HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-10-18-06CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 2006
PRESENT: Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Pat Leary, Kirk Sigel, Fred Wilcox, 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 September 20, 2006 Meeting:
Moved by Cathy Valentino, seconded by Diane Conneman, the Minutes of the September 20, 2006
meeting were approved unanimously with the following correction noted on page 2, paragraph 2: In
the sentence which reads, “Susan summarized that the maximum width of “T” and “L” extension is 8
feet in any direction,” change the word “any” to “at least one”.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Dock Regulations:
Herb asked the Committee to set a time limit for discussion of the Lakefront Residential Zone
regulations regarding docks. The Committee agreed to limit discussion to ½ hour. Chris noted that
she is working on a list of definitions for the Committee’s review and will have that for the next
meeting. The Committee then reviewed pages 1 –6 of the October 10, 2006 draft as follows.
Page 2, Section 270-43.C: Chris asked if the Committee had intended that cabanas and gazebos
would be permitted as long as they meet the shoreline setback requirement? The Committee agreed
that yes, these structures were intended to be allowed. Chris asked about boathouses, and indicated
that the Code Enforcement Officers had commented that the reference to boathouses in this section is
unclear because the wording implies that boathouses would be located on shore rather than over the
water. Susan added that the Committee needs to be explicit in what is intended. The Committee
decided to delete specific references to cabanas, gazebos and boathouses in this section to avoid
confusion.
Page 3, Section 270-43.H: Chris indicated that the Code Enforcement Officers suggested changing
the term “unenclosed” to “uncovered” as this relates to the Building Code references. The
Committee agreed.
Page 4, Section 270-43.H.1.c and d: Chris indicated that the Code Enforcement Officers suggested
using the term “profile” instead of “cross-section map”. The Committee agreed. The Committee
also agreed to add “accurately-scaled” to the references to plan view map and profile.
Page 4, Section 270-43.H.1.e: Susan indicated that the requirement for plans approved by a licensed
engineer or architect at the discretion of the Code Enforcement Officer is too open ended and that
this would be more than a Corps of Engineers (ACOE) application for a dock would require. Chris
2
suggested instead adding a requirement to submit a copy of the ACOE permit application if required.
Chris will ask the Code Enforcement Officers if the Building Code thresholds triggering the need for
stamped plans should likewise apply to waterfront structures. The Committee agreed.
Page 5, Section 270-43.H.6: Chris asked the Committee if the intent of the limit of 200 square feet of
surface area for boat lifts or boat hoists is to limit them to one per parcel because that is what usually
would result from that limit. Chris added that some municipalities limit the number of permitted boat
lifts or docks according to the frontage of the parcel. Eva stated that the Town should not allow an
owner to build more than one dock and then rent out space to others because that would be like a
commercial marina. Jonathan suggested that there should be a definition of “marina” in the Zoning
Code, and marinas could be prohibited in the Lakefront Residential Zone. The consensus of the
Committee was to leave the limit at 200 square feet, and that anything more than that would require a
variance.
Page 5, Section 270-43.H.7: Chris asked whether the reference to “floating construction” for docks
should be eliminated. Kirk indicated that the Committee had thought about eliminating this reference
previously. Eva mentioned that floating docks are the least impacting types of dock construction.
Jonathan suggested that floating docks are not practical or used very often on the large lakes like
Cayuga and Seneca Lakes because of the potential for rough waters and high waves, and that floating
docks are more commonly found on smaller lakes. Herb added that he does not recall any
applications for floating docks coming in, and suggested deleting the reference to floating
construction. Eva indicated a mild objection to deleting this. The Committee agreed to delete the
reference to floating construction for docks.
Page 5, Section 270-43.H.9: The Committee agreed to delete the phrase “used for single-family
residential purposes”.
Page 6, Section 270-43.H.10: The Committee agreed to delete the phrase “”that is vacant or used for
single- or two-family residential purposes”.
Upon reaching the ½ hour time limit for the review of the Lakefront Residential Zone provisions, the
Committee concluded this portion of the agenda after Page 6, Section 270 -43.H.10, and will resume
review at the next meeting beginning at Page 6, Section 270-43.H.11. Committee members were
reminded to bring their copy of the draft revised Lakefront Residential Zone provisions to the next
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy
Facilities:
Esther reported that she and Eva had visited another wind turbine in Dryden. Eva added that it was a
thin, single pole tower, about 80 feet tall, with small blades; it was a windy day, but there was no
noticeable noise from the turbine. Eva indicated that the tower did have guy wires, but they are very
thin and not very visible. The property also has a very large array of solar panels.
Esther mentioned that Dryden passed a law relating to renewable energy, and that the wind energy
section permits only residential scale towers, eliminating the potential for industrial size facilities.
Esther added that Dryden’s law is fairly permissive, allowing towers up to a height of 140 feet and
limiting energy output to 10 kW’s. Esther indicated that Dryden had received a letter from the NYS
Department of Agriculture and Markets warning that Dryden’s new law may unreasonably restrict
3
farm operations in Agricultural Districts because of provisions such as tower height limits, setbacks,
and site plan/special permit requirements.
Esther then discussed the outline she had prepared regarding a “Wind Turbine Ordinance”, and
indicated that the first step is to include a clear statement of purpose and findings for the provisions
in the law. Herb suggested that it would be desirable to clearly separate the differences between
residential and industrial scale facilities in such a statement of purpose and clearly state what the
intent of the law would be. Esther added that the Committee should decide whether the law should
limit the energy output of wind energy facilities to just on-site consumption or to allow excess energy
production for business or utility purposes. Kirk asked if there are areas of the Town suitable for
large scale wind energy production. Esther referred to the map of “Wind Resources of Tompkins
County”, prepared by Tompkins County, which indicates that there are not many prime areas for
wind energy in the Town, but that Ithaca College is doing more research on this.
Kirk suggested that the Committee could draft a law with height and setback requirements that are
oriented toward residential use, and that larger facilities would have to go through a variance process.
Kirk added that it would also depend on how the law addresses the definition of the use and whether
the definition limits energy production to on-site consumption. Eva mentioned that it would be good
to look at the home businesses that are permitted in the Town, what their impacts are, and what
criteria are in the current Zoning Code to regulate home businesses. Esther asked when a use is
defined as a business. Diane indicated that NYSERDA only gives grants for alternative energy
facilities when they can be tied into the energy grid and excess energy produced can be sold back to
the grid. Kirk added that the law could say that the energy produced by the facility should be
primarily what is needed for the owner’s residential purposes. Pat suggested that wind energy
facilities do not need to be treated the same as other businesses. Esther mentioned that the difference
in the size of a wind turbine to produce sufficient energy to sell back to the grid vs. one that only
produces enough for on-site consumption is not significant. Cathy indicated that farms are
businesses, and suggested that the law address their needs as well. Eva mentioned that the Town
needs to control the impacts of business uses on residential areas. Jonathan indicated that some wind
energy facilities may be considered to be public utilities, which are permitted in residential zones.
Pat added that the reasons to restrict commercial uses in residential areas are primarily to control
traffic, noise and similar impacts. Herb indicated that if a wind energy facility is hooked up to the
grid, the owner only receives the wholesale rate on the excess energy beyond one year’s normal
household useage. Jonathan mentioned that there is a new program in Canada that requires a higher
rate to be paid for energy sold back to the grid because it is seen as a desirable and clean form of
energy. Kirk suggested that the law could include a threshold limit for the amount of excess energy
that could be sold back to the grid. Fred mentioned that increasing the size of the blades of a wind
turbine is probably not as significant a cost as increasing the height and size of the tower itself. Pat
said why worry about restricting the amount of energy produced by a facility – instead, focus on the
physical aspects of the facility that could result in impacts, such as height, setback, and number of
towers allowed per lot. Pat also suggested that the Committee should consider encouraging broader
opportunities beyond just on-site consumption than Dryden’s law appears to include.
Herb suggested that there should be a requirement to remove a tower that is no longer functioning.
Herb then reiterated that the Committee should decide what the purpose of the law would be, whether
it should be to promote wind energy generation in general or to limit it to on -site residential use, and
to clearly state the intent and purpose of the law up front. Herb asked the Committee to consider this
and to review Esther’s outline for continued discussion at the next meeting. Esther agreed that it
4
would be helpful to get more input and direction from the Committee prior to attempting to draft a
law.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continuation of Review of Draft Local Law Amending Provisions
Regarding Alternate Members of Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA):
Susan referred to the draft local law (September 27, 2006) regarding use of ZBA alternate members
that she had prepared based on the last Committee discussion and her follow -up discussions with
Kirk Sigel. Herb thought it looked good. The Committee agreed and had no further changes, and
agreed to send it to the Town Board for consideration. Susan asked whether the Committee wanted
to send a comparable law for Planning Board alternate members, should the Town Board decide to
appoint any. Jonathan mentioned that the Planning Board situation might be different from the ZBA
because many actions can extend over a longer time period. Fred thought that the same language in
the ZBA law would work for the Planning Board if alternates are appointed. Herb asked if the
Committee would like a parallel law for Planning Board alternates. The Committee said yes. Susan
said that she would prepare a second law addressing the use of Planning Board alternates and would
send both draft laws to the Town Board for consideration.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Review of Draft Survey Regarding Short Term Rentals in Lakefront
Residential Zone:
Esther presented the draft Lakefront Residential Survey to the Committee. Herb thought that the
questions looked reasonable. Jonathan referred to the map of owners vs. renters on the east and west
sides of the lake and thought that was helpful. Esther indicated that there are a number of owners of
lakeshore properties who live out of town that we would want to send an alternate form of the survey
to also. The Committee went through the draft surveys and noted several wording changes. Esther
indicated that there would be about 250 addresses to send surveys to. The Committee suggested
using colored paper to discourage multiple copying of survey forms. Jonathan indicated that the
survey could be sent out in Town envelopes with return, stamped envelopes enclosed. The
Committee agreed that the revised surveys should be sent out as soon as possible.
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, November 15, 2006. Proposed agenda
items include a continuation of review of dock regulations, continuation of discussion regarding the
regulation of wind energy facilities, review of noise law, and review of sign regulations.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning