Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-12-19-07CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 19, 2007 PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann. 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; Don Smith, 1329 Taughannock Boulevard; Carl & Betty Salo, 329 Dean Creek Rd., Lockwood, NY; Joe & Steve Burns, 1089 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca; Bill Goodman, 231 Rachel Carson Way. 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 October 17 and November 7, 2007 Meetings: The Committee accepted the Minutes of the October 17, 2007 meeting as drafted by consensus. In regard to the Minutes of the November 7, 2007 meeting, a correction was noted on page 2, first paragraph, ninth line up from the bottom, changing the word “overhand” to “overhang”. In addition, Eva corrected a statement that she had made on page 2, first paragraph, ninth line from the top, adding the word “has” before “lived in a country where many people have boats …”, deleting the words “roofs on” before the words “boat lifts or hoists”, and adding the following wording: “She added that both cars and boats are built to withstand outdoor conditions.” Subject to the above corrections and additions, the Committee unanimously accepted the Minutes of the November 7, 2007 meeting. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Comments Received on Lakefront Residential Zone Amendments (Dock Regulations): Herb indicated that he would like the Committee to limit discussion about the draft Lakefront Zone amendments to new issues that have not been previously discussed by the Committee, and asked if anyone has any items to discuss based on the comments received. Don Smith indicated that the West Shore Homeowners’ Association (WSHA) had submitted a number of comments to the Town and would like the Committee to address some of those issues that were discussed by the Committee at the November meeting. Herb stated that those comments and issues had already been discussed by the Committee, and he would like the Committee to move on to other issues. Pat indicated that some of the WSHA ideas discussed by the Committee at the November meeting potentially had merit, and she would like the Committee to follow up on these. Pat mentioned as an example the question of whether to allow a roof on boat lifts or boat hoists. Herb stated that this idea had been rejected by the Committee before, and asked whether any Committee members now support allowing roofs on these structures. Herb added that he does not want to allow roofs on boat lifts or hoists because they add to the visual clutter of the shoreline. Don Smith stated that he is not comfortable with the format of the Committee’s 2 discussion and was hoping that the WSHA would be able to provide more input regarding some of the zoning issues. Herb stated that he would rather not have resident discussion at this Committee meeting and would prefer keeping the roof restriction as currently in the draft local law. Herb indicated that the Committee should move on to the next issue, and referred to the suggestion to change the allowable footprint of boat lifts and boat hoists to a maximum 22 foot X 14 foot surface area. Herb added that the current draft allows for a surface area not to exceed 200 square feet. Chris indicated that the 200 square foot limit was based on research of typical boat sizes, weights, and the standard specifications of boat lifts. Mr. Burns stated that he has a 17 foot long boat, and an engineer told him that he would need a boat lift at least 18 feet long to fit his boat. Mr. Burns suggested that the Town consider allowing a larger footprint for boat lifts to accommodate larger boats because many boats would not fit on a lift that meets the maximum surface area of 200 square feet. Don Smith indicated that WSHA conducted a survey of property owners and had commented to the Committee that the maximum surface area be increased to 308 square feet. This would allow a lift to be 22 feet X 14 feet and would accommodate a boat that is 22 feet long with a beam of 8 feet. Herb asked the Committee if it agreed that the surface area of boat lifts and boat hoists be increased to the 308 square feet suggested by WSHA. The Committee agreed to change the maximum surface area for boat lifts and hoists from 200 square feet to 308 square feet. Herb referred to the Water Resources Council comment regarding moorings - whether there should be any restrictions pertaining to size of moorings, and whether large floating docks or swimming platforms would be covered by the regulations. Don Smith indicated that moorings themselves are not large, but some residences have large platforms away from the shore. Susan stated that any platform, regardless of whether it is connected to the shore or not, would be considered a dock and would be subject to the maximum area restriction in the regulations. Susan added that any structure floating on the water and used for fishing or swimming would be considered a dock in our regulations. Eva indicated that she is concerned about a large platform located away from the shoreline. Susan responded that under the Town’s regulations, a dock cannot extend more than 40 feet out from the shoreline, and this would apply to off-shore platforms as well. The Committee agreed that such platforms are already covered under the Town’s regulations. Pat brought up the issue that had been raised by Mary Shelley and the WSHA that the minimum dock width of 3 feet would be too narrow, and could be a safety issue, and they had recommended that the minimum width be increased to 4 feet. Herb asked the Committee if this is an item that should be changed. Mr. Burns indicated that some existing docks are three feet and did not see that as a problem. Don Smith agreed that the 3 foot minimum width is not a problem. The Committee agreed to leave that as is in the current regulations. Don Smith stated that WSHA had two main areas of concern with the regulations: one being the issue of having a roof over a boat lift or hoist, and the other being the length of docks extending at least to a reasonable water depth. Mr. Smith added that prohibiting roofs on boat lifts and hoists would adversely impact property values of residences on the shoreline and that roofs are necessary to protect boats. Herb stated that the roof issue has already been addressed by the 3 Committee and that the issue of dock lengths had been addressed by the Committee at previous meetings. Herb asked the Committee whether it was ready to send the draft local law with the proposed amendments to the Town Board for consideration. Pat asked the Committee whether the reason that there is a proposed prohibition on roofs is because of visual impacts. Don Smith indicated that Mary Shelley had looked at regulations in other areas, and many places allow roofs on boat lifts and hoists. Herb stated that these issues have been addressed by the Committee, and that the proposed amendments should be sent on to the Town Board for consideration. Pat indicated that although a quorum of the Committee was not present at the November meeting, there was a sense of those present that the two issues raised by WSHA had some merit for further consideration. Herb asked the Committee if it was ready to send the draft amendments to the Town Board. Hearing no further objections, Herb indicated that the Committee should move on to the next agenda item. Mr. Smith objected to ending the discussion in this way, and indicated that the Committee should be open to further consideration of these issues. Mr. Burns also protested that the Committee was not willing to have further discussion on these matters. Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Draft Local Law Regarding Illicit Discharges, Activities and Connections to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems: Susan Brock stated that she and Sue had met to go over revisions to the earlier draft law, and they had provided the Committee with a revised draft, dated 12/14/07. Susan discussed Section 2 of the draft law regarding definitions, and indicated that there was a question regarding Section 2.6 “Illicit Connections”, which has to do with why the State exempted industrial and commercial uses that have connections “documented in plans, maps or equivalent records and approved by an authorized agency”. Sue researched this and found that some commercial and industrial uses are subject to a SPDES permit, and once these uses are issued such a permit, connections authorized under the permit are not considered “illicit”. Fred stated that this means that large industries and commercial uses have permits to pollute. The Committee went on to discuss why those types of connections are okay, but a small residential basement floor drain connecting to a storm sewer system may not be okay. Sue mentioned that she found a law in a city in Ohio that exempts residential basement floor drains from their regulations. Dan mentioned that basement drains are not supposed to connect to the sanitary sewer, but that any drain not that does not collect groundwater can connect to a sanitary sewer (e.g., from a washing machine). Fred felt that homeowners should be able to have a drain in their basement, and wondered if there are other existing laws that prevent the dumping of hazardous substances into drains. Sue responded that this proposed law regarding illicit discharges is the only law addressing this issue. Jonathan asked how much discretion is being left to municipalities in drafting this law. Sue indicated that the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is requiring municipalities to adopt these laws, based on a model law that was distributed by DEC. Sue added that she had tried to contact DEC, but they have not returned her calls. Pat tried to sum up the problem of defining “illicit connection”: if a drain or pipe conveys an illicit discharge containing pollutants to a storm sewer or surface water body, then it is an illicit connection. Pat added that if a basement drain does not convey household or other pollutants, then it is okay. Jonathan suggested that this law should be simplified because no resident will understand the law as drafted – it is evident that even staff and the Committee are having difficulty understanding 4 and explaining it. Jonathan asked why can’t the law just say that it is illegal to convey pollutants into a storm sewer or surface water? Sue responded that the Town needs to define what “illicit discharge” means. Dan cited an example: if a car wash drains water into a ditch, which drains into a storm sewer or surface water, it is illegal. Bill asked whether it would be illegal only for ditches to convey illicit discharges directly into storm sewers or surface waters, or whether even indirect discharges that end up in storm sewers and surface waters would also be illegal. Susan responded that the law is intended to cover both direct and indirect conveyances. Herb suggested that word-smithing at this meeting is not going to get the Committee very far. Herb agreed with Jonathan that this proposed law seems overly complicated and wondered how the Committee might simplify it. Jonathan referred to items 2.10 and 2.11 on page 3 of the draft law, and indicated that these are confusing, and it is not clear why there are references to “MS4” in 2.10 and “Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems” in 2.11. The Committee agreed that perhaps 2.10 and 2.11 should be combined because 2.11 is actually describing 2.10 in more detail. Sue suggested that the definitions portion of the law is the most complicated and difficult, and that the rest of the law is more straightforward. Susan suggested that it might help to revise the wording in 2.6 regarding “Illicit Connections” to distinguish between illegal pipe connections and illegal spills or other conveyances. The Committee liked this idea, and Susan said that she would work on revising this section. Eva referred to the definition of “pollutant” on page 3, # 2.15, and asked why “heat” is considered a pollutant. Dan responded that heat is considered a pollutant in other DEC regulations because it can impact things like algae growth, fish populations, etc. Eva asked why “dye testing” in 6.1.3 on page 6 is considered an exemption under the proposed law. Sue responded that dye testing is used extensively to identify leaking or failing septic systems and is necessary for public health purposes. Herb referred to Section 2.20 on page 4 and asked whether the law should limit the SMO (Stormwater Management Officer) to one office, and should it perhaps be the Code Enforcement Office. Herb suggested that this section could just say the “officer designated by the Town”. Herb asked if the Engineering Department staff will enforce this law. Dan responded that Engineering has been enforcing stormwater issues for a number of years. Susan suggested that this section could say “The Town Engineer or his or her designee, or other officials designated by the Town Board”. The Committee agreed on this wording. Herb referred to the question highlighted on Page 7, # 6.1.4 regarding whether written approval for an exemption is granted by DEC or the Town – it is not clear what is intended. Susan mentioned that the issue was identified because the Town does not issue SPDES permits – DEC does. The Committee agreed to revise this to say that DEC grants this written approval. Sue mentioned the issue of testing and flushing of fire hydrants near a stream, and suggested that there should be sufficient distance from the hydrant to a stream to allow the chlorine to dissipate. Herb added that RV owners sometimes flush chlorine from their systems into a ditch – is this legal. Bill again asked what we intend to mean when the law refers to indirect discharge into a surface water – could septic system discharge flowing into a stream be considered an indirect 5 illicit discharge. Susan suggested that something like this would be defined in the federal Clean Water Act or similar law. Herb referred to the term “facilities” being used starting on page 9 and continuing on page 10 in a number of sections. Susan indicated that she could not find a definition of “facility” anywhere in the draft law, and so highlighted it in the text. Susan suggested that we could substitute the term “premises” for “facility”. Fred agreed that this might be helpful in distinguishing between uses and structures because the Town would want to be able to inspect things like industrial and commercial establishments and uses. Herb referred to Section 14 on page 12 and wondered whether 10 days is sufficient to allow a notice of appeal from a Town decision to be filed. Susan responded that we had used the same time period in the stormwater law in which the Town has a right to go in to a property and fix a problem related to a stormwater facility. Jonathan mentioned that someone could be on vacation for two weeks and return to find out that they had been cited for a violation and would not have had an opportunity to appeal the Town decision. Bill suggested revising the time period in which to file a notice of appeal to 15 days and to revise the timeframe for the Town to hold a hearing regarding an appeal to 40 days (instead of 45 days). The Committee agreed to this revision. Susan referred to the highlighted portion of Section 9.2 on page 9 of the draft law regarding the holding of a hearing to determine whether a violator’s access to a municipal separate storm sewer system should be terminated, and whether such hearing should be held by the SMO or by the Town Board. Jonathan asked how the Town would even be able to stop access to a storm sewer system. Herb added that it would be difficult for the public to even know what is intended by this law because it is so technical and not understandable to the average person. Herb re- iterated that anything that could be done to make this law simpler and clearer would be helpful. Susan said that she and Sue would get together and try to simplify and clarify the law where possible, including what was already discussed by the Committee. Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 16, 2008. Proposed agenda items include approval of 2008 meeting schedule, consideration of 2008 work plan priorities, discussion of possible additional revisions to the Stormwater Management Laws based on comments received from the public, and continuation of discussion of the proposed law regarding illicit discharges and connections 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 DECEMBER 19, 2007 – 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Member Comments/Concerns. 2. Approval of Minutes of October 17th and November 7th, 2007 Meetings. 3. Continuation of Discussion on Comments Received Regarding Draft Revised Lakefront Residential Zone (Dock) Regulations. 4. Review of Draft Local Law Regarding Illicit Discharges, Activities and Connections to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. 5. Other Business: • Status of Comments Regarding Draft Wind Energy Facilities Law • Comments Received Regarding Draft Stormwater Management Laws 6. Next Meeting Date and Agenda: Tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, January 16, 2008. Town of Ithaca Planning Department December 12, 2007