HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-08-16-06CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
August 16, 2006
PRESENT: Herb Engman, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann, Diane Conneman, Patricia Leary, Cathy
Valentino.
OTHERS: Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney for the Town; Chris Balestra, Planner; Esther Blodau-
Konick, Planning Intern.
Chair, Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 7:36pm.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of July 19th:
Eva identified a typing error on the tenth line of the first paragraph on page three; “affect” was
replaced with “effect.”
On the fourth line of the third paragraph on page two, Patricia pointed out that the letter “t” was
missing from the word “the.”
The changes to the meeting minutes of July 19th were accepted as corrected.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of the Dock Regulations – Chris Balestra
Herb suggested that the committee find an agreement on issues regarding dock regulations listed
in Chris’s memorandum. The committee first discussed the regulations concerning length and
width of the docks. It was agreed upon by Eva and Cathy that an “either- or” clause should be
inserted into the proposed recommendation outlined in paragraph three of Chris’s memorandum.
The proposed recommendation would keep maximum dock length at 30ft or shorter if water
depth reached 5 ft before the length reached 30 ft.Kirk disagreed with Eva and Cathy, reasoning
that in practice it would be difficult for Town staff to regulate, since there is no easy and
consistent way to measure water depth as the lake’s water level constantly fluctuates. In addition,
Kirk added, it would be more appealing for individuals to measure out “x” feet, rather than
surveying the lake floor. Chris added that some people might find it difficult to comply with the
regulation if the water was too shallow at the maximum allowed length. Susan agreed and
suggested specifying dock length, and if an applicant needed more length they could apply for a
variance. Herb agreed that this was easy for individuals to understand and would reduce potential
appeals. Chris added that the majority of the lake was already developed and that only a few
parcels would be affected, as owners replace destroyed docks. Susan and Kirk briefly discussed
whether or not these regulations would apply to replacement docks, since current zoning allows
individuals to replace a structure with the previously existing one.
Herb suggested that the Committee try to decide what length the docks should be, since
actual docks seem to range between 30 and 50 ft in length. Kirk said he thought 30ft was
comically short and longer docks would reduce appeals to the Planning and Zoning Boards.
Herb suggested compromising at a length of 40ft, adding that width of the dock was another
factor the committee needed to consider. A length of 40 feet was accepted by the Committee and
2
Herb suggested minimum and maximum dock widths be 3 ft and 8 ft respectively. Cathy thought
that a 3ft width would be too narrow for a dock. Kirk agreed with Cathy that a 3ft would be too
narrow and therefore dangerous for a dock. Pat and Kirk agreed that a width of 8ft would be
safer, especially if children would be using the docks.
Diane indicated that a wider dock space would be more prone to being used as a living
space, and that a maximum of 6ft width, instead of 8 ft, would avoid this problem. Kirk agreed
that 6 ft was enough for safety purposes. Susan mentioned that the average dock lengths differed
on East and West shore of the lake. Chris said the average lengths on the East shore and the West
shore were 37+/- and 45+/- respectively.
Herb indicated that there seemed to be a consensus on the 6ft width of docks, then asking
the Committee to consider cases in which there might be a T or an L extension to the end of the
dock. Cathy said that, in order to avoid currents, most boatlifts are along the side of the T dock,
not on the front of the dock. Chris indicated that T and Ls served as additional dock space where
boats would be tied up along the sides to receive more protection. Kirk added that a T or an L
addition was more frequently used for swimming than for docking boats. A total maximum area
of 300sq ft was decided upon. Herb asked if this was reasonable. Kirk asked if the extra 10ft on
either side would be allowed for Ts and Ls. Eva indicated that there would not be enough room
for this. Chris countered and said it would depend on the width of the property; there were cases
where this wasn’t practical. Herb said setbacks would eliminate such issues.
