Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-06-21-06CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 21, 2006 PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, 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: Herb reported that he had received a letter from the Ithaca Landlords Association saying that they think that the new Noise Law is illegal because landlords cannot be held responsible for violations of their tenants. Susan Brock suggested discussing this in Executive session at the next Town Board meeting. Pat indicated that this provision is not new and has been on the books since the original noise law was adopted. Pat added that she would like a response sent to the Landlords Association as soon as possible. Susan said that she could draft a letter and email it around to Board members for comment, but that she will not be at the July 24th Town Board meeting. Pat reiterated that we should respond quickly. Herb suggested that this is a policy issue, and the full Board should have the opportunity to discuss it. Susan reminded the Committee that the Landlords Association had commented on this element of the proposed law at an earlier stage. Herb said that this is not an issue for the Committee to decide, and closed the discussion asking Susan to draft a letter and circulate it to Board members for review and comment. Diane mentioned that the Conservation Board has discussed the stream setback law further and has suggested some wording revisions in regard to the Zone 1 setback, and that Sue Ritter has the revised wording. Pat indicated that she would like the Town Board to consider having a second meeting each month to discuss agendas for upcoming meetings, referring to the earlier discussion about the Landlords Association letter as a good reason. This would also allow regular business items to be spread out over two meetings. Herb indicated that this was not a subject for this Committee to discuss. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of May 17, 2006 Meeting: The Minutes of the May 17, 2006 meeting were approved as submitted by consensus of the Committee. Agenda Item No. 3 – Report on Outdoor Lighting Law: Mike Smith reported on the public information meeting regarding the draft Outdoor Lighting Law that was held on May 25, 2006. Mike referred to the email message received from Bob Rowe regarding the possible impacts of the lighting law on businesses such as his Burger King restaurant, and that we had also received comments from Cornell University. Susan asked if we had responded to Bob Rowe’s message. Jonathan indicated that the Planning staff had called Mr. Rowe to discuss how his wall pack lighting mig ht be affected by the law, which was his main concern. In reference to Mr. Rowe’s comment regarding measuring the impact of lighting with a measure such as foot -candles, Mike mentioned that the law includes lumens as a measure of the output of the light source, which is not meant to measure the impact of the light at any particular distance from the source. Eva added that the Burger King lights are not obtrusive. Mike indicated that they would likely be grandfathered in if the new law is adopted. Pat as ked 2 whether new lights at an establishment like Burger King would have to be shielded. Mike responded yes. Pat asked whether new shielded lights would allow for adequate security for a business. Mike said yes, if the business selects the proper fixture and positions it properly. Eva suggested that one can get adequate coverage by placing the appropriate number of lights. Pat asked whether there would be a need to light lawn areas for security purposes so that shadows would not be a problem. Herb mentioned the slides shown by Mike at the public information meeting, which showed that properly positioned and shielded lights actually provide better lighting by minimizing the glare and shadows. Herb asked the Committee what the next step should be for the draft law. Mike suggested that the Committee could now forward the law on to the Town Board, and ask the Board to refer the law to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Susan added that she would like to look one last time at the wording regarding enforcement, and that she would send Committee members any revised wording she might suggest. The Committee agreed that the draft law is ready to send to the Town Board to consider referral to the Planning Board. Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Proposed Local Law Regarding Solar Collectors: Jonathan distributed several emails with additional comments from installers (Rob Garrity and Art Weaver) on the Solar Collector Law. The Committee took a moment to read through them. Herb suggested that the Committee go through each section of the draft law. Diane asked whether the Committee has discussed the overall purpose of the law – is the purpose to encourage solar installations or to restrict them? Diane felt that it might be appropriate to be more permissive. Herb agreed that with the additional technical information obtained from those commenting on the law, that the original draft appears to be too restrictive, and that the Town should be encouraging solar installations as an alternative energy option. Diane added that aesthetics of the installations are an issue, but that aesthetics are less important than encouraging the use of solar energy. Herb suggested eliminating the restriction on placing solar collectors in the front yard. Eva suggested that the look of the front of a house can be an important element of community character, and that the Town has taken this approach with other facilities in the Zoning Code. Herb suggested that the law should be more flexible in the maximum size of installations. Diane indicated that she initially felt that limiting the energy production to just the owner’s use was appropriate, but that she now believes that it would be better to encourage the general use of solar energy. Eva reiterated that she is worried about impacting the character of the community. Jonathan indicated that based on the comments by experts and installers, the Committee now has better information regarding the required size, height and other technical aspects of solar collectors. Herb suggested that the Committee consider modifying the size limits in the law, and asked the Committee to go through the sections of the law to see where modifications would be appropriate. The Committee agreed. Susan added that she has reviewed several laws from other communities, and that the Committee should focus on what would be reasonable aspects of installations to allow by right. Susan mentioned that the 500 square foot size limit was supposed to apply only to ground-mounted and freestanding installations, but that the wording did not clearly state that intent – that could be clarified. Susan also suggested that there could be one size limit allowed by right with just a building permit, above which applications could be regulated under a special permit process. The Committee then reviewed the draft law by section. Section 1: Herb indicated that several comments questioned the reason for limiting “qualified solar installers” to those on the NYSERDA list. Susan agreed that this could be broadened, and that she would check further into this. 3 Section 2: The Committee discussed the issue regarding whether the energy produced by an installation should be primarily to serve the property on which it is located. Eva felt that the limitation is important. Herb pointed out that several of the experts who commented on the draft law indicated that such a restriction would tend to discourage some people from installing solar collectors. Diane added that the size of the installation will be limited by the cost -effectiveness of installing the unit for each homeowner. Susan mentioned that the intent of this provision was to limit public utility uses in residential areas, but that most of the residential zones allow public utility uses by right, so that the proposed provision in the draft law would be in conflict with the current Code. The Committee agreed to eliminate this restriction (in Sections 2.A.1 and 2.B.1). Herb asked about the prohibition on placing installations in the front yard. Eva suggested that there may be situations where the front yard would be the best location for a solar collector. Jonathan added that most people will probably prefer to locate the collectors in the side or rear yard because they tend to be less obtrusive, but that perhaps the law should not require those locations. Herb wondered if placing them in the front yard might make them more susceptible to vandalism. There was further discussion regarding the balancing of the need to promote solar energy vs. the preservation of community character and aesthetics. The Committee ultimately agreed to eliminate the restriction on the placement of solar collectors in the front yard by deleting Section 2.B.2. Herb asked about the height limit of 15 feet, indicating that one of the installers suggested increasing the allowable height to 20 feet. Jonathan indicated that the permitted height in residential zones for structures other than buildings is 30 feet. Eva objected to allowing solar collectors to be 30 feet by right. Diane added that wind could be a problem for installations that are 30 feet high. The Committee agreed to change the height restriction in Section 2.B.4 from 15 to 20 feet. Herb asked about the size limit of 500 square feet, and suggested that the Committee consider increasing that to 1,000 square feet, as recommended by Rob Garrity. Susan reiterated that the intent was not to include roof installations in this size restriction, so that should be clarified. The Committee agreed to change the size limit in Section 2.B.5 to 1,000 square feet, and that Susan would add some wording to clarify that this limit applies to ground-mounted and freestanding installations. Herb mentioned that there were comments questioning the need for requiring “well -ventilated” batteries because new battery technology does not require ventilation. Susan suggested that the wording could be modified to require that batteries be placed in a secure container or enclosure, as suggested by the installers. The Committee agreed. Susan mentioned that one comment questioned the limitation regarding inspection by the NY Board of Fire Underwriters. Jonathan indicated that this language was suggested by Steve Williams, Code Enforcement Officer, and that we could check back with him to see if this requirement can be modified. Jonathan indicated that commercial, industrial and multiple -residence zones currently require site plan approval for certain initial development or modifications, and that it would appear to be appropriate to clarify that the new law regarding solar collectors does not supercede those sections of the Zoning Code. Jonathan added as an example that one of the thresholds requiring site plan approval in commercial, industrial and multiple-residence zones is if the cost of exterior or site improvements is more than $20,000. This does not apply to the other residential zones where site plan approval is not required. After reviewing the Zoning Code sections regarding site plan review, Susan suggested adding language that would reiterate the trigger for site plan approval for those zones that now require it to clarify that the solar collector law would not supercede those sections. The Committee agreed. 4 Herb summarized the review by indicating that the Committee had agreed to the revisions as outlined above, and that Susan would incorporate those revisions into a final draft. Herb suggested that the revised draft be sent to the experts for a final review, as well as to the Committee, and that if all looks good, the revised draft could be sent on to the Town Board for consideration at the July 24 th Town Board meeting. The Committee agreed. Eva asked that any materials distributed to the Committee this evening be sent to those Committee members who could not attend (i.e., Fred, Kirk, and Cathy). Agenda Item No. 5 – Update on Review of Dock Regulations: Jonathan explained the materials that had been provided by Chris Balestra regarding docks and shoreline structures. Jonathan indicated that the inventory of docks on the east and west shores of Cayuga Lake had been completed by staff, and that the next step is to prepare an analysis and summary of the inventory, as well as summarize the sample shoreline regulations collected from other municipalities. Herb indicated that he would like information regarding the water depth needed for different types and sizes of boats. Jonathan mentioned that Chris had collected some information on this subject, and can provide this to the Committee. Eva asked whether dredging could negatively impact the lake. Herb mentioned that supporters of dredging sometimes say that dredging will reduce flooding of the lake shore, but that he does not think that dredging has anything to do with flooding. Herb added that a possible impact of dredging relates to contaminants that could be in the spoils. The other main issue relating to dredging is the cost and who will pay for it. Diane asked whether proposed dredging would be located in the inlet. Herb said yes. Eva suggested that dredging could stir up heavy metals that have settled on the lake bottom. Jonathan mentioned that there is a provision in the current Zoning Code regarding boat lifts that should be clarified – i.e., whether boat lifts are subject to the same setback and square foot requirements as docks. Jonathan suggested that this, among other aspects of the Code, could be reviewed by the Committee after the dock inventory and analysis has been completed by staff. Jonathan added that staff hopes to have an analysis completed for discussion at the July Committee meeting. Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: Susan indicated that she may recommend a local law to give the Town Board the authority to place a lien on a tax bill to collect money from an owner of property who does not properly maintain storm water facilities for which they are responsible. Susan added that this issue came up during discussions about storm water operations and maintenance agreements that are required by the Planning Board in approving site plans and subdivisions. Susan said that she could draft a local law and send it to the Committee for review. The Committee agreed. Herb asked whether the Committee should meet in August. Jonathan said that in past years, August meetings were cancelled sometimes. Herb suggested keeping the August 16 th meeting on the schedule for now so that it would be available if needed, but that the Committee could decide to cancel it if there is no pressing business. The Committee agreed. Jonathan mentioned that staff has been working on a draft report regarding the proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone, and that it might be ready to send to the Committee in August or September for review and discussion. Agenda Item No. 7- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: 5 The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 19, 2006. Proposed agenda items include an analysis of the dock inventory and review of regulations, final review of proposed local law regarding solar collectors (if needed), initiation of discussion regarding wind energy facilities, and discussion regarding draft local law regarding repair of storm water facilities and recovery of Town charges. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning