Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-12-20-06CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2006 PRESENT: Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Pat Leary, Kirk Sigel, Fred Wilcox, Diane Conneman, Eva Hoffmann. OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Cosley, Guest. Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Eva Hoffmann passed around a card from Cold Water Creek catalog company, and indicated that they are a supporter of utilizing renewable energy resources. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of November 15, 2006 Meeting: The Committee accepted the Minutes of the November 15, 2006 meeting as drafted by consensus. Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Home Occupation Regulation Amendments: Herb referred to Susan Brock’s memo (Dec. 13, 2006) and the draft local law regarding home occupations that had been distributed to the Committee, and indicated that it looked good. Susan asked whether home occupations should also be allowed in commercial and industrial zones to accommodate the limited residential uses that are permitted in those zones. Eva thought that residential use is not compatible with those types of zones. Susan responded that those zones include some dwellings, such as those for caretakers of the facilities. The Committee agreed to include home occupations in those zones. Herb indicated that he did not understand how home occupations relate to the Agricultural Zone (page 2, Section 5). Susan explained that home occupations would be added to the Agricultural Zone as a principal permitted accessory use, and would not have to be related to an agricultural operation. Herb asked whether the Committee had decided that a renter would have to obtain approval of their landlord in order to have a home occupation on the premises they rent. Susan could not remember what the Committee had decided on this. Cathy said that the Committee had decided to leave that up to the Landlord and tenant. Fred thought that it should be the landlord’s responsibility to oversee what the tenant does on the leased premises. Eva felt that some Town control over this would be important. Jonathan suggested that since qualifying home occupations will no longer require special approval, the Town would have no knowledge or control over who sets up home occupations. Kirk added that if a home occupation becomes a problem in a rented home, the landlord would have to be responsible for taking care of the situation. Susan asked whether the list of typical home occupations in Section 1 of the draft Local Law should be expanded to include additional examples, such as computer programmers, financial consultants, 2 career consultants, translators, and writers. Pat thought that adding those would be a good idea. The Committee agreed. Herb asked what is the next step for the local law. Susan suggested that the draft local law could be sent to the Town Board for the December 29th meeting for consideration of referring the local law to the Planning Board for a recommendation and setting a public hearing date to consider adoption of the law. Jonathan asked whether a recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) would be needed. Susan indicated that the ZBA discussed the issue of home occupations at their December meeting in relation to an application for a variance for a home occupation, and passed a resolution recommending that renters be allowed to have home occupations on the premises which they are renting. Kirk felt that further input from the ZBA was not necessary. Susan Cosley [editor’s note: Ms. Cosley is the appellant who appeared before the ZBA for the home occupation request] referred to the definition of “home occupation” (page 1, Section1), which says “a business conducted wholly within a dwelling” …, and asked what this is supposed to mean. Fred said that his interpretation is that this is intended to prevent use or activity related to a home occupation on yards outside of the residence. Ms. Cosley asked whether this would preclude uses such as a caterer who has to transport prepared foods out of the home to another location or some other portion of a business in which some part of the business is conducted at another location off of the site (e.g., a consultant who meets some clients off site in certain situations. Kirk added that many home businesses have off site components. Jonathan suggested that it would be appropriate to address this issue now, so that interpretations do not have to constantly be made down the road. Susan Brock suggested that the word “wholly” could be deleted from the definition. The Committee discussed possible ways of addressing this for clarification so that it would be clear that home businesses can have off site elements, but that business activities on the site must be conducted entirely within the dwelling. The Committee agreed to delete the references to “wholly” within the dwelling in the definition and to add a new sub-section in Section 2 saying that “all business activities that are conducted within the bounds of the lot on which the business is located must be conducted wholly within the dwelling or accessory building”. The Committee agreed. Ms. Cosley then pointed out that Section 2-D that says that “no goods shall be offered for sale excepting those created, assembled, or reconditioned completely on the property” would appear to prohibit things like E-bay sales conducted over the computer. Susan Brock suggested that could be clarified by adding the words “on the premises” after the words “offered for sale”. The Committee agreed with the above changes, and agreed to send the draft local law to the Town Board for consideration. Susan Brock said that she would send the draft law to the Town Clerk tomorrow. Agenda Item No. 4 – Approval of Meeting Schedule for 2007: Jonathan referred to the proposed 2007 meeting schedule that had been distributed to the Committee, and asked if the schedule looked okay. Several members indicated that November 21 st would be the day before Thanksgiving and suggested that this meeting date be deleted. After brief discussion regarding whether a different November meeting date should be selected, the Committee agreed to delete the November 21st date from the schedule, and agreed that if needed, a different November date could be arranged in the future. With the deletion of the November 21, 2007 date, the 2007 meeting schedule was accepted by consensus of the Committee. Agenda Item No. 5– Continuation of Review of Dock Regulations: 3 Cathy reported that the Water Resources Council has discussed dock and shoreline regulations and is interested in all lakefront municipalities having the same set of regulations to control lakefront structures. Cathy added that she had told the Council that it would be good to have consistency in regulations, but that she doubted that all communities would adopt the same regulations. Fred asked about the jet ski regulations that were adopted recently. Cathy responded that the Towns of Ithaca, Lansing, and Ulysses all adopted the same basic regulations for watercraft. Chris added that the Cayuga Watershed Network has been discussing uniform regulations for Cayuga Lake. Jonathan reminded the Committee about the letter from David Gersh that had been discussed at the last meeting. Chris reported that she has done some research on the issue of “keyhole development”, in which access to a lake is provided by an owner of an apartment or condo development who also owns lakefront property. Chris indicated that from the little information that she has found, these situations usually involve multiple docks on lakefront properties so that they are like marinas. Chris added that examples of regulations in Michigan that she found include limitations on the number of docks per property or a limit on number of docks per linear footage of lakefront, some set limits on the number of houses or units that can use a single lakefront property. Pat asked whether the Town could prohibit the sale of rights to use property by non -residents, not including renters. Herb mentioned that there is limited public access to the lake, and such prohibition could further limit lake access. Pat suggested that Mr. Gersh raises a good point in his letter – that allowing lake access to large numbers of non-residents – could produce large impacts on neighbors. Pat added that someone could buy a lot on the lake and sell or lease access rights to 100 people who do not live on the lake. Eva mentioned that the Town does not want to limit residents inviting guests to their lake property or bringing boats, but that we do not want to allow commercial use of the lakefront in a residential neighborhood. Chris indicated that there is a property off of East Shore Drive zoned Multiple Residence (MR), where the owner could develop the property with apartments or condos, buy a lot on the lake just across the street, and allow residents of the apartment or condo to have access to the lakefront lot. Susan thought that limiting this kind of arrangement might be seen as a taking of property rights (i.e., limiting to whom a property owner can transfer access rights through zoning). There was further discussion regarding this issue of property rights. Jonathan added that the Town should be careful about using zoning to limit ownership aspects and the rights of condo or co-op association owners in regard to property use or access. Chris showed the MR property on an aerial photo. Jonathan described the history of the zoning of that property, and indicated that there was no record of when or why that property was so zoned, but that it has been MR for a long time. Jonathan added that Cornell bought the property when it purchased the site for the Lake Source Cooling plant, and subsequently has apparently sold the MR portion to a private owner. Jonathan reminded members that the Committee had looked at the possibility of rezoning that site from MR to Medium Density Residential during the process of the Comprehensive Zoning Revisions, but decided not to pursue such rezoning. Kirk raised the issue that under current zoning, someone could build a swimming pool and open it up as a club to non-residents. Diane mentioned that clubs and lodges have setback requirements that would not allow such use on many of the lakefront lots. Pat suggested that there should be a limit on the number of dwelling units that can use or access a lakefront lot. Susan suggested looking at the other sections of the Lakefront zone amendments and think about the access and possible takings issues further. 4 Herb asked if there are other issues that need to be addressed. Chris said that there are only a few technical issues left to cover. Herb suggested looking at the definitions section. Chris indicated that draft definitions came from a combination of ordinance samples that she had collected and a planners’ dictionary of terminology. The Committee went through the draft definitions regarding lakefront structures as follows: Boat: Does this definition include jet skis? Susan responded that it does because it includes all vehicles designed for travel in or on water. Boathouse: Chris indicated that the Committee decided previously to eliminate boathouses as permitted structures, so it is not necessary to define. Boatlift/boat hoist: The Committee was okay with the proposed definition. Boat ramp: The Committee agreed to delete “recreational” from the definition, as well as the reference to “from a trailer” and “canoes, kayaks and other types of boats” because the term “boat” includes all of these. Dock: It was agreed to use the sample “Dock2” definition provided in the draft, modified to delete the phrase “and other marine transportation” and the word “recreational” so that the definition of dock will read “A structure built over or floating upon the water and used as a landing place for boats, fishing, swimming, or other uses”. Height: The Committee agreed with the draft definition. Marina: the Committee agreed on minor revisions, by deleting “open to the general public” and deleting the word “shall” and the last “and” to “and/or”, so that it reads: “A lakeshore business whose purpose includes sale of boats, supplies and fuel, rental of boats, marine equipment, dock and mooring space, and winter storage; service of boats and marine equipment; and/or provision for boat access to the lake”. Mooring, Mooring Buoy: After brief discussion, the Committee agreed to use the definition of “mooring” as drafted, and to delete the definition of “mooring buoy”. Ordinary High Water Line: The Committee agreed to leave this definition as drafted. Herb indicated that the determination of “high water line” will require the input of experts. Chris said that this would likely involve a determination by an engineer or surveyor. Kirk indicated that the ordinary high water line varies by property and is wherever on each property is marked by the ordinary high water level, which is 384 feet above sea level. Ordinary High Water Line2: The Committee decided to change this to “Ordinary High Water Level for Cayuga Lake”, and to modify the wording to say “The ordinary high water level for Cayuga Lake is 384 feet above mean sea level.”. Sea Wall: The Committee was okay with this definition. The Committee ended discussion of the Lakefront Residential Zone revisions for the evening and agreed to discuss the issue of “keyhole development” or non -residents using or having access to 5 lakefront property at the next meeting, along with a report on how to determine the Ordinary High Water line - can that be determined on all parcels for a lake level of 384 feet? Agenda Item No. 6 –Report on Survey of Lakefront Residents: Herb mentioned that Esther had done a great job on compiling the results of the lakefront residents’ survey, and asked the Committee to be ready to discuss and deal with the survey results at the January meeting. Agenda Item No. 7 - Other Business: Susan reported that she and staff have met with a Town resident who is interested in putting up an amateur radio tower at his property on Warren Road, and that based on a review of the Zoning requirements, it appears that such towers and facilities are not permitted in residential zones in the Town of Ithaca. Susan added that there are FCC (Federal Communications Commission) rulings and regulations that preempt, in a limited way, local zoning restrictions that inhibit amateur radio communications. Susan indicated that the interested resident is willing to work with the Town on coming up with regulation that would allow such facilities, and that this is something that the Committee should work into its priority list of items to work on soon. The Committee agreed to put this on an upcoming agenda for further discussion. Agenda Item No. 8- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 17, 2007. Proposed agenda items include completion of review of dock regulations, discussion regarding lakefront survey results, continuation of discussion regarding the regulation of wind energy facilities, discussion regarding regulations for amateur radio towers, and review of sign regulations. 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