The Committee then addressed the use of boathouses as living spaces. Susan indicated
that the current zoning laws did not allow boathouses to include living spaces. Cathy indicated
that such use of boathouses should be discouraged. Kirk added that they could become party
locations. Herb asked the committee how the roof and sides of the boathouses should be
addressed in the regulations. He suggested that they could be eliminated, also avoiding the
problem of living spaces. Patricia countered that the roof and sides protect the boat. Cathy
indicated that from her experience at Owasco Lake, boatlifts with tops obstructed the neighbor’s
views, and that many boatlifts didn’t have tops. Roofs over lifts were not important, since boats
were stored elsewhere in winter.
Pat asked if gazebos would be allowed. Since homeowners paid money to own the
lakefront property they should be allowed to enjoy lakefront in a gazebo if they wished; Cathy
countered saying gazebos were visually obtrusive objects and Herb raised the issue of the lake as
a public resource, adding that Kate Hackett had more information about the lake as a public
resource at hand. Eva added that in emergencies nobody would object to the use of their dock by
a stranger. Eva also commented that gazebos were old cultural structures traditionally built on
hillsides for good views. Therefore, if people wanted to have a gazebo they should build it on
land, and not above the water. Diane agreed saying that if every lot had a gazebo, the shoreline
would become cluttered.
Herb asked if the committee agreed that the ordinance would allow permanent structures,
but prohibit them from having sides and a roof. The Committee agreed. Chris said staff members
would create definitions for docks, moorings, boatlifts, boat hoists, etc. Susan said the heights of
these structures were not yet decided upon. Kirk replied that if roof and sides were not being
allowed, they could be less vigilant about poles; 8-10 ft would be high enough. After
clarification regarding the purpose of poles on docks the Committee agreed that 8 ft would be a
sufficient height for boat lifts. Cathy said she would do some measuring this weekend.
3
Herb next asked if boat hoists should be included in the surface area of the docks. Diane
said the footprint of hoists is not solid, like the surface of a dock. The committee agreed that
boat hoists/lifts would not be included in the surface area calculation.
Pat questioned the previously agreed upon 6ft width docks, wondering why they were
this width. Herb asked if 6ft would be wide enough for gear associated with boating. Kirk
suggested an 8ft width making the ordinance more flexible. Herb suggested a 3-8ft width with a
maximum area of 300ft. Susan commented that that was the same as the current law. Diane
mentioned eliminating the planning board from the process. Chris indicated that the Planning
Board better dealt with visual impacts, but the whole process could go through the ZBA since the
committee desires to eliminate boathouses and cabanas and covered structures. Herb said red
tape should be eliminated, and Kirk agreed saying that the current/alternative method encourages
compliancy.
Susan asked if different side yard setbacks should apply to smaller size lots. Chris said
that there were lots whose shorelines were less than 50ft; they would be unable to comply with
the 20ft required setback from adjacent property lines. Kirk suggested allowing a “by right” 3ft
wide dock centered on the lot’s shoreline with no boat lift as a way of mitigating the setback
problem for narrower shorelines. The Committee agreed: 3ft width by right for narrower lots,
otherwise 8ft wide maximum width.
Eva asked whether regulations should differ between the East and West shore due to the
varying depth in water. Herb suggested that locals who use the lakeshore could clarify what the
correlation between sediment deposition and dock length is. The Committee agreed to not have
separate regulations for the East and West Shores. Kirk indicated that we should have this
regulation in place by next spring.
[Chris’s summary: Chris will create a draft updated regulation that adds definitions, eliminates
boathouses and cabanas; overall maximum length shall be 40ft measured from the ordinary high
water mark; width shall be 3ft centered on the property, by right for parcels that cannot meet the
20ft setback from adjacent parcels; otherwise width shall be 8ft maximum; 300 square foot
maximum surface area; boat hoists/lifts not included in the square footage calculation but are
included in the 20ft required setback from property lines; boatlifts and hoists shall have no walls
and no roofs and hoists/lifts shall not extend more than 8ft in height from the top of the dock
surface (I think); boat hoists and lifts shall not exceed __ in width or ___in length (need to
research what size lift a 22ft long +/- boat might require). Chris will also contact experts to
review the regulations and give suggestions to the COC.]
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Weekly Rentals to Transients
in Lakefront Residential Zone
The COC postponed the discussion on the transient rentals in the Lakefront Residential Zone for
the September 20th meeting, when Jonathan would be back from vacation.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Review of Zoning Provisions Regarding Alternate ZBA Members
Herb suggested the COC expand the language regarding situations for allowing alternate ZBA
members to participate to include: health of primary member, vacations, and family emergencies.
Kirk suggested additional expansions: whenever there is an absence of a primary member and
whenever there is a conflict of interest.
4
Susan Brock spoke with John Barney who explained to her that the reason the original
alternate-allowing list was so narrow was because there was some concern over potential
abuse/manipulation by the chair; that is, if the chair had too much power over who participated,
he/she might choose to exercise that power in a non-objective form (euphemism☺). Susan
Brock distributed copies of a rough draft new home rule to update the old one and COC
member’s added changes and suggestions to the draft at the meeting. One change includes: the
chair “shall” designate an alternate, rather than may. There was some discussion on alternating
the alternates and scenarios such as “what happens if an alternate is appointed at the beginning of
the meeting and the primary shows up later?” Does the alternate vote for the case at hand or for
the entire meeting, does the alternate step down mid-case and let the primary take over? etc.
Kirk noted that it might look a little suspicious to the public if board members shift during cases
or even between cases (unless in clear conflict of interest situations). COC members talked for a
while about this and decided to have alternates serve for the balance of the meeting once
appointed. Susan Brock will draft and update version of the law and will email COC members to
solicit responses/suggestions prior to the next meeting. There was a consensus that if everyone
gave comments/suggestions in enough time for this to go to the next Town Board meeting, then
it would not need to come back to COC at the September meeting first and delay the alternate
designation process any further.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy
Facilities
COC members decided to discuss this matter, rather than call it a night at 9pm. Esther
distributed additional information to the COC regarding wind turbines - packet included a
comparison of other municipal regulations on wind energy and a map of wind patterns in the
Town of Ithaca. She expressed that she wanted the COC to get an idea of how wind turbines
work before they create an ordinance regulating them. She researched both large and small
turbines and noted that there does not appear to be sufficient wind speeds to support large wind
farms in Ithaca, although, she added, wind developers also look for high electric prices and
access to high voltage transmission lines. A small residential unit generates between 1,000watts
to 30kilowatts of energy. A 10kilowatt turbine typically generates enough energy to supply the
electrical needs of a typical American household. This, however, depends on the size of the
house as well as type, size of electrical appliances used and the frequency with which they are
used. Some of the planning issues related to wind turbines are height, visual impacts, setbacks
and noise impacts. Smaller turbines are generally noisier, but larger turbines have a larger visual
impact.
Esther noted that Ithaca College is seeking to build a large wind turbine and is currently
adding an anemometer to the existing communication tower to determine average wind speeds
(which will help determine turbine size). She will prepare a draft ordinance, with Susan Brock’s
help, that addresses both commercial and residential turbines and will distribute it via email to
COC members.
Esther will also organize a trip for available members to visit two or three existing
turbines in T. Caroline and Enfield. Members will email their availability and Esther will figure
out the best day/times and let everyone know.
5
Regarding noise, Eva noted that the new Baker Lab building on Hungerford Hill Road
emits a high pitched sound and she’d be curious to know what the decibel level of that sound is.
The town has a decibel meter, and if staff has time, someone may show Eva how to use it and/or
measure the dB level of that building.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Other Business
The fall newsletter reminder memo was sent out to all staff and Town Board members, PB
members and Conservation Board members. Pat Leary thought the idea of having a COC
column on new laws was a good one. She offered to draft an article for the newsletter including
the new laws recently passed and those the COC is working on (lighting, solar, stream, dock,
wind turbine, etc), along with a small “there oughtta be a law…” section where residents can
email the town with ideas for additional laws. Members seemed to like this idea and discussed
who the contact might be for this suggestion. Could be Pat, or an administrative staff person,
etc.
Meeting Adjourned at 9:33pm
Respectfully Submitted,
Christine Balestra, Planner
Esther Blodau-Konick, Planning Intern