HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-05-17-06CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
MAY 17, 2006
PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Cathy Valentino, Kirk Sigel, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Diane
Conneman.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney for the Town; Sue
Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning.
Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Kirk Sigel reported that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) had just reviewed a variance request for a
dock and boat lift, and the Zoning Code is not clear on whether boat lifts are subject to setback regulations
as docks are. Kirk added that boat lifts are structures that can affect navigation, but the zoning does not
specifically state that they are subject to the setback requirement from the side lot line projected out into the
lake. Kirk suggested that the Committee may want to look at this along with the review of the dock
regulations.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of April 19, 2006 Meeting:
Susan Brock pointed out several corrections that should be made in the draft meeting minutes, as follows:
on page 1, the sentence that reads “Susan indicated that she has no documentation that this cannot be done,
and we should leave that provision in the law unless she finds out otherwise” should be revised to say
“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”; on page 2 in reference to Section 173 -4, delete
“definition of” and replace with “reference to”; and on page 2 in reference to Section 173-4, delete the
words “keep the original” and replace with “use that”. Moved by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Diane
Conneman, the Minutes of the April 19, 2006 meeting were approved unanimously as corrected above.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Draft Amendments Regarding Solar Collectors
Jonathan indicated that Susan had drafted a proposed local law for solar collectors. Eva mentioned that she
did not see a provision in the draft for the removal of installations if no longer in use. Susan responded that
she had thought about this also, and that it would make sense to add a section addressing removal. The
Committee agreed. Susan asked whether the removal provision should apply only to ground -mounted
systems or to all systems. Fred indicated that the reason to require removal is to eliminate visual impact.
The Committee agreed that it should apply to all systems. Diane asked whether there is a way to identify a
“qualified solar installer”, such as certification. Herb wondered why such a provision is necessary since the
Town and Board of Fire Underwriters would have to inspect solar installations. Fred asked whether the
Town is qualified to inspect solar installations. Susan suggested that the Committee could ask Steve
Williams, Code Enforcement Officer to report on this, and that Steve was the one who suggested the
wording about qualified solar installer. Kirk indicated that a homeowner could install a solar collector, and
that home systems have low voltage. Herb added that NYSEG inspects connections to the electrical grid.
Kirk suggested deleting the reference to “electrical” equipment in the definition of “qualified solar
installer” because there may be other aspects of solar installations, and to delete the reference to “chemical”
in the definition of “solar storage battery”. The Committee agreed.
2
Eva wondered whether the law could require that installations be replaced with smaller installations as
technology advances. Other Committee members felt that the market will control replacement of outdated
equipment. Susan suggested that the law be kept as simple as possible at this initial point to get something
in place soon.
Kirk indicated that someone may have a large open yard, and might want to install large panels to produce
energy for use by others. Pat asked why the law would not allow larger installations for commercial or
mass energy production.
Susan reiterated that she will speak with Steve Williams about the need for having the provision regarding
“qualified solar installer”. Herb suggested that some of the local installers be contacted for input on the
draft law, particularly regarding the size limitations. Diane mentioned that Brent Katzman, a member of
the Conservation Board, has expertise in solar energy, and it would be appropriate to ask for his input as
well. Susan said that she would add the provision for removal, and asked the Committee if they want to
review the revised draft. Diane suggested that the revised draft be sent to people with expertise in the field
to get their opinions. Jonathan suggested sending it to Steve Nicholson as well. The Committee agreed.
Susan suggested sending it to some of the installers that recently appeared before the ZBA, such as
Renovus. The Committee agreed that if there are no negative comments on the revised draft from those
asked for input, then send it directly to the Town Board to have it referred to the Planning Board for a
recommendation, but that if issues are raised by the reviewers, then bring it back to the Committee for
further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 4 –Update Regarding Draft Stream Setback Law:
Sue Ritter distributed a revised map of streams that would be regulated in the draft law and explained that
some of the streams shown on the previous map were actually roadside ditches or stream segments in
developed areas. Sue asked for the Committee’s opinion on whether the stream map should be included as
part of the law or just referenced in the law as a resource available in Town Hall. Sue recommended that
having it available as a resource would allow more flexibility in the regulatory process, and that the map
could be revised more easily if a landowner demonstrates that a stream shown on the map is not a stream
under the law’s definition. Sue pointed to the suggested reference on page 4 of the draft law indicating that
streams covered under the law are shown on the map in Appendix A. Susan also suggested adding a
definition of the “Stream Setback Map”, and adding wording to both saying “as amended from time to
time”. The Committee liked this approach. Kirk suggested adding the map to the Town’s website.
Sue described the updated graphics that she had worked on, including Figures 1 -4. Sue focused on Figure
3 – Stream Setback Adjustment for 25% Slope or More, indicating that the width of the setback area is only
increased if the slope is within Zone 1, and that the width of Zone 2 always stays the same. The Committee
liked the modifications in the graphics.
Herb asked if these are the last pieces of the work on the stream setback law that need to be completed.
Sue said yes, and that she would like to bring the draft to the Town Board in July for a presentation and
discussion, and that she has a 20-minute video to show the Board that explains the rationale for and benefits
of stream setbacks. If the Town Board feels it is ready, the draft law could then be forwarded to the
Planning Board for input and provided to other organizations, such as the Water Resources Council, for
input. Fred suggested that after the video, explaining the need for stream setback provisions, it would be
helpful for staff to explain how the draft law is addressing the needs. Herb asked if the Conservation Board
is okay with the revised draft law. Diane responded that the Conservation Board has been involved in the
revisions, and supports the draft in its current form. Herb asked if the Committee is okay with the draft law
and ready to send it to the Town Board. The Committee agreed to move ahead with it as described above.
It was agreed that after discussing it with the Town Board, it would be sent to the Planning Board for
3
informational purposes, and also sent to the Water Resources Council for input. Sue suggested that a
public information meeting could be held in early Fall, followed by the usual referral to the Planning board
for a recommendation and public hearings.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business:
Cathy asked whether the Town had received a letter from the Water Resources Council (WRC) regarding
dock regulations. Cathy added that she is on the WRC committee that has been discussing dock regulations
on Cayuga Lake, and that the WRC is supportive of the Town of Ithaca’s dock regulations.
Herb asked about the status of the Outdoor Lighting Law. Jonathan responded that the public information
meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 25, 2006, and that after the meeting, staff plans to report back to
the Committee with comments received from the public.
Pat reported on her involvement with the City committee that is working on updating the Taxi Ordinance,
and that they are working on a common map of fare areas for the City and Town of Ithaca. Pat added that
the taxi companies have been cooperating with this effort, and she will keep the Committee informed of
progress on the update.
Agenda Item No. 6- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 21, 2006. Proposed agenda items include
an update on work done regarding the review of the dock regulations in the Zoning Code, report on the
public meeting regarding the Outdoor Lighting Law, and update on draft amendments regarding solar
panels, if needed.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning