HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2000-2005CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 2000
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: William Lesser, Town Board member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town;
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Summary of December 15, 1999 Meeting:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by David Klein, approving the summary of the
meeting of December 15, 1999 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Business/Commercial Zones:
Jonathan Kanter distributed a memo that he had prepared (dated Feb. 15, 2000) relating to the
moratorium regarding business uses in the Town of Ithaca, and indicated that the Committee
should make some decisions about the business zones, since the moratorium will expire on April
12, 2000. Mr. Kanter described two tables that were attached to the 2/15 memo summarizing
observations regarding the potential impacts or issues associated with large-scale business, drive-
through businesses and gas stations, and providing traffic generation estimates for selected
business uses. Tom Niederkorn distributed a listing of sample businesses in the area with their
square footages. Mr. Niederkorn indicated that there are several options that the Committee
could consider in relation to the moratorium. One possibility would be to extend the moratorium
past April 12th and address the business zones in conjunction with the overall Zoning Ordinance
revisions. A second option would be to extend the moratorium, and proceed as soon as possible
with business zone changes in advance of the overall Zoning Ordinance project. A third option
would be to let the moratorium expire, and put together a report to the Town Board regarding
business zone revisions, pursuing those changes in advance of the overall Zoning Ordinance
revisions. A fourth option would be to let the moratorium expire, and continue to pursue the
revisions to the business zones in conjunction with the overall Zoning Ordinance revision
project. The Committee felt that both the third and fourth options mentioned above might
involve some risk if an applicant for a use covered by the moratorium came in with a proposal
after April 12th.
Mr. Niederkorn outlined a projected timeframe for enactment of business zone amendments
under the assumption that the Committee moves ahead immediately with business zone
revisions. Factoring in an initial public information meeting, required referrals, and public
hearings, the soonest possible date for enactment would be at the June 12th Town Board meeting,
which is two months after the moratorium would expire.
2
John Barney indicated that an extension of the moratorium might not be necessary if the
Committee’s recommendation clearly indicated that changes to the business zone provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance are pending further study. If the moratorium expired, and an applicant
came in with a proposal for a use that had been covered by the moratorium while the Committee
was still working on its recommendations, the Town Board could reinstate the moratorium at that
point.
Mr. Barney suggested a fifth option that the committee might consider. Instead of immediately
pursuing the Committee’s recommendations regarding comprehensive changes to the business
zones (which include recommendations regarding zone purposes and designations, permitted
uses, locations, special regulations, and zoning map changes, all of which may take a fair amount
of time to complete), Mr. Barney suggested that the Committee could consider recommending a
temporary, or interim, amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding business zone provisions.
Such an interim amendment could be very simple and might include the following: prohibition of
drive-through businesses and gas stations in all of the current business zones; and prohibition of
individual buildings or businesses larger than some specified square footage (i.e., specifying
maximum permitted building size). A long discussion ensued regarding the reasonableness of
such an approach and what would be involved in pursuing this. The discussion also focused on
what size would be appropriate as a maximum building size in the business zones. It was agreed
that 25,000 square feet should be the maximum size specified in the interim regulation. It was
pointed out that the moratorium prohibits businesses larger than 7,500 square feet.
Discussion then turned to whether an additional restriction in the Zoning amendment regarding
maximum vehicle trips generated by a proposed business use would be feasible. After much
deliberation, the Committee agreed to drop this additional factor in the proposed interim Zoning
amendment.
It was suggested that the above approach would still require a report to the Town Board with the
Committee’s recommendations regarding this interim amendment, and the drafting of a proposed
local law for the Town Board’s consideration. Mr. Kanter indicated his concern that such an
approach might divert the Committee’s time and resources away from the larger, overall Zoning
Ordinance revision project, as evidenced by the lengthy discussion at this meeting.
The consensus of the Committee was to proceed with Mr. Barney’s suggested approach outlined
above. The Committee asked Mr. Barney to prepare a draft local law, if possible for the March
1st special meeting, or for the regular March 15th meeting, to include prohibition of large-scale
businesses (over 25,000 square feet), drive-through businesses and gas stations in all business
zones, and the Committee asked Mr. Niederkorn and Mr. Kanter to draft a report containing
recommendations to the Town Board that would provide a basis for the Committee’s proposed
interim local law amending the provisions of the existing business zones. Mr. Kanter clarified
that such a report would not include all of the sub-committee’s findings regarding business uses
and commercial zones, but that it would attempt to provide a rationale for proposing the interim
zoning amendment. A more complete report would be prepared later when the Committee is
ready to move ahead with comprehensive revisions to the business zones.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
3
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 1, 2000. This will be a special meeting to
make up for the January meeting that was cancelled due to snow. Proposed agenda items
include: continuation of discussion regarding draft proposed local law to amend the business
district provisions in the Zoning Ordinance; continuation of review of commercial zones
(including comments on use table); and status of and timetable for completion of Zoning revision
project. It was agreed that the regular meeting of March 15, 2000 would also still be held.
Jonathan Kanter indicated that he would not be able to attend the March 15th meeting.
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,
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
March 1, 2000
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, Fred
Wilcox, James Niefer.
OTHERS: Catherine Valentino, Supervisor; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning; Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Tom Murray, Owner Courtside
Racquet and Fitness Club.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of February 16, 2000 Meeting:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by Mary Russell, approving the minutes of the meeting of
February 16, 2000 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Draft Proposed Local Law to Amend
the Business District Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance:
Jonathan Kanter summarized the draft report to the Town Board, dated February 23, 2000, which had
been distributed to the Committee in the mailout. The purpose of the report is to provide the rationale for
the proposed interim local law regarding business zones. John Barney distributed a draft local law, dated
March 1, 2000, and summarized its provisions. The March 1st draft included a prohibition of all large-
scale businesses over 25,000 square feet in all business zones. It also included limitations regarding
traffic. The Committee reminded Mr. Barney that at the February 16th meeting, the Committee had
decided not to include traffic limitations, and that the Committee had wanted to include prohibitions of all
drive-through businesses and gas stations. Upon further discussion, it was agreed that for now, gas
stations would not be included in the prohibition, but that drive-through businesses should be prohibited
in the local law. The Committee also agreed that a definition of “drive-through” business should be
provided in the local law. Mr. Barney indicated that the prohibition on large-scale businesses would limit
individual businesses to no more than 25,000 square feet, but that this would not limit the size of
buildings.
David Klein asked Tom Murray, a visitor at the meeting, whether he had any comments on the
Committee’s proposed interim local law. Mr. Murray indicated that he has concerns regarding the strict
prohibitions to commercial development being proposed by the Committee, that the restrictions may
negatively affect current businesses in the Town.
Several revisions were suggested to be made in the draft report to the Town Board eliminating the
references to prohibition of gas stations and adding some corrections and revisions to Tables 1 and 2 in
the report. A motion was made by David Klein, and seconded by Tom Niederkorn, to approve the report
with recommendations to the Town Board to enact a local law that would as an interim measure prohibit
businesses over 25,000 square feet and all drive-through businesses. The motion was approved
unanimously. Mr. Barney was asked to revise the draft local law according to this motion and to delete
the section dealing with traffic limitations, and to provide the revised draft local law to the Town Board
2
prior to the March 13th Board meeting. Mr. Kanter was asked to revise the report to the Board according
to the above vote, and to send the report to the Town Board prior to the March 13th meeting.
It was indicated that the Town Board would be scheduling an agenda item for March 13th to consider
referring the proposed local law to the Planning Board for a recommendation and to consider setting a
public hearing date to consider enactment of the local law.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of Timetable for Completion of Zoning Revision Project:
Jonathan Kanter described the estimated timeframe for completion of the Zoning revisions which had
been illustrated on the blackboard and summarized in a handout, originally dated January 12, 2000, and
revised March 1, 2000. The estimated completion date is November 2000, and includes completing
review of draft revised zoning chapters, zoning map revisions, SEQR review, obtaining comments from
other boards and committees, public meetings and hearings, further text and map revisions to
incorporate/address comments obtained, and enactment of the revised Zoning Ordinance and Map. This
timeframe also includes completion of work on the business/commercial zoning provisions. The
Committee agreed that this appears to be an optimistic timeframe, but that it would be workable if the
Committee can stay focused on completing the project. It was agreed that work on the Water Resources
Protection Ordinance should probably be deferred until the Zoning revisions are completed. The
Committee agreed that this schedule should be used as a target and that the Committee should strive to
stay on track with this timeframe.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Evaluation of Business/ Commercial
Zones:
Tom Niederkorn described the proposed use table relating to business zones, dated 12/21/99. Most of the
entries were taken from the most recent revised, draft zoning chapter regarding business zones, dated
September 15, 1999. Some entries, highlighted in italics, indicate suggestions by Tom Niederkorn and
Jonathan Kanter. The Committee began a preliminary review of the use table, and agreed to continue this
review at the March 15th meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 15, 2000. Proposed agenda items include:
continuation of review of commercial zones (including comments on use table); and review of package
of draft, revised Zoning Chapters. Jonathan Kanter indicated that he would not be able to attend the
March 15th meeting. Tom Niederkorn agreed to coordinate the discussion regarding business zones.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning
3
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
March 29, 2000
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Beverly Livesay,
Town of Ithaca Resident.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Tom Niederkorn mentioned that he was concerned about a recent Planning Board agenda item that he had
noticed. Longview had to request site plan approval for the addition of a light pole at their existing
facility at Bella Vista Drive. After a brief discussion, the Committee agreed that the Section 46b Site Plan
threshold criteria in the Zoning Ordinance need to be revised soon to avoid situations like the Longview
light pole having to get site plan approval.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of March 15, 2000 Meeting:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by Carolyn Grigorov, approving the minutes of the meeting
of March 15, 2000 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review and Evaluation of Business District Provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance:
Tom Niederkorn began by reviewing changes that he had made in the revised table of Land Uses in
Commercial Zones, based on modifications made at the March 15th Committee meeting. After revisiting
several sections that had been covered at the March 15th meeting, the Committee continued review of the
table, picking up with the office activity category and getting through item no. 4 “Club house/lodge”
under the Miscellaneous Activity category on page 5.
There was a discussion about whether residential uses should be included in business zones. It was
indicated that previous Committee discussions had taken place in which it was agreed that mixed use in
business zones would be desirable in that this could help to encourage affordable housing opportunities
and might provide opportunities for owners of businesses who want to live on upper floors above their
businesses. The Committee asked the Planning staff to provide some examples of how other
communities have handled residential uses in business zones in their ordinances, particularly regarding
mixed use within the same building.
There was also discussion about where hotels and motels should be allowed in the Town. Eva Hoffmann
expressed concern about allowing hotels/motels in the Lakefront Commercial zone because their presence
might restrict public access opportunities to the Lake. By a vote of 4 in favor and 1 opposed, the
Committee decided to include hotels and motels in the Lakefront Commercial zone, with a special
condition that such uses would be required to have a minimum 100 foot setback from the lakeshore. It
was also agreed by consensus that hotels/motels should continue to be permitted in Community
Commercial zones by special permit, and in Neighborhood Commercial zones by special permit with the
additional condition that they only be allowed in Neigh. Comm. on a state highway. Numerous additional
changes were incorporated into the use table and recorded by Tom Niederkorn. It was agreed that Mr.
2
Niederkorn would hold off of revising the table again until after the Committee has completed review of
the entire table.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
It was agreed that the next meeting would be scheduled for Thursday, April 27, 2000 because of
scheduling conflicts for the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th. Proposed agenda items include:
continuation of review of commercial zones (including completion of review of use table); and initiation
of review of package of draft, revised Zoning Chapters.
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,
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
April 27, 2000
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Fred
Wilcox, James Niefer.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; William
Lesser, Town Board Member.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Chair David Klein asked the Committee whether they felt that it was necessary for the Town
Clerk to attend Codes and Ordinances Committee meetings. The consensus was that it is not
necessary. Jon Kanter and John Barney indicated that they could handle the meeting minutes.
The Committee expressed their appreciation for the Town Clerk’s attendance at past meetings.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of March 29, 2000 Meeting:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by Carolyn Grigorov, approving the minutes of the
meeting of March 29, 2000 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review and Evaluation of Business District
Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance:
Tom Niederkorn began by summarizing where the Committee had left off with review of
Schedule I – Land Uses in Commercial Zones. The Committee then continued review of
Schedule I beginning with Miscellaneous Activities, page 5, #4. The Committee discussed
whether small theaters (similar to the Kitchen Theater) should be allowed in Neighborhood
Commercial zones. The consensus was to allow theaters only in the Community Commercial
zones. It was agreed to delete monument works from Commercial zones, and to permit them
only in Light Industrial zones.
The Committee revisited the discussion regarding whether the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)
should have the authority to interpret and allow uses which are similar in nature to permitted uses
in a zone, but not specifically listed. The Committee had previously taken a straw vote on this,
and had by a narrow margin voted to incorporate this procedure into the revised Ordinance.
Attorney Barney expressed concern with giving the ZBA this function, which traditionally has
been a policy decision by the Town Board. Jim Niefer, a member of the ZBA, indicated that he
would rather see the Town Board continue to have this authority, not the ZBA. Tom Niederkorn
suggested that the Town Board could process these actions as special permits, which might give
them more flexibility, rather than treating them as legislative actions. The Committee asked
Attorney Barney to research this question further and report back to the Committee.
2
There was a discussion regarding whether Schedule I should include all of the permitted
accessory uses. It was indicated that the purpose of the Schedule is to summarize as an easy
reference uses that are permitted in each zone for illustrative purposes only. The consensus of
the Committee was to delete uses from Schedule I that are only permitted as accessory uses to
simplify the table.
It was agreed that research and development facilities should be added as special permit uses
with special conditions in the Office Park Commercial zone under Office Activities. It was
indicated that the Committee should formulate appropriate special conditions for these uses.
It was suggested that hospitals should be included as a permitted use in the Office Park
Commercial zone. The consensus of the Committee was to think about whether the Cayuga
Medical Center property might warrant rezoning from R-30 Residence to Office Park
Commercial if hospitals are permitted uses in that zone. The adjacent Cayuga Professional
Building is already being considered for Office Park zoning (currently zoned Business A). It
was agreed that the County Biggs complex should remain as a Special Land Use District
(Planned Development District), which permits a wide range of commercial, institutional and
residential uses.
The Committee continued discussion of whether mixed use (i.e., allowing some form of
residential development) should be permitted in commercial zones. Jon Kanter reviewed the
materials and ordinance examples that he had distributed to the Committee in the previous
mailout package. Attorney Barney indicated that there might not be sufficient undeveloped
commercial land in the Town to make it worthwhile to add a mixed use provision. Jon Kanter
indicated that there are several large areas available for development or redevelopment at Judd
Falls Plaza and the Danby/King Road commercial zones. The consensus of the Committee was
that mixed use should be permitted in commercial zones and would need to be specifically
defined. The Committee liked the approach taken by the Town of Canandaigua, which allows a
principal building to contain a combination of residential and business uses, provided that
residential uses are accessory to the business conducted and the residential uses should be
located elsewhere than on the street frontage of the ground floor. Using this approach,
apartments could be located on an upper floor or in the rear of a building (not facing the street).
The Committee also liked the idea of perhaps including a maximum percentage of floor area in a
building that could be occupied by residential use. Attorney Barney agreed to draft a mixed use
provision based on this discussion to bring back to the Committee for review and discussion.
This completed the Committee’s review of Schedule I.
The Committee began review of Schedule II – Area, Width, Yard Setback, Height and Coverage
Requirements for commercial zones. Tom Niederkorn summarized this table. The question
came up as to whether the Vehicle Fuel and Repair zone should have a minimum tract area of 2
acres. It was indicated that all of the existing gas stations in the Town are on sites of
considerably less than two acres. Attorney Barney clarified that the minimum area of a tract
refers to the minimum area required to establish that business zone, not the minimum lot size for
the individual business, and that there is a separate requirement for minimum lot area in the
business zones (30,000 sq. ft. with public sewers; 2 acres without public sewers). At this point,
3
the Committee agreed to continue and hopefully complete discussion of Schedule II at the next
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, May 17, 2000. Proposed agenda items include:
continuation of review of commercial zones (including completion of review of Schedule 2 –
Area, Width, Setback … Requirements; continuation of discussion regarding mixed use; and
discussion regarding Zoning Map and commercial zones); and initiation of review of package of
draft, revised Zoning Chapters.
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,
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
May 17, 2000
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva
Hoffmann, Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andrew
Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; William Lesser, Town Board Member.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of April 27, 2000 Meeting:
Motion made by Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Fred Wilcox, approving the minutes of the
meeting of April 27, 2000 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review and Evaluation of Business District
Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance:
The Committee continued and completed review of Schedule 2 – Area, Width, Setback …
Requirements. Tom Niederkorn explained that the dimension and area requirements on that
table had been taken directly from the draft Zoning chapters that had been previously prepared
by the Committee. The Committee discussed the maximum building height requirements. Tom
Niederkorn expressed concern that the height determination is complicated, and asked what is
the purpose of the current height controls. John Barney indicated that the Town has used the
current method because it is the easiest to measure on elevation drawings and in the field. Some
communities use the average grade as the base for determining building height. Others use
average roof peak. The Committee agreed to continue using our current method of defining
maximum building height.
There was a long discussion regarding definition of front yards on corner lots. The draft Zoning
Ordinance includes Section 2702 that deals with this question. David Klein suggested treating
both sides on a corner lot as front yards. John Barney indicated that this approach might
preclude development on many corner lots in the Town. It would force corner lots to be larger
and make many existing ones non-conforming. It was then suggested and agreed by the
Committee that this approach be applied to commercial lots only (treating both sides as front
yards), which in business zones would require that both sides be treated as front yards and have
minimum setbacks of 50 feet. It was agreed that a decision on residential lots would be deferred
until another meeting, and that Committee members should review the draft provisions in
Section 2702. John Barney agreed that he would incorporate the revision for business zones in
the draft Ordinance. This completed review of Schedule 2.
2
Tom Niederkorn distributed a new chart, dated May 17, 2000, that includes suggested special
conditions for those uses on Schedule 1 where such special conditions were proposed. The
Committee reviewed this chart. It was agreed that it would be difficult to define special
conditions for some of the uses. Specific conditions were suggested for others. The Committee
left off with item D1 Hotel/Motel on this chart, and will complete this review at the June
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 21, 2000. Proposed agenda items include:
continuation of review of commercial zones (including completion of review of the special
conditions chart for uses on Schedule 1; continuation of discussion regarding mixed use; and
discussion regarding Zoning Map and commercial zones); and initiation of review of package of
draft, revised Zoning Chapters.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 23, 2000
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; William
Lesser, Town Board Member; Wylie Schwartz, WHCU News.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Mary Russell indicated that Town Board meeting minutes are now on the Town’s Web site (after
minutes are approved by the Board). Mary Russell also reported that a recent State Court of
Appeals decision (Bonnie Briar Syndicate, Inc. v. Town of Mamaroneck) upheld the right of a
municipality to rezone a residentially zoned property to allow recreational use only (i.e., to
prohibit residential development). John Barney indicated that the Bonnie Briar property had
been used as a golf course for many years, and that this particular rezoning was upheld because it
advanced the Town’s interests in preventing flooding.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Meeting Minutes:
Jonathan Kanter indicated that no draft minutes were available at this time, but that the June 21st
and August 23rd minutes would be available for the Committee’s consideration at the next
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Report on July 26th Field Trip to Business Zones:
Jonathan Kanter reported on the July 26th Committee field trip to the business zones in the Town,
and indicated that during the trip, several additional zoning changes had been suggested by those
Committee members attending. A handout of “Possible Additional Commercial Zoning Map
Changes” (August 23, 2000) was distributed to the Committee (a copy is attached and hereby
included as an appendix to these minutes). Jonathan Kanter outlined the suggested changes. The
Committee discussed the suggested changes and reached a consensus as follows:
1) Tax Parcel No. 24-3-5: The Committee recommended rezoning this parcel from R-30
Residence to Office Park Commercial.
2) Tax Parcel No. 24-4-14.2: The Committee recommended that no rezoning be pursued at this
time, but that a target area for Neighborhood Commercial be considered in the general
vicinity of this site or somewhere on West Hill at some point in the future when the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan is updated.
2
3a) Tax Parcel No. 39-1-15.2: The Committee recommended rezoning this parcel from Business
“C” to High Density Residential (formerly R-9).
3b) Tax Parcel No. 43-2-3: The Committee recommended rezoning this parcel from R-15
Residence to Neighborhood Commercial.
4) Tax Parcel No. 63-1-3.4: The Committee recommended rezoning this parcel from R-30
Residence to a combination of MR Multiple Residence (on the east adjacent to the
Summerhill Apartments/MR zoned area) and Office Park Commercial (on the west half
fronting on Pine Tree Road). It was suggested that the split be roughly half MR/half Office
Park. Jonathan Kanter indicated that Planning staff would incorporate these
recommendations into a revised proposed Zoning map.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Review and Evaluation of Business District
Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance:
Tom Niederkorn distributed a handout containing revised Schedule I: Land Uses in Commercial
Zones and Schedule II: Area, Width, Yard Setback, Height and Coverage Requirements. Mr.
Niederkorn indicated that these revised schedules contain the changes that had been discussed by
the Committee at previous meetings and requested that John Barney review these for consistency
with revisions that will be incorporated into the Zoning text. The Committee agreed that this,
combined with the additional map changes discussed above, should conclude the discussions
regarding business zones. The Committee thanked Tom Niederkorn for his work on the
commercial zoning revisions.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Review of Draft Revised Zoning Chapters (9/15/99):
The Committee had a general discussion regarding the approach that should be taken to review
the draft, revised Zoning chapters. Tom Niederkorn indicated that it is important for Committee
members to understand the Zoning sections and why certain changes may have been suggested,
so that it can be easily explained to the public. Bill Lesser had several questions about the
proposed revised Agricultural Zone section, including what happens if farming is no longer a
viable use in the new Agricultural zone, and how lower density agricultural zoning might affect
the value of agricultural land, particularly in relation to the Town’s agricultural easement
program. Jonathan Kanter indicated that an owner could request a rezoning from Agricultural to
some other designation, which would be a decision that the Town Board would have to make.
Mr. Kanter indicated that the proposed Ag zone includes additional agricultural/business uses
not permitted in the current Ag zone that could add value back to those properties, and that the
appraisals recently completed for the Town on potential easement acquisitions showed that the
recreational value of agricultural land tended to keep the non-development value high, even
without residential development potential. In addition, Mr. Kanter pointed out that there have
been no noticeable changes in property values in the Six Mile Creek Conservation District since
that area was rezoned in 1996.
3
Bill Lesser asked about the status of the South Hill Conservation zone. Jonathan Kanter
indicated that he would follow up with Tom Salm at Ithaca College to find out about the timing
of completion of their plant study.
Tom Niederkorn asked whether the Committee wanted to segment portions of the Zoning
Ordinance for enactment, e.g., proposed enactment of the revised Business zones and map
changes separately, since those sections are pretty much complete now. The consensus of the
Committee was that it would be better to approach enactment of the overall Zoning Ordinance in
a comprehensive way. Mary Russell suggested that a new Executive Summary of proposed
Zoning Ordinance and map changes be prepared when the Town is ready to present the proposal
to the public. John Barney suggested that Tom Niederkorn review the draft revised Zoning
sections and come back to the Committee with specific questions or suggestions, since he was
not involved in the early part of the Zoning revision process. Bill Lesser suggested going
through all of the Residential zone sections together. Tom Niederkorn recommended that
summary schedules be prepared for all zones, similar to those done for the Business zones. Mr.
Niederkorn agreed to take a look at this. Jonathan Kanter indicated that the Town Board had
asked the Committee to review the section regarding site plan review and approval, particularly
in regard to the guidelines for bringing site plan modifications back to the Planning Board for
approval.
The Committee began review of Article XXIII Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures. Tom
Niederkorn raised a number of specific questions, many of which related to original language in
the current Zoning provisions. In particular, Mr. Niederkorn indicated that it was unclear what
the requirements for preliminary vs. final site plan approval were, and whether both are required.
As the meeting was nearing an end, Chair David Klein asked Committee members to come to the
next meeting with specific comments on Article XXIII and to focus on the sections dealing with
site plan procedures and modifications.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Update on Water Resources Mapping:
Jonathan Kanter gave a brief update on the work that Planning staff, under the direction of Susan
Ritter, is doing regarding the identification and mapping of creeks. This is a follow-up to the
draft Water Resources Protection Ordinance that had been discussed by the Committee earlier
this year. Mr. Kanter indicated that Susan Ritter is conducting site visits to field check streams
and creeks shown on the USGS map. She is developing a set of criteria to use in determining
which creeks should be identified as regulated creeks which would have no-disturb buffer
setbacks. The Committee expressed support for this approach, since it was difficult in the earlier
ordinance drafting to come up with a reasonable definition of creek or waterbody for regulatory
purposes. Mr. Kanter indicated that Susan would probably have to contact landowners for
permission to enter additional properties to check and characterize creeks. The Committee
expressed support for continuing and completing this mapping effort. Mr. Kanter indicated that
Planning staff would provide an update on this mapping at a future Committee meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
4
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 20, 2000. Proposed agenda items
included: continuation of review of Article XXIII Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures;
and review of all residential zones in the 9/15/99 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
June 21, 2000
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; William
Lesser, Town Board Member.
Chair David Klein 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 May 17, 2000 Meeting:
Motion made by David Klein, seconded by Eva Hoffmann, approving the minutes of the meeting
of May 17, 2000 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review and Evaluation of Business District
Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance:
Tom Niederkorn led discussion on the schedule that had been distributed at the May 17, 2000
meeting that includes suggested special conditions for those uses on Schedule 1 where such
special conditions were proposed. The Committee picked up the discussion with item D1
Hotel/Motel on this chart, where it had left off at the May meeting. It was agreed that
hotels/motels should be allowed in the Lakefront Commercial zone only with a minimum
setback of 100 feet from the shoreline, to be measured from the Mean High Water Line. It was
agreed that hotels/motels should be allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone only if the
site is located on a State highway. The Committee concurred that mixed commercial should only
be allowed in the Lakefront Commercial zone if the residential component is set back at least
100 feet from the shoreline (same as hotel/motel). The Committee requested that John Barney
provide a definition of “mixed use,” as per the discussions at previous meetings. After several
Committee members discussed how much development would be permitted in the Lakefront
Commercial zone if there is a 100 foot setback from the shoreline, the Committee agreed that
members should go out to East Shore Drive to look at the area. The Committee revisited B7 on
the schedule (restaurant – no drive-thru), and concluded that freestanding restaurants should be
changed to Special Permit (SP) uses in the Office Park zone. It was also agreed that restaurants
inside a building in an Office Park zone should be considered Permitted Accessory (PA) uses.
This concluded the Committee’s discussion regarding the schedule of special conditions.
The Committee then discussed several Zoning map and use questions. It was determined that the
proposed Office Park zone on Danby Road that includes the Axiohm site should also include
Ohm Gupta’s South Hill Retail Complex. Jonathan Kanter indicated that he thought that the
revised map included this site, but that he would check it. In looking at whether the Office Park
zone should be expanded onto the Cayuga Medical Center property on Trumansburg Road, it
2
was agreed that this was a desirable change, and that to accommodate this, hospitals should be
allowed in the Office Park zone as a Special Permit (SP) use, and should not be permitted in
residential zones. The Cornell-owned Genex site next to East Hill Plaza was discussed. A
preliminary indication by the Committee was that Agricultural zoning might be appropriate, but
that this should be looked at further. The Committee agreed that the next step should be to
schedule a field trip to visit the Business zones in the Town to check and confirm suggested
zoning changes.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, July 26, 2000 to replace the regular
meeting date of July 19th, which would be during the week of the move to the new Town Hall. It
was agreed that the July 26th meeting date would be a good time to schedule the field trip to visit
the Business zones.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
September 20, 2000
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva
Hoffmann, Fred Wilcox, James Niefer.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andrew
Frost, Director of Building and Zoning.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Members discussed the following: (1) Cornell University’s downtown office development
proposal that was announced recently, and (2) Some of the Town Board members’ Fob’s
(electronic keys) to the new Town Hall do not appear to work at certain hours.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of June 21, 2000 and August 23, 2000 Meetings:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by Carolyn Grigorov, approving the minutes of the
meeting of June 21, 2000 as written.
Motion made by Mary Russell, seconded by David Klein, approving the minutes of the meeting
of August 23, 2000 as written, Eva Hoffmann abstaining.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation 0f Review of Article XXIII Site Plan Review and
Approval Procedures in 9/15/99 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance:
The Committee began by reviewing the suggested revised draft site plan section provided by Bill
Lesser that had been distributed in the mailout. The Committee agreed that it made sense to put
the “procedures” section (2304) before the “requirements” section (2303). The Committee then
had difficulty figuring out where some of Mr. Lesser’s suggested changes fit in to the previous
draft chapter. After discussing this further, the Committee agreed to go back to reviewing the
original draft chapter (9/15/99), and address Mr. Lesser’s suggestions where appropriate.
The Committee discussed the possibility of placing the site plan checklists (found in section
2303) in an Appendix instead of in the body of the ordinance. After further discussion the
Committee agreed that it would be better to keep the checklists of requirements in the body of
the text so that it would more clearly be a part of the ordinance. In going through the checklist
requirements, Jonathan Kanter noted that some of the requirements appeared to have been taken
from the subdivision checklist requirements and might not be appropriate to include in the site
plan section. The Committee agreed to review the checklist of site plan requirements and
compare these with the current site plan checklists used in the Planning Department at the next
meeting.
The Committee reviewed the modifications of site plans section (2309). After discussing the
format of whether the thresholds should be stated positively or negatively, the Committee agreed
to keep the current wording format. John Barney explained that the reason for the double
2
negative format of the thresholds is so that if any of the thresholds are exceeded, the site plan
modification would have to go back to the Planning Board for approval. The Committee agreed
to add a new sub-section that would exempt interior renovations not involving a change of use or
business occupancy from going back to the Board for approval. The Committee agreed to add
the proposed sub-sections “f” and “g” regarding changes in aesthetic appearance, noise, water
runoff, etc., with some clarifications.
The Committee also agreed that #2 on page 105 should be revised to include reference to lateral
and vertical movement of buildings. The Committee agreed to add a provision dealing with
reduction of size of buildings (2309, 1d). After discussing demolitions of buildings or structures,
the Committee agreed that although demolitions are implicitly included in site plan review
procedures, a specific reference in Section 2309 regarding Modifications of Site Plans should be
added indicating that a proposed demolition of a building on a previously approved site plan
requires Planning Board approval for a modification of that site plan.
The Committee agreed to forward the recommended revisions to the site plan modification
section (2309) to the Town Board as soon as possible, requesting the Town Board to enact these
revisions into the existing Zoning Ordinance, in advance of the remaining sections of the
ordinance. The Committee asked John Barney to revise this section and provide it to the Town
Board for consideration of enactment, which will require referring it to the Planning Board for a
recommendation.
Eva Hoffmann indicated that in section 2306 – considerations for approval, she would like to see
resources of historic significance added to the list of considerations and also added to the site
plan checklist. The Committee agreed that this would be a good addition.
This completed review of the site plan review and approval chapter, with the exception of
reviewing the checklists at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 18, 2000. Proposed agenda items
included: review of current site plan checklists; and review of all residential zones in the 9/15/99
Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance.
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,
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
October 18, 2000
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, Fred Wilcox, James
Niefer.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andrew Frost,
Director of Building and Zoning; William Lesser, Town Board Member.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Members discussed the trash that has accumulated along roadsides in some areas of the Town as a result
of the City’s special trash pickup day. Apparently, some Town residents assumed that the City’s pickup
would apply to them.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of September 20, 2000 Meeting:
Mary Russell indicated that her recollection of the discussion at the September 20th meeting regarding
Section 2309 Modifications of Site Plans was that the Committee had agreed that demolition of buildings
should be specifically included as a reference in that section. John Barney indicated that his notes showed
the same thing. The consensus of the Committee was to amend the draft meeting minutes by adding the
following language:
“After discussing demolitions of buildings or structures, the Committee agreed that although
demolitions are implicitly included in site plan review procedures, a specific reference in Section
2309 regarding Modifications of Site Plans should be added indicating that a proposed
demolition of a building on a previously approved site plan requires Planning Board approval
for a modification of that site plan.”
Motion made by David Klein, seconded by Mary Russell, approving the minutes of the meeting of
September 20, 2000 revised incorporating the correction as noted above.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Site Plan Checklists:
Jon Kanter distributed annotated copies of the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists that the
Planning Department currently uses. It was suggested that these be reviewed by the Committee in lieu of
the lists of requirements in Section 2303 in the 9/15/99 draft Zoning text. The Committee agreed, and Jon
Kanter discussed his suggested revisions.
Additional revisions on the Preliminary Site Plan Checklist suggested by the Committee included the
addition of “building floor plans” to item “e”, adding “area of illumination” in item “g”, and adding “to be
approved by the Town Engineer” in item “n” (referring to drainage plan). Additional revisions on the
Final Site Plan Checklist agreed to included a clarification that copies of permits or approvals from
county, state or federal agencies should be provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy (item 4)
and submission of “design development drawings” for all buildings along with construction details of all
proposed structures and other improvements (item 6).
The Committee approved the modified Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, based on the additional
comments of the Committee, subject to final review after distribution of the revised checklists. The
2
Committee agreed that these revised checklists should be substituted for the lists of requirements in
Section 2303, with the addition of the new sketch plan checklist (found in Section 2303 of the draft
Zoning text). Jon Kanter suggested that the sketch plan requirements include “general indication of
potentially significant natural or cultural features on or adjacent to the site, such as wetlands, creeks, steep
slopes, or historic structures” (as a new item g). The Committee agreed.
There was a brief discussion regarding the fairness of the checklists, and whether they were too onerous
for some applicants. John Barney pointed out that Section 2305 gives the Planning Board the authority to
waive requirements in the site plan checklists. Jon Kanter indicated that some items are often waived by
the Board with the recommendation of the Planning or Engineering staff. Tom Niederkorn asked whether
site plans are normally approved if they meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and on the
checklists. Fred Wilcox responded that most site plans are approved after reviewing possible
environmental impacts and possible mitigating measures, which sometimes result in modifications to the
plan.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Residential Zones:
Not having enough time to begin review of the Residential zones, Jon Kanter asked the Committee to
think about questions or issues they would like to discuss at the November meeting regarding the
residential zones. Jon listed several issues that he had noted, including (1) whether the minimum lot size
in the Low Density Residence zone for areas not served by public sewer should be two or three acres; (2)
whether a maximum site coverage requirement (e.g., area covered by buildings, parking, walkways, and
all other impervious surfaces) should be added (currently only have max. building coverage; (3) whether a
second dwelling unit should be permitted in an accessory building (e.g., barn or garage) – the current
Zoning Ordinance only permits a second unit in the principal building; and (4) whether we should
continue the rear yard setback exclusion for Special Properties (e.g., hospitals, large institutions) if the
site is larger than six acres (e.g., Section 810, pg. 49 and Section 909, pg. 52 in 9/15/99 draft text). Bill
Lesser indicated that he would like to take a close look at how we handle and propose to handle
agricultural uses and structures in Residential zones, and whether structures such as docks, piers and other
lake structures are regulated in the new Lakefront Residential zone and whether these may conflict or
duplicate state or federal regulations (e.g., Corps of Engineers permits for structures in a navigable
waterway).
Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 15, 2000. Proposed agenda items included:
review of all residential zones in the 9/15/99 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance, and distribution of revised
site plan checklists.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 2000
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
James Niefer.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andrew Frost,
Director of Building and Zoning.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of October 18, 2000 Meeting:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by David Klein, approving the minutes of the meeting of
October 18, 2000 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Residential Zones:
The review of residential zones in the 9/15/99 draft revised Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) began with a focus
on mobile homes. Tom Niederkorn asked how the Committee had intended to deal with mobile homes in
the revised Zoning Ordinance. Was the intent to restrict mobile homes only to Mobile Home Parks, or
would they be allowed in any residential zone? After some initial discussion regarding this issue, Jon
Kanter indicated that Section 2600 (page 116) of the draft revised Z.O. provides that trailers and mobile
homes would be prohibited in all zones except for Mobile Home Park zones, except that mobile homes
would be allowed in Agricultural and Low Density Residential zones (one for each property owner) only
for occupancy by an agricultural employee or student doing agricultural work for the owner of the
property on which the mobile home is situated. After further discussion, several Committee members
indicated that the main distinction between mobile homes and conventional houses (and even modular or
manufactured housing) has to do with aesthetics and the appearance of the housing and the way it is
placed on the site. The Committee took a straw poll and concluded that the 9/15/99 draft Z.O. should be
kept as currently proposed (i.e., that mobile homes should only be allowed in Mobile Home Park zones,
with the exceptions for agricultural employees/students noted above).
As a follow-up to the discussion regarding mobile homes, it was suggested that the new Z.O should
include an indexing system to make it easy to cross-reference and find specific subjects. Mary Russell
indicated that this is something that the Town Board and Records Management Advisory Board have
been discussing as part of the proposal to codify all of the Town’s ordinances and regulations. It was also
recommended that summary tables for permitted uses and dimensional regulations, such as the one
drafted by Tom Niederkorn for the Business zones, would be helpful as a tool to summarize some of the
provisions of the new Z.O. for all zones.
Tom Niederkorn asked why some zones allow up to two accessory structures other than a garage, while
others allow up to three. John Barney indicated that this probably has to do with the minimum lot size
permitted in each zone.
A discussion regarding roadside stands followed. It was felt that the maximum size of 2500 square feet
for a roadside stand specified in the 9/15/99 draft would allow too large a structure in some situations. It
was agreed that this should be changed to reduce the permitted size to a maximum of 500 square feet as
an accessory structure in Low Density Residential (LDR) zones by right. In Agricultural and
2
Conservation zones, roadside stands would be permitted by right as a principal use up to 500 square feet,
and as a special permit use between 500 and 2500 square feet.
Tom Niederkorn asked what the Committee’s philosophy on clustering is. It was indicated that the
proposed provisions of the Conservation and Agricultural zones include the authority for the Planning
Board to mandate clustering, and that this mandatory clustering authority can also be found in the Town’s
Subdivision Regulations. John Barney indicated that he would check the Subdivision Regulations and the
clustering provisions in the Conservation and Agricultural zones to make sure that there is not duplication
of the same provisions.
The Committee then discussed the minimum lot size proposed for Low Density Residential zones. The
9/15/99 draft Z.O. included two alternate possibilities for minimum lot size for areas not served by public
sewer of either two or three acres. Tom Niederkorn indicated that the Committee should decide which
minimum lot size to recommend. Jon Kanter indicated that the County Health Department usually
requires a minimum lot size of between 1 and 1 ½ acres, depending on soil and slope conditions, based on
the requirements for distance separation between septic systems and water supplies (wells) and water
bodies. The Committee agreed that the issue of two vs. three acre minimum lot size in the LDR zone had
more to do with open space character than with the area needed for on-site sewage disposal. It was
suggested that the use of clustering in the LDR zone could also help to retain open space character, but
that in many cases, the ability to cluster is limited by soil conditions and septic system requirements. The
consensus of the Committee was to recommend a minimum lot size of three acres in LDR zones for areas
not served by public sewer as a tool to help preserve the open space character of those areas. It was
agreed that the lot frontage/width requirements should not be further adjusted in the LDR zone so as not
to further increase the number of non-conforming lots.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Distribution of Revised Site Plan Checklists:
Jonathan Kanter distributed revised Sketch Plan, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists to the
Committee, based on the review at the October 18th meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, December 20, 2000. Proposed agenda items included:
continuation of review of all residential zones in the 9/15/99 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance, and review
of remaining sections of the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance as time permits.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
December 20, 2000
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
The Committee discussed the timeframe for remaining work on the Zoning Ordinance revisions. Concern
was expressed regarding the length of time this project has taken in light of the fact that the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1993. It was indicated that the current draft Ordinance has been
available for a year, and it was agreed that the Committee needs to move ahead quickly at this point in its
review of the draft. It was also indicated that the basic Zoning map changes have been assembled, and
this just needs some fine-tuning by the Committee.
The Committee discussed the format of public meetings that would be held in conjunction with the
adoption of the revised Ordinance. It was agreed that there should be several public forums/information
meetings to familiarize the public about the Zoning updates and revisions that are being proposed. The
Committee discussed several ways of holding public meetings, including starting with one townwide
meeting and seeing what issues residents were most interested in. Another approach would be to hold
separate meetings on different subjects, but the Committee was hesitant about the latter approach.
The Committee agreed that its goal would be to spend no more than two additional meetings reviewing
the draft revised Zoning text. The next step would be to revise the text based on the Committee’s review
and comments that have been made during recent meetings. The Zoning map would also be revised based
on recent Committee discussions. The revised text and map would then be distributed to Town boards
and committees for internal review in March (tentatively), with the goal of starting public meetings in
April. It was suggested that there could be two or three public information meetings. It was also
suggested that the Zoning revisions and map be placed on the Town’s Web site. It was agreed that at
least an executive summary of the text revisions, summary tables and a summary map of major zoning
changes could be put on the Web site. Copies of full text and map changes would be available in the
Town Hall and County Library. Following this public information process, the Planning Board and Town
Board would hold public hearings and complete the enactment process.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of November 16, 2000 Meeting:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by Fred Wilcox, approving the minutes of the meeting of
November 16, 2000 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Meeting Schedule for 2001:
The Committee discussed the 2001 meeting schedule. In light of the fact that Jon Kanter will be leaving
employment with the Town of Ithaca to join Frederick P. Clark Associates, a private planning consulting
firm, and possibly coming back to work with the Town on a consulting basis to complete the Zoning
Ordinance revision project among other tasks, the Committee agreed to set the next meeting date for
Friday, January 19, 2001, at 5:00 p.m. to accommodate Jon’s anticipated travel schedule and to consider
the possibility of holding several subsequent meetings on the third Friday of the month. That would
result in meetings on February 16th, March 16th, April 20th, May18th, and perhaps June 15th. The
2
Committee decided to hold off on approving a schedule for 2001, and to discuss future meeting dates
beyond January at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Residential Zones:
Tom Niederkorn raised additional concerns regarding the wording of the definition of “mobile home” and
how references to mobile homes would be handled in the various sections of the ordinance. After further
discussion, it was agreed that the word “only” would be added in the last sentence of the mobile home
definition (page 12) to clarify that “A mobile home shall be considered a one-family dwelling only for
purposes of determining the permitted number of occupants [permitted occupancy].” After this
discussion, the Committee agreed that it should focus primarily on substantive comments at this point,
and not get bogged down with detailed editorial revisions, since the draft ordinance has already
undergone extensive review.
The Committee then completed review of the Lakefront Residential zone. Eva Hoffmann raised the
concern that the provisions of the revised draft appear to restrict accessory structures other than garages to
the rear yard, which faces the lake, and indicated that she did not think it was appropriate to have many
new accessory structures facing the lake. Discussion followed regarding the number and size of piers and
docks allowed on the lake shore. The Committee decided to keep the draft wording regarding accessory
structures, piers and docks as is currently in the 9/15/99 draft. Mary Russell indicated that boathouses
should be allowed on the shoreline, and shouldn’t have to meet the proposed 25 foot rear setback. The
Committee agreed to revise this.
Tom Niederkorn asked why the draft ordinance proposes that special permits would go through the
Planning Board, while several special approvals would go through the Zoning Board of Appeals. John
Barney indicated that this had undergone extensive discussion by the Committee. The current process for
special approval requires approvals by both the Planning and Zoning Boards. The proposed revised
ordinance proposes to eliminate the duplication in the approval process. Actions involving site plan
approval and special permit would only go to the Planning Board. Actions that do not require site plan
approval, but involve an additional level of review and approval, would be handled as special approvals
by the Zoning Board, such as elder cottages and home occupations.
Jon Kanter raised the issue of rear yards on Special Properties over 6 acres (e.g., Section 810, page 49 of
9/15/99 draft). This provision, found in the Low, Medium and High Density Residential zones (Sections
810, 909 and 1009), appears to eliminate the requirement for a rear yard or buffer setback on properties of
at least six acres. Jon indicated that it would seem to be important to require a rear yard setback on these
large properties where the site is adjacent to a separately owned parcel. The Committee agreed to revise
the wording of these sections to reflect that the setback requirements should apply along boundaries with
adjacent properties.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Friday, January 19, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. Proposed agenda items
included: completion of review of residential zones in the 9/15/99 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance
(focusing on second dwelling units), review of Light Industrial and Industrial zones, and review of
remaining sections of the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance as time permits.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
3
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Senior Associate/Planning
Frederick P. Clark Associates
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
January 19, 2001
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Susan Ritter, Assistant Town Planner; Michael
Smith, Environmental Planner; Jonathan Kanter, Senior Associate/Planning, Frederick P. Clark
Associates, Inc.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Mary Russell discussed the pond construction that is being undertaken on the Walker property on
Coddington Road. This was also discussed at the January 16th Planning Board meeting in
conjunction with a proposed subdivision of that property. The issue of whether the Town has any
controls over this type of construction was raised. Attorney Barney indicated that it is apparently in
violation of the fill and excavation permit requirements of Section 70 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Section 2603 of the proposed, revised Ordinance), but he suggested that the wording of that section
could be revised to make it clearer that such a permit applies to even the temporary digging and
storing on the same site of earth materials that meet the volume thresholds. The Committee agreed
and asked Mr. Barney to add such wording to the proposed Zoning text in Section 2603. Committee
members also expressed concern that the pond construction activities were occurring in and adjacent
to a stream in the Six Mile Creek Conservation Zone and that there could be issues regarding erosion
and the possibility of silt draining into Six Mile Creek. It was pointed out that the Conservation Zone
includes a provision that “existing natural drainageways should be retained where possible,” but that
there are no specific controls regarding land disturbance or pond construction. The Committee
indicated that this type of activity could be controlled under the creek buffer provisions of the new,
proposed Water Resources Protection Ordinance that is under consideration.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of December 20, 2000 Meeting:
Motion made by David Klein, seconded by Mary Russell, approving the minutes of the meeting of
December 20, 2000 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Scheduling of Next Meeting:
Several Committee members indicated that they would not be able to make the suggested meeting
date of February 16th. It was agreed that the next meeting would be scheduled for Friday, February
9th, 2001 at 4:30 p.m. All members present indicated that they could make that date.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Completion of Review of Residential Zones:
The Committee discussed the issue of whether a second dwelling unit should be allowed only in the
principal building as in the existing Ordinance, or whether they should also be permitted in accessory
buildings. Attorney Barney indicated that this issue has come up in several variances before the
Zoning Board of Appeals, and that there have been proposals to include a second dwelling unit in
accessory structures, such as barns or garages. Currently, these have to meet the more stringent use
variance criteria. Jon Kanter indicated that some communities allow second units in structures like
2
barns and garages by special permit with certain conditions that have to be met. Some only allow
this in certain zones with larger minimum lot sizes. In addition, when allowed, only one additional
unit is permitted on the lot (not one in the principal building and one in an accessory structure).
David Klein asked whether the small setback required for accessory structures might be a problem.
As an example, the R-30 and R-15 Districts allow accessory structures to be located within three feet
of a side or rear lot line. This could create problems of proximity of an accessory residential unit to
adjacent residences.
The consensus of the Committee was to allow the second unit in accessory structures because of the
benefit of encouraging affordable housing units in the Town, and felt that doing so via special
approval through the Zoning Board of Appeals would be appropriate. The Committee liked the idea
of limiting this to the R-15 (Medium Density Residence), R-30 (Low Density Residence) and
Conservation Zones, where sufficiently large lot sizes are required. It was agreed that the
Agricultural Zone already included enough provisions for more than one dwelling unit on a lot. It
was also felt that this should not be applied to the Lakefront Residence District because of typically
steep slopes and parking adequacy issues. The Committee asked Attorney Barney to draft provisions
to permit a second unit in accessory buildings, based on the above discussion, and to make it clear
that only one additional unit be permitted on a lot, whether it be in the principal building or in an
accessory structure. The Committee indicated that such a provision should include criteria for the
special approval, such as number of parking spaces required, minimum and maximum size of the
second unit, screening requirements, etc. It was indicated that the County Health Department looks
at the septic system adequacy when a second unit is proposed on a lot.
The Committee also indicated that a second unit should be permitted in existing and new structures,
but that it should be clear that a second unit in an accessory structure should not take on the form of a
second principal building in regard to size, appearance, etc., and that it would not be desirable to
have lots with what amounts to two principal houses. They should be limited to barns, garages,
sheds, and similar accessory buildings. Attorney Barney indicated that he would draft this provision
and circulate it to Committee members. He mentioned that there are two options for including this in
the Zoning Ordinance. One would be to include the entire special use provision in each of the zones
where the use would be permitted. The other would be to include the special approval criteria in the
Special Regulations section toward the end of the Ordinance, with a reference to the permitted use in
each of the applicable zones. The Committee preferred the latter approach to cut down on repetitive
text in the Ordinance.
Moving to another subject, David Klein asked whether the proposed Ordinance limits the size of
barns in the R-30 (Low Density Residence) District. Attorney Barney responded that barns are
accessory buildings, and that Section 803 of the proposed Ordinance limits the number of accessory
buildings other than a garage to no more than three not to exceed a total of 600 square feet, and that
Section 806 of the proposed Ordinance would limit the height of accessory buildings to a maximum
of 15 feet. Several members of the Committee indicated that these provisions would be too
restrictive given that one of the purposes of the Low Density Residential Zone is to permit the
possibility of continued agricultural use in areas of limited development without limiting the areas to
solely agricultural use. It was agreed that the text in Section 803 should be revised to allow the
aggregate area of accessory buildings to be up to 2,000 square feet where the lot area is at least three
acres, and that the text in Section 806 should be revised to allow accessory buildings to be up to 30
feet in height if the lot is at least three acres in size.
The Committee suggested that a new definition of “garage” should be added to Section 303 of the
proposed Ordinance.
3
Agenda Item No. 5 – Review of Light Industrial Zones:
Tom Niederkorn asked whether the list of permitted uses in Section 1901 of the proposed Ordinance
reflects an up-to-date representation of realistic light industrial uses, and whether they reflect recent
discussions with Tompkins County Area Development (TCAD) regarding the types of light industrial
uses that would tend to want to locate in Tompkins County. Jon Kanter indicated that the list of
permitted uses had been updated in comparison to the list in the existing Zoning Ordinance. In
particular, the proposed draft of the Light Industrial Zone now includes business, administrative and
professional offices, as well as research and development facilities, which are the types of uses that
TCAD suggested would be appropriate for this area. Also warehousing and storage facilities;
furniture finishing; and printing, publishing and bookbinding were added as permitted uses. After
further discussion, the Committee agreed that “furniture finishing” should be deleted as a permitted
use, and that it should be clarified that warehousing and storage uses and research and development
facilities should only be permitted as indoor spaces, not outdoors.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Review of Industrial Zones:
The Committee began review of the Industrial Zones (Article XX). Tom Niederkorn asked whether
it is appropriate for Industrial Zones to permit land to be used for any legal purpose, referring to
Section 2001of the proposed Ordinance, except for several prohibited uses which are specifically
listed in Section 2002 of the proposed Ordinance. The Committee agreed that this is an appropriate
question, and that Committee members should think about this, as well as whether any areas of the
Town should remain zoned for Industrial use. Jon Kanter pointed out that the only area currently
zoned Industrial is located on Danby Road just south of the City/Town boundary, including the
Emerson and Axiohm sites, and that the proposed revised Zoning map only includes the Emerson site
as remaining in the Industrial zone. Jon suggested that the Committee give some thought to
eliminating the Industrial zone, and possibly rezoning the entire Industrially-zoned area to the new
Office Park Commercial Zone. This would make Emerson a pre-existing, non-conforming use,
which could legally continue on that site.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Friday, February 9, 2001 at 4:30 p.m. Proposed agenda items
included: completion of review of Industrial Zones in the 9/15/99 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance,
and completion of review of remaining sections of the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Senior Associate/Planning
Frederick P. Clark Associates
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
February 9, 2001
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning;
Susan Ritter, Assistant Town Planner; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner; Jonathan Kanter,
Senior Associate/Planning, Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Andy Frost mentioned that he had received a building permit application for a seasonal cabin on the
Walker property on Coddington Road. This is the same site that was discussed at the prior Codes
and Ordinances Committee meeting, where excavation of a pond had been initiated without the
necessary permit. Andy indicated that the proposed cabin would have no utilities.
David Klein referred to the sewer project off of Hanshaw Road in the Northeast section of the Town.
He indicated that a letter had been prepared by Rebecca Snyder and read at a public meeting
regarding the sewer project. The letter apparently indicated opposition to the so called “road” and
tree cutting aspects of the project.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of January 19, 2001 Meeting:
This item was adjourned until the March meeting since a quorum of the Committee was not present.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Completion of Review of Industrial Zones:
The Committee continued review of the Industrial Zones (Article XX). Tom Niederkorn suggested
that the Industrial Zone could be eliminated from the Ordinance or revised because it is not
appropriate to permit land to be used for any lawful purpose, referring to Section 2001of the
proposed Ordinance, except for several prohibited uses which are specifically listed in Section 2002
of the proposed Ordinance. Jon Kanter pointed out that the only area currently zoned Industrial is
located on Danby Road just south of the City/Town boundary, including the Emerson and Axiohm
sites, and that the proposed revised Zoning map only includes the Emerson site as remaining in the
Industrial zone. Only a small portion of the Emerson plant is located within the Town of Ithaca. Jon
suggested that the Committee give some thought to eliminating the Industrial Zone, and possibly
rezoning the entire Industrially-zoned area to the new Office Park Commercial Zone. This would
make Emerson a pre-existing, non-conforming use, which could legally continue on that site. Several
Committee members indicated that it would be preferable to retain the Industrial Zone, and to revise
it to allow manufacturing uses like Emerson, but to delete the provisions allowing any lawful use and
to eliminate the heavy or polluting types of industrial uses listed in Section 2003. It was indicated
that Emerson produces automotive parts and has an assembly line manufacturing setup. John Barney
indicated that the Town has for many years had an Industrial Zone that allows almost any use, and
that he would check into the legal implications of not allowing certain types of heavy industrial uses
or other uses that are not allowed elsewhere in the Town .
2
The consensus of the Committee was to retain the Industrial Zone, to continue the Emerson site in
the Industrial Zone, and to revise the Industrial Zone to eliminate references to “heavy” industrial
and “any lawful purpose”. The zone would allow any manufacturing use, except for uses that are
prohibited in Section 2002, and further prohibiting “adult entertainment businesses”, and prohibiting
uses listed under items 3 and 6 in proposed Section 2003, and then deleting proposed Section 2003
that had included principal uses authorized by special permit only.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Article XXIV Special Permits and Special Approvals:
Tom Niederkorn indicated that he felt that only one board should handle all special permits and
special approvals, instead of splitting them up between the Planning Board and Zoning Board of
Appeals (ZBA) as proposed in the revised Zoning Ordinance. David Klein indicated that the
Committee had discussed this issue thoroughly and had agreed that it was appropriate to assign
special permit responsibilities to the Planning Board and special approvals to the ZBA. This was
also the recommended approach in the Comprehensive Plan. The consensus of the Committee was to
keep this proposed approach. Tom Niederkorn indicated that he was pleased that special permits
would no longer have to be reviewed by both the Planning Board and ZBA.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Review of Article XXV Non-conforming Uses:
Andy Frost indicated that he was concerned that Section 2502 appears to require that if a house burns
down or is otherwise destroyed, it would not be allowed to be rebuilt on its existing foundation if the
building was non-conforming. John Barney confirmed that this would be the case if such structure is
destroyed by more than 75% of its replacement cost, and indicated that this is a policy issue, not a
legal one. The currently proposed Section 2502 would require the homeowner to request a variance
from the ZBA under that scenario. David Klein concurred with Andy that this provision seemed too
restrictive, and that it would make more sense to allow a destroyed home to be rebuilt on its
remaining foundation rather than requiring a new foundation to be built to conform to Zoning
requirements, without obtaining a variance. The Committee agreed that Section 2502 should be
revised to allow a structure to be rebuilt on its existing foundation without the necessity of obtaining
a variance, as long as the use is a conforming use (i.e., is a permitted use in the zone). John Barney
pointed out that Section 2510 of the proposed Ordinance requires that the ZBA would have to apply
the variance criteria in the event an application is made to enlarge or alter a non -conforming structure
or use (i.e., area variance criteria for area non-conformities, use variance criteria for use non-
conformities).
Tom Niederkorn asked how the one year time period included in Section 2503.4 regarding the
discontinuance of a non-conforming use is determined. John Barney responded that this is
determined by the facts of each case based on investigation by the building inspector who makes a
determination as to when the use was abandoned or discontinued.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business:
Mary Russell asked whether animal rendering plants/operations would be permitted in the revised
Agricultural Zone. John Barney indicated that they would be permitted. Mary suggested that the
Committee revise the AG Zone provisions so that animal rendering would not be permitted because
of its impacts on surrounding properties. The Committee agreed that Section 601.1 should be revised
to exclude rendering plants/operations.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
3
The next meeting was scheduled for Friday, March 16, 2001 at 4:30 p.m. Proposed agenda items
included: completion of review of remaining sections of the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance (Sec.
XXVI to end); review of new draft regarding second dwelling units in accessory structures; and
review of proposed Zoning map changes. John Barney suggested that the Committee consider
eliminating Section 2601 regarding dish antennae at the next meeting, since the technology has
changed so much since the concerns with the size and visual impacts of dish antennae were
prevalent.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Senior Associate/Planning
Frederick P. Clark Associates
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
March 16, 2001
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Senior Associate/Planning,
Frederick P. Clark Associates.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of January 19, 2001 and February 9, 2001 Meetings:
Motion made by David Klein, seconded by Tom Niederkorn, approving the minutes of the meeting
of January 19, 2001 as written.
Motion made by Mary Russell, seconded by David Klein, approving the minutes of the meeting of
February 9, 2001 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Draft Section Regarding “Second Principal Use Authorized by
Special Approval Only”:
The Committee reviewed the draft section prepared by Attorney Barney regarding “Second Principal
Use Authorized by Special Approval Only,” which would allow a second dwelling unit in an
accessory building. The Committee agreed that these provisions should be applicable in Agricultural
zones, as well as Low and Medium Density Residential zones and Conservation zones. It was also
agreed that a new sub-section “h” should be added indicating that for this provision to be applicable,
there shall be no other accessory building on the lot that contains dwelling units.
The question of whether the size requirement of no more than 50 percent of the floor area of the
primary dwelling unit was too large was discussed. Attorney Barney mentioned a recent issue being
reviewed by the Building Department regarding a large boathouse proposed on the lakeshore with a
very large second floor. Although it was not proposed as living quarters, it could physically be used
for such purposes. This was proposed over waters of Cayuga Lake, not on land. It had received
permits from the Corps of Engineers and the General Services Administration, and the Town
apparently has no regulatory authority over this, since zoning does not currently apply to the lake
surface. Jon Kanter raised the possibility that the Town might qualify under State enabling
legislation to adopt zoning provisions that could regulate uses, structures and activities on the lake if
the Town adopts the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan that is currently being drafted by the
County in cooperation with the lakefront municipalities. John Barney indicated that he would check
into this. Meanwhile, the Committee agreed to keep the 50 percent size threshold in the proposed
draft.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Remaining Sections in Articles XXVI - XXVIII:
Article XXVI: It was agreed that Section 2601 regarding dish antennae should be eliminated because
of recent changes in technology making large dish antennae obsolete.
2
There was discussion regarding Section 2602 Elder Cottages. Tom Niederkorn asked whether
renters in a house could set up an elder cottage under Section 2602. John Barney indicated that only
owner occupants could set up an elder cottage, and that this had been discussed extensively when the
Town first drafted the elder cottage provisions. It was indicated that no elder cottages have been set
up in the Town of Ithaca. The Committee agreed to leave the provision as currently drafted, and that
any requests for an elder cottage by renters could be brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals for
a variance.
John Barney indicated that he would revise the wording in Section 2603 regarding the extraction or
deposit of fill to make it clear that the temporary moving and storing of fill materials on a site is also
subject to the permit requirements of that section.
There was discussion regarding Section 2605 Telecommunication Facilities and how this relates to
the proposed Tompkins County Public Safety Communication System. Attorney Barney indicated
that he believes that Tompkins County is not exempt from the Town’s Zoning provisions, and that all
of the affected municipalities have discussed this issue and are in agreement that they should stand
together in their position that the County should go through the proper municipal regulatory process
for this project. The municipalities will be sending letters to the County regarding this matter.
Article XXVII: John Barney indicated that he would be revising Section 2702 to indicate that the
front yard requirements would apply to both yards fronting on the roads of a corner lot in a
commercial zone. This is more restrictive than in the current draft.
Jon Kanter indicated that there are no parking ratio requirements for research and development
facilities or assembly/manufacturing uses in Section 2708 or in the zones where these uses are
permitted. The Committee indicated that this should be reviewed at the next meeting. A discussion
ensued regarding whether parking should be allowed in the required front, side or rear yard setback
areas. It was suggested that the Planning Board should have the authority to allow parking within
required setback areas where good cause could be demonstrated, except where there are required
buffers intended to protect adjacent uses. The Committee agreed that Sections 2307 (Site Plan
Review) and 2708 (Parking Facilities) should be revised to include Planning Board authority to
modify the “no parking in setback” provisions if good cause is demonstrated.
Article XXVIII: The Committee agreed that the area and use variance criteria that are listed in Town
Law Section 267 should not be repeated in Section 2804 in the Zoning Ordinance because of their
length.
The Committee then discussed Sections 2804 and 2805 in regard to the proposed provisions allowing
the Town Board to appoint alternate members to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board.
Several members indicated that appointment of alternate members was not a good idea unless those
alternates attend all meetings of their respective boards so that there is continuity and they retain
some familiarity with the board’s decision-making framework. Attorney Barney indicated that
appointment of alternate members would help the Town avoid quorum problems when one or more
members are not available for extended periods of time. He also mentioned that the proposed draft
does not require appointment of alternate members, but that it allows such appointment. The
Committee decided that this issue needs to be discussed further and agreed to continue discussion at
the next meeting.
3
Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, April 18, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Proposed agenda items
included: completion of review of the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance (including revisiting the
proposed provisions for alternate ZBA and Planning Board members and giving Committee members
one last opportunity to review/discuss any section of the draft Zoning Ordinance); and review of
proposed Zoning map changes.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
April 18, 2001
PRESENT: Acting Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, Fred
Wilcox.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost,
Director of Building and Zoning; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner.
Acting Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Jonathan Kanter raised a concern that David Klein had asked him to discuss with the Committee.
David had observed that several houses at the Saponi Meadows Subdivision off of Seven Mile Drive
appeared to have no steps, porch or stoop at their front doors. David had indicated that these were
small, modest houses, and that the lack of steps or porches were not only a safety concern, but also
resulted in a negative aesthetic impact. In addition, some of these houses at Saponi Meadows do not
appear to have any walkway leading from the front door to either the driveway or road. David had
wanted the Committee to discuss whether it would be appropriate for Town regulations to address
these issues. Jonathan Kanter and Andy Frost indicated that they had both visited the site, and that at
least temporary wooden stairs had been placed at each of the front doors that had been noticed by
David. Andy indicated that from a safety perspective, if a doorway is raised above the ground and
there are no steps, he requires the boarding up of the door. He also indicated that the Building Code
requires railing on wood stairs with three or more steps. The consensus of the Committee was that it
should not be up to the Town to address the aesthetic issues associated with the above items. There
are many homes, especially in rural areas of the Town, that have no walkways. In addition, it was
felt that some homeowners may not be able to afford to place a nice porch or stairway on their home
when they first move in, but that they may be able to afford it later. The Committee agreed that as
long as the safety issues were addressed by the Building and Zoning Department, that was as far as
the Town’s involvement should go.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of March 16, 2001 Meeting:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by Mary Russell, approving the minutes of the meeting
of March 16, 2001 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Approval of Meeting Schedule for Remainder of 2001:
The Committee unanimously approved the suggested meeting schedule to be the third Wednesday of
each month at 7:30 p.m., with the exception of November, where it was agreed that the Committee
would meet on the second Wednesday (November 14th) at 7:30 p.m. to avoid the Thanksgiving
holiday. The approved meeting schedule will be circulated to Committee members and other boards
and committees.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Proposal for Alternate Members of Zoning Board of Appeals
and Planning Board (In Sections 2804 and 2805):
2
Tom Niederkorn indicated that he had changed his mind from the last meeting, and now thinks that it
is a good idea to have alternate members for the Planning and Zoning Boards so that applicants aren’t
delayed if there are quorum problems. John Barney mentioned that the ZBA currently has such a
situation where for the last two meetings there has been a tie vote (2-2) on a specific matter which
means that they have to vote again when the full membership (5 members) is present. Mary Russell
stated that the idea of being an alternate member might appeal to a former board member who is
familiar with how the board operates, but does not want to commit full time to participating. Fred
Wilcox brought up his concern that if the Chair of the board has discretion on when or whether to ask
an alternate member to attend a meeting, that discretion could be abused at some point in the future.
Andy Frost indicated his concern that an alternate might not have enough experience or knowledge
about the board’s functions to be effective. John Barney reiterated that the proposed provisions in
Sections 2804 and 2805 are optional, that is, it would allow the Town Board to appoint alternate
members, but it would not require the Board to do so. Right now, the Town does not currently have
the option, unless we amend our Zoning Ordinance. It was also mentioned that certain Planning
Board matters (e.g., subdivision approval) have specific timeframes within which approvals are
supposed to be granted, and if those timeframes are not met, sometimes those approvals become
automatic by default if the Board doesn’t act. The consensus of the Committee was to leave the
proposal for alternate Planning and ZBA members in the draft Zoning text and see how the other
boards and committees feel about it.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Review of Parking Ratios and Definition of Parking Space:
Jonathan Kanter indicated his concern that the definition of “parking space” in Section 302 of the
proposed Zoning Ordinance (and in the current Zoning) specifies that a parking space has to be
exactly 180 square feet in size, and that it would be desirable to give the Planning Board some
discretion in applying that standard. Sometimes there are good reasons why the size might be
somewhat different for a specific project or site. Right now, the only way to modify that parking
requirement is for an applicant to request a variance from the ZBA. Neither the Planning Board nor
staff have discretion to waive the parking space size requirement. John Barney suggested that
instead of changing the definition of a parking space (because the Board needs this definition to
know how many parking spaces will be required based on size of the proposal, etc.), it would make
more sense to revise the provisions for site plan approval (in Article XXIII) to include wording that
would give the Planning Board the authority to modify this parking size requirement, since it really is
a site planning issue. The Committee agreed , and John Barney offered to add such wording to the
site plan approval section.
Tom Niederkorn suggested taking all of the parking requirements, currently contained in a number of
sections in the Zoning Ordinance, and placing them all in one consolidated section. The Committee
agreed that this would be a good idea. John Barney said he would try to do this in the revised draft.
Jonathan Kanter indicated that there is no parking ratio specified for Research and Development
facilities (this use was added to Light Industrial and Office Park Commercial zones). He suggested
adding a standard of “one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area, or one space per employee,
whichever is greater.” The Committee agreed that this should be added to the revised Zoning
Ordinance. After a brief discussion regarding the parking ratio for assembly/manufacturing use, it
was agreed that this appears to be covered by the proposed standard in the Industrial zone in the
beginning of Section 2012.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Additional Comments on Draft, Revised Zoning Ordinance:
3
Tom Niederkorn pointed out an apparent discrepancy between Sections 1211 and 2708 of the
proposed Zoning text that both deal with parking facilities for multiple residence developments and
asked John Barney to rectify this. The Committee agreed that the provision should remain as one
space per dwelling unit plus an additional space for every three dwelling units.
The Committee agreed that the review of the draft Ordinance was now complete, and that John
Barney should re-draft the Ordinance with all of the Committee revisions and try to have it ready for
the May meeting for the Committee’s consideration. Jonathan Kanter indicated that he would also
try to have a revised Executive Summary available for the Committee’s consideration at the May
meeting. Once these revised drafts are approved by the Committee, they will be distributed to other
boards and committees for review and comment. Mike Smith agreed to work on summary tables of
uses and dimensional requirements, not necessarily for distribution to the boards and committees, but
for public review and discussion when the public information meetings are scheduled.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Review of Proposed Zoning Map Revisions:
Jonathan Kanter began the discussion regarding Zoning map revisions by referring to the Low
Density Residential (LDR) zones on the map, and pointed out that the current version shows two
different color categories for LDR: one for areas currently served by public sewer, and the other for
areas not currently served by public sewer. John Barney and Mary Russell both expressed the
opinion that it would be preferable to show only one color category for LDR on the official Zoning
map. It would be too difficult to keep changing the Zoning map every time a sewer line is extended.
It was suggested that there could be a separate, unofficial resource map showing existing sewer lines
and served areas for references purposes in Town Hall. The Committee agreed that the Zoning map
should be revised to show all LDR areas as one color category. It was suggested that there could be a
note in the map legend referring to the two different densities depending on whether public sewer is
present and cross-referencing the relevant section of the Zoning Ordinance. Several members raised
the question of what density would be allowed in LDR if a property was not currently served by
public sewer, but was within reasonable range (say 500 feet) of that sewer line being extended to the
property. The Committee had no answer for this question, but agreed that the concept of two
separate densities was a good one for growth control purposes, and that it was a reasonable
expectation that the presence of public sewer would normally allow a higher residential density. The
Committee agreed that they did not want to designate residential areas at a density of one unit per
three acres if public sewer is available (i.e., this was not the intent of the LDR zone).
Agenda Item No. 8 - Other Business:
Fred Wilcox mentioned that the proposed EcoVillage development in the Second Neighborhood
might involve stacked units with separate ownership on the first and second floors, and asked
whether this might pose a problem with development approvals. John Barney indicated that this
might be a complication in terms of the Attorney General’s approval, and might require a
condominium form of ownership, but that this should not be a limitation if that is what EcoVillage
wants to pursue.
Agenda Item No. 9 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, May 16, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Proposed agenda items
included: approval of Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance for distribution to other boards and
committees for comment; approval of revised Executive Summary of Zoning Revisions; continuation
of review of proposed Zoning map changes; and discussion of distribution of Zoning revisions to
boards and committees for review and comment and next steps for public review.
4
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
May 16, 2001
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost,
Director of Building and Zoning; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Michael Smith,
Environmental Planner.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of April 18, 2001 Meeting:
Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Mary Russell, approving the minutes of the meeting of
April 18, 2001 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Approval of Newly Revised Draft Zoning Ordinance for Distribution to
Boards and Committees :
John Barney indicated that he was not able to get to the revisions to the draft Zoning Ordinance text
in time for the meeting. He said that he would try to have them ready for the June 20 th meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review and Approval of Revised Executive Summary of Proposed Zoning
Revisions:
Jon Kanter described the revised Executive Summary of the proposed Zoning Ordinance changes that
he had distributed to the Committee. Several corrections and clarifications were noted. Jon indicated
that items in boldface relate to proposed Zoning map changes, and that references to page and section
numbers may have to be changed to reflect the revised draft Zoning text once it is completed by John
Barney. Eva Hoffmann remarked that the Light Industrial Zone allows fences up to 8 feet in height if
approved by the Planning Board. She asked how high a fence is necessary to keep deer out. This led
to a brief discussion regarding permitted fence height in residential zones. John Barney indicated
that fences higher than six feet are allowed if not on the property line. Andy Frost indicated that it
was his understanding of the Zoning provisions that any fence on a residential property higher than
six feet requires a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Committee felt that since there
was confusion about this, some clarification of the existing Zoning provisions regarding fence height
might be warranted.
Tom Niederkorn suggested that an introduction be added to the Executive Summary providing
guidance to a reader on how to use the document and indicating that page and section references
relate to the revised draft Zoning text that will be forthcoming. Tom Niederkorn then made a motion
that the Committee approve the Executive Summary with his suggested addition, and conditioned
upon appropriate page, article and section numbers being revised to correspond to the soon-to-be
completed Zoning text draft. The motion was seconded by Carolyn Grigorov, and was approved
unanimously by the Committee.
2
Agenda Item No. 5 – Review of Proposed Zoning Map Revisions:
Jon Kanter and Mike Smith described the proposed Zoning map changes, referring to draft maps
prepared by the Planning Department, and indicated that proposed zoning changes were summarized
in the revised Executive Summary. Jon outlined the proposed additional Conservation zoned areas,
including the South Hill area, areas adjacent to Buttermilk Falls State Park, the State Parks
themselves, Eldridge Wilderness and an adjacent area, and a small area adjoining the existing Six
Mile Creek Conservation District. The Committee asked whether the Coy Glen area could be
included as a proposed Conservation zone at this point. Jon indicated that the Conservation Board is
currently studying this area, and is not ready yet to make a recommendation regarding a proposed
Conservation zone.
Mike Smith described new areas proposed for the Agricultural zone, including several parcels on
West Hill, several parcels off of Elmira Road in Inlet Valley, a large block of land in the Sandbank
Road/West King Road area, and several areas of agricultural fields on East Hill. The Committee
discussed the area proposed for Agricultural zoning in Inlet Valley. Concern was expressed that this
area does not follow any parcel boundaries or other readily identifiable feature, and would be
difficult to establish precise zoning boundaries. In addition, Jon indicated that the area is isolated
from other agricultural lands, and much of it is proposed for acquisition by the State for the Black
Diamond Trail. The Committee agreed to delete this area from the proposed Agricultural zone, and
designate it as Low Density Residential (it is currently zoned R-30 Residence). Mike pointed out
that the current Indian Creek SLUD is proposed to revert back to its previous Agricultural zoning. In
addition, the owner of the Indian Creek farm stand is interested in Agricultural zoning for that area.
The Committee agreed to revise the Agricultural zone boundary to include the area of the farm stand.
The Committee spent some time suggesting modifications of the Agricultural zone boundary to
conform more to existing parcel boundaries, and requested that staff look at this further and bring
back a revised map for the Committee’s review.
Jon pointed out the areas proposed for the Lakefront Residential zone, which would apply to lots
currently zoned R-15 Residence adjoining the shoreline of Cayuga Lake. A Committee member
noticed several residential lakefront lots along East Shore Drive south of Noah’s Boat Club that had
not been designated Lakefront Residential. Jon indicated that this would be corrected.
Mike indicated that the new draft Zoning map shows all Low Density Residential (LDR) zones in
one category, no longer differentiating between areas with public sewer and without public sewer,
although the revised Zoning text will have different minimum lot size requirements for areas with
and without public sewer. The Committee agreed that this is a much better approach. Most areas
currently zoned R-30 Residence would become LDR, except for the changes outlined in the
Executive Summary.
Jon outlined the areas proposed for Medium Density Residential (MDR) and High Density
Residential (HDR) which primarily correspond to current R-15 and R-9 Districts respectively, and
summarized proposed changes outlined in the Executive Summary. In addition, Jon indicated that
there are no changes proposed for the Mobile Home Park zone (currently zoned R-5).
Tom Niederkorn suggested that some minor map format adjustments might help, including
modifying some of the colors to better differentiate zones, using the same scale for the existing and
proposed Zoning maps, and making roads and parcel boundaries stand out more.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
3
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 20, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Proposed agenda items
included: (1) continuation of review of proposed Zoning map changes (picking up with Multiple
Residence zones); (2) approval of Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance for distribution to other boards
and committees for comment; and (3) discussion of distribution of Zoning revisions to boards and
committees for review and comment and next steps for public review.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
June 28, 2001
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: Catherine Valentino, Supervisor; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning; Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Michael Smith, Environmental
Planner.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of May 16, 2001 Meeting:
Motion made by Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Tom Niederkorn, approving the minutes of the
meeting of May 16, 2001 as written.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Proposed Zoning Map Revisions:
The Committee continued their review of Zoning Map revisions with the MR Multiple Residence
zones. Jon Kanter summarized proposed changes regarding the MR zone on the proposed Zoning
Map, and indicated that most existing MR zones would remain as they are on the existing Zoning
Map, with the following exception: the MR portion of a parcel at the southwest corner of Danby
Road and West King Road would be rezoned from MR to Low Density Residential (and the
commercially-zoned portion would be rezoned to about half of the current size). Jon indicated that
there had been recent discussions with the owner of the property regarding possible future uses and
possible sale of a portion to State Parks. The Committee agreed to keep the current proposal on the
revised Zoning Map for now, and to possibly consider some other zoning (e.g., a SLUD) when the
owner has a specific proposal.
The Committee asked whether the Cornell-owned parcel zoned MR at the Lake Source Cooling Plant
site is vacant. Jon indicated that it is not developed, and indicated that the Committee had discussed
rezoning the MR portion to R-15 several years ago, but that Cornell had asked that the Town hold off
on doing so. The Committee agreed to leave this MR parcel as is for now.
Jon pointed out the Cornell-owned parcel on Pine Tree Road which includes the Genex office
building, barns and fields (currently zoned R-30). As a follow-up to the Committee’s previous
discussions regarding this parcel, the proposal is to rezone the western half to Office Campus and the
eastern half to MR Multiple Residence. The Committee agreed to keep this proposal as shown for
now, and that it would be a good idea to discuss this with Cornell in the near future.
Mike Smith outlined the proposed changes in the Business zones on the draft revised Zoning Map.
The Committee agreed that the proposed new areas shown as Office Campus along Trumansburg
Road are a good idea. This includes part of the Cayuga Medical Center property (hospitals are
proposed as special permit uses in the Office Campus zone), the Cayuga Professional Center, and a
vacant parcel used for grazing animals adjacent to Dates Drive (currently zoned R -30).
2
The Committee agreed that the minor revisions in the Elmira Road Business zone areas is acceptable.
It is proposed that several small parcels along that strip be deleted from the Business zone. There
was some discussion about the development potential on the Business-zoned portion of the parcel
opposite the Seven Mile Drive intersection on Elmira Road. It was agreed that the area zoned
Business should be adequate to provide room for a small-scale business.
The Committee confirmed that the proposed changes for the Business-zoned portions of the parcel at
the corner of Danby Road and West King Road are okay for now until a specific proposal may be
submitted to the Town, at which point other zoning modifications might be considered. The owner
may be interested in building a small number of townhouse units on that property. Jon Kanter
indicated that the Committee had agreed that a mixed-use provision should be added to the Business
zones that would allow some mix of residential and commercial development, and that the
Committee had asked Attorney Barney to draft such a provision.
Mike Smith outlined the proposed Office Campus zone on Danby Road, including the Axiohm
property, a parcel owned by Ithaca College, and the South Hill Retail site. Attorney Barney indicated
that there could be a problem with permitted uses at the South Hill Retail site if it is rezoned from
Industrial to Office Campus (the Office Campus zone does not allow retail). The approved site plan
includes a mixture of retail and office development. Although the Industrial zone does not allow
retail, the South Hill Retail site retains “grandfathered” rights to include retail development based on
previous clarifications and arrangements with the Town. The Committee agreed that the South Hill
Retail site should remain in the Industrial zone, so that there would be no questions about its
permitted uses.
Mike indicated that the Rogan’s Corner site would not change except that the zone name would be
changed to Neighborhood Commercial. Mike then outlined revisions at East Hill Plaza/Judd Falls
Plaza, where several small parcels south of Mitchell Street and west of Pine Tree Road would be
rezoned from Business to Low Density Residential. The areas currently zoned Business “D” would
be renamed Community Commercial. The Committee agreed that these proposed changes shown on
the draft revised map are okay.
The Committee then discussed several issues regarding permitted uses in Business zones. In addition
to the draft Zoning text, which Attorney Barney will be revising, the Committee referred to Schedule
I: Land Uses in Commercial Zones, dated 8/23/00. The Committee agreed to change item D. 12
“public or private parking lot or garage …” on page 5 from “SP” special permit use to “NP” not
permitted.
The Committee then discussed the issue of drive-through uses in Commercial zones. It was indicated
that the only listed uses on Schedule I specifically mentioning drive-throughs are banks/other
financial institutions and restaurants. Attorney Barney stated that he interpreted this approach to
mean that drive-throughs could be placed on any permitted use listed in the Schedule, but that banks
and restaurants with drive-throughs have additional restrictions or requirements that would have to be
met. Jon Kanter stated that his recollection of the Committee’s research and discussions regarding
drive-throughs was that the Committee had intended to only allow drive -throughs on banks and
restaurants and that no other use was intended to have drive-throughs permitted. Attorney Barney
said that this is a policy decision for the Town Board to determine, and that if this was the
Committee’s recommendation, then the wording in the text and on Schedule I would have to be
revised to reflect this approach. Cathy Valentino stated that she believes that drive -throughs should
be allowed on pharmacies. After further discussion, the consensus of the Committee was that drive-
throughs should only be allowed for specified uses when listed on Schedule I, which should include
banks/other financial institutions, restaurants, and pharmacies (between 10,000 square feet and
3
25,000 square feet in size). The Committee asked Attorney Barney to modify the text in the
Commercial zone section to clearly indicate that drive -throughs are generally not permitted, unless
specifically authorized for certain listed uses in the text and on Schedule I. It was agreed that
Schedule I should retain the existing references to drive-throughs associated with banks/other
financial institutions and restaurants, and that Schedule I should be revised to add
drugstore/pharmacy with drive-through (between 10,000 and 25,000 square feet) as a special permit
(SP) use in Community Commercial only (NP in all other categories).
Jon Kanter indicated that the only changes proposed for the Vehicle Fueling and Repair zones is as
follows: East Hill Citgo would continue in this zoning category (renamed from Business “D”), and
that Big Al’s Hilltop Quikstop on Danby Road would be changed from Business “C” (now
Neighborhood Commercial) to Vehicle Fueling and Repair (which allows convenience stores with
gasoline sales). The East Hill Carwash would be rezoned from Business “D” to Community
Commercial (where car washes are allowed by special permit). The existing Business “D” zone at
the southwest corner of Danby Road and West King Road would be eliminated and incorporated into
the reduced size Neighborhood Commercial zone proposed for that area. The Committee agreed
with these proposals.
Jon Kanter indicated that the only area proposed for the Lakefront Commercial zone is the shoreline
portion of the Noah’s Boat Club site on East Shore Drive, currently zoned Business “E”, and that this
is primarily a name change.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Consider Approval of Newly Revised Draft Zoning Ordinance:
Attorney Barney indicated that he had not been able to get to this item and would try to have it ready
for the July meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, July 18, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Proposed agenda items
included: (1) continuation of review of proposed Zoning map changes (picking up with LI Light
Industrial zones); (2) approval of Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance for distribution to other boards
and committees for comment; and (3) discussion of distribution of Zoning revisions to boards and
committees for review and comment and next steps for public review.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
July 18, 2001
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Michael
Smith, Environmental Planner.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Mary Russell indicated that she was concerned about the possibility of additional drive -through
restaurants locating in the East Hill Plaza area, and that the current version of the revised Zoning
Ordinance would allow additional new drive-through restaurants by special permit in the Community
Commercial zone. Mary also expressed a similar concern for the establishment of drive-through
pharmacies in the Community Commercial zone, and suggested that the Committee consider adding
a distance separation requirement for such uses.
The Committee discussed this issue. It was indicated that drive -through banks do not appear to pose
as great a problem as restaurants and pharmacies. It was questioned whether it is legitimate to place
additional restrictions such as distance separation requirements on drive-through restaurants and
pharmacies, but not on banks or other drive-through uses. It was also pointed out that the real
problems with traffic, litter, etc. seem to be with fast food, drive-through restaurants.
Tom Niederkorn suggested that the Town could control the locations of exits and entrances to drive-
through uses so that there would not be direct access to major roads, and that access could be
provided from the shopping center parking lot. Mary Russell indicated that clusters of drive-through
restaurants would not be consistent with the Town’s policy of providing neighborhood oriented
shopping areas.
After further discussion on the merits and problems of drive-through restaurants, Mary Russell asked
for a vote on whether the Committee would recommend a distance separation requirement of a 1,500
foot linear distance between drive-through restaurants in the Community Commercial zone to
prevent the possibility of clustering of those uses. The Committee voted in favor of adding this
distance separation requirement for drive-through restaurants by a vote of 3 in favor and 2 against (In
favor: Mary Russell, David Klein, and Eva Hoffmann; Against: Tom Niederkorn, Fred Wilcox).
The Committee then voted on a separate proposal to add a recommendation for the same distance
separation requirement (i.e., 1,500 feet) for drive-through pharmacies in the Community Commercial
zone. It was indicated that the market conditions in the East Hill Plaza area are not the same as on
Elmira Road, where there seems to be a trend of large drive -through pharmacies locating in clusters.
By a vote of 2 in favor and 3 against, the Committee voted against adding the distance separation
requirement for drive-through pharmacies (In favor: Mary Russell and Eva Hoffmann; Against:
David Klein, Fred Wilcox, and Tom Niederkorn).
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of June 28, 2001 Meeting:
Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann, approving the minutes of the meeting of
June 28, 2001 as written.
2
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Proposed Zoning Map Revisions:
The Committee continued their review of Zoning Map revisions with the LI Light Industrial zones.
Mike Smith summarized proposed changes regarding the LI zone on the proposed Zoning Map, and
indicated that most existing LI zones would remain as they are on the existing Zoning Map, with the
following exception: the boundary of the Erhardt Propane Light Industrial site off of Elmira Road
would be revised to follow the tax parcel boundary. There was discussion regarding the LI area off
of Five Mile Drive adjacent to the City of Ithaca boundary. The Committee asked staff to check the
current uses in that area (both in the Town and City) and adjacent City of Ithaca zoning and report at
the next meeting with a recommendation whether this LI zone is still appropriate. The Committee
approved of the other LI zones remaining on the revised Zoning map.
Jon Kanter reviewed the Industrial zone on the revised Zoning map, and indicated that, based on the
discussion at the June 28th meeting, the South Hill Retail site on Danby Road would remain in the
Industrial zone. The Emerson site would also remain in the Industrial zone. The Axiohm site would
be rezoned to Office Campus. The Committee approved this on the revised Zoning map.
Mike Smith indicated that existing Special Land Use Districts (SLUD’s) would be retained and
converted to the new Planned Development zone, with the exception that the Indian Creek SLUD
No. 6 would be rezoned to the revised Agricultural zone (the property was zoned Agricultural prior
to its rezoning to SLUD in 1989) since no viable proposals for the Indian Creek Retirement
Community have come before the Town in recent years. The Committee approved these revisions.
Jon Kanter indicated that this completes the review of all of the zones on the proposed Zoning map.
The Committee then revisited several areas on the proposed Zoning map. Mike Smith showed the
Committee the revisions in the boundary of the Agricultural zone that were based on a previous
discussion in which the Committee expressed its desire to follow tax parcel boundaries where
possible.
Jon Kanter pointed out that the existing MR Multiple Residence zone on Coddington Road (south of
Troy Road) was inadvertently omitted and should be added back onto the proposed Zoning map.
A Committee member asked whether the area shown as “High Density Residential” on the west side
of Danby Road and north of West King Road (currently R-9 Residence on the existing Zoning map)
might be more appropriately rezoned to “Low” or “Medium Density” Residential. Jon Kanter
indicated that some of the lots, especially along Danby Road were already developed, and a rezoning
might create problems with non-conforming lots. The Committee asked staff to evaluate lot sizes in
that area, existing uses and whether lots are developed or vacant, and to come back to the Committee
with a recommendation regarding whether a change in zoning designation for this area would be
appropriate.
Jon Kanter then suggested an additional change to several large parcels east of Route 96 and west of
Route 89 currently zoned R-15 Residence and proposed as “Medium Density Residential” on the
revised Zoning map. Jon pointed out that these parcels are recommended for Conservation zoning in
the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, and are for the most part, situated in a County designated
Unique Natural Area (UNA 97 – Indian Creek Gorge and Lake Slopes). Much of this area contains
extremely steep slopes and mature forests. One of the parcels is currently split -zoned between R-30
and R-15 Residence and was the site of a previous sketch plan proposal for the Cayuga Cliffs
development, which was never approved by the Town. Jon’s recommendation was to propose that
these three parcels be rezoned to “Low Density Residential” to reflect the environmental constraints
and sensitivity of the area and limited potential for road access for new development. The
Committee agreed, and also suggested that the Railroad grade, which is the area of the proposed
3
Black Diamond Trail, be examined by staff to determine how many lots along the old railroad
connect with lakefront lots. The Committee indicated that if this number is minimal, then the
Railroad grade area and lots included should also be changed to “Low Density Residential.”
Mary Russell suggested that the Sapsucker Woods Nature Preserve be rezoned to Conservation zone
to reflect its status as a permanently preserved natural area. The Committee agreed.
The Committee discussed several other aspects of the proposed Zoning map, including: (1) a
suggestion that the City of Ithaca street system be added as a reference on the Town’s Zoning map –
the Committee agreed; (2) whether there should be a distinction on our Zoning map between public
and private lands within the proposed Conservation zone -–the Committee agreed that such a
distinction would be too complicated and that it would be better not to add this to the Zoning map,
but that a resource map could be provided for presentation purposes to illustrate which lands are
publicly owned; and (3) whether the Zoning map, once approved, should be in color since there are
so many types of zones on the map and technology now allows color maps to be readily produced –
the Committee asked staff to obtain cost estimates on reproduction costs for color maps, both on our
own printer/plotter and at printing companies.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Consider Approval of Newly Revised Draft Zoning Ordinance:
Attorney Barney indicated that he had not been able to get to this item and would have it ready for
the September meeting. The Committee requested that the revised draft be distributed in advance of
the September meeting so members will be able to spend some time reviewing it.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discuss Procedures for Distribution of Revised Zoning Ordinance & Map:
The Committee suggested that the entire text of the proposed, revised Zoning Ordinance, as well as
the Executive Summary and revised Zoning map, be put on the Town’s Web Site. The proposed
Zoning text should be labeled as “Draft” on every page. Jon Kanter indicated that this should not be
a problem, since all of these documents are in digital format, and that the Town’s new, modified Web
Site should be up and running soon.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The August 15th meeting was cancelled due to vacation schedules. The next meeting was scheduled
for Wednesday, September 19, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Proposed agenda items included: (1) confirmation
of additional changes on proposed Zoning map; (2) approval of Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance for
distribution to other boards and committees for comment; and (3) discussion of distribution of
Zoning revisions to boards and committees for review and comment and next steps for public review.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
September 19, 2001
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Michael
Smith, Environmental Planner.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 – Consider Approval of Newly Revised Draft Zoning Ordinance:
Attorney Barney indicated that he had not been able to get to this item and would have it ready in
advance of the October meeting. The Committee requested that the revised draft be distributed in
advance of the October meeting so members will be able to spend some time reviewing it. Attorney
Barney then asked to be excused from the remainder of the meeting so that he could prepare for an
upcoming court date for the Town.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Tom Niederkorn expressed concern regarding the numerous letters that had been received by the
Town from residents opposing the Steeples Glen proposal. Tom indicated that a development
comparable to the existing Eastwood Commons condominiums would probably be acceptable, but
that a development containing rental apartments with 3 or 4 students per apartment unit would not be
compatible with the existing neighborhood. Tom suggested that the Town Board could consider
rezoning the undeveloped portion of the Multiple Residence zoned Eastwood Commons land to R -15
Residence thereby lowering the permitted density of development. Other Committee members
thought that such a rezoning would be a good idea. Jonathan Kanter indicated that he had heard that
the Steeples Glen developer, the Ernann Corporation, had backed out of the deal with the current
landowner, but that this had not been confirmed yet, and that staff had preliminary discussions with
the current landowner who indicated interest in developing the land himself. Mary Russell indicated
that there could be a problem with such a rezoning if the landowner had gained vested rights to
developing the property. Jonathan Kanter indicated that he wasn’t sure whether the remaining
portion of the Eastwood Commons land had received Final Site Plan Approval, but that staff would
check on this and report back to the Committee. Based on the above discussion, the Committee
agreed to bring the proposal to rezone the property to the Town Board for consideration.
David Klein indicated that he was concerned that the current and proposed Agricultural zoning
permitted hog farms, which can have problems with odors, waste disposal and water contamination.
David suggested that the Town should consider regulations prohibiting such uses. Mary Russell
indicated that the concern is really with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO’s), where
large numbers of livestock are kept and fed indoors, rather than the small free -range livestock
operations. Several Committee members wondered how many animals would need to be present on
a farm operation before prohibitions or restrictions would take effect. After discussing this issue
further, the Committee indicated that it needed more information. Jonathan Kanter offered that staff
could get some information by contacting the Cooperative Extension, Planners’Advisory Service,
and New York Planning Federation.
Agenda Item No. 3 - Approval of Minutes of July 18, 2001 Meeting:
2
Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by David Klein, approving the minutes of the meeting of
July 18, 2001, as written.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Review of Proposed Zoning Map Revisions:
The Committee continued their review of Zoning Map revisions. Mike Smith outlined the recent
changes that staff had incorporated into the proposed Zoning Map. Mike indicated that the Cayuga
Cliffs area off of Trumansburg Road is proposed to be Low Density Residential (LDR), including the
railroad right-of-way area, where only one lot was found to cross over and connect with the
lakefront. Mike pointed to several areas on the map, including the Agricultural zone applied to the
cemetery off of Hayts Road, the addition of the new EcoVillage Special Land Use District, the MR
zoned parcel on Coddington Road, the South Hill Retail site on Danby Road going back to Industrial,
and the addition of the Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary in Conservation zone.
Mike indicated that he had looked at the area around the LI Light Industrial zone off of Five Mile
Drive, and that the adjacent area in the City is zoned Industrial and includes the Cherry Street
Industrial Park. The Town of Ithaca area is not actually designated as a tax parcel, so it is not clear
who owns this property. Tom Niederkorn suggested that staff check with the County Assessment
Office to see if they have ownership information on this area.
Mike reported that he had looked at development patterns in the R-9 Residence zone off of Danby
Road, and that most lots along Danby Road have already been developed. Most lots are well over
the minimum lot size requirement in the R-9 zone. The Committee agreed that lots along Danby
Road should remain in the R-9 zone (the revised zoning will be called High Density Residential), and
that the larger, undeveloped parcels toward Stone Quarry Road should be rezoned to Low Density
Residential (R-30).
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discuss Procedures for Distribution of Revised Zoning Ordinance & Map:
The Committee had a brief discussion regarding the process for completing the Zoning Revision
project. It was reiterated that after the Committee reviews the revised draft to be provided by John
Barney, the draft text and map will be circulated to other boards and committees, including the Town
Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Conservation Board and Agriculture Committee
for their review and comment, after which several public information meetings would be held to
present and discuss the proposed revisions with the Town’s residents and the public at-large. It was
indicated that use of the Web site would be helpful to get the public involved in the process. The
Committee asked the Planning staff to prepare a revised timeline regarding completion of the Zoning
project for discussion at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
Several Committee members had conflicts with the next regular meeting date (Wednesday, October
17, 2001). Jonathan Kanter indicated that the Planning Board was probably going to cancel their
October 16th meeting, and Committee members indicated that they would be available to meet on
Tuesday the 16th. Subject to the availability of that date, the next Committee meeting was tentatively
scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001. Proposed agenda items included review of the revised
Zoning Ordinance text, discussion of a revised timeline for completion of the Zoning project, and
follow-up on Zoning Map revisions.
3
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
October 16, 2001
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Michael
Smith, Environmental Planner; and unidentified representative from WHCU Radio.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Approval of Minutes of September 19, 2001 Meeting:
Motion made by Mary Russell, seconded by Tom Niederkorn, approving the minutes of the meeting
of September 19, 2001, as written.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Jonathan Kanter reported that Planning staff had checked into approvals of the Eastwood Commons
development and confirmed that Phase 3 of Eastwood Commons had received final approvals, and
that ten of the dwelling units and part of the road and utilities in Phase 3 have been built, thus
apparently giving the owner of that site some level of vested rights in the remaining development.
Based on this information, the Committee decided that it would not pursue any rezoning of that site
at this time.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Proposed Zoning Map Revisions:
Mike Smith updated the Committee on Zoning Map revisions based on the September meeting.
Mike indicated that the R-9 Residence area along Danby Road would remain in the High Density
Residential category, while the larger, undeveloped lots off of Danby Road and toward Stone Quarry
Road would be changed to Low Density Residential.
Mike reported that he had checked with the County Assessment Office regarding ownership of the LI
Light Industrial area off of Five Mile Drive at the City/Town boundary and that County Assessment
had told him that the land is part of the flood control channel and is probably owned by a State
agency (e.g., Department of Environmental Conservation or General Services Office) or possibly the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. After a brief discussion, the Committee agreed to rezone this Light
Industrial area to LDR Low Density Residential because it has very little development potential, is
not readily accessible, and there is R-30 zoned land adjacent to this area on the south.
Tom Niederkorn asked why the Commonlands community on Slaterville Road is split between the
R-15 and R-30 Residence zones. Jon Kanter indicated that the zoning has been that way for many
years, and pre-dates the Commonlands development, and that an approximately 500 foot deep strip
of the R-15 zone extends along the entire southwest side of Slaterville Road. The Commonlands
development was approved under the Town’s cluster subdivision provisions, and the approved
density was determined by averaging the R-15 and R-30 allowable densities. This was not approved
as a Special Land Use District. Jon mentioned that when the Town Board enacted the Six Mile
Creek Conservation zone, the Board discussed the possibility of rezoning the R-30 portion of
Commonlands to Conservation zone, but decided not to. The Committee further discussed the merits
and disadvantages of rezoning the R-30 portion to R-15 (making the entire Commonlands
development Medium Density Residential on the revised Zoning Map). Based on this discussion, the
2
Committee agreed not to change the split zoning at Commonlands because of the history of its
zoning and development, and because it was felt that such a zoning change might present
complications in the future regarding possible modifications or additional development there. It was
indicated that the developed portion of Commonlands is at its maximum density under the current
zoning, and is in fact rather densely developed, and that the open, undeveloped portions are
preserved under the cluster provisions that were applied to the site.
Mike Smith distributed samples of an 11” X 17” size color Zoning Map showing the revised zoning.
The Committee indicated that they liked this size and format, and asked staff to fine-tune several of
the colors to better differentiate some of the zoning categories.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Consider Approval of Newly Revised Draft Zoning Ordinance:
Tom Niederkorn began the review by suggesting that the term “drive-through” be defined in Section
302. The Committee agreed and asked John Barney to draft a definition for the Committee’s
consideration. Jon Kanter indicated that he could provide John with some sample definitions from
library reference materials in the Planning Department. John Barney also mentioned that he had
added a new Section 404 indicating that drive-through operations are only allowed where specifically
stated in the Ordinance. At the request of several Committee members who had trouble locating this
provision, John agreed to move this to the General Commercial portion of the Ordinance (Section
1310 and renumber existing Section 1310 to 1311).
Tom Niederkorn suggested that the definitions section (302) should distinguish between “mobile
home” and “manufactured home.” John Barney stated that he felt that the definition of mobile home
in Section 302 was sufficient, and indicated that a mobile home is designed to be transportable and is
towed on its own chassis. Manufactured homes that conform to Federal standards cannot be
discriminated against, and are considered to be the same as single-family houses for zoning purposes.
Tom indicated that the portion of the definition that states “a mobile home shall be considered a one -
family dwelling only for purposes of determining the number of occupants permitted” (page 11) is
confusing and possibly misleading. After further discussion, the Committee indicated that this issue
had already been discussed several times, and agreed that no further changes in the draft Ordinance
should be made at this point.
Tom Niederkorn asked whether “adult day care facilities” should be allowed in the Conservation
zone (Section 504, page 19). The Committee initially felt that the current definition allows an
unlimited number of people in such a facility and may be too intensive a use for the Conservation
zone. John Barney indicated that it appears that “adult day care facilities” were not specifically
permitted in any residential zone, but were included in “adult care facilities” comparable to
Longview. John said that he would do a search of the zoning text to confirm this, and suggested that
the Committee consider adding “adult day care facility” as an accessory use permitted by right in all
residential zones, as well as Conservation and Agricultural zones, and be limited to a maximum of
four individuals. This would allow small adult day care operations in people’s houses as an
accessory use. John suggested that he report back to the Committee on this. Also on page 19,
Section 504, the Committee agreed to add “family day care home” as a permitted accessory use to be
consistent with other residential zones. John Barney indicated that “family day care homes” allow
three to six children, and reminded the Committee that “group family day care” facilities, which
allow between seven and fourteen children, cannot be prohibited from residential zones because they
are regulated by the State Social Services Law and protected as group homes by the Padavan Law.
Tom Niederkorn asked why Section 512, page 22 (Conservation zone), includes a building restriction
within 50 feet of the centerline of any watercourse or within 200 feet of the 100-Year Flood
Boundary identified as “Zone A” on any Flood Insurance Rate Map. Mary Russell responded that
3
this provision was included to protect Six Mile Creek, particularly because of the varying width of
Six Mile Creek. Tom followed up with a question regarding the protection of scenic views (Section
512(6), page 23) – who determines whether a scenic view is significant, and how is this provision
intended to be implemented? Is this to be determined by the Building and Zoning Department when
they are reviewing a building permit application, and if so, how are they to make such a
determination? Jonathan Kanter indicated that it was his recollection when this provision was
formulated that it was primarily intended to apply to the Planning Board’s review of subdivisions and
site plans, but that the way it is currently worded, would also apply to issuance of building permits
for already existing lots. The Committee decided to leave this provision as is for now, and see if any
of the boards or committees comment on this when the draft is distributed for review.
Tom Niederkorn asked whether the Committee should include a provision in Section 601, page 25
prohibiting “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations” (CAFO’s) in the Agricultural zone. Several
Committee members indicated that the problem would be in defining the term. The Committee was
asked to refer to the Zoning News articles on this subject that had been distributed with the meeting
packet. The Committee agreed that there are serious problems associated with CAFO’s, such as
waste disposal, water quality impacts, air quality and odor issues, and public health impacts. David
Klein indicated that there are several large pig farms in Yates County. Mary Russell mentioned that
large dairy operations may fall under the category of CAFO’s. The Committee agreed that some
provision regulating CAFO’s would be appropriate, and asked John Barney and Jon Kanter to work
on a definition and possible regulations, and to focus regulations on hogs, beef cattle and chickens.
John Barney suggested that this be done on a parallel track with the revised Zoning Ordinance, so as
not to delay the distribution of the draft Ordinance to boards and committees for review. The
Committee agreed, and suggested that a reference could be added to the draft Ordinance indicating
that CAFO regulations are being considered and will be added at a later point.
Tom Niederkorn asked for an explanation of Section 608(1), page 31. John Barney indicated that the
purpose of the provision is to maintain as much of existing farm tracts as possible, while recognizing
that some residential subdivision of lots should be able to occur in the future. Tom indicated that he
felt that the wording of this provision is difficult to understand.
At this point, John Barney asked Committee members to focus on making sure that provisions that
were previously agreed upon by the Committee were appropriately addressed in the revised Zoning
text, and urged members not to revisit issues that had already been discussed and agreed upon. The
Committee agreed to pick up the review of the revised draft Ordinance at the November meeting
with the intent of completing review at that meeting. Jon Kanter suggested that he and John Barney
get together before the November meeting to go over the Commercial zone sections to make sure that
the revised text is consistent with the use tables that were approved by the Committee
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discuss Timeline and Process for Completion of Revised Zoning
Ordinance & Map:
The Committee had a brief discussion regarding the process for completing the Zoning Revision
project. The focus of the discussion was on how the environmental review should be conducted. Jon
Kanter indicated that the enactment of the revised Zoning Ordinance and Map would probably be
classified as a Type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and
suggested the possibility of preparing a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for this
review. Jon mentioned that the memo he had provided to the Committee suggesting a revised
timeframe for completion of the Zoning revision project included the steps that would be necessary
to prepare a GEIS. Jon indicated that a GEIS could be designed to focus on specific areas of concern
and would not necessarily add any time to the completion schedule for the enactment of the revised
zoning as compared with the preparation of a Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and a
4
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. Either way, the Planning staff will have to
assemble a lot of information and analysis regarding proposed zoning changes, numbers of parcels
and acreage affected, etc. Tom Niederkorn said that he thought that the preparation of a Long EAF
might be sufficient. John Barney indicated that a GEIS might provide a better means of explaining
the potential impacts of the proposed zoning changes. The preliminary consensus of the Committee
was that a GEIS would be appropriate if the issues and scope of the GEIS were carefully defined.
Tom suggested that staff prepare an outline of issues that such a GEIS could include for discussion at
a future Committee meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 14, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Proposed agenda
items included continuation of review and approval of revised Zoning Ordinance text, and
continuation of discussion regarding timeline and process for completion of Zoning revision project,
including how the environmental review should be approached.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2001
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Approval of Minutes of October 16, 2001 Meeting:
Tom Niederkorn indicated that the spelling of “Padaman” on page 2 of the draft Minutes (second to
last paragraph) should be corrected to “Padavan”. Motion made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by
Mary Russell, approving the minutes of the meeting of October 16, 2001, as corrected pursuant to the
above.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Jonathan Kanter reported that he had spoken with Jim Niefer about his attendance at Committee
meetings and whether he wanted to remain on the Committee given his attendance record at recent
meetings. Jim indicated in the phone conversation that he had been thinking about stepping down
from the Codes and Ordinances Committee, and that he planned to talk with Zoning Board Chair
Kirk Sigel about this. The Committee had a brief discussion about possible replacement candidates.
David Klein referred to the materials on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s) that had
been distributed in the mailing to the Committee, and indicated that this should be a topic for
discussion at the December meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Consider Approval of Newly Revised Draft Zoning Ordinance:
David Klein began the continuation of review of the revised draft of the Zoning Ordinance (Oct. 1,
2001) by indicating that Committee members had been asked to compare this draft with their notes
from previous meetings to ensure that changes had been made according to the previous Committee
discussions. David asked John Barney and Jonathan Kanter to go through the “Outline of Discussion
Items …” (11/2/01) that had been provided in the mailout.
John Barney indicated that Item 1 deals with a proposed “transition provision” – i.e., what happens to
development applications that are submitted just prior to the enactment of the revised Zoning
Ordinance and Map. The Committee agreed to hold off on this discussion until after all of the other
remaining sections of the draft have been addressed.
Item 2 (page 49, Section 1004): In regard to whether the new provision allowing a second dwelling
unit in an accessory building should apply to the HDR High Density Residential zone, Jonathan
Kanter indicated that his notes, as well as the January and March 2001 meeting minutes showed that
the Committee had decided not to apply this new provision in the HDR zone, while John Barney’s
notes had indicated otherwise. The Committee decided not to allow the second dwelling unit in
accessory buildings in the HDR zone because of the limited amount of lot area available in this more
densely developed zone.
2
Item 3 (page 64, Section 1402(3)(b)): In regard to whether “drug store with drive-through” should be
allowed in Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zones, the Committee agreed that pharmacies/drug
stores with a drive-through should not be permitted in the NC zone, but they would be allowed
without a drive-through.
Item 4 (page 67, Section 1602): In regard to whether the maximum size of all uses in the Community
Commercial (CC) zone should be limited to a maximum of 25,000 square feet, the Committee agreed
that all such uses should be limited to no more than 25,000 square feet.
Item 5 (page 70, Section 1802(3): The Committee agreed that “clubhouse or lodge” should be
permitted by special permit in the Lakefront Commercial zone.
Item 6 (Use Table – Office Uses): By a vote of 4 in favor and 2 opposed, the Committee decided that
offices up to 10,000 square feet should be permitted by right in the Community Commercial zone,
and offices up to 25,000 square feet should be permitted in Community Commercial by special
permit. By a unanimous vote in favor, the Committee agreed that government offices up to 5,000
square feet should be permitted by right in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, and that government
offices up to 7,500 square feet should be permitted by special permit in the Neighborhood
Commercial zone.
This completed the review of items on the above-referenced discussion outline. David Klein asked
the Committee for additional comments on the draft Zoning text. Mary Russell indicated that some
of the limitations to farms in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone might be a potential conflict
with State Agricultural District provisions, if any LDR-zoned areas are within State/County Ag
Districts. Jonathan Kanter stated that Planning staff could prepare a map with the State/County Ag
Districts in the Town superimposed on the proposed Zoning Map.
Mary Russell asked whether lots in the LDR zone would become non-conforming because of the
proposed provision requiring a minimum three-acre lot size in areas not served by public sewer.
John Barney responded that existing lots that do not meet the new three -acre minimum lot size would
be non-conforming, but that under proposed Section 2500 (page 98), a one-family dwelling and
customary accessory buildings could be erected on such lots as long as they could meet the yard and
other requirements of the zone. It was pointed out that such dwellings would not be permitted to
have the second dwelling unit that is customarily permitted on conforming residential lots. Jonathan
Kanter suggested that the environmental review could include an analysis showing approximately
how many lots would become non-conforming because of this and perhaps other provisions of the
new Zoning Ordinance and Map.
David Klein asked whether a definition of “drive-through” would be added in Article III. John
Barney responded that he was working on a definition, and it would be added in the revised draft.
Tom Niederkorn also noted that the recently amended definition of “telecommunications facility”
should be added to the list of definitions.
David Klein indicated that his notes showed that “equestrian facility” under Section 802, page 42,
should include a provision for a 100 foot setback from lot lines. The Committee agreed that this
should be added.
David Klein suggested that Section 1104, page 51, in the Mobile Home Park zone should include
“maintenance building, rental office, and community building” as permitted accessory uses. The
Committee agreed. David suggested that these same accessory uses be added to Section 1202, page
55, in the Multiple Residence zone. The Committee agreed.
3
John Barney reported that he and Jonathan Kanter had met to review other provisions in the draft
Zoning text, and that their meeting had resulted in additional revisions that would be added in the
revised version. These additional changes were based on comparing notes from previous meetings,
and especially by going through the use tables in the Commercial zones. The Committee indicated
that they did not want to go through these additional modifications at this meeting, and that they
should be incorporated into the revised draft.
A discussion regarding a proposed “transition provision” followed. John Barney suggested that a
reasonable approach would be to allow an applicant to follow the zoning provisions that existed at
the time that his application was submitted, as long as the applicant is diligently pursuing the
application. The Committee reached a consensus that such a provision would be fair, and that it
should give the applicant the option to either (1) follow the current zoning regulations, with a period
of up to nine months from submission of a complete application to receive the necessary approvals,
after which the new zoning regulations would apply, or (2) follow the new zoning regulations if their
application is still under consideration after the new Ordinance is enacted. The Committee also
agreed that the transition provision should include an appeal option in which the applicant could
request that the Town Board extend the transition period for an additional four months on a case-by-
case basis. It was also agreed that the provision should include a specific definition of “complete
application” in order to avoid submission of frivolous applications during the transition period. The
Committee agreed that this transition provision would be a fair way of treating applications without
creating awkward situations for applicants. Jonathan Kanter indicated that as a comparison, some
communities adopt development moratoriums during the process of enacting new zoning regulations,
and that this proposed transition provision appears to be a reasonable way to handle applications.
This concluded the review of the draft Zoning text. The Committee approved the draft, as further
revised at this and the last several meetings, and requested that the revised draft be prepared and
circulated to the relevant boards and committees of the Town for review and comment.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Consideration of Environmental Review Regarding Revised Zoning
Ordinance & Map:
The Committee had a discussion regarding the environmental review process for the revised Zoning
Ordinance and Map. Jonathan Kanter reviewed the outline of the suggested SEQR (State
Environmental Quality Review) process that he had prepared and circulated to the Committee in a
memo dated October 30, 2001, and recommended that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) would be the most appropriate way to conduct the environmental review. Jonathan outlined
some of the subjects that a Generic EIS could include, and suggested that a Generic EIS would be a
good way to document the proposed changes in the Zoning Ordinance and Map, provide the rationale
for some of the significant changes in the zoning, and demonstrate how significant changes could
potentially impact the environmental resources of the Town. It would also be a good way to
demonstrate consistency with the 1993 Comprehensive Plan. The Committee agreed to recommend
the preparation of a Generic EIS to the Town Board. After further discussion, the Committee also
agreed to recommend that a formal scoping process, which is optional under SEQR, should not be
conducted, but rather, that staff should prepare a preliminary outline of the scope and content of the
Generic EIS for discussion with the Town Board. It was agreed that the Town Board should be
requested to declare its intent to be Lead Agency for the environmental review of the revised Zoning
Ordinance and Map, and also to declare its intent to prepare a Generic EIS to conduct the
environmental review.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None.
4
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, December 19, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Proposed agenda
items included continuation of discussion regarding timeline and process for completion of Zoning
revision project, including the environmental review; update regarding distribution of revised draft
Zoning Ordinance and Map to boards and committees for review and comment; discussion regarding
whether any of our proposed zoning provisions conflict with State Ag District requirements; and
discussion of possible regulations regarding CAFO’s (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations).
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARY
December 19, 2001
PRESENT: Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning.
A quorum of the Committee was not present. Therefore, no official Committee business was
conducted. The unofficial meeting began at 7:35 p.m.
Approval of Minutes of November 14, 2001 Meeting:
Due to the lack of a quorum being present, no action was taken on the November 14, 2001 Meeting
Minutes.
Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Discussion of Possible Conflicting Provisions in Proposed Draft Zoning Ordinance with New
York State Agriculture and Markets Law:
There was a discussion regarding how our proposed revised Zoning Ordinance relates to provisions
in the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. Jon Kanter distributed additional materials that
Mary Russell had received from the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets and explained that
the primary issue is whether any of the provisions in our proposed Zoning Ordinance may
“unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations within Agricultural Districts in contravention of
the purposes of the Agriculture and Markets Law. Jon illustrated on maps that had been prepared by
the Planning Department how the Town’s proposed zoning districts overlap with the State/County
Agricultural Districts. In most cases, the Town’s Agricultural zone covers much of the State/County
Agricultural Districts, but there are some areas of Low and Medium Density Residential zoning
(among others) proposed within the Agricultural Districts.
Jon Kanter summarized the findings of a recent court case (from the materials provided by Mary
Russell in the meeting packet) decided in the Court of Appeals (Town of Lysander v. Hafner), where
the court ruled that a municipality had enacted overly restrictive zoning regulations which in effect
prohibited mobile homes (the zoning required a minimum living area that could not be met by a
standard single-wide mobile home). The court determined that all buildings located on a farm
(including mobile homes for farm workers) could be considered part of the farm operation, and that a
prohibition of mobile homes unreasonably restricted farm operations in contravention of the State
Agriculture and Markets Law. The State Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets had testified that
…“many farmers rely on mobile home housing for their farm laborers to accommodate the long work
day, seasonal housing needs and to address the real shortage of rental housing in rural areas.”
John Barney indicated that this recent court ruling could be a problem in regard to the provisions in
our proposed Zoning Ordinance regulating mobile homes. Attorney Barney agreed to review the
provisions in our proposed Zoning Ordinance regarding mobile homes and agricultural uses, and to
re-draft any provisions that appear to be in contravention of the Agriculture and Markets Law, and to
review this with the Committee at the next meeting. It was also agreed that upon re -drafting any
sections as described above, it would be a good idea to forward the revised Zoning Ordinance to the
State Department of Agriculture and Markets for their early review and comment.
2
Discussion of Possible Regulations Regarding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFO’s):
Tom Niederkorn indicated that he would like to see the Town enact a prohibition of CAFO’s because
of the negative environmental impacts associated with such uses. John Barney responded that he
didn’t think that such a prohibition would hold up in court if challenged in light of the Town of
Lysander v. Hafner case and the provisions of the State Agriculture and Markets Law. Jon Kanter
referred to the materials distributed in the meeting packets, including Mary Russell’s conversation
with Matt Brower of the State Department of Agriculture and Markets, in which Mr. Brower
indicates that it is the position of Ag and Markets that the state law is sufficient to regulate CAFO’s,
and that the Department has never reviewed any local laws regarding CAFO’s that it found
acceptable. Jon Kanter also pointed out the materials regarding the Department of Environmental
Conservation’s (DEC) permit requirements for CAFO’s, which require a nutrient management plan.
Tom Niederkorn stated that he still felt that the Town should enact a prohibition of CAFO’s even if
they might be subject to challenge in the courts. John Barney reiterated that he didn’t think that it
was a good idea for the Town to enact provisions that might not have a good chance of surviving a
challenge in the courts. Those present agreed to think about this some more, to review all of the
materials regarding CAFO’s and agricultural practices that have been distributed, and to discuss this
with the full Committee at the next meeting.
Preliminary Outline for Generic Environmental Impact Statement:
There was a brief discussion about the preliminary outline for the Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (GEIS) regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map revisions. Tom Niederkorn
indicated that the proposed outline distributed in the meeting packets (12/12/01) looks reasonable.
Tom mentioned that the idea of including a fiscal analysis of the zoning revisions in the GEIS as
suggested at the last Town Board meeting was understandable, but that it would be an extremely
difficult study to conduct, and that the Town was not required to include such an analysis as part of
the environmental review process. It was agreed that the full Committee should review and discuss
the proposed GEIS outline at the next meeting.
Other Business: None.
Schedule for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, January 16, 2002 at 7:30 p.m.
The meeting was unofficially brought to a close at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
January 16, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of November 14, 2001 Meeting and Summary of
December 19, 2001 Meeting:
Motion made by Mary Russell, seconded by Tom Niederkorn, approving the minutes of the meeting
of November 14, 2001, as submitted, with six voting in favor and one abstaining. By consensus, the
Committee approved the unofficial summary of the meeting of December 19, 2001, at which no
quorum was present.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Schedule of Meetings for 2002:
The Committee discussed the proposed 2002 Meeting Schedule that had been distributed in the
meeting packets. The proposed schedule would continue meetings on the third Wednesday of each
month. Mary Russell and Carolyn Grigorov indicated that they would not be available for the
February 20th meeting. The Committee suggested changing the February date to Tuesday, February
26, 2002, subject to checking on the availability of the Attorney for the Town, who had been excused
from the meeting. Upon a motion by Fred Wilcox, seconded by David Klein, the proposed 2002
Meeting Schedule was approved unanimously, with the modification of the February meeting date to
Tuesday, February 26, 2002 (a copy of the approved 2002 Meeting Schedule is attached to these
Minutes).
Agenda Item No. 4 – Update Regarding Distribution of Revised Zoning Ordinance to Boards
and Committees:
Jonathan Kanter indicated that the revised Zoning draft had been distributed to all relevant boards
and committees, along with the Executive Summary and comparison maps. Kirk Sigel mentioned
that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) was interested in a presentation and discussion regarding
the zoning changes. It was agreed that staff would attend the January 28th meeting of the ZBA to
participate in a discussion of the zoning revisions. There was a brief discussion regarding the public
meeting process that would follow receipt of board and committee comments, to be continued at the
February meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion Regarding Proposed Addition of Section 2711 in the Revised
Zoning Ordinance Regarding Mobile Homes on Agricultural Lands in County Agricultural
Districts:
Jonathan Kanter distributed a letter from John Barney that included a suggested Section 2711 to be
added to the draft Zoning text relating to the provision of mobile homes in agricultural areas in light
of the recent Court of Appeals case, Town of Lysander v. Hafner. Fred Wilcox asked why sub-
2
section 7 has a three year provision for removing mobile homes if not used for housing farm laborers,
and suggested that this might be too long a period to require removal. It was agreed that this
question would be forwarded to John Barney. It was observed that sub -section 8 appears to be
missing some wording, and that John Barney should be contacted for clarification. The Committee
agreed to incorporate this proposed Section 2711 into the draft Zoning Ordinance, with the above
clarifications, and that the revised draft Zoning Ordinance should be sent to the New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets for their early review and comment after John Barney adds
this new section.
On an unrelated section of the Zoning Ordinance, Tom Niederkorn suggested that the Committee ask
John Barney what is the legal basis for regulating docks and other structures beyond the mean high
water line?
Agenda Item No. 6 – Discussion Regarding Possible Regulation of Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFO’s):
David Klein referred to the numerous materials that had been distributed regarding Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s). Mary Russell indicated that the State does not support local
regulation of CAFO’s. Based on her discussions with representatives at the State Department of
Agriculture and Markets, Mary indicated that a municipality could mirror the State regulations
regarding CAFO’s, but then would have to assume the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing
these regulations, which would be a difficult task. Tom Niederkorn indicated that at the Committee’s
previous discussion, he was in favor of enacting a prohibition of CAFO’s. He mentioned that since
then, he had spoken with Bill Lesser, and Bill felt that it was so unlikely that a CAFO would propose
to locate in this area that the Committee should not be concerned about it.
The Committee had a brief discussion regarding the definition of CAFO and referred to the definition
in the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation permit requirements. Eva Hoffmann asked
whether the Town could prohibit CAFO’s in areas zoned for agriculture but outside of the County
Agricultural Districts. Some Committee members felt that we could. Tom Niederkorn said that he
would check further with Bill Lesser on the economic feasibility of such operations locating in our
area. Mary Russell indicated that she would be concerned about the Town trying to enact a law that
would not be defensible in the courts.
Jonathan Kanter suggested that we might want to reconsider the rezoning of the Cornell fields on the
East Hill and in the Northeast to Agriculture because such zoning might promote uses that we are not
comfortable with, such as CAFO’s, and given the proximity of highly developed residential
neighborhoods nearby. Jon also suggested that we look at our proposed agricultural conservation
easement language to see whether we prohibit uses such as CAFO’s within such easements, and to
consider such a prohibition if we do not. Fred Wilcox indicated that the Committee should at least
consider requiring site plan approval and/or special approval for CAFO’s.
In order to see if there was a consensus on how the Town should approach the issue of regulating
CAFO’s, David Klein asked for an informal indication on how Committee members would vote if it
were put to a vote. Eva Hoffmann, Tom Niederkorn, and Fred Wilcox indicated that they would like
to see some kind of regulation. Carolyn Grigorov, Mary Russell, and David Klein indicated that the
Committee should not pursue this further. Kirk Sigel abstained.
Due to the lack of a majority one way or the other, it was agreed that the Committee would hold off
for now on pursuing any kind of CAFO regulation. Jonathan Kanter suggested that at the public
meetings, it could be reported that the Committee considered such regulations, but could not reach a
consensus, and to include a similar statement in the Executive Summary. Jon also recommended that
3
the Committee invite Bill Lesser to a future meeting to discuss the economic feasibility of such uses
locating in this area, and to check further with John Barney on his opinion regarding the regulation of
CAFO’s.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Discussion of Preliminary Outline for Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for Zoning Ordinance and Map Revisions:
The Committee reviewed the Preliminary Outline for Generic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS
- Dec. 12, 2001) for the revised Zoning Ordinance and Map, and reached a consensus that the outline
covers the necessary elements. Tom Niederkorn indicated that the Town Board had discussed
whether the Generic EIS should include an economic impact analysis and had come to the conclusion
that such an analysis is not required under SEQR and probably would be confusing in the context of
the rest of the EIS. Tom mentioned that the Final EIS might include responses to individual public
comments regarding land values or other economic aspects. Mary Russell suggested that we
consider adding some data on assessed values in the Six Mile Creek Conservation zone (before and
after enactment of the zone) as a comparison to document whether the enactment of that
Conservation zone had any apparent affect on land values. The Committee asked staff to begin
working on the Generic EIS based on the preliminary outline.
The Committee suggested that we may need to consider setting a fee or charge for the Generic EIS
documents after they are prepared. Jon Kanter requested that the Town consider setting any such
fees internally (as an administrative function) rather than by a local law amendment.
Agenda Item No. 8 – Discussion of Revised Timeframe and Process for Completion of Zoning
Revision Project:
Jonathan Kanter outlined the estimated timeframe for completing the process for revising the Zoning
Ordinance and map (summarized in his memo dated Dec. 12, 2001). Comments from other boards
and committees would be consider at the February 26th Committee meeting. Jon suggested waiting
until the February 26th meeting to decide about setting dates for the public information meetings.
Committee members discussed how the public meetings should be formatted. David Klein suggested
that at least one meeting should be held in the Town Hall. Jon Kanter indicated that he would like to
have a Powerpoint presentation prepared to use at the meetings. Carolyn Grigorov suggested the
possibility of inviting one of the cable t.v. producers to tape the meeting and re -broadcast it on a
public access channel. Carolyn along with Eva Hoffmann indicated that they would like to have the
meetings start by inviting people to walk around and look at the Zoning maps with Town
representatives stationed at the maps to answer questions, and allow people to write comments about
the proposed maps. Another suggestion was to hold all of the public meetings in Town Hall, and
vary the times held (e.g., one on a weekday evening, another on a Saturday morning). The
Committee concluded this discussion by agreeing with the overall estimated timeframe outlined in
the Dec. 12, 2001 memo, with the understanding that there could be delays at any point in the
process, and that the outline was intended to provide targets for completion.
Agenda Item No. 9 – Discussion of Work Plan Priorities for 2002:
David Klein referred to the draft outline of Possible Work Plan Priorities for 2002 (Jan. 3, 2002) that
had been distributed to the Committee. The Committee agreed on the basic items included in the
outline, and then went on to establish priorities for those items. A revised outline of Work Plan
Priorities for 2002 is attached to these Minutes, in priority order, as agreed upon by Committee
members during this discussion. Andy Frost suggested that the Committee consider enacting an
Open Burning Law. The Committee agreed to add this to the priority list to consider at some point,
but agreed that that it was not a pressing issue.
4
Agenda Item No. 10 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 11 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 7:30 p.m., subject to checking on
the availability of the Attorney for the Town. Proposed agenda items included discussion regarding
any comments received from boards and committees on the proposed Zoning revisions and whether
additional revisions need to be incorporated, setting a schedule for public information meetings on
the revised Zoning, and discussion of possible revisions of Local Law No. 4 of 1993 regarding the
Conservation Board.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
February 26, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Andrew
Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Will Burbank, Town Board Member.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Jonathan Kanter distributed a proposed draft local law amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit
community buildings in the MR Multiple Residence District. This had been recommended by the
Planning Board during its review of two apartment proposals (Linderman Creek and College Circle),
and the Town Board has set a public hearing to consider enactment of the amendment at its March
11th meeting. Fred Wilcox asked whether the amendment would allow outsiders to use a community
building. Jonathan indicated that the proposal contains the same wording as in the draft revised
Zoning Ordinance, except that additional wording was added indicating that community buildings
could be used by residents of the MR development and their guests. The Committee unanimously
supported this amendment, and requested that their supportive recommendation be forwarded to the
Town Board. The Committee also agreed to revise the wording of the draft proposed Zoning
Ordinance to reflect the same wording regarding use by guests.
John Barney updated the Committee on the draft new Zoning section 2711 regarding mobile homes
in agricultural areas, and distributed a revised version. John indicated that the abandonment
provision of three years was chosen because it reflects the recommendation of the State Department
of Agriculture and Markets. John indicated that he also corrected the wording in #8. By consensus,
the Committee agreed to add the revised new section 2711 to the General Provisions article of the
draft Zoning Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of January 16, 2002 Meeting:
Motion made by Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by David Klein, approving the minutes of the meeting
of January 16, 2002, as submitted, with six voting in favor and one abstaining.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Consideration of Comments Submitted by Town Committees and Boards
Regarding Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance and Map:
David Klein initiated the discussion on comments received from other boards and committees
regarding the draft revised Zoning. Jonathan indicated that staff had met with a number of boards
and committees, including the Planning Board, Conservation Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and
Agriculture Committee to discuss the revised Zoning Ordinance and Maps, and then referred to his
memo of February 19, 2002, which outlined the comments received. David highlighted the comment
in the memo by a Planning Board member that it would be helpful to include more about how the
proposed zoning changes relate to goals and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Committee then discussed the comments from Harry Ellsworth, ZBA member (Feb. 15, 2002),
which focused on setback of piers and docks from adjacent property lines. John Barney commented
2
that this reminded him to bring up the question of whether the Town has the authority to prohibit
moorings beyond the littoral zone (100 feet from the shoreline). It was agreed that the wording in
Section 705(2) a & b would be revised by deleting “not to exceed one hundred feet from the
shoreline,” and to add a new sub-section “d” referencing necessary approvals from appropriate State
agencies.
Discussion of Conservation Board Comments (Memo of Feb. 14, 2002):
Pg. 1, Sec. 200-Purpose: The Committee agreed to leave as is, but it was suggested that clarifying
language regarding the goals and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance could be added in the Executive
Summary and at public meetings.
Pg. 16, Sec. 500-Purpose section in Conservation Zone: The Committee agreed to add a reference to
the preservation of “biological corridors” as an additional reason for Conservation Zones.
Pg. 17, Sec. 501-#3: The consensus of the Committee was to leave this section as drafted. The
Committee was not concerned with large-scale farm operations in the context of areas covered by
proposed Conservation Zones.
Pg. 21, Sec. 512-Ecological Studies: The Committee decided to leave this section as drafted, and that
the revised site plan procedures (Article XXIII) includes adequate requirements for ecological
studies.
Pg. 22, Sec. 512-#3 (reference to Six Mile Creek): The Committee felt that the reference to Six Mile
Creek helps to locate the area where a 100 foot setback from the centerline of the South Hill
Recreationway is required, and agreed to leave the reference in the draft..
Pg. 22, Sec. 512-#5a: It was pointed out that Sec. 512 (5)(b) already includes the reference to use of
native plant materials when replacing existing vegetation. The Committee agreed that further
revision was not necessary.
Pg. 24, Sec. 512-#10: The Committee felt that the purpose of the lighting requirement in the
Conservation Zone is clear, and that no further clarification is required. The Committee indicated
that lighting conditions would vary depending on location and circumstances, and would be reviewed
on a case-by-case basis.
Agricultural Zoning Proposal on East Hill (Cornell Parcels): The Conservation Board recommended
that the parcels proposed for Agricultural zoning on East Hill (currently R -30) should instead remain
zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) because of the close proximity of heavily developed
residential areas, and the new right-to farm provisions in the Agricultural Zone that could lead to
undesirable impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods. The Committee agreed with this
recommendation, and by consensus agreed to change the draft Zoning Map back to LDR (formerly
R-30) for these East Hill parcels.
Pg. 34, Sec. 702 (setback provisions): The Committee indicated that hospitals and clubhouses (#’s 4
and 5) had specific setback provisions because they are potentially higher impacting uses and this
section tracks wording from other residential zones. The Committee realized, however, that the
intent was to eliminate hospitals as special permit uses in residential zones, and to limit hospitals to
the new Office Park Commercial Zone. The Committee agreed to delete “public hospital” (sub -
section 4) from Section702, and to add the setback wording in sub-section 5 “clubhouse or lodge.”
3
Pg. 36, Sec. 705-#1b: The Committee felt that the term “good engineering practice” cannot be
defined, and that the intent would be to have required plans/drawings stamped by a licensed engineer.
The Committee was comfortable with leaving the current wording in the draft.
Pg. 36, Sec. 705-#1e: The Committee indicated that this provision follows good engineering
practices and should remain as drafted. If it creates a problem for an owner, they could request a
variance from this provision.
Pg. 36, Sec. 705-#1c: The Committee indicated that it did not know enough about whether the U.S.
Coast Guard or Corps of Engineers would be involved in approval of materials for docks, piers or
wharves, and decided to delete the reference to “Such materials shall also be Coast Guard approved.”
Andy Frost indicated that he has some information regarding use of treated wood, and would make
this available to the Committee.
Pgs. 36, 37, Sec’s. 705- #1d and 1k: The Committee accepted the editorial corrections/revisions
suggested by the Conservation Board, except that “or more” should be inserted after “one hundred
(100) feet.”
Pg. 37, Sec. 705-#1(l): The Committee indicated that existing lighting would be grand -fathered as
non-conforming and that this provision is intended to make sure that new or substantially modified
lighting conforms with the new requirement, subject to review and approval by the Planning Board.
The Committee was comfortable leaving this wording as drafted.
Pg. 40, Sec. 712-#1: The Committee agreed with the Conservation Board’s recommendation to add a
reference to the need to obtain a fill permit from the Town Engineer under other applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Committee agreed to end the review for the evening at this point, and to pick up at the next
meeting with the Conservation Board’s memo, with the reference to pg. 43, Sec. 803, Low Density
Residential Zone.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The Committee agreed to schedule a special meeting on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. to
continue discussion of comments submitted by boards and committees regarding the draft revised
Zoning. The next regular meeting will still be scheduled for Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 7:30
p.m.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
March 13, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Will
Burbank, Town Board Member.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Continuation of Consideration of Comments Submitted by Town
Committees and Boards Regarding Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance and Map:
Continuation of Discussion of Conservation Board Comments (Memo of Feb. 14, 2002):
David Klein indicated that the Committee’s review of the Conservation Board comments regarding
the draft revised Zoning left off at Article VIII Low Density Residential Zone on page 3 of the Feb.
14th memo.
Pg. 43, Sec. 803-#5: The Committee agreed to change the term “fowl” to “birds”, but to keep the
limitation on number of dogs in kennels at no more than three because of past problems with dogs
barking.
Pg. 46, Sec. 901- The Committee’s response was that nurseries and farms are not considered
compatible uses with medium and higher density residential areas, while they are for low density
residential. Golf courses on the other hand are considered to be potentially compatible with medium
and higher density residential areas, and are thus allowed by special permit. This is the way the
existing Zoning Ordinance has addressed these uses for many years. The Committee felt that no
change was warranted.
Pg. 47, Sec. 906-#5: The consensus of the Committee was to leave this section as drafted. These
detailed requirements for accessory buildings are applicable to all residential zones, and the
Committee felt that these details are necessary to prevent accessory buildings from overwhelming
yards on residential lots.
Pg. 49, Sec. 1006-#5: The Committee indicated that this is the same issue as raised in Section 906, #5
above, and that the requirements for accessory buildings should remain as drafted.
Multiple Residence Zone – East Shore Drive: The Committee indicated that this site on East Shore
Drive (part of the Noah’s Boat Club property now owned by Cornell) has been zoned MR Multiple
Residence for many years. Jonathan Kanter reported that several years ago, the Committee
considered rezoning the MR portion to R-15 Residence, but decided to hold off on this after Cornell
had indicated that they would be concerned with such a rezoning. Several Committee members
suggested that they could visualize some type of apartment development on this sloping land, which
would have great views of the lake. The Committee decided to keep this site MR Multiple Residence
on the proposed Zoning Map.
2
Pg. 133-134, Sec. 2805: John Barney indicated that the Conservation Board’s role in reviewing site
plans, subdivisions, and special approvals is clearly spelled out in Local Law No. 4, 1993, and their
authorization does not stem from the Town’s Zoning Ordinance, whereas the Zoning Board of
Appeals and Planning Board do. The Committee agreed to leave this section as drafted.
Pg. 136, Sec. 2808: John Barney indicated that procedures for penalties for Zoning violations are set
out in Town Law Section 268, which requires a summons for a court appearance to be issued by the
Town, and that the current process seems to work well when applied. The Committee agreed to keep
this section as drafted.
Miscellaneous: Jonathan Kanter indicated that public works facilities, such as highway garages and
school bus barns are allowed in all residential zones by special permit, and referred as an example to
Section 802, # 4 on page 42 in the Low Density Residential zone. The Committee suggested the
possibility of modifying the special permit provision to indicate that such public buildings could also
serve the “community at large.” John Barney raised the question of whether the Town would want to
allow large facilities such as the County Highway Garage or School District Bus Garage in all
residential zones. After a brief discussion, the Committee decided to leave the current wording as is
(referring to the “protection of or servicing of a neighborhood”).
Discussion of Bill Lesser’s Comments (Memo of Feb. 11, 2002):
Family Definition, pg. 6: John Barney indicated that the definition of family was revised in the
current Zoning Ordinance to reflect current case law, and that it is possible that a household with
foster children might have to appear before the Zoning Board to demonstrate that they meet the
criteria of “family.” The Committee agreed to leave the definition as is.
Conservation zone purposes, pg. 16: The Committee indicated that they were not sure what the
author was referring to in this section. The language in the proposed draft was not changed from the
original Conservation zone language, and the Committee had spent considerable time on that
wording. No change was recommended.
Lakeshore zones, pg. 39: The Committee indicated that the 100 foot frontage requirement is already
the case in the R-15 Residence District, and all proposed Lakefront zones are currently R-15.
Docks: Tom Niederkorn indicated that he had spoken with Harry Willis at the NYS Department of
State, who said that municipalities do not have authority to regulate docks and offshore structures
unless the State Navigation Law is amended. Mary Russell and John Barney said that they would
check into this further.
Planned development zones, pg. 80: The Committee agreed with Bill Lesser’s comment that Section
2102, #3 would be very difficult to demonstrate, and agreed to drop that provision.
Hotels and motels, pg. 65: John Barney indicated that the limitation on state highways was included
so that the existing motels on Elmira Road would not become non-conforming, and because of the
level of traffic that such uses could generate.
Length of docks, pg. 36: The Committee had no additional comments on this beyond those provided
earlier regarding regulation of docks.
Occupancy, pg. 17: John Barney indicated that this provision has been in place for a number of years,
and is intended to deal with the overall density in single -family residential zones. The Committee
agreed to keep as is.
3
Accessory buildings: The Committee indicated that the provisions regarding location of accessory
structures in rear yards has been in place for many years, and is intended to keep these structures out
of view of the public as much as possible. John Barney indicated that a variance for placement in a
side yard can be requested at the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Committee agreed that this should
remain as is.
Line of navigability, pg, 37: The Committee agreed that this provision is complex, but that it is
necessary and should remain as is.
Lights, pg. 37: John Barney indicated that sub-sections k and l deal with two different lighting
situations, and suggested that “k” addresses the concern raised by Bill Lesser (i.e., the problem of
glare created by lighting near the water). The Committee agreed that these provisions should remain
as is.
Agricultural zone, pg. 7: The Committee could not find this reference, and therefore, could not
comment.
Discussion of Kristie Rice’s Comments (email of Feb. 11, 2002):
John Barney responded to Kristie Rice’s comment regarding the definition of “lot”. John suggested
that this should be covered in the Town’s Subdivision Regulations. Jonathan Kanter indicated that
Section 3(4) of the Subdivision Regulations specifically requires subdivision approval for lots that
have been consolidated for tax purposes in the County Assessment Office, and then later re -
subdivided. The Committee concurred that according to this requirement, parcels consolidated
should be considered one lot for the purposes of the Zoning requirements. The Committee suggested
that this discussion be relayed to Kristie Rice to see if this clarifies her concern.
Discussion of Kirk Sigel’s Comments (email of Feb. 7, 2002):
Adult entertainment business (b), pg. 2: The Committee discussed whether the definition of adult
entertainment business should be modified to be based on sales volume rather than stock volume.
The Committee decided to leave the provision as is.
Adult entertainment business (g), pg. 3: John Barney indicated that the Committee had spent much
time on these provisions when the Zoning Ordinance was amended regarding adult uses. The
Committee agreed to leave as is.
Basement and Cellar, pp. 3 and 4: The Committee agreed to change the definition of “basement” to
“one-half or more than one-half”, while the definition of “cellar” would be “less than one-half”.
Dish antenna, pg. 5: The Committee indicated that this definition has been deleted because the entire
section regarding dish antennae had been deleted from the Zoning Ordinance since the technology
for dish antennae has changed significantly from when the regulations were first adopted.
Group family day care home, pg. 8: John Barney indicated that this definition follows state
definitions in state laws regulating these uses.
Parking space, pg. 12: The Committee indicated that a new provision has been added in the revised
Zoning Ordinance giving the Planning Board discretion to waive or modify the 180 square foot size
requirement, and that it was felt that the basic definition should remain as is.
4
Telecommunications facility, pg. 13: The Committee agreed to delete the word “wireless” from the
definition.
Section 605(2), pg. 29: The Committee agreed that the wording in this section appears to be
inconsistent and agreed to delete “other than a telecommunications tower”.
Section 802(6), pg. 42: John Barney indicated that the revised Zoning deleted “hospital” as a
permitted use in R-30/LDR, and so the reference to setbacks relating to hospitals is confusing. The
Committee agreed that the specific provision for setback should be added to this section.
Section 803(7), pg. 43: The Committee agreed to change the setback requirement for roadside stand
from 15 feet to 30 feet to make it consistent with the setback requirement in the Agricultural zone.
The Committee agreed to end the review for the evening at this point, and to pick up at the next
meeting with the Kirk Sigel’s memo, with the reference to Section 902, pg. 46.
Agenda Item No. 3 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. to continue
discussion of comments submitted by boards and committees regarding the draft revised Zoning.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
March 20, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Andy Frost,
Director of Building and Zoning; Will Burbank, Town Board Member.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Continuation of Consideration of Comments Submitted by Town
Committees and Boards Regarding Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance and Map:
David Klein began by indicating that Tom Niederkorn could not attend the meeting, but that Tom
had submitted a memo dated 3/20/02 with his thoughts on some of the remaining items in Kirk
Sigel’s memo. (start here)
David Klein then indicated that the discussion on comments received from other boards and
committees regarding the draft revised Zoning left off at the March 13 th meeting with Kirk Sigel’s
memo of Feb. 7, 2002, Section 902, pg. 46.. Jonathan indicated that staff had met with a number of
boards and committees, including the Planning Board, Conservation Board, Zoning Board of
Appeals, and Agriculture Committee to discuss the revised Zoning Ordinance and Maps, and then
referred to his memo of February 19, 2002, which outlined the comments received. David
highlighted the comment in the memo by a Planning Board member that it would be helpful to
include more about how the proposed zoning changes relate to goals and recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Committee then discussed the comments from Harry Ellsworth, ZBA member (Feb. 15, 2002),
which focused on setback of piers and docks from adjacent property lines. John Barney commented
that this reminded him to bring up the question of whether the Town has the authority to prohibit
moorings beyond the littoral zone (100 feet from the shoreline). It was agreed that the wording in
Section 705(2) a & b would be revised by deleting “not to exceed one hundred feet from the
shoreline,” and to add a new sub-section “d” referencing necessary approvals from appropriate State
agencies.
Discussion of Conservation Board Comments (Memo of Feb. 14, 2002):
Pg. 1, Sec. 200-Purpose: The Committee agreed to leave as is, but it was suggested that clarifying
language regarding the goals and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance could be added in the Executive
Summary and at public meetings.
Pg. 16, Sec. 500-Purpose section in Conservation Zone: The Committee agreed to add a reference to
the preservation of “biological corridors” as an additional reason for Conservation Zones.
Pg. 17, Sec. 501-#3: The consensus of the Committee was to leave this section as drafted. The
Committee was not concerned with large-scale farm operations in the context of areas covered by
proposed Conservation Zones.
2
Pg. 21, Sec. 512-Ecological Studies: The Committee decided to leave this section as drafted, and that
the revised site plan procedures (Article XXIII) includes adequate requirements for ecological
studies.
Pg. 22, Sec. 512-#3 (reference to Six Mile Creek): The Committee felt that the reference to Six Mile
Creek helps to locate the area where a 100 foot setback from the centerline of the South Hill
Recreationway is required, and agreed to leave the reference in the draft..
Pg. 22, Sec. 512-#5a: It was pointed out that Sec. 512 (5)(b) already includes the reference to use of
native plant materials when replacing existing vegetation. The Committee agreed that further
revision was not necessary.
Pg. 24, Sec. 512-#10: The Committee felt that the purpose of the lighting requirement in the
Conservation Zone is clear, and that no further clarification is required. The Committee indicated
that lighting conditions would vary depending on location and circumstances, and would be reviewed
on a case-by-case basis.
Agricultural Zoning Proposal on East Hill (Cornell Parcels): The Conservation Board recommended
that the parcels proposed for Agricultural zoning on East Hill (currently R -30) should instead remain
zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) because of the close proximity of heavily developed
residential areas, and the new right-to farm provisions in the Agricultural Zone that could lead to
undesirable impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods. The Committee agreed with this
recommendation, and by consensus agreed to change the draft Zoning Map back to LDR (formerly
R-30) for these East Hill parcels.
Pg. 34, Sec. 702 (setback provisions): The Committee indicated that hospitals and clubhouses (#’s 4
and 5) had specific setback provisions because they are potentially higher impacting uses and this
section tracks wording from other residential zones. The Committee realized, however, that the
intent was to eliminate hospitals as special permit uses in residential zones, and to limit hospitals to
the new Office Park Commercial Zone. The Committee agreed to delete “public hospital” (sub -
section 4) from Section702, and to add the setback wording in sub-section 5 “clubhouse or lodge.”
Pg. 36, Sec. 705-#1b: The Committee felt that the term “good engineering practice” cannot be
defined, and that the intent would be to have required plans/drawings stamped by a licensed engineer.
The Committee was comfortable with leaving the current wording in the draft.
Pg. 36, Sec. 705-#1e: The Committee indicated that this provision follows good engineering
practices and should remain as drafted. If it creates a problem for an owner, they could request a
variance from this provision.
Pg. 36, Sec. 705-#1c: The Committee indicated that it did not know enough about whether the U.S.
Coast Guard or Corps of Engineers would be involved in approval of materials for docks, piers or
wharves, and decided to delete the reference to “Such materials shall also be Coast Guard approved.”
Andy Frost indicated that he has some information regarding use of treated wood, and would make
this available to the Committee.
Pgs. 36, 37, Sec’s. 705- #1d and 1k: The Committee accepted the editorial corrections/revisions
suggested by the Conservation Board, except that “or more” should be inserted after “one hundred
(100) feet.”
Pg. 37, Sec. 705-#1(l): The Committee indicated that existing lighting would be grand -fathered as
non-conforming and that this provision is intended to make sure that new or substantially modified
3
lighting conforms with the new requirement, subject to review and approval by the Planning Board.
The Committee was comfortable leaving this wording as drafted.
Pg. 40, Sec. 712-#1: The Committee agreed with the Conservation Board’s recommendation to add a
reference to the need to obtain a fill permit from the Town Engineer under other applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Committee agreed to end the review for the evening at this point, and to pick up at the next
meeting with the Conservation Board’s memo, with the reference to pg. 43, Sec. 803, Low Density
Residential Zone.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion and Scheduling of Public Meetings for Revised Zoning:
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. (instead of the
originally scheduled date of April 17th) to discuss the status of public meetings on the draft revised
Zoning and consider possible amendments to Local Law # 4, 1993, regarding the Conservation
Board.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 24, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Fred Wilcox,
Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andrew
Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Will Burbank, Town Board Member .
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of February 26, 2002 and March 13, 2002 Meetings:
Motion made by Mary Russell, seconded by David Klein, unanimously approving the minutes of the
meeting of February 26, 2002, as submitted. Motion made by Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Tom
Niederkorn, unanimously approving the minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2002, as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Update on Status of Public Information Meetings for Revised Zoning:
Jonathan Kanter indicated that the dates for the public meetings on the revised Zoning have been set
for Thursday evening, May 16, 2002 beginning at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday morning, May 18, 2002
beginning at 9:00 a.m. Jonathan suggested that the format of the meetings would be to start the first
half-hour with an informal open house format with staff or Committee members stationed with sets
of Zoning maps available to describe proposed zoning changes and to answer questions. A formal
presentation would begin after the half-hour open house. The Committee suggested that the
presentation should not be more than an hour, and to allow plenty of time at the end for questions and
answers. Jonathan indicated that staff might try to prepare a Powerpoint presentation. Handouts at
the meetings would include a meeting agenda and Executive Summary of the Zoning changes at no
cost to those attending the meetings. Jonathan indicated that he would like to get a commitment from
Committee members to attend and participate in the public meetings, including helping with the
informal map stations and the presentation. Several Committee members responded that they would
plan to attend and offered to provide assistance. Jonathan indicated that staff would arrange for
publicity regarding the meetings and would send out a press release to radio, television and
newspapers.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Update Regarding Revised Zoning Ordinance Text:
John Barney reported that he had completed the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance text and had
provided an original of the text and comparison copy pages of revisions to Jonathan Kanter.
Jonathan distributed copies of the comparison pages to the Committee, and John Barney briefly
summarized the revisions. Jonathan indicated that he and John Barney would work on getting the
text and Executive Summary ready to go on the Town website, and for copying, and that copies
would be provided to Committee members. The Committee agreed that the revised text was ready
for public input, and that further revisions could be incorporated after the public meetings are held.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion Regarding Regulations in Lakefront Residential Zone:
2
Jonathan Kanter reported that he and Tom Niederkorn had spoken about the issue of municipal
offshore regulation of boats, docks, moorings, etc., and that their review of the Navigation Law and
Environmental Conservation Law raised questions regarding the validity of some of the Town’s
proposed regulations in the Lakefront Residence Zone.
The Committee briefly discussed the merits of regulating boat speeds up to 1500 feet from the
shoreline. Tom indicated that the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan steering committee is
recommending that if communities want to regulate boat speeds as a control over noise, all of the
lakefront communities should work together to adopt the same speed regulations to ensure uniform
enforcement.
Jonathan Kanter mentioned that Section 15-0503 of the Environmental Conservation Law includes
provisions for the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to authorize municipalities to
adopt local regulations regarding construction of docks, but once given that authority, the
municipality must take on the responsibility of DEC’s permitting process. John Barney and Mary
Russell agreed to review pertinent laws and opinions regarding the regulation of offshore structures
and uses to see how our Lakefront Residence Zone regulations fit in.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Update Regarding South Hill Conservation Zone Boundaries:
Jonathan Kanter reported that the Town’s consultants have completed their follow -up study and field
work, and have provided input regarding possible boundary modifications for the proposed South
Hill Conservation Zone. Planning staff prepared a map of modified boundaries, which was approved
by both the Conservation Board and the Town Board’s sub-committee. Jonathan indicated that the
sub-committee met with representatives of Ithaca College to review the proposed changes in the
Conservation Zone boundaries, and that there was only one small area where the Town and Ithaca
College remained in possible disagreement. Ithaca College representatives requested that the Town
consider showing this portion of the boundary as an alternate with a dashed line or some other way of
indicating that this area was still under review. Several Committee members thought that such an
alternate illustration on the proposed Zoning Map would be confusing and would not be appropriate.
The Committee agreed that the new, modified Conservation Zone boundary should be shown on the
proposed Zoning Map as approved by the Conservation Board and the sub-committee, with the
caveat that further adjustments could be added by staff where the boundary could realistically follow
recognizable features on the ground or tax parcel boundaries. It was suggested that staff and
Committee members can indicate at the public meetings that these are the currently proposed
boundaries, but that there could be further revisions based on additional study or input from Ithaca
College or others.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Discussion of Possible Revisions to Local Law No. 4 of 1993 Regarding the
Conservation Board:
Jonathan Kanter referred to the memo prepared by Susan Ritter (dated February 19, 2002) that
described the Conservation Board and Town Board recommendations regarding the organization and
functions of the Conservation Board, as authorized in Local Law No. 4 of 1993, and indicated that
the recommendations relate to the proposed “Associate” category, representation on the County
Environmental Management Council, Conservation Board by-laws, among other subjects. Tom
Niederkorn asked why there was so much concern about the “Associate” designation. Tom indicated
that he did not see the need for a formal title or recognition of “Associates”. Mary Russell responded
that this was the subject of research and much discussion, and that the Conservation Board felt
strongly that Associates provide valuable assistance to the Conservation Board by serving on
Committees and should be recognized for the service that they provide. The Committee reviewed the
proposed revisions to Local Law No. 4 of 1993 that were outlined in Susan Ritter’s memo, and
3
agreed that all of the proposed revisions in that memo were appropriate. The Committee requested
that John Barney prepare a proposed amended local law based on the recommendations in Susan’s
memo, and submit it for the Committee’s review and consideration as soon as it is ready.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 9 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, May 8, 2002 at 7:30 p.m., instead of the originally
scheduled meeting on May 15, 2002, in order to allow for adequate planning for the Zoning public
information meetings. It was agreed that the May 15 th meeting would be cancelled, and that the May
8th meeting would be entirely for organizing and preparing for the public information meetings,
which are scheduled as follows: Thursday, May 16, 2002 beginning at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday, May
18, 2002 beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
MAY 8, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Will
Burbank, Town Board Member .
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of April 24, 2002 Meeting:
Motion made by Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Tom Niederkorn, unanimously approving the
minutes of the meeting of April 24, 2002, as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Organization of and Preparation for Public Information Meetings for
Revised Zoning:
Jonathan Kanter distributed a draft press release announcing the upcoming public meetings for the
revised Zoning. The Committee reviewed the draft, and approved its release. Jonathan indicated that
it would be distributed to the entire media list, as well as to neighborhood groups and community
organizations, and that the intent is to make as many people aware of the public meetings as possible.
The Committee then discussed the format of the public meetings, scheduled for Thursday evening,
May 16th and Saturday morning, May 18th. It was suggested that a computer be set up in the lobby to
enable residents to see how the website version of the Zoning Ordinance and Maps works. Jonathan
indicated that there would also be copies of the Ordinance and Maps available for purchase at the
meetings, and that the Executive Summary would be available at no cost to those attending the
meetings. It was suggested that a method for commenting on the Zoning materials be provided
directly on the Zoning page of the website. Jonathan said that he would check with Lisa Carrier -Titti
on this.
Jonathan distributed a draft agenda for the meetings and discussed this with the Committee.
Jonathan asked Committee members who would be attending the meetings, and asked for volunteers
to assist at the map stations that would be set up in the lobby. Tom Niederkorn and Kirk Sigel
volunteered for the Commercial/Industrial zones. Mary Russell and Carolyn Grigorov volunteered
for the Agriculture and Conservation zones. David Klein volunteered for the Residential zones.
The Committee then viewed the website to become familiar with the Zoning materials and how to
access them. The Committee then visited the lobby and Board meeting room to get a better idea of
how things would be set up for the meetings.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. Tentative
agenda items included follow-up on public information meetings and comments received on
2
proposed zoning revisions, discussion of draft amended local law regarding the Conservation Board,
and follow-up discussion regarding shoreline regulations in Lakefront Residential Zone.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 19, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Kirk Sigel, Fred
Wilcox.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost,
Director of Building and Zoning.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Kirk Sigel raised two questions regarding the draft of the revised Zoning Ordinance. The first was
why the Multiple Residence and Mobile Home Park zones allow more boarders than single -family
zones. John Barney indicated that these are higher density zones than single -family zones, and are
intended to allow a higher concentration of people. David Klein concurred.
The second question raised by Kirk Sigel had to do with why there is no allowance in the draft
revised Zoning Ordinance for an increase in occupancy above the three unrelated individuals in the
new High Density Residential zone comparable to the provision in the current R -9 Residence
District. He wondered whether this was intentional or an oversight. Kirk indicated that the R -9
provision allows an increase in occupancy by special approval. Kirk stated that he likes the idea of
eliminating this special approval provision, and raising the bar to apply the use variance criteria to
demonstrate hardship in order to allow the increase in occupancy. The consensus of the Committee
was to continue to leave out the special approval provision in the High Density Residential zone in
the revised Zoning Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of May 8, 2002 Meeting:
Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Mary Russell, unanimously approving the minutes of the
meeting of May 8, 2002, as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Follow-up on Public Meetings and Comments Received Regarding
Proposed Zoning Revisions:
The Committee reviewed the various comments regarding the draft, revised Zoning Ordinance and
Map that had been compiled by the Planning Department, including the May 16, 2002 and May 18,
2002 public information meetings, miscellaneous comments compiled (5/31/02), email from David
Auble (May 21, 2002), letter from Marc Macera, Director of Longview (May 30, 2002), and memo
from Doug and Bruce Brittain (June 7, 2002).
Thursday, May 16th Public Meeting Comments: Responding to comments from Marjory Thayler, 10
Townline Road, Mary Russell indicated that the Town could look at the possibility of logging or tree
cutting regulations, but that this could be done separately from the Zoning Ordinance. Responding to
a comment from Larry Fabbroni, many Committee members felt that the possibility of an educational
or institutional zone might be something to look at in the future, but that it was beyond the scope of
completing the current Zoning revisions project.
2
Saturday, May 18th Public Meeting Comments: Responding to a comment from Rich DePaulo
regarding alternate board members, John Barney pointed out that the Chairs of the Planning Board
and Zoning Board of Appeals are trusted by the Town Board to provide leadership for those boards,
and that the Town Board would look to that leadership for selection of one of the appointed alternate
board members for any given meeting. Fred Wilcox, who Chairs the Planning Board, and Kirk Sigel,
who Chairs the Zoning Board of Appeals, both agreed that the proposed provision in the draft Zoning
Ordinance giving the Chairs of those boards the authority to choose alternate members for specific
meetings was appropriate. Responding to Evan Monkemeyer’s comment regarding Conservation
zoning on South Hill, the Committee concurred that such zoning was important to the Town to help
preserve the natural values of the South Hill, and that the proposed Conservation zoning is justified.
The Committee noted the comment by Beverly Livesay regarding the Community Commercial zone,
and there was unanimous agreement by the Committee that the East Hill/Judd Falls Plaza areas
should be designated as a Community Commercial zone, that such designation is consistent with the
Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and that the existing development pattern in that area is
consistent with such designation.
Miscellaneous Comments … (5/31/02): In response to comments written by the public in the Lobby
at the May 16th meeting, several Committee members agreed that it might be a good idea to add
Conservation zoning in steep slope and sensitive natural areas near Lick Brook and in other parts of
Inlet Valley. The Committee asked staff to prepare a map of all protected areas in the Inlet Valley
area, including Lick Brook, Babcock land donated to Cornell Plantations, and lands to be acquired by
New York State for the Black Diamond Trail, to see what a possible Conservation zone might look
like.
In response to comments written by the public in the Lobby at the May 18th meeting regarding home
businesses, the Committee concurred that antique sales would not be permitted under the current or
proposed definitions of home occupations, and agreed to leave the proposed definition as is in the
draft of the Zoning Ordinance, which would require a home business with antique sales to appear
before the Zoning Board of Appeals to request a use variance.
In response to Mark Macera’s letter regarding definitions of “adult care facility” and “adult day care
facility,” the Committee asked John Barney to review Mr. Macera’s letter and proposed revisions,
and report back to the Committee with suggestions as to how to incorporate Mr. Macera’s comments.
In response to Noel Desch’s comments regarding the proposed addition of Conservation zone on his
property off of Coddington Road, the Committee agreed to send several members to walk the
property with Mr. Desch to see the character of the site and determine whether the entire property or
some portion of it should be rezoned to Conservation zone. Carolyn Grigorov, David Klein, Kirk
Sigel and Tom Niederkorn indicated that they were interested in attending a site visit, and it was
suggested that several members of the Conservation Board also be invited to attend.
There was discussion regarding Planning Department staff comments (4/25/02). In regard to “bed
and breakfast,” there was discussion regarding limitations on number of people permitted in LDR,
MDR, and HDR zones. The draft Zoning Ordinance limits bed and breakfast establishments in MDR
to no more than 4 people, while there is no limitation in LDR and HDR. John Barney indicated that
the limitation in MDR was probably intended to reflect the strictly residential nature of that zone in
an effort to preserve neighborhood character. Tom Niederkorn and David Klein suggested that rather
than limiting the number of people in bed and beakfasts in the MDR zone, that perhaps a better way
to control this use is to limit number of bedrooms rather than number of people. Jonathan Kanter
pointed out that a limitation of 4 people would make it illegal for a family of five or more people to
occupy a bed and breakfast in MDR. The Committee agreed to change the restriction in both the
MDR and HDR zones to no more than two bedrooms (instead of no more than four individuals)
3
because of the more established character of those neighborhoods, and to leave the LDR zone
unrestricted as to number of individuals or bedrooms allowed in bed and breakfast.
In regard to “hours of operation” for uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone, the
Committee agreed that such limitations would be problematic for certain uses, and that it would be
more appropriate for the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals to consider hours of operation
for some proposals in the site plan approval or special approval process. The Committee agreed to
delete the proposed provisions for limitations on hours of operation in Section 1404 on page 68 of the
draft Zoning Ordinance.
Email from Dave Auble: In response to Mr. Auble’s comments regarding the proposed rezoning of
his property on Danby Road, the Committee agreed to consider the following: change the portion
recently acquired by the NYS Parks Department to Conservation zone; change the proposed LDR
portion on the proposed Zoning Map (west of the commercially zoned area) to MR Multiple
Residence; and extend the proposed Neighborhood Commercial zone to Mr. Auble’s new property
boundary further south along the Danby Road frontage (staff sketched a draft map of this new
proposal). The Committee indicated that these changes would be appropriate, and that Mr. Auble
should bring a sketch plan showing his ideas for development of all portions of his property to the
Town for further discussion so that the Town can provide further feedback regarding his overall
plans for developing this site.
[Note: The one item remaining to be discussed by the Committee at the next meeting is the letter
from Doug and Bruce Brittain, dated June 7, 2002.]
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, July 17, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. Tentative
agenda items included continuation of review of comments received on proposed zoning revisions,
follow-up discussion regarding shoreline regulations in Lakefront Residential Zone, and discussion
of draft amended local law regarding the Conservation Board.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 17, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel, Fred
Wilcox.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning;
Will Burbank, Town Board.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
There was a brief discussion regarding Cornell University’s pending proposal for lighted athletic
fields at the Paddocks area on Pine Tree Road. These fields would replace several soccer fields at
Alumni Fields in order to provide space for the proposed Life Sciences Building. No proposal has
been received from Cornell yet, but preliminary discussions with Cornell officials indicate that they
hope to locate the replacement soccer fields on the east side of Pine Tree Road between Ellis Hollow
Road and Snyder Hill where the existing horse pastures and barns are located.
Will Burbank indicated that he had spoken with Jim Blizzard at Tompkins County about scheduling a
taping of the proposed Zoning revisions for broadcast on one of the public access cable t.v. channels.
David Klein agreed that producing such a broadcast would be a good idea, but that we do not need to
rush into it. Mary Russell agreed that it would be better to wait until sometime in the Fall as we get
closer to having public hearings on the proposed new Zoning. Jon Kanter suggested that a possible
format might be to have a host or interviewer direct questions to a panel, who could discuss certain
aspects of the revised Zoning. Will indicated that he would be glad to meet with Jim Blizzard to
discuss details and timing of such a taping. Mary Russell said that she could also be available to
meet with Jim Blizzard. The consensus of the Committee was to try to schedule a taping for early
September, leaving enough time for those participating to prepare for the taping.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of June 19, 2002 Meeting:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by Mary Russell, approving the minutes of the meeting
of June 19, 2002, as submitted. Eva Hoffmann abstained. All others voted in favor of approval.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Comments Received Regarding Proposed
Zoning Revisions:
The Committee continued the discussion from the June meeting regarding comments received on the
proposed Zoning revisions. The one remaining letter not discussed at the June meeting was from
Bruce and Doug Brittain, dated June 7, 2002. The first point of discussion was in regard to the
Brittains’ comments on the need for an education or campus zone for Cornell or Ithaca College.
Mary Russell indicated that the Town and Cornell worked for several years on a Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for the Precinct 7/ Orchards area, which resulted in a Special Land
Use District that was, in effect, a planned education zone. Mary also indicated that based on court
rulings, it is difficult to place undue restrictions on educational uses in residential areas. Tom
Niederkorn asked why the Town shouldn’t consider an education zone. Will Burbank asked whether
other communities have established successful education zones. Jon Kanter indicated that the Town
has had preliminary discussions with Ithaca College about the possibility of a campus/education
2
zone, now that the College has completed its Master Plan, and that this would be a good place to
start, but that Cornell and its large landholdings presents a much more complex situation. Jon
indicated that the Planning Department has already collected some examples of
education/institutional zones, and that it would be possible to obtain additional examples from the
New York Planning Federation and the American Planning Association. Kirk Sigel suggested that
one of the benefits of an educational zone might be to address adequate buffers to protect residential
areas. After further discussion, the Committee agreed that educational zoning would be a good next
step to look at after the current proposed Zoning is adopted, but that it is too large an issue to address
in conjunction with the current Zoning revision project, and to collect additional examples of
possible zoning approaches as a next step.
In regard to the Brittains’ comments on parking lot landscaping standards, the Committee agreed that
this is another subject worth looking at after the current Zoning update process is completed. David
Klein indicated that he had given a lot of thought to this subject, and that there should be a way to
relate the number of plantings to the amount of paved area in a parking lot. Eva Hoffmann agreed
that it is important to make sure that there is adequate landscaping for parking lots, partly to ensure
ample shading. Fred Wilcox suggested that snow plowing requirements in winter months need to be
taken into account. Jon Kanter suggested that the Committee determine what the purposes of parking
lot landscaping standards would be before pursuing regulations – is it for aesthetic reasons,
screening, shade, etc.? Mary Russelll asked whether trees in parking lots reach maturity, or whether
stress conditions prevent healthy growth. Jon Kanter suggested that another consideration is the size
of plantings that are required. Several Committee members indicated that the Planning Board
currently addresses landscaping in the site plan review process, but that the Zoning Ordinance does
not include detailed guidelines. Andy Frost indicated that the Committee should consider the costs
associated with any zoning modifications that would result in more plantings than are now required.
The Committee agreed that more specific landscaping standards for parking lots might be a good
idea, but that this subject should not hold up consideration of the current revised Zoning. Jon Kanter
suggested that the Committee should make up a list of future issues like this to pursue after the
Zoning current revision process is completed. Mary Russell indicated that the Committee should
make the public aware of these additional items that could be pursued later, so that there is not an
impression created that the new Zoning is set in stone or cannot be further revised.
In regard to the Brittains’ comments about the regrading of land, the Committee agreed that the
existing site plan review process incorporates this as an important consideration, and that it would be
extremely difficult to impose a specific limit on the number of feet of elevation that could be changed
on a site. The consensus of the Committee was not to pursue this suggestion.
In regard to the Brittains’ comments regarding “smart growth”, the consensus of the Committee was
that many of the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan that form the basis of numerous
proposed Zoning provisions are based on smart growth principles. Jon Kanter indicated that one
aspect that the Transportation Committee is beginning to look at is how to incorporate sidewalks or
walkways into new developments, and whether there should be modifications in the Town’s current
approach to these facilities, either through the subdivision or site plan review process, or through the
Town’s own capital planning and improvement policies. The Committee agreed that this is also an
important issue that should be addressed further by the Town after the current Zoning revisions are
enacted.
This completed the discussion of comments received to date on the Zoning revisions.
3
Agenda Item No. 4 – Follow-up Discussion Regarding Possible Zoning Map Changes:
There was a brief discussion regarding the scheduling of a site visit to the Desch/May property off of
Coddington Road to look at the possibility of revising the boundary of the proposed Conservation
zone in this area.
In regard to the Auble site on Danby and King Roads, Jon Kanter indicated that he had met recently
with an architect representing Mr. Auble to discuss possible zoning changes on that site and what
uses would be appropriate there. Jon indicated that he had suggested to the architect the possibility
of an office park development on part of the site and asked whether the Committee would consider
further revising the proposed site zoning to include Office Park Commercial. Several Committee
members felt that it was difficult to consider further zoning revisions without seeing a sketch plan of
suggested uses on the site, as had been requested of Mr. Auble. The consensus of the Committee was
to keep the most recent proposed zoning as had been discussed at the June meeting, which included
Neighborhood Commercial fronting on Danby Road with Multiple Residence to the rear (west), with
the portion acquired by State Parks in Conservation zone.
Jon Kanter presented a working map that had been prepared by the Planning Department at the
request of the Committee showing protected lands (nature preserves and land to be acquired for the
Black Diamond Trail) in the Inlet Valley area. After a brief discussion, the Committee agreed to
include the protected parcels shown on that working map in a Conservation zone, but not to include
any other private lands in that Conservation zone (for the current revised Zoning map).
Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. Tentative
agenda items included review of any additional comments received on proposed zoning revisions,
follow-up discussion regarding shoreline regulations in Lakefront Residential Zone, and discussion
of draft amended local law regarding the Conservation Board.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARY
AUGUST 21, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town.
Upon determining that a quorum of the Committee was not present, Chair David Klein indicated that
the meeting could not be held as an official meeting. The Committee went on with informal
discussion regarding several matters as follows.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
There was a brief discussion regarding the recent decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to
deny the application of the Town of Ulysses for variances for a water pump station on Woolf Lane in
the Town of Ithaca. Attorney Barney summarized the proceedings of the ZBA meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of July 17, 2002 Meeting:
In the absence of a quorum, no action was taken on the draft Minutes of the July 17, 2002 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Informal Follow-up Discussion Regarding Possible Zoning Map Changes:
There was a brief informal discussion regarding the site visit to the Desch/May property off of
Coddington Road and the possibility of revising the boundary of the proposed Conservation zone in
this area. Jon Kanter presented a working map that had been prepared by the Planning Department
showing the area suggested by Noel Desch to be included in the Conservation District (measured
approximately 900 +/- feet from the centerline of the power line that traverses the property) and an
additional area discussed by the Conservation Board for inclusion in the Conservation zone
(including additional protection of the gorge adjacent to the Eldridge Preserve and the Southwoods
Subdivision). As a result of the discussion, Committee members suggested a further revision of the
Conservation zone boundary that would follow Noel Desch’s proposed boundary line on the east, but
that would be shifted on the west to include additional land adjacent to the above -referenced gorge.
It was suggested that this be discussed at the September Committee meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule for Next Meeting:
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 18, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel, Fred
Wilcox.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning;
John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Will Burbank, Town Board.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
David Klein mentioned that only two members attended the last regular meeting held on August 21 st,
and that due to a lack of a quorum, the Committee could not accomplish much. David asked
members to please let staff know prior to a meeting if they will not be able to attend that meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of July 17, 2002 Meeting:
Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tom Niederkorn, unanimously approving the minutes of
the meeting of July 17, 2002, as submitted.
Jonathan Kanter noted that a summary of the August 21st meeting had been prepared and distributed,
but that no action on approval was necessary since a quorum of the Committee had not been present.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Comments Received Regarding Proposed
Zoning Revisions:
The Committee discussed the comments regarding the proposed revised Zoning received from the
Tompkins County Planning Department contained in a letter dated July 29, 2002. Comments
discussed by the Committee were divided into the following categories:
Agriculture and Conservation Zones: Jonathan Kanter indicated that the County Planning
Department had voiced a concern that clustering in those zones may not be economically feasible,
and that the result of the revised zoning may be the development of frontage lots along main roads.
Several Committee members stated that the main goal of those low density zones is to control
densities in larger subdivisions, and the intent is not to prevent frontage lots, although it was
recognized that too many frontage lots could affect the rural character of areas in those zones. It was
also mentioned that both zones contain guidelines to assist the Planning Board in determining where
new lots should be located.
Targeting Areas for Higher Residential Densities and Commercial Development: Jonathan outlined
the County’s concerns about whether the revised zoning provides for enough higher density housing.
Jonathan pointed out where some of the undeveloped higher density zones are located on the existing
and proposed Zoning Maps. Fred Wilcox asked whether the Town wants more high density housing,
and if so, where should it be located? Mary Russell suggested that it is difficult to deal with this
issue unless there is a specific development proposal before the Town Board. Tom Niederkorn
indicated that it would be helpful if the Town alerted developers as to where higher density housing
would be considered to be appropriate. Tom suggested that one way to do this is to incorporate an
overlay zone into the Zoning Map. Will Burbank asked whether the Town has information on the
2
need for lower cost housing. Jonathan indicated that the County has done some studies, and that the
Linderman Creek proposal on Mecklenburg Road also prepared a housing needs/feasibility study for
the Town. Mary Russell stated that the Town has used accessory apartment/second dwelling unit
provisions in single-family zones as a successful affordable housing provision. David Klein
indicated that the market often dictates the type of housing proposals that developers bring before the
Town, making it difficult to zone for higher density housing ahead of time. Jonathan mentioned that
the County letter also suggested that opportunities for mixed-use development should be provided in
conjunction with higher density housing, and that the Town should consider targeting additional
areas for neighborhood commercial development. Eva Hoffmann indicated that the former West Hill
proposal on the Kyong property would have been a good opportunity to provide an area for higher
housing density and neighborhood commercial development in an area lacking such development,
but this proposal created much neighborhood opposition, and the proposal was withdrawn. John
Barney recalled that the Kyong proposal included affordable housing, and it would have been
addressed through a Special Land Use District. David Klein indicated that residents would tend to
focus on proposals regarding higher density or affordable housing or targeting new commercial areas
in the zoning, and that is one reason why the Town Board has not done it in the past.
Neighborhood Commercial Areas: Jonathan pointed out that the County questioned whether the
Neighborhood Commercial zones would actually allow neighborhood oriented development because
of their small size and locations primarily on major state highways. The consensus of the Committee
was that this was not a significant concern, and that there would be ample opportunities for
neighborhood oriented development to occur.
Educational/Institutional Zoning: David Klein referred to the County’s suggestion that the Town
consider new educational or institutional zoning, and that the Committee has already discussed this
issue, and has put it on its list of follow-up items to evaluate after the current zoning revision process
is completed.
Unique Natural Areas (UNA): Jonathan pointed out that the County supported the Town’s proposals
to preserve UNA’s through Conservation zones, and encouraged the Town to continue identifying
other UNA’s for such preservation. Jonathan indicated that the Conservation Board is currently
evaluating others for inclusion, such as Coy Glen and the Indian Creek and Lake Slopes