Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-11-07-07CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2007 PRESENT: Pat Leary, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel. OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney for the Town; Sue Ritter (Sue), Assistant Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Stephan Wagner, 112 Sapsucker Woods Road; Mary Shelley, 109 Park Place; Don Smith, 1329 Taughannock Boulevard; Dave Kevness, 109 Maplewood Road; Bill Goodman, 231 Rachel Carson Way. Due to the absence of Herb Engman, Pat Leary agreed to chair the meeting. Pat called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Meeting Minutes: Due to the lack of a quorum of the Committee being present, the Committee postponed action on the Minutes of the October 17, 2007 meeting until the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Comments Received on Lakefront Residential Zone Amendments (Dock Regulations): Chris Balestra described materials that had been distributed to the Committee regarding comments received on the proposed amendments to the Lakefront Residential Zone. Several residents attending the meeting for this discussion introduced themselves, including Mary Shelley, 109 Park Place; Don Smith, 1329 Taughannock Boulevard; and Dave Kevness, 109 Maplewood Road. The Committee decided to go through groupings of comments on similar subjects, as follows. Boat houses, boat lifts: A number of comments related to the need for boat houses and boat lifts to have roofs to protect boats from the elements. Eva mentioned that the purpose of the lakefront regulations is to protect the character of the shoreline. Eva suggested that residents with boats that need protection could keep their boats at marinas or other protected areas. Kirk indicated that the Committee had wanted to minimize building mass above the waterline, and that there are some boat houses on the shore that look like houses. Susan mentioned that the proposed regulations would allow a boat house with a roof if it meets the setback requirement of 25 feet from the shoreline. This would allow winter storage, but would not be allowed at the water’s edge. Don Smith, President of the West Shore Homeowners’ Association (WSHA), said that the WSHA conducted a survey of West Shore residents, the results of which were provided to the Committee, and that Mary Shelley did research on lakeshore regulations in other municipalities. 2 Don mentioned that he does market research and is familiar with survey techniques. Don referred the Committee to the marked-up version of the draft law (dated 8/1/07) with WSHA suggestions that had been sent to the Committee. Mary Shelley indicated that boat houses are essential structures for lakefront residents – they are as important for boats as garages are for cars. They need roofs to protect boats. Mary agreed that there is a need to protect neighbors’ views along the shoreline. Don indicated that the survey showed the need for roofs on boat houses and boat lifts. Don added that the survey indicated that most residents agreed that solid sides on boat lifts are not desirable, but that roofs are necessary. Eva asked why are roofs necessary on boat lifts. Eva indicated that she has lived in a country where many people have boats, but there are very few boat lifts or hoists. She added that both cars and boats are built to withstand outdoor conditions. Dave Kevness responded that his boat has equipment that needs to be protected. Dan mentioned that Lake George has a lot of marinas where people keep boats, and the boats have individual covers to protect them. Dave acknowledged that protection of views is the issue, and that boat houses can block views, but added that roofs on boat lifts usually do not block views. Eva indicated that the intent of the lakefront regulations is to protect both neighbor views, as well as views from the lake to the shore, and that she is concerned about visual clutter along the shore. Susan mentioned that Chris had collected samples of regulations from around the State. Chris indicated that the Keuka Lake regulations allow roofs on boat hoists. Kirk mentioned that where he grew up on the New Jersey shore, very few people had boat hoists with covers or roofs. Dave responded that the culture has changed, and the trend is toward protecting boats. Pat felt that the greatest visual impact of boat lifts is from the side, not above, and that a roof on a boat hoist does not interfere with views very much, especially from a distance. Eva disagreed. Don suggested that unkept or abandoned houses or docks on the shoreline have more of an impact on the area’s character than most boat lifts. Don added that 78% of residents who participated in the survey want shoreline regulations, and the WSHA supports most of the draft law, but he asked the Committee to reconsider some of the restrictions, such as the roofs on boat lifts. Susan asked if Chris has any photos of boat lifts with roofs. Chris said yes, and showed the cover of her report as an example. Jonathan indicated that he likes the WSHA suggestion on Page 4, #5, in which the suggested revision includes a maximum footprint for boat hoists including the roof overhang, and a maximum roof peak height above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). The Committee agreed to think about this suggestion. Kirk asked if the WSHA thought about a restriction on the pitch of the roof. Don said they had, but were hesitant to suggest this. Mary added that the State of New York sees the Lake as a navigable resource, and it seems reasonable to promote boating. Kirk responded that the State’s interest is more directly concerned with not blocking navigability. Pat suggested that the Committee discuss this further. Dave suggested using OHWL as a measure for roof height above water. Mary added that it is important to account for the normal six-foot fluctuation in water level each year. Funneling: Eva mentioned that the issue of “funneling”, or the use of a lakefront lot for multiple users who may not live on the lot, was raised as a potential issue in the comments received by the Committee. Kirk reminded the Committee that there was much discussion about this issue, but that there was no consensus on how to address such an issue without causing additional problems. Kirk indicated that it is difficult to control ownership of property under zoning – there could be two or more joint owners of a parcel, how could the Town prevent them from using the property. Susan added that it would be difficult to say to an owner that they could not invite 3 friends to use their property. Susan reiterated that the Committee had discussed this at several meetings, and had decided not to address this issue further. Chris indicated that she had done some research on this subject, but could not find anything that would be helpful. Susan referred to the comments received from David Gersch, who had commented on “keyhole development”, which involves the potential use of a lakefront parcel by residents of an apartment or condominium that owns the lakefront parcel, but where the development is located on a different parcel (e.g., across the street). Chris added that the only sample regulations she found that deal with similar issues involved limiting the size or number of docks that are permitted on a single parcel. Kirk suggested that the zone could prohibit marinas and beach clubs. Susan said that the Lakefront Residential Zone does already prohibit those uses. Eva asked about restricting short- term rentals in the Lakefront Zone. Jonathan indicated that the Committee had already discussed this issue for several meetings as well, and that the Committee decided not to pursue regulations of short-term rentals. Susan indicated that this issue was not seen as a big enough problem to add a new regulation. Kirk added that the lakefront residents survey conducted by the Town did not show evidence that short-term rentals are a big problem, and that there was only one isolated situation where the problem occurred. Dave indicated that the problem with this one situation had more to do with enforcement because it is difficult for the Code Enforcement Officer to go out to inspect the property after each complaint and document that there may be illegal occupants at any given time. Dave added that he felt that the current Town regulations regarding occupancy cover the issue pretty well. Dan expanded on the problems with enforcement regarding occupancy and short-term rentals. Pat said that the Committee was close to coming up with some suggested restrictions on the minimum time period of a rental in the Lakefront Zone. Eva thought that it should be up to the landlord to provide documentation that the tenants are all one family or related. Dan reiterated that the Town survey showed that most residents did not want any further restrictions on their ability to rent out their lakefront homes. Pat indicated that if a property is rented out to a different family every week, then it should be considered a commercial use, not residential, and if the Town had restrictions on such rentals, that would be easier to enforce. Dock length related to water depth: Susan asked the Committee to consider the comments that had been received regarding the relation between dock length and water depth. Dave suggested that the Committee consider allowing more than one dock per lot, and basing the permitted number on linear feet of shoreline on the lot. Dave pointed out the WSHA suggested wording on page 5, # 9a of their 8/1/07 suggestions. Mary pointed out the WSHA suggestion on page 5, #9 that would allow the length of a dock to reach a water depth of 5 feet. Mary added that in most shoreline areas, docks reach a water depth of 5 feet fairly quickly at normal high water, but that in shallower areas, the current maximum dock length of 40 feet can be a problem. Susan indicated that the Committee felt that if a shoreline property had a shallow water depth, the owner could place a mooring farther out from the shore. Dave said that even with a mooring, an owner would want a dock that is long enough for the boat to pull up to. Pat added that forcing an owner to use a dinghy to access a mooring is not realistic. Dave indicated that most people who have sailboats leave them at a mooring. Jonathan added that the Committee had agreed to the 40 foot maximum dock length with the understanding that owners who want a longer dock could apply to the Zoning Board for an area variance. Don mentioned that most motor boats do not have a problem with accessing a dock, but that most sailboats have a deeper draft and some have keels that require greater water depths. WSHA was hoping to reach a consensus on 5 foot draft 4 even though some residents indicated in the WS HA survey that they would prefer a draft of 8 feet. Sue added that many people use their dock for fishing and swimming, which can also require more water depth. Don indicated that the water level this summer was at 384 feet, and that the water level was at 382.9 feet recently, and that he had to take his boat out of the water because it was so low. Mary added that the Keuka Lake and Canandaigua Lake regulations have variable dock length based on water depth. Kirk asked if we require Planning Board review of docks. Jonathan responded that the current regulations do, but that the proposed regulations do not. Eva asked about the silting occurring along the shoreline and whether this is a problem for residents. Dave responded that residents did not bring this up as an issue in the WSHA survey. Chris mentioned that the East Shore of Cayuga Lake has bigger problems with silting, and that they do not have a residents association. Dave asked the Committee to consider the WSHA suggestion for a variable dock length related to water depth and whether the Committee would consider allowing more than one dock per lot based on a standard such as one dock per 100 feet of shoreline. Jonathan indicated that the current and proposed regulations do not preclude more than one dock per lot, but that the total dock area has to be no more than the maximum s quare foot threshold. Other issues: Mary referred to the problem with narrow lots already existing on the lakefront, and the difficulty in meeting the setback from the side lot line required in the Town regulations. Mary pointed out the WSHA suggestion on page 8 regarding exceptions to the side yard setback for existing properties with less than 50 feet width, in which the setback requirement would be reduced to 10 feet (from 20 feet). Kirk responded that an owner of such a lot can always go to the ZBA for an area variance. Mary referred to the WSHA suggestion on page 9, section F, dealing with exceptions to allow cabanas within 25 feet of the shoreline where steep slopes or cliffs prevent the location of a cabana meeting the required setback. Mary indicated that the west shore of the lake has very little useable shoreline, and that it would be important to allow some exceptions where the shoreline is particularly limited due to slopes. Mary added that many owners rely on cabanas or storage sheds for storing oars, paddles, life preservers, canoes, etc. The Town’s proposed regulations prohibit almost all structures near the shoreline. Mary pointed out the observation that on the lakeshore, most residents consider their front yard to be that facing the lake, and the rear yard is the one adjacent to the street. Mary raised her concern with accessory buildings being limited to the rear yard. Kirk responded that before there was a Lakefront Zone, the area was zoned R-15, and other residential zones require accessory buildings to be located in rear yards. The Lakefront Zone is treated the same as other residential zones. Kirk also acknowledged that lakefront lots may have different needs from other residential lots. Mary indicated that there probably will be a lot of variance applications in the Lakefront Zone. Pat hoped that this would not necessarily be the case. Don indicated that another issue is described on page 5, # 11, in which the WSHA suggests that the maximum width of a dock be 4 feet (rather than 3 feet) on a parcel that cannot meet the setback requirement from the side lot line. Don stated that this is a safety issue, and that the WSHA feels that limiting such a dock to no more than 3 feet would not be safe for users of the dock. Kirk agreed that this may be an appropriate revision for the Committee to consider. 5 Mary also referred to the WSHA suggestion on page 5, # 10 regarding increasing the maximum area permitted for a dock to 384 square feet (from 300 square feet). Kirk asked about the WSHA suggestion on page 3, item J – was the WSHA suggesting that cabanas be allowed to be constructed on a dock? Don said yes, WSHA would like to see that permitted. Dave indicated that he would prefer not seeing cabanas allowed on docks, but that cabanas should be allowed within the shoreline setback area. Pat asked the Committee to bring the discussion to a close. Jonathan mentioned that all of this discussion will be included in the minutes of the meeting for other Committee members not present to review. Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: Kirk brought up an issue regarding the nonconforming use regulations in the Town’s Zoning Code that had been discussed among staff. This was in relation to a lot on Taughannock Boulevard that contains two houses, where only one principal building is allowed on a lot in a residential zone. The question that came up has to do with whether the expansion of a nonconforming use requires an area variance or a use variance. Kirk indicated that there were differing opinions among those that discussed it, and it may go to the Zoning Board of Appeals as an interpretation and then the appropriate variance. Kirk added that it would be appropriate for the Committee to review the nonconforming use provisions in the Code and determine which policy is the desired one, and then make sure the wording of the Code is clear on that policy. Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 19, 2007. Proposed agenda items include continuation of discussion of comments received regarding the draft amendments to the Lakefront Residential Zone (dock regulations) and continuation of discussion of the proposed law (mandated by New York State) regarding illicit discharges into municipal separate storm sewer systems. 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 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2007 – 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Member Comments/Concerns. 2. Approval of Minutes of October 17th, 2007 Meeting. 3. Report and Discussion on Comments Received Regarding Draft Revised Lakefront Residential Zone (Dock) Regulations. 4. Continuation of Discussion Regarding State Mandated Regulations Regarding Illicit Discharges into Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. 5. Other Business. 6. Next Meeting Date and Agenda: (The next scheduled meeting is December 19, 2007. The Committee should consider whether a second meeting in November will be necessary.) Town of Ithaca Planning Department October 31, 2007