Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-11-15-06CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 15, 2006 PRESENT: Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Pat Leary, Kirk Sigel, Fred Wilcox, Diane Conneman. OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Chris Balestra, Planner; Esther Bladau-Konick, Planning Intern; Susan Cosley, Guest. 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 October 18, 2006 Meeting: Susan Brock suggested adding the following wording at the top of page 2: “Chris will ask the Code Enforcement Officers if the Building Code thresholds triggering the need for stamped plans should likewise apply to waterfront structures”. Herb suggested adding wording to the sentence on page 3 that says – “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” as follows: “beyond one year’s worth of normal household usage”. The Committee by consensus accepted the Minutes of the October 18, 2006 meeting with the above additions incorporated. Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion Regarding Home Occupation Regulations: Since Susan Cosley, a member of the public, was present and interested in the agenda item regarding home occupations, the Committee agreed to discuss this item first. Ms. Cosley explained that her proposed home occupation went to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a variance because it does not meet the Zoning Code requirement that the owner and chief operating officer of the business is an owner and full-time resident of the property on which the home business is located. Jonathan referred to the memo (dated November 8, 2006), in which the ownership issue is explained and other recommendations regarding the home occupation regulations are suggested, as well as the American Planning Association (APA) “Zoning Practice” report regarding Home Occupations which was distributed to the Committee. Kirk asked whether any Committee members object to renters conducting businesses in the residence in which they live and referred to the ZBA resolution (ZB Resolution No. 2006 -072) which recommends to the Town Board that the definition of “home occupation” be changed to allow home occupations by non-owners who are also full-time residents of the property. Pat mentioned that none of the regulations referenced in the APA report deal with the ownership issue. Herb suggested that the Committee think about this issue in terms of the suggested approach for distinguishing between “minor” vs. “major” home businesses (discussed in Jonathan’s memo). Pat indicated that the Alfred, Maine ordinance allows dress-making and similar uses, and that the Town of Ithaca regulations should not allow that type of use as a home occupation because of the potential abuses of sweat shops and the like that have become problems in other areas. Susan Brock mentioned that the Town’s regulations already include dress-making as a permitted home occupation (in the definition section), as well as the making and selling of crafts. Diane and Cathy said that dress -making, crafts 2 and similar uses should be allowed as home occupations and that the limitation on numbers of employees permitted in a home occupation would limit abuses such as mentioned by Pat. Herb asked whether the Committee agrees with the suggested approach to distinguish between minor and major home occupations. Cathy and Pat indicated that they like that idea. Jonathan added that the regulations could require that a renter obtain approval of the landlord for conducting a home business in the residence that they are renting. Pat thought that this could be okay for a major business but might be too much of a burden for a minor business. Susan Cosley indicated that the owner may not be the same as the property manager for the unit being rented. Susan Brock suggested that the regulation could be worded to say “the owner or their representative”. Kirk asked the Committee to consider what criteria would differentiate between a minor and major business. Kirk added that a minor business could be defined as one in which no outside employees are involved. Fred mentioned that his lease does not allow any use of the property beyond the residential use. Susan Brock asked whether signs would be allowed for minor home businesses and read from the Sign Chapter of the Code indicating that certain signs are allowed in residential zones up to six square feet. Herb suggested that the amount of traffic generated could be considered, but how would we define that? Susan Brock asked how we would handle something like a piano teacher, where students would go to the home of the teacher to get their lessons – that would involve traffic, but would that be considered a major business? Cathy suggested that the criteria for traffic might be to allow not more than one car visiting at a time in relation to the home business. Fred mentioned that the Planning Board tends to want to minimize signs, especially in residential areas. Jonathan indicated that it is a policy decision as to whether and how to distinguish between minor and major home occupations. Kirk suggested that the Sign Chapter of the Code could be modified to only allow small signs associated with a home occupation. Pat concurred that a special requirement for home occupation signs would be appropriate. Susan Brock said that could be done. Herb suggested that deliveries should also be limited for minor businesses. Pat mentioned that most residents get a lot of deliveries at their homes whether or not they have a home business. Pat also indicated that some home businesses might employ people working at a location other than the home in which the owner/operator of the business is located. Susan Brock indicated that this could be addressed in the definition of home occupation. Herb indicated that noise is another issue that needs to be addressed in regulating home occupations. Susan Brock read from the current list of criteria regulating home occupations, which include “no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat, glare or electronic disturbance is produced beyond line of the property occupied by the business”. Jonathan mentioned that the recently amended noise law regulates unreasonable noise. Susan Brock indicated that the current criteria regulating home occupations include that “the business does not generate traffic in any greater volume than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood …”. Cathy suggested that a major business could be anything that does not meet the criteria currently listed in the Zoning definition. Pat mentioned that the main thing that needs to be addressed soon is whether a renter should be allowed to conduct a home business in the residence in which they live, and to consider allowing home businesses by right (no special approval required) for businesses that meet the existing criteria. Susan Brock indicated that this could easily be done, and recommended that as part of the amendment to the Code, the criteria be deleted from the definition section, and added in a special regulations or other section of the Zoning. The Committee agreed with this approach. Cathy referred to the estimated time line in Jonathan’s memo. Chris asked what happens to Susan Cosley while the amendments are being drafted. Susan Brock indicated that the Town cannot tell Ms. Cosley that she can operate her home business while the Town is working on revising the 3 existing regulations, and suggested that if the applicant conducts the business outside of the home during the interim and brings work home from time to time, that she would not be in violation of the current regulations. Susan Cosley said that finding another place to conduct her business would be expensive. Pat asked whether there is any way to accelerate the process for amending the home occupation regulations, such as sending the amendments directly to the Town Board for consideration. Herb suggested that the proposed wording of the amendments could be sent to Committee members prior to the December meeting so that Committee members are prepared to move quickly on the proposal. Cathy read through the time line and asked where time might be accelerated. Jonathan suggested that it might be possible for the Town Board (at the Year -end meeting) to both refer the proposal to the Planning Board for a recommendation and set a public hearing for the February 12th Town Board meeting, thereby cutting a month off of the normal timeframe, if the Town Board is willing to do that. The Committee agreed to pursue this approach. Susan Cosley asked the Committee what is the definition of a home business – at what point is a person operating a business. Jonathan suggested that this could be addressed in the revised definition. Kirk indicated that this would not be as necessary if all businesses meeting the listed criteria are permitted by right. Pat added that there are a number of ways to identify whether a business is being conducted, including whether there is a filed DBA or a Federal tax identification number. Agenda Item No. 4 –Report on Survey of Lakefront Residents: Esther reported that the Town received 57 completed surveys out of 123 sent out, and indicated that most of the respondents are owners – only four were renters. Esther pointed out that preliminary results of the survey are summarized on the handout that was distributed. Esther added that only 19 respondents indicated that they have problems with neighbors’ tenants, and of those, the most common problems were noise and parking. In response to suggestions for changing the Town’s regulations, most respondents said do not change them, and some said that the length of permitted rentals should be controlled (e.g., allow only long term rentals). Additional enforcement of existing regulations was also mentioned as needed. Herb suggested that Committee members study the survey results for the next meeting, and think about how the results might affect the proposed revisions for the Lakefront Residential Zone, if at all. Esther indicated that she would prepare a more complete summary and analysis of the survey results for the Committee’s consideration. Agenda Item No. 5– Continuation of Review of Dock Regulations: The Committee continued the review of the draft amendments to the Lakefront Residential Zone on page 6, #11of the October 10, 2006 draft. Susan indicated that she thinks that the paragraph regarding non-residential docks in #11 should be moved to the Lakefront Commercial Zone section. The Committee agreed. Other comments on sections of the draft included: Page 6, #12: Chris indicated that she had called the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) about the measuring of shoreline setbacks on convex and concave shorelines, and that neither agency deals directly with this issue. Chris added that the Keuka Lake and Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking regulations do address this in a much simpler and clearer way than the wording in the Town of Ithaca regulations. Chris handed out materials illustrating several approaches used to describe the measurement of the riparian littoral zone on irregular shorelines. After brief discussion, Chris indicated that the Keuka Lake wording 4 appears to be the easiest for staff to understand and use. The Committee agreed to incorporate that approach. Page 7, #13: The Committee agreed to add “If provided,” at the beginning of this section, and to substitute the word “uncovered” for “unenclosed” relating to waterfront structure. Page 7, #14: The Committee discussed the letter received from David Gersh (dated Nov. 13, 2006, in which Mr. Gersh indicates concern with the possibility of an owner of lakefront property allowing their property (in particular the shore area) to be used by non-residents. Mr. Gersh’s letter indicates that a loophole in the Town’s Zoning Code would allow a lakefront owner to make his lakefront access available, for a fee, to an unlimited number of other persons. Susan suggested that sub -section #14 on Page 7 could be revised to say that making lakefront property available for such use would not be permitted. Susan then asked whether a clubhouse or beach club would be okay. Fred responded that it appears to be permitted now. Herb asked how an owner of a lot could rent his beach to persons who do not reside on that lot. Fred indicated that some homeowners’ or condo associations buy lots and make them available for common use by the members of that association. Diane added that Mr. Gersh’s letter refers to the owner of an apartment complex who also owns lakefront property making that lakefront available to tenants in the apartment complex. Susan asked the Committee what does it want to do? Kirk said that it is not unreasonable for people living on the lake to expect a beach club next door. Pat suggested that a beach club is different from what was just described. Susan suggested that the regulations could prohibit beach clubs in the Lakefront Residential Zone. Jonathan referred to Section 270-42.D of the Zoning Code, which allows clubhouses and lodges, and that 270-42.D would have to be revised if the Committee wants to prohibit beach clubs. The sub-section #14 on Page 7 of the draft would have to be amended to prohibit beach clubs, and to further clarify that use of the lakeshore as described in Mr. Gersh’s letter would also be prohibited. Jonathan summarized this by saying that the term “commercial” use in #14 should be defined and add a specific prohibition of the situation described in Mr. Gersh’s letter. Herb asked Chris to see if she could find any examples of other communities that regulate such use, and bring to the attention of the Committee at the next meeting. Pat also asked members to think about this some more for the next meeting. Page 7, #I: Kirk suggested that if a mooring cannot met the required setback regulations, then the mooring would not be permitted or the applicant would have to submit a variance application to the ZBA. The Committee agreed. Page 8, Section 270-45: Chris asked if the Committee wanted to go with a higher height limit for boat lifts to accommodate sling-style lifts. Kirk wondered if 8 feet is high enough. Chris suggested that anything higher could be considered for a variance. Herb suggested leaving the height limit at 8 feet, but that the Committee should send the draft around to dock experts for their input and recommendations on items like this. The Committee agreed. Pat noticed that “home occupation” listed in Section 270 -44.B on Page 8 is under special approval, which under the new procedure discussed earlier in the meeting, would become permitted by right if they meet the relevant criteria. Chris pointed out a few other minor revisions in the draft law. The Committee agreed to try to complete the review of the Lakefront Residential regulations at the December meeting, and in particular to decide on the issue of commercial use of the shoreline (beach clubs, etc.). 5 Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 7- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 20, 2006. Proposed agenda items include review of draft amendments regarding home occupations, 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 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning