HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-07-19-07TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
MEETING OF JULY 18, 2007 – 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Member Comments/Concerns.
2. Approval of Minutes of June 20, 2007 Meeting.
3. Continuation of Review of Draft Local Law Regarding Regulation of Small Wind Energy
Facilities (refer to Draft Local Law dated July 11, 2007).
4. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Comments Received on Draft Stream Setback Law.
5. Other Business.
6. Next Meeting Date and Agenda: Tentatively Wednesday, August 15, 2007.
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
July 12, 2007
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
JULY 18, 2007
PRESENT: Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Pat Leary.
OTHERS: Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town.
Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 7:35PM.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of June 20, 2007 Meeting:
Minor typos were found, including several on page 2. The committee approved the minutes of
June 20th with no additional corrections.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Draft Law Regarding Regulation of Small Wind Energy
Facilities:
The committee approved the modifications that Susan Brock had made to the draft law. The
only outstanding issue for the committee to consider was regarding the definition of “Qualified
Wind Energy Installer” on page 1. At the June meeting, the question was raised whether to
consider requiring additional training of installers. The committee discussed the fact that a
facility cannot get a NYSERDA certificate without using properly trained installer, so the
incentive is there to use qualified person(s). The committee decided to remove this comment
from the draft law.
No other items need to be addressed by the COC at this time, so the draft law is now ready to be
sent to various professionals and interested persons for comment. The draft should be sent to
the 1)List of installers that Esther had compiled, 2) Conservation Board members, 3) Lab of
Ornithology, 4) Steve Nicholson, 5) Cayuga Bird Club, and 6) Tompkins County EMC. Also
staff should check to see if there is a policy person at NYSERDA who might want to review the
draft.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Comments Received on Draft
Stream Setback Law:
The committee had left off discussion in June with Deb Carocco’s comments concerning a
recommendation to allow outlets from stormwater management practices in Zones 1 and Zone 2.
This is also a similar comment submitted by John Anderson. The committee agreed to allow
stormwater outlets in Zones 1 and 2, but to include the following language: “Where sheet flow or
infiltration is not practical”, and to also require “revegetation of disturbed area”.
2
[The remainder of the committee’s discussion of the Stream Setback Law comments is organized
by listing the specific comment considered, followed by the committee’s decision on how to
address that comment.]
Comment: Consider adding agricultural practices (e.g., tilling) in part of the setback to be
consistent with objective B.6.
The committee decided to not include agricultural practices since the Agricultural
Committee had not expressed a problem with this.
Comment: Consider limiting the application of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals
within the stream setback entirely. Currently, Section G.1.j limits application to the “guidelines on the
manufacturer’s label.”
The committee agreed to prohibit these chemicals in Zone 1, and in Zone 2 limit use such
as for human/animal safety and for agricultural use for farms having an approved NRCS
conservation plan. The committee requested that Craig Schutt, of Tompkins County Soil
and Water, be contacted to determine the appropriate way to refer to these plans.
Comment: The Law does not identify in detail the mechanisms to ensure that the stream setback
remains intact over time. Some options include: monuments and signs at the edge of the setback,
inclusion in the deed of a home, or educational materials passed on to any new home owner.
The committee agreed that the stream setback should be identified on approved site plans,
new subdivision plats and included in deeds.
Comment: One stream crossing per tax parcel seems very strict [Section F.(6)(a)]. This may
make it very difficult for a landowner to access a wood lot, a gardening area or a recreation area,
or a farmer to access fields.
The committee decided to hold off making a decision on this comment. The committee
decided that multiple foot bridges and above grade vehicle crossings were acceptable, but
members had concern for the at-grade crossings. The committee recommended asking
experts, such as Kate Hackett or Andy Zepp if at grade crossings are known to be a
problem. The committee questioned whether this was even a problem for the Town [not
sure of the meaning of this in my notes: G(1)(a) except as permitted in F.(6) above].
Comment: The committee felt that by not allowing structures would rule out decorative (and
useful) bridges, gazebos, etc. in either zone. This would affect not only home owners, but trail
builders like the Cayuga Trails Club, who need to build footbridges over streams and wet spots.
No landowner will let a club use his one crossing per tax parcel only for a trail and I believe the
FLT crosses a stream or two in Ithaca. And I can think of at least one more that is needed to get
hikers off a used railroad bridge. And I'll bet there are several snowmobile bridges, too, and
more to come.
The committee felt that decorative gazebos should not be allowed, however, bridges
would be allowed by the modification tentatively approved above [with the exception that
at-grade crossings still need to be discussed].
Comment: It sounds as if no pond or constructed wetland would be allowed in either zone.
The committee agreed to allow ponds or constructed wetlands in Zone 2, but not in
3
Zone 1.
Comment: With all the prohibitions, I wonder why domestic animals (at least the large ones like
horses, cattle, llamas, sheep) are not excluded from both zones?
The committee suggested prohibiting large domestic animals, except for limited stream
crossings, and to use language from the federal or state ag/farm programs that require the
control of animal in streams. The committee requested that staff get a list of
requirements and wording used by these programs. Debbie Teeter from Cooperative
Extension would be a good contact.
Comment: This could affect development of some properties where the well needs to be in one
of the zones to keep it away from other sources of contamination. This does not affect the
placement of a sewage system, because that horizontal separation distance already exceeds the
proposed set-back. However, the set-back from a stream to a well is only 25', so I can envision a
situation with 50' or 100' set-backs prohibiting development.
The committee decided to allow wells in Zone 2, but not Zone 1. If a well is necessary in
Zone 1 the property owner would need to get a variance.
Comment: I never heard of measuring slope perpendicular to the stream. That may not measure
the most extreme slope, and I'll bet two people could never agree on a stream direction at a
given point. Slope is always measured perpendicular to the contour lines.
The committee suggested that staff revisit Section 1, E (8)(c) in the law, and amend if
necessary.
The committee briefly began discussing comments from Kate Hackett, Tompkins County
Planning Department, regarding extending the minimum setback to 50 feet (from 35 ft.).
Committee members agreed that a site visit to look at several streams and to see what a 35ft. and
50ft. setback looks like would be useful.
As part of the law, the COC had previously approved the idea of modifying the language in the
subdivision regulations to allow the Planning Board to apply setbacks to streams in
environmentally sensitive areas with drainage areas less than 50 acres. This language needs to
be worked on, and at that time it can be determined whether it would be appropriate to include it
in the law itself.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business None
Agenda Item No. 6 – Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting
Next Meeting: August 15, 2007.
Agenda items include: 1- Continue discussing comments on draft Stream Setback Law,
2- Begin preliminary discussion of draft stormwater management law, 3- possibly discuss
comments on dock regulations, 4 - COC members to look at list of priorities.
Submitted by S. Ritter