owner of a commercial industrial vehicle causing unreasonable noise could be held responsible for the noise, not just the driver. Susan asked whether the law should include Neighborhood and Community Commercial Zones in addition to Residential Zones. The Committee agreed that both of those zones should be applicable for the noise violations as well. Pat indicated that she is hoping that the Town Board will adopt the amendments at the May Board meeting. Susan mentioned that the final draft of the local law would need to be filed in the Clerk’s office at least ten days before the public hearing. Susan asked who would enforce the amended law. Jonathan indicated that it has always been the responsibility of the Code Enforcement Officer. Herb asked to whom should final comments or suggestions be sent. Pat asked that they be sent to her. Susan mentioned that correspondence was received from the head of the Landlords Association saying that landlords cannot be held responsible for unreasonable noise created by tenants. Susan indicated that the case law the Association referred to does not state this, and we should leave that provision in the law unless she finds out otherwise. Pat described a complaint that had been sent in by a resident regarding trash pick -up by Superior Disposal during early morning hours, and that the amendments to the noise law would cover this situation and would 2 make the owner of the truck responsible if there is a violation. Susan wondered if a car with a faulty muffler would be covered under the law and added that it might be covered under motor vehicle law. Fred suggested that a trash disposal company could apply for a permit to operate its trucks during the evening hours as defined in the law. Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion Regarding Revisions to Outdoor Lighting Law: Mike described the further revisions suggested in the draft outdoor lighting law, based on his discussions with Susan Harder from East Hampton, New York, as follows: Page 1, Sec. 173-2.C: Add reference to “sky glow. Also add definition of “sky glow” on page 3. Susan suggested adding a reference to sky glow in the Purpose (Section 173-3) as well. Susan asked whether it is a legitimate purpose of the law to reduce the energy and financial costs of outdoor lighting. Mike indicated that mercury vapor lights are prohibited because they are the least efficient, but could not say whether it is the Town’s function to tell people what type of lighting they should use because of cost. Eva and Kirk both thought that reducing energy and cost is a proper purpose of the law. Herb wondered whether other municipalities include cost as a purpose of regulating outdoor lighting. Mike responded that most of the laws that he has seen do, and most also prohibit mercury vapor lights. Mike added that Susan Harder had recommended prohibiting metal halide lights, but our law allows them. Pat suggested modifying the purpose statement to say “reduce the energy costs” of outdoor lighting. Kirk added that the purpose would include reducing the demand on the energy grid. Diane agreed that reducing energy costs benefits everyone and is a public purpose. Susan suggested leaving it in for now, but that it seems to be a stretch. Eva asked what is the difference between safety and security in Section 173 -2.A. Mike responded that safety relates to avoiding physical injury, while security relates to reducing crime. Page 2, Sec. 173-4: Mike indicated that the definition of “fixture: now includes a reference to “luminaire”. Susan suggested eliminating the reference to “luminaire” for consistency. Page 2, Sec. 173-4: Under the definition of “flood or spotlight, it was suggested that the strike -out wording (“to concentrate the light output into a directed beam in a particular direction”) should be left in because it helps to illustrate what a spotlight is. The Committee agreed. Page 2, Sec. 173-4: Under the definition of “fully-shielded”, Mike referred to the alternate wording taken from a proposed State law. The Committee decided to use that wording from the Town draft law. Page 4, Sec. 173-6: All non-exempt outdoor lighting fixtures would be required to be fully shielded. This eliminates former Table 1. Mike indicated that even low pressure sodium lights can have glare. Herb asked if all types of lights have to be fully shielded, will people get enough light for what they need. Mike responded that shields will focus light down to the needed area and prevent spillage onto unnecessary areas. Susan asked whether our street lights comply with the shielding requirements. Mike said probably not. Mike added that certain types of lights, including canopies and signs, would need to comply with the law within one year. All new lights, except those that are exempt, would have to comply when installed. The Committee agreed with the full shielding requirement. Page 5, illustration in Sec. 173-8: Eva asked whether a note could be added saying that lights on outdoor signs should be centered on the sign. Mike advised against that, indicating that there are situations because of the angle of the lights where glare could be worse if centered on the sign. Fred mentioned a lighted sign along Route 81 near the Nedrow exit which causes glare that is very distracting. The Committee agreed to leave as is in the draft. 3 Page 10, Sec. 173-18: Susan suggested that the reference to Town Building Inspector or Zoning Officer be changed to just “Town”. Herb asked if the next step is to set a public hearing for consideration of the law. Mike indicated that the Committee had first wanted to hold a public information meeting. Mike added that he already sent the draft law to Cornell and Ithaca College, and that he would like to set up an open house for people to find out what the proposed law involves and get some early feedback on the law. Herb suggested sending a notice to the Chamber of Commerce and businesses that could be affected by the law. Mike agreed, and indicated that some businesses like gas stations should especially be notified. Fred asked whether Big Al’s is still operating outside of the permitted hours. Mike said that he thinks they are. Jonathan suggested that Fred contact Kristie Rice to follow up on the enforcement of the hours of operation conditions from the Zoning Board of Appeals approval. The Committee agreed on a date for the public information meeting – Thursday, May 25, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Pat asked whether the intent is to eliminate all light trespass. Mike responded that we cannot get rid of all, but the new law would eliminate most. Pat indicated that some spillage is good because it can provide security lighting to areas that do not have lights. Pat asked if the reference to “energy and financial cost” was deleted. Susan said it was left in. Pat suggested taking it out. Agenda Item No. 5 – Update on Work Done Regarding the Review of Dock Regulations in the Zoning Code: Jonathan indicated that Chris Balestra and Nicole Tedesco have continued to collect information and conduct an inventory of existing docks and lakeshore conditions on Cayuga Lake, and that Chris had prepared a summary table for docks on the east and west shores of Cayuga Lake. Jonathan continued with a brief description of the information in the tables. Fred asked if it would be possible to give a short presentation on this work to the Planning Board. Jonathan said that would be fine. Susan suggested preparing a bar graph showing the range of dock sizes after the research is completed. Fred offered to help with graphics. Herb mentioned that he heard from a canoe enthusiast that maneuvering around irregular shaped and length docks can be difficult, and that lights at the end of docks would not be desirable. The Committee agreed that the tables look good and that staff should proceed with completing the information in the categories shown on the tables. Agenda Item No. 6 – Discussion Regarding Possible Zoning Code Amendment to Permit Solar Arrays as Freestanding Structures: Kirk mentioned that all four solar panel applications that just went to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) were approved. Herb asked whether the ZBA had any suggestions for the proposed amendment. Susan said that the ZBA suggested that solar panels not be located in front yards, and probably should be located in rear yards, and thought that panels should be removed when no longer in use. Susan added that it would be difficult to know when panels are not in use. Herb indicated that one of the panels approved by the ZBA on Trumansburg Road appears to be very large and wondered why it is not located closer to the house. Kirk responded that it was probably located to take advantage of the solar orientation of the site, it has underground conduit, and is an open area of the site. Kirk added that this installation seems to be generating more energy than can be used by the house. Jonathan referred to the summary chart prepared by staff, and indicated that the large ground-mounted panel on Trumansburg Road is the largest of the four that went to the ZBA and is about 600 square feet. Fred said that he noticed that panel from Trumansburg Road. Susan asked whether it is visually unpleasing. Eva mentioned that screening could help to reduce such visual impacts. Susan referred to the panels proposed on Seven Mile Drive, and indicated that the uphill neighbor wants the panel to be screened, but that adding trees tall enough to screen it would also block the neighbor’s view across the property. Jonathan added that screening is not a recommended 4 requirement in a law, unless it would have to go to a review board. Screening is not something that we could ask the Code Enforcement Office to require – it involves some discretion. The Committee agreed that solar panels should be allowed by right, and should not have to go to a review board. Eva expressed concern that making installation of solar panels too easy might result in some negative impacts. Jonathan suggested relying on standard requirements, including maximum size, location and height. Herb indicated concern that prohibiting panels in front yards might restrict the best location for solar access, and asked whether it might be possible to allow them in front yards with some screening. Susan responded that an applicant could apply for a variance to locate a panel in the front yard, and screening could then be a requirement of the ZBA in granting the variance. Susan asked the Committee about maximum height and indicated that the tallest structure that went to the ZBA was 20 feet, one was 12 feet, one was 14 feet, and one was 13 feet. Kirk referred to the Planning Department’s summary memo, which suggested using a maximum height of 15 feet to parallel the maximum height permitted for accessory buildings. Kirk agreed with this suggestion. The Committee concurred. Susan asked the Committee about maximum area of panels, and referred to the summary chart for the examples that went to the ZBA. The Committee felt that the suggestion in the memo of allowing each panel to be up to 600 square feet was too big. The Committee agreed to allow a maximum of 500 square feet total on a lot. Eva added that technology may result in smaller panels some day. There was some discussion regarding how many panel structures should be allowed on a property. Susan indicated that there could be a maximum number of panels permitted on a property. Eva thought that there could be situations where more separate, smaller structures might result in less visual impact. Herb asked whether panels are adjustable. Kirk said that pole -mounted panels are adjustable. Kirk said that there is usually a 7-8 year payback period for installing solar panels, and that their life expectancy is 50 years – some have a warranty for 25 years. Fred proposed having a maximum total size of 500 square feet for pole-mounted and ground-mounted panels. The Committee agreed. Susan asked whether glare reflecting off of panels is an issue that should be addressed. Herb said that he does not think glare is an issue. The Committee asked Susan to draft a local law providing amendments to allow solar panels as discussed by the Committee to review at the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 7 - Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 8- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 17, 2006. Proposed agenda items include report on draft amendments regarding solar panels, an update on work done regarding the review of the dock regulations in the Zoning Code, and update and revisions regarding stream setback law. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning