HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-09-20-06CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
PRESENT: Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, 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 August 16, 2006 Meeting:
The Minutes of the August 16, 2006 meeting were approved by consensus of the Committee with
corrections noted as follows: page 2 – “hillsides” instead of “top of hilltops”; page 3 – typos and
delete reference to “a compromise of” 8 ft; page 4 – typo and delete the italic reference that “and this
writer is not sure what the final decision was” and add “and decided to have alternates serve for the
balance of the meeting once appointed”.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Dock Regulations:
Chris indicated that she has been putting together the Committee comments from previous meetings
regarding the shoreline regulations in the Lakefront Residential Zone, and referred to her memo
dated Sept. 12, 2006, which summarizes her understanding. Chris added that she did some research
on boatlifts, and found that the size is determined by the weight and maximum width of the boat.
Jonathan mentioned that many boatlifts require side and top supports to pull the boat up, so the
Committee should be careful regarding how a restriction on roofs, covers or sides should be worded.
The Committee decided to include a prohibition on canopies on boatlifts and a maximum coverage of
25% as determined by the frame of support beams.
Chris then went through a list of definitions to be added to the Code, including docks, piers,
moorings, boatlifts and hoists, and canopy. It was also decided that boathouses, cabanas and gazebos
should be listed as examples of things not permitted.
Chris went through suggested application submission requirements and handed out a copy of Corps
of Engineers requirements for dock applications. Jonathan added that these submission requirements
would be just for those applications needing a variance because the revised process would not require
an application to the Planning Board for a special permit. Jonathan suggested that the Building and
Code Enforcement staff be asked what submission requirements they would want to see for building
permit applications for docks, boatlifts and other shoreline structures.
There was discussion regarding the setback calculation from side lot lines as extending into the lake.
Chris indicated that the current language is confusing and not readily useable by staff. Kirk
explained that he and John Barney has worked out the description, and he drew examples of convex
and concave shoreline situations on the board to illustrate to the Committee. There was additional
discussion regarding the variability of the shoreline configuration on Cayuga Lake. Herb suggested
2
asking dock building experts their opinion about standards for how they build docks. Jonathan
suggested the possibility of a performance-based approach such as “the dock should not block the
navigability of waters serving adjacent properties.” Susan suggested that the Committee could ask
Ron Neustub to see how the Corps of Engineers handles this. The Committee agreed.
Susan asked the Committee to confirm how they want to handle “T” and “L” extensions at the end of
docks. The Committee agreed that they are okay as long as the total permitted surface area of the
dock is not exceeded. Kirk clarified that the width of an “L” extension is measured on the extension
itself where it turns perpendicularly from the main dock. Susan summarized that the maximum
width of “T” and “L” extension is 8 feet in at least one direction. The Committee agreed.
Chris indicated that she would prepare a draft law with the Committee’s agreed upon revisions for
the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Weekly Rentals in Lakefront
Residential Zone:
Herb asked the Committee to consider whether the Town can legally regulate short -term rentals in
the Lakefront Residential Zone. Susan indicated that any regulation would be a policy decision that
the Town Board would have to make. Kirk indicated that some places have a minimum rental/lease
period of one month, which prevents daily or weekly rentals. There could also be a provision saying
that no sub-leasing is permitted. Susan indicated that what is happening now at 881 ½ Taughannock
Boulevard is that one family is signing the lease and inviting friends to stay with them. Diane
suggested that the problem seems to be with the number of cars on the rental site rather than the
number of people. Herb said that the problem is with loud parties and noise at the rental units. Herb
suggested that perhaps the length of the rentals is not a problem, but that a regulation saying that only
the family leasing the unit can occupy it for that lease period. Herb added that the cottage rentals
have turned into a business in a residential zone, and is creating impacts on surrounding properties.
Herb said that adding a minimum rental period of one month would reduce the turnover of renters.
Diane asked how many people are renting these units. Herb asked how difficult it would be to do a
survey of residents in the lakeshore areas to find out how many people rent out their homes and how
often. Diane asked whether these rentals would be considered bed-and-breakfasts. Susan responded
that they do not quite fit that definition. Jonathan indicated that they are more like a boarding house
or tourist house – those were previously included in the Zoning Ordinance, but are not included now.
Herb mentioned that the Town has only received a complaint from the one neighbor adjacent to 881
½ Taughannock Boulevard, and asked the Committee whether the Town should change our
regulations to solve one neighbor’s problem,. The Committee agreed that a survey of residents in the
lakefront areas would be helpful. Jonathan indicated that staff could prepare a draft survey for the
Committee’s review for the next meeting. The Committee agreed. Diane added that it would be
helpful to know how many residences in the lakefront area are owner vs. renter occupied.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Review of Draft Local Law Amending Provisions Regarding Alternate
Members of Zoning Board of Appeals:
Susan explained that the main question that needs to be resolved is whether there is a preference for
the regular appointed member to be voting on action even if they come in late to the meeting, and
when does the Chair appoint the alternate. Kirk indicated that his goal is to have 5 people voting if
they are present and do not have a conflict of interest. Susan indicated that the Chair could have the
authority to appoint an alternate in the middle of an application if a conflict of interest comes up
3
during that action or if the regular member has to leave during the meeting. The Committee
discussed a number of further scenarios of how appointments of alternates could be made under
different circumstances. As an example, Kirk asked what if an alternate is present and appointed to
sit at one meeting, and the action is carries over to a subsequent meeting, at which the regular
member is back – who should vote on that matter? Diane asked how often something like that
happens. Kirk responded that it does not happen often. Kirk added that his preference would be for
the member present for the most time on a matter should be the one to vote on that matter. Susan
asked whether as a policy, should the regular member take precedent over an alternate, or should the
one present for the majority of the case be the one to vote? Eva indicated that it would not make
sense to have someone vote who did not hear most of the case. Kirk suggested that by practice, if the
regular member comes in just before a vote, where an alternate has been appointed in the regular
member’s place, the regular member coming into the meeting would hopefully recuse themselves
from the vote, and allow the alternate to vote on that matter. Eva added that it should be the Chair’s
responsibility to recommend that to the regular member coming into the meeting. Herb asked
whether the Committee was okay with the revised draft law as discussed. Susan suggested that the
law should indicate how long the alternate should be appointed for. Kirk asked whether the alternate
is designated per case or per meeting. Susan suggested that could be left to the discretion of the
Chair. Kirk agreed. The Committee asked Susan and Kirk to get together to work out the wording of
the draft law and to bring back the revised draft to the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy
Facilities:
Esther reported the visit to a wind turbine installation that several Committee members attended
recently. Esther suggested that there a several other wind energy facilities nearby that would be
interesting to visit and asked Committee members if any would be interested. Several members said
yes, she should try to arrange a visit. Esther showed some slides she had taken of different types of
facilities. Jonathan suggested that Esther could prepare an outline of points that could be addressed
in a draft law for the next meeting. The Committee agreed.
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, October 18, 2006. Proposed agenda items
include a continuation of review of dock regulations, continuation of discussion regarding weekly
rentals in the Lakefront Residential Zone (including draft survey of owners), continuation of review
of the Zoning provisions regarding alternate ZBA members, and continuation of discussion regarding
the regulation of wind energy facilities.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning