HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-08-15-07TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2007 – 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Member Comments/Concerns.
2. Approval of Minutes of July 18, 2007 Meeting.
3. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Comments Received on Draft Stream Setback Law.
4. Introduction to Proposed Stormwater Management Law.
5. Other Business.
6. Next Meeting Date and Agenda: Tentatively Wednesday, September 19, 2007.
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
August 8, 2007
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 15, 2007
PRESENT: Diane Conneman, Herb Engman, Pat Leary.
OTHERS: Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town;
Stephan Wagner, resident.
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 July 18, 2007 Meeting:
A minor typo was found on page 2. The committee approved the minutes of July 18th with no
additional corrections.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Comments Received on Draft
Stream Setback Law:
The committee continued discussing comments received on the Stream Setback Law. The
committee was reminded that they had left off discussion in July with comments from Kate
Hackett, Tompkins County Planning Department, regarding extending the minimum setback to
50 feet (from 35 ft.). Committee members agreed that a future site visit to look at several
streams and examine the differences between a 35 foot and 50 foot setback in the field would be
useful for continuing this discussion.
The committee then began reviewing the next set of comments, those received from Debbie
Teeter (Town Ag Committee and Cornell Cooperative Extension). (Note that any comment in
the compiled list that was repeated by a subsequent commenter, and discussed previously by the
committee, was skipped over.)
Comment: “I spoke with Craig about this last week and there were no serious concerns,
although on page 8, item 6a, construction of crossings may be problematic, as farmers often
combine parcels and might need to construct more than one crossing to access fields. Has this
been considered?”
The committee felt that at-grade crossings in general need to be looked into, as described
in the July meeting minutes. It was suggested that staff from Tompkins County Soil and Water
or USDA NRCS should be consulted to determine what is the environmentally sound approach
in these agricultural situations.
Comment:
Under section 1 (b) [2] I would add haying and grazing to landscaping as permissible activities in
zone 2. These are agricultural uses that I think are compatible with protection natural resources
as well as landscaping. If necessary, one can say "haying and grazing in accordance to USDA
2
NRCS conservation practice standards" to prevent such issues as manure and other non chemical
fertilizers being applied in excess of crop requirements, soil compaction from livestock traffic,
etc.
The committee agreed to allow haying and grazing in Zone 2, and to include language
that would allow this “in accordance with USDA NRCS conservation practices”.
Comment:
I did not see the law directly address the issue of livestock, grazing and agriculture in the buffer
zone. This land use does have a significant negative impact on stream water quality and
stability, vegetation cover, etc.. Did you consider prohibiting livestock, grazing and animal
feedlot operations in the buffer? Or consider permitting agriculture only in the buffer only if the
farm has an approved NRCS conservation plan?
The committee suggested that staff check on the situation with farms that have NRCS
conservation plans, and how the issue of grazing in riparian areas is handled.
Comment:
I was also wondering about gas stations - did you consider prohibiting above- or below-ground
petroleum storage facilities?
The committee felt that the law already prohibited these types of structures.
Comment:
I can understand wanting to allow legal chemical use in the outer buffer zone - but I'd suggest
that chemicals should not be permitted in the streamside zone. Legal use of herbicides,
pesticides, etc. has been clearly shown to be harmful to water quality and aquatic life. You could
exempt agricultural chemical use for farms with an approved NRCS conservation plan if you
want to protect farmers from this regulation.
The committee discussed the previous discussion in July concerning chemicals. The
committee at that time agreed to prohibit chemical use in Zone 1 and Zone 2 except in the
case for human/animal safety and for agricultural use for farms having an approved
NRCS conservation plan (pending discussion with Craig Schutt, of Tompkins County
Soil and Water). Diane discussed the Conservation Board’s recommendation regarding
chemical use, and that they had suggested allowing use for controlling invasive plant
species. The committee agreed to add “and for selective application to control invasive
plant species for the purposes of restoring native plant species”.
Many of Barry Goodrich’s comments pertained to word and phrase editing, so it was decided to
check on these as the law is revised.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Stormwater Management Local Law
Committee members did not have any questions with the Stormwater Management Basics
summary document, and so the discussion focused on the document entitled “Elements of the
Proposed Town of Ithaca Draft Stormwater Management & Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Local Law, which summarized the Applicability, Exemptions, and Performance and Design
Criteria – Standards sections in the forthcoming local law.
3
Several sections were particularly discussed, and these were identified for needing more scrutiny,
explanation, or re-wording, including:
- Threshold requirement for a Full SWPPP in which greater than one acre of disturbance
that will directly discharge a pollutant of concern to an impaired waterbody identified on
the NYS DEC’s 303(d) list of impaired water (a direct discharge would be a stream that
discharges directly into Cayuga Lake, a ditch that discharges into the stream, would not
qualify)
- The provision stating that regardless of size, that the Town Engineer, Code Enforcement
Officer, or Director of Planning determines likely to cause adverse impacts to an
environmentally sensitive area or other property, or may violate any other stormwater
control standards set forth in this law.
- The requirement for a Simple Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for an activity that
involves the laying, replacing, or enlarging of an underground pipe or other facility, or
the disturbance of road ditch, drainage swale or other channel for a distance of 300 feet or
more
Herb requested that when the local law comes back to the Committee, that staff should include a
short summary of how the Town of Ithaca draft local law compares with the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation model law.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business None
Agenda Item No. 6 – Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting
Next Meeting: September 19, 2007.
Agenda items include:
1- Begin review of the draft Stormwater Management & Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Local Law. This should be a priority because the Town is required to enact a stormwater
management law before January 8, 2008.
2- Possibly briefly discuss, or at a minimum distribute any feedback received on the dock
regulations or wind energy law, so members can stay up to date.
Submitted by S. Ritter