HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-01-17-07TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2007 – 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Member Comments/Concerns.
2. Approval of Minutes of December 20, 2006 Meeting.
3. Continuation of Review of Dock Regulations.
4. Discussion Regarding Results of Survey of Lakefront Residents.
5. Discussion Regarding Amateur Radio Towers and Other Residential Accessory Structures.
6. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy Facilities.
7. Review of Certain Provisions in Chapter 221 Signs in Town of Ithaca Code (refer to outline of
Possible Amendments to Sign Law distributed in Nov. 15th mail-out packet).
8. Other Business.
9. Next Meeting Date and Agenda: Tentatively Wednesday, February 21, 2007.
[Future Agenda Items: Amendments to Chapter 184 Noise; Overall Code Amendments to Reflect
Re-organization of Former Building and Zoning Dept; Amendments to Chapter 129 Unsafe
Buildings.]
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
January 11, 2007
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2007
PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Kirk Sigel, Diane Conneman, Eva Hoffmann.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Chris
Balestra, Planner.
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 December 20, 2006 Meeting:
Susan Brock pointed out two corrections on page 4: (1) under boat ramp, also delete the words “from
a trailer” and (2) under Ordinary High Water Level, use the wording, “The ordinary high water level
for Cayuga Lake is 384 feet above mean sea level.” The Committee accepted the Minutes of the
December 20, 2006 meeting with the above corrections by consensus.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Dock Regulations:
Herb indicated that there were two remaining issues for the Committee to discuss: (1) keyhole
development, and (2) technology for measuring ordinary high water level. Chris reported that she
could not find much more information regarding the regulation of “keyhole” development. Chris
mentioned that some areas in Wisconsin and Indiana regulate the size of docks to limit the number of
people able to use such facilities. Susan confirmed that the proposed Town regulations would limit
the total dock area on a lot to 300 square feet (not 300 square feet per dock). This would normally
result in one, or two very small, docks on any waterfront lot. Susan added that the Moore lot on East
Shore Drive is for sale, and that this lot is across the street from the large Multiple Residence (MR)
zoned property. Susan added that it is possible that someone could develop the MR property, buy the
Moore lot, and allow residents of the MR zoned development to use the waterfront lot. Chris added
that she could not find any regulations that limit the number of people permitted to use a lot. Pat
asked whether regulations could distinguish between use by a family and friends vs. commercial use
of a waterfront lot. Susan suggested that regulations could say that only owners or renters are
allowed to use the land. Pat asked if we could limit the number of people who can have ownership
rights to a property, and that we need to address the use by large numbers of unrelated people. Eva
indicated that a condominium or cooperative would have a fee associated with ownership or
membership rights, and how would you limit their use of land that they have rights to. Kirk agreed
that condo or coop members would have rights to use the land for which they are paying a fee.
Herb suggested that not all people who have rights to use a waterfront lot would be likely to use it all
at the same time. Pat reiterated her idea of limiting the number of unrelated people using the lot at
the same time. Eva added that the size of the lot and the dock would probably limit the number of
people using it at any given time.
Chris reported that she had spoken with a representative from the Town of Gorham on Canandaigua
Lake, and that they have regulations for weekly and seasonal rentals, but that their attorney told them
2
they cannot enforce their regulations. Chris added that they deal with the keyhole issue by limiting
the area of docks and the number of boat slips allowed based on the length of shoreline of the lot.
The Town’s regulations were upheld in a court case.
Herb suggested that we rely on the limit on dock size that would be in the amended regulations. The
Committee agreed to leave the draft amendments as is and just limit the square feet of docks on a lot.
Chris mentioned that “club houses” and “lodges” were removed from the current draft amendments
of the Lakefront Residential Zone.
Chris reported that she had checked with T.G. Miller Engineers on how they measure ordinary high
water level on shoreline properties. Chris indicated that the water line can change over a period of
five years or so, but that measurements determine where the high water mark is on a lot at the time it
is measured. Kirk asked whether the Town should require updated survey maps for each building
permit application or variance. Susan suggested adding the word “current” to the definition of
ordinary high water line so that the Code Enforcement Officer could determine whether an updated
survey should be required. Diane felt that we should not use the term “current” in defining the high
water level because that level remains at 384 feet above mean sea level. Chris summarized the
discussion by indicating that page 3, Section H(1) (c) includes a requirement for submitting an
accurately scaled map showing the existing shoreline, ordinary high water level, etc., and asked if
this would cover the issue. The Committee agreed to leave that section as is.
Herb suggested that the next step should be to send the revised Lakefront Residential Zone draft to
groups such as the West Shore Association, Water Resources Council, dock builders, Office of
General Services, local sailing and boating groups, etc. Jonathan suggested reporting comments back
to the Committee before finalizing the amendments. The Committee agreed.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion Regarding Results of Lakefront Survey:
Herb referred to the “Lakefront Residential Survey: Results Summary” (Dec. 11, 2006) and asked if
Committee members had any reactions to the survey results. Herb indicated that his own observation
is that there is nothing clear enough in the survey results to warrant any further action and that he
could not see any solution that would make everyone happy. Kirk indicated that he is leaning that
way, too. Diane mentioned one thing that she is concerned about – that is the hunting of waterfowl
on the lake. Diane wondered whether such hunting near the shoreline is legal. Herb responded that
he thinks it is legal as long as it is done off shore, and that the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) regulates hunting. Diane said that she would follow up with DEC.
Pat referred to the survey results regarding renting, and mentioned that item #4 on the survey results
summary indicates that 17 out of the 61 respondents thought that renting was an “important” or “very
important” source of income to them. Pat added that the specific comments at the end of the
summary included a number of comments that there should be long -term rentals only or to allow
only annual leases. Kirk thought that an easy way to limit the number of short -term leases would be
to limit the number of leases for any property to no more than one rental per month, and that such an
approach would allow income for the owner, while not having many short -term rentals over a year.
Chris wondered about graduation weekend rentals. Jonathan asked the Committee whether such a
restriction would be just in the Lakefront Residential Zone (LRZ) or in all zones in the Town. Pat
responded that a restriction could start with the LRZ and see how that goes.
3
Herb indicated the possibility of limiting the occupancy of tenants and guests to the total number of
parking spaces available on the property, based on one comment in the survey results. Chris added
that most properties along the lakeshore do not currently have enough on-site parking. Kirk thought
that maybe the Committee could consider lease restrictions in all zones. Susan indicated that owners
may not understand what “one rental per month” means, and that it might be difficult to enforce.
Herb reiterated that it does not appear that there is any solution that stands out from the survey. Pat
suggested that a restriction on short-term rentals would not have to apply town-wide, and that the
potential need is in the LRZ. Herb mentioned that the frequency of problems section of the survey
summary (#5) did not indicate any significant problems raised by respondents. Pat said that the issue
of short-term rentals in the LRZ is really about whether a commercial use should be allowed in the
residential zone. Jonathan indicated that “noise” was the most often reported problem, and that the
recently amended noise law would address noise issues created by neighbors.
After further discussion regarding the issue of commercial use in a residential zone, Kirk mentioned
that rentals in the LRZ are most common during the summer season. Diane indicated that Table 10
in #5 of the survey summary shows that the issue of “noise” appears to be spread out for weekly,
monthly and annual rentals, so that limiting short-term rentals may not address the issue of noise.
Kirk mentioned that some communities that do restrict short -term rentals do so because of traffic
impacts that result. Pat added that the benefit of restricting short -term rentals would be to address
issues such as traffic, insufficient parking, and high turnover of transient renters. Eva indicated that
there is a difference between families that rent a dwelling vs. short-term vacation renters.
Pat suggested using a formula in which there would be a maximum number of rentals in any year,
allowing the owner to spread those rentals throughout the year, with the intent of avoiding a new
group of tenants every week. Chris asked whether there is case law regarding the restriction of short -
term rentals. Kirk indicated that he knows of two communities in Florida that have this kind of
restriction. Herb mentioned that Table 5 in # 3 of the survey summary shows that only five
respondents said that they lease their property 2 –5 times per year (29%), while the majority of
respondents said that they only sign one lease per year (71%), so that this issue does not appear to be
a significant problem. Herb added that he is reluctant to pass a regulation based on inconclusive
survey results. Pat countered that she believes that some type of regulation of short -term rentals is
needed. Jonathan suggested that the Committee report its discussion and the results of the survey to
the Town Board. Herb agreed and suggested that the Committee’s report include the finding that the
Committee’s discussion was inconclusive, and that the Town Board be requested to provide the
Committee with further direction. Kirk also asked that the report indicate that the Committee
discussed the possibility of limiting the maximum number of leases per month. Susan said that such
a restriction could be worded to say that there shall be a maximum of one rental within any 30 day
period. The Committee agreed to report the above discussion and the survey results to the Town
Board and ask for the Board’s direction on this matter.
Agenda Item No. 5– Discussion Regarding Amateur Radio Towers:
Susan reported that a resident on Warren Road wants to install an amateur radio antenna, but that the
Town’s Zoning Code only allows them in the Agricultural Zone, and would require a use variance in
order to do it. Susan referred to an FCC (Federal Communications Commission) ruling placing
limits on municipal regulations regarding amateur radio towers. The FCC regulations in effect pre -
empt municipalities from unreasonably restricting such towers, and must serve a legitimate public
purpose. Susan added that if someone wanted to challenge the Town’s current regulations regarding
4
amateur radio towers, the Town would likely lose a court case because we do not allow amateur
radio towers anywhere except in Agricultural Zones. Susan mentioned that many communities allow
such facilities in all zones subject to certain criteria. Susan indicated that she and Town staff had met
with the resident, and he would like to work with the Town in preparing reasonable regulations
regarding amateur radio towers. Susan asked the Committee members how they would like to
proceed. Susan added that the Committee could draft regulations that allow these towers in all zones,
limit their height, and perhaps regulate them by special permit if over a certain height.
Kirk suggested allowing towers under a certain height by right, and regulating higher ones by special
permit up to a certain height, and anything over that height would have to get a variance. Jonathan
mentioned that the resident who is interested in installing a tower has indicated that 36 feet is
probably a reasonable height limit for most towers, including a 30 foot tower and several additional
feet for the antenna. Susan added that the resident wants to install a tower next to his house to help
protect it from wind. The resident had also said that a fall zone for these towers is not necessary
because of their light weight, and that most towers come in 10 foot sections.
Herb thought that this does not seem to be too complicated an issue, and that not many people are
likely to want to install these towers. Eva asked whether any of these towers involve guy wires.
Susan responded that some towers are higher than what the Committee was discussing, but that it
might be a good idea to invite someone familiar with these facilities to a Committee meeting to
discuss the technical aspects of the towers, and then to draft a proposed regulation.
Susan mentioned that antennas are permitted on roofs with no height limit. Herb agreed that the
Committee should invite an expert on towers to the next meeting. Jonathan added that the review of
the Zoning Code relating to towers pointed out that there are also some problems with the way
accessory structures are defined and regulated in residential zones, and suggested that the Committee
look at this related issue at the same time.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy Facilities:
Herb asked Committee members if they had received copies of the “Wind Turbine Ordinance” that
had been distributed. Committee members indicated that they had received it. Herb asked members
to review this and be prepared to discuss it at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Review of Provisions in Sign Chapter of Town of Ithaca Code:
Jonathan referred to the outline of “Possible Amendments to the Sign Law” and explained that this is
a compilation of issues and suggestions that staff and the Attorney for the Town came up with
regarding portions of the Sign Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code that warrant review and perhaps
clarification or updating. Jonathan mentioned that the definition of the “area of a freestanding sign”
is one of the most problematic sections for staff to interpret and administer. Susan indicated that
there are no clear criteria for determining approval of sign variances. Kirk added that the Committee
should think about how restrictive with signs the Town wants to be, and that many gas stations
contain non-conforming signs. Jonathan mentioned that some of the items on the list of possible
amendments are policy issues, and some are matters of clarification. Jonathan referred to sign
illumination as another area needing clarification, and that the current regulations are ambiguous, and
mentioned back lighted and indirect illumination as needing clarification in the regulations.
5
Herb asked whether political signs are exempt from the regulations. Susan responded yes, the Town
recently amended the regulations regarding political signs because of freedom of speech issues. Herb
asked the Committee how they want to proceed with the review of the sign regulations. Jonathan
suggested focusing on the policy issues at the next meeting, and then draft amendments could be
prepared following that. Kirk suggested looking at other municipal sign laws as examples. Jonathan
agreed that that might help.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 9- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 21, 2007. Proposed agenda
items include discussion of 2007 work plan priorities, continuation of discussion regarding
regulations for amateur radio towers, continuation of review of sign regulations, and continuation of
discussion regarding proposed wind energy facility 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