Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-07-19-06CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JULY 19, 2006 PRESENT: Herb Engman, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann, Diane Conneman. OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney for the Town; Chris Balestra, Planner; Esther Bladau-Konick, Planning Intern. 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 June 21, 2006 Meeting: The Minutes of the June 21, 2006 meeting were approved as submitted by consensus of the Committee. Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Solar Collector Law: Herb indicated that Susan had sent the Committee a revised, red-lined draft of the solar collector law, based on the Committee’s review at the last meeting. Susan outlined the changes that had been made, including language clarifying that site plan review is still required if applicable in other sections of the Town Code and regarding certified solar installers. Kirk exclaimed that he was surprised to see several changes in the draft since he last reviewed it, including the removal of the requirement that the solar collector primarily serve the energy needs of the lot or building on which it is located, raising the permitted height, increasing the allowable square footage, and allowing solar installations in front yards. Kirk added that in a Medium Density Residential Zone with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, 1,000 square feet of solar panels would cover much of the lot. Herb indicated that the changes reflect the Committee’s discussion at the June meeting, which Kirk and Fred did not attend, and the feedback received from solar experts that we heard from. Herb added that the Committee members present at the June meeting felt that it was okay to produce more energy than needed to just serve the owner’s site, and that 1,000 square feet of surface area was seen as what could be needed to provide sufficient energy for a household. Susan mentioned that part of the reason for originally having the provision for primarily serving the energy needs of the lot came from a desire to control public utility use of solar facilities, but that upon further analysis of the residential zones, it was determined that public utilities are allowed by right in most of the residential zones anyway, so this provision would have no effect on utilities. Eva said that allowing large solar panels on every residential lot could create large impacts. Kirk suggested that a smaller size and height could be allowed by right, and that anything larger or taller could be regulated by special permit or variance. Diane countered that it is a pain in the neck to have to send things like this to a board for review and approval, and that at the June meeting, those Committee members present agreed that the primary purpose of the proposed law is to encourage the use of solar energy, not to make it more difficult. Eva said that she had expressed a different viewpoint at the June meeting and was glad that these issues are being raised again, because she had been hesitant about some of the changes that were discussed. Eva added that she liked Brent Katzmann’s comments regarding encouraging other alternatives that are good for the environment, such as making homes generally more energy efficient. Eva suggested adding a requirement that if a homeowner is allowed to install a larger solar 2 panel, they should make an attempt to also add other energy conservation measures to their home. Jonathan said that it is not the installers of solar panels that we should target with a requirement like that, but other homeowners who are not doing anything to use alternative energy or conserve energy. Susan added that solar installers tell the homeowners to add energy conservation measures as part of their recommendations in order to get the most efficient use of the solar energy. Herb said that he thinks that solar installations are aesthetically pleasing. Kirk disagreed, indicating that large panels in a front yard would be a detriment to the character of a neighborhood. Eva asked why allow a large freestanding panel when it could be installed on a roof. Herb responded that a roof -mounted installation can cause leaks in the roof, can also cause snow and ice to accumulate, that it is more difficult to access a roof installation for adjusting the tilt of the panels, and that some roofs have steep pitches making it difficult to work on panels. Jonathan suggested that the Committee forward the draft law to the Town Board and get the approval process moving, otherwise the debate and discussions could go on for a long time, and the idea of this law was to get something simple in place quickly. Eva felt that it was okay to send it on to the Town Board, along with copies of meeting minutes so that it is clear that the Committee was not unanimous about the provisions in the draft law. Herb said that the draft is already on the agenda for the July 24th Town Board meeting to consider referring it to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and that perhaps it could also be sent to the Conservation Board and Zoning Board for comments. Kirk indicated that he is especially concerned with allowing solar installations in front yards, which could be a major impact, and that he would not want to send the draft with the current changes to the Town Board on behalf of the whole Committee. Susan suggested that the draft could be sent with a report indicating what the issues are that were not unanimously agreed to. Fred summarized the main unresolved issues: square feet, height, and location in the front yard. Kirk said that he would not be as concerned if there are lower square foot limits, and that a 20 foot height limit would not be as bad if installations are not allowed in front yards. Susan suggested highlighting the three issues of controversy (size, height, and location) by placing the alternatives discussed in brackets, so that feedback could be obtained from others. Eva added that it could be sent to the Conservation Board and Zoning board for their comments as well as the Planning Board recommendation. Herb agreed, adding that the Committee report could indicate that the Committee could not agree on these three areas, and are sending it to the Town Board with the alternates highlighted. Jonathan mentioned the additional comments received from installers regarding water installations and who in the Town would determine whether someone is a qualified solar installer. Susan mentioned that solar water installations do fit under our definition of “solar collector”, and that we could add wording to clarify this if necessary. Herb suggested leaving these provisions as they are, and leaving it flexible for the code enforcement officers to determine whether an installer is qualified. The Committee agreed. The Committee agreed, based on this discussion, to send a modified draft to the Town Board, highlighting in brackets the alternate language for size (500 sq. ft./1,000 sq. ft.), height (15 feet/20 feet) and yard location (limiting freestanding panels to only the rear or side yards or also allowing them in front yards), and to indicate that the Committee could not come to a consensus on these three issues, but wanted to move the law ahead regarding the process of sending it to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and at the same time, sending it to the Conservation Board and Zoning Board for advisory comment. It was also agreed that all of the background information, comments received and Committee meeting minutes be sent to the Planning Board, Conservation Board and Zoning Board so that they could consider all of the same information that the Committee had. 3 Agenda Item No. 4 – Report on Dock Inventory and Analysis: Chris discussed the memo regarding her analysis of the inventory of docks and other shoreline structures on Cayuga Lake. Chris indicated that she had also collected information regarding boat hulls and sizes and what their typical water depth needs are, as well as sample regulations collected from other municipalities in New York. Herb asked whether there are any new dock applications pending before the Planning Board. Fred said no. Chris summarized her analysis by saying that all elements looked at are quite variable, and that there are no clear indications of standard water depths needed, and that the shoreline itself is quite variable. Kirk wondered whether a GPS instrument could be used to measure heights of structures above water level. Jonathan indicated that the Engineering Department has GPS survey equipment. Kirk suggested that applicants for docks and other structures could be required to provide accurate measurements of dimensions Chris indicated that some of the dock installers are capable of providing accurate measurements, and that it might help if the Town adopted more specific requirements for what information we would need to accept an application. Susan indicated that it would be desirable to use a water line standard that is consistent with what the NYS DEC and Army Corps of Engineers use. Herb asked the Committee to identify what it is we are trying to accomplish by reviewing the dock and shoreline regulations and whether the Committee has enough information on this subject. Fred said that he has enough information. Herb mentioned the memo with comments on the Town’s dock regulations received from the Water Resources Council. Eva indicated that it is important to consider the visual impact of shoreline structures, including their height and their effect on blocking views, and that photographs would help. Kirk agreed that height is at least as important a factor as length of structures on the shoreline. Chris indicated that some other towns use 15 feet as a maximum height for shoreline structures, such as boathouses. Diane asked whether the Town should even allow boathouses. Herb asked whether our goal is to accommodate any size boat at a dock, or should larger size boats be moored at public or private marinas. Fred said that the Planning Board has discussed this issue, and has come to the conclusion that docks should be limited, and should only be able to accommodate modest size boats. Jonathan asked whether the inventory found any shared docks used by adjacent property owners. Chris responded no. Jonathan suggested that there might be a way to encourage shared docks perhaps by allowing shared docks to be larger than individually owned/used docks. Jonathan added that most of the lots on the West Shore already are developed with docks, so there are not many opportunities to change the character of what is already there. The Committee briefly discussed the subject of where shoreline property boundaries are usually shown on survey maps. Herb asked what the next steps should be. Susan suggested that at the next meeting, Committee members bring in their suggestions regarding the dock regulations. Susan added that amortization is an option the Committee could look at (i.e., providing a timeframe after which all docks or other structures would have to conform with the Town’s regulations). Kirk mentioned some of the elements the Committee should look at, including clarifying that boatlifts are also regulated, that boatlifts and boathouses should be subject to the setback from side lot line requirements, length and surface area of docks, and height of shoreline structures. Eva indicated that the purpose of the shoreline regulations should be to protect the lake and shoreline from improper encroachment by people who own property along the shoreline. Herb asked all Committee members to send Chris their comments, observations and suggestions prior to the next meeting, so that she can compile comments and send them to the whole Committee for discussion at the August meeting. The Committee agreed. Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion Regarding Draft Local Law Regarding Repair of Storm Water Facilities: 4 Susan explained that in staff discussions regarding a proposed model Storm Water Operations and Maintenance Agreement that would be used for subdivisions and developments in which there would be new storm water facilities built and owned and maintained by a private owner, it was determined that there could be situations in which the Town would need to go in and maintain or repair a facility, and recoup its expenses for doing so. Susan added that in order to assess such a charge as a lien on a tax bill, the Town has to adopt a local law authorizing that to happen. Susan referred to the draft local law she had prepared for the Committee’s consideration. Jonathan added that as the Town becomes more and more responsible for the proper functioning of storm water facilities, as will be required under the new Phase 2 storm water regulations implemented by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Clean Water Act requirements, we will need to rely on funding strategies like this. Susan added that this is similar to what the Town has done with charge -backs in other areas, such as sewer facilities. Herb said that this is not a new initiative, and suggested that the Committee forward this draft law to the Town Board for consideration. The Committee agreed. Agenda Item No. 6 – Discussion Regarding Weekly Rentals to Transients in Lakefront Residential Zone: Herb introduced the subject of weekly rentals occurring in the Lakefront Residential Zone, based on a series of messages received from Thak Chaloemtiarana, residing at 881 Taughannock Boulevard. Herb indicated that the Zoning does not specify whether rentals have any time limit, and only addresses occupancy in the permitted number of dwelling units. Herb briefly explained that Mr. Chaloemtiarana’s complaint is based on his neighbor renting out their two residential units to transient renters on a weekly basis, and that there are often many individuals in each unit, and that the Town has had difficulty establishing whether the individuals are part of a family as defined in the Zoning. Kirk added that part of the problem from a zoning point of view is that in other zones, people often have friends staying over in their home, so where is the line drawn between family occupancy and renting to transients. Susan mentioned that she and staff have had discussions about this situation, and that current leases for the rentals in question are probably being signed by one individual, and then that individual invites friends to stay with them, whereas, an earlier lease that the Town saw had about ten individual signatures on it. Diane noted that there is also a shared driveway between the two properties in question. Susan indicated that this is not a Town issue, but a neighbor issue. Herb indicated that this rental situation looks like a business, and that the rentals are advertised on a website for vacation rentals. Jonathan indicated that the Zoning used to include a definition of “boarding house” and “rooming house”, which this situation is comparable to, but when we added the definition of “bed and breakfast”, the definitions of boarding and rooming house were taken out of the Zoning Code. Herb added that many people rent out their houses during graduation weeks and other times, so where would we draw the line if we wanted to regulate short -term rentals. Herb asked Committee members to read through the material provided in the packets, and be prepared to discuss this subject at the next meeting. Kirk added that some places have established a minimum rental period of one month, and that shorter rentals are not permitted. Agenda Item No. 7 – Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy Facilities: Jonathan referred to the materials that had been provided regarding wind energy facilities, and indicated that Esther has been doing research on this subject and gathering a lot of information on how different areas are regulating wind energy facilities. Esther indicated that there are two general types of facilities – residential scale and utility scale, and that she has focused her research up to this 5 point mainly on the residential scale - there is a lot of information regarding their height, setback needs, noise, visual and other impacts. Esther added that she has talked with manufacturers of these facilities, and the height of these residential structures ranges from 50 to 120 feet – they can be freestanding or have guy wires. Esther indicated that noise can be an impact, but that there are no standard decibel levels generated. Noise levels are usually measured at the edge of a property, and a typical threshold set by municipal regulations is in the range of 50 decibels. Esther mentioned that she spoke with the environmental planner in Dryden, who is working on drafting a wind facility law. Esther outlined some of the typical requirements she has seen in municipal regulations, including setbacks (usually 1-1/2 times the tower height), minimum site size (usually 1 acre), and maximum energy output (e.g., 10 kilowatts – kW). Esther added that tower height is important to reach a level where other structures will not provide interference with the wind. Herb asked why a minimum site size is required for wind towers. Esther responded that it is to accommodate the area needed for guy wires in some cases. Kirk added that it is also to provide for a fall zone and to provide sufficient distance setback for noise mitigation. Herb mentioned that knowledgeable people in this subject to talk to include Steve Nicholson and Ed Cope, both of whom have solar and wind energy facilities at their homes. Eva asked whether wind structures are a problem for birds. Esther responded that from what she has read on the subject, there is little evidence that bird kills are a problem, especially for the residential scale facilities, and that the main concern is when a wind tower is in a migratory bird path. Esther added that bats are more of a problem in the northeast. Esther indicated that larger towers are more of a problem, especially when lighting is required. Herb mentioned that the Lab of Ornithology has information on their website regarding bird collisions, but it is difficult to establish mortality rates as a direct result of towers. Kirk reported that several Zoning Board members attended a workshop on wind energy, and that the speaker downplayed the impact of such facilities on birds. Susan said that Bill Evans studies the impact of cell towers on birds, and suggested that Esther try calling him for information. Herb asked whether there are any applications for wind towers currently pending before the Town. Jonathan responded that there are none. Jonathan asked the Committee to think about whether we should start with a focus on residential scale wind energy facilities, or whether we should also address commercial/utility scale facilities at this point. Esther mentioned that Ithaca College is working on a proposal for a large tower to provide energy for their campus, but that we have not seen details yet. Kirk indicated that Ithaca is not a prime area for wind, especially for the magnitude required for wind farms that would be for utility purposes. Esther indicated that she would provide the Committee with some more information on sample ordinance approaches and on larger towers for continuation of the discussion at the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 8 - Other Business: Kirk reported that at the July 17th Zoning Board meeting, the Board considered utilizing one of the newly appointed alternate members to replace a regular member who was away on vacation, but that Susan Brock noticed in the Zoning Code that there are specific situations listed in which an alternate member can serve as a voting member, and that absence due to a short-term vacation is not one of the qualifying reasons. Kirk indicated that the Board felt this was unreasonable and was not the intent of the law when it was revised to add the alternate member provisions. Susan indicated that she could check with John Barney, who proposed the revised law, to find out if there was a reason that the alternate member provision was so limited. Jonathan indicated that the State enabling laws for alternate board members were written in an even more restrictive way, allowing the use of alternate 6 members only in cases where a regular voting member could not serve because of a conflict of interest. Jonathan added that the Town’s provision was adopted using the Municipal Home Rule Law super-session authority of the Town, and that because of this, may have intentionally taken a conservative approach in listing situations where alternate members could vote. The Committee agreed to discuss this further at the next meeting and agreed that it seemed to be unreasonable to not allow an alternate member to be a voting member when a regular member is absent because they are on vacation. Susan noted that Fred Noteboom had spoken with the Public Works Committee about highway right - of-way issues, such as infringements, street repairs, and excavations, and that the Public Works Committee may recommend highway policies and a local law to implement such policies, so this Committee should be aware of that being in the works. Agenda Item No. 9- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 16, 2006. Proposed agenda items include a continuation of review of dock regulations, continuation of discussion regarding weekly rentals in the Lakefront Residential Zone, a review of the Zoning provisions regarding alternate ZBA members, and continuation of discussion regarding the regulation of wind energy facilities.. Jonathan and Fred indicated that they would not be able to attend the August meeting. 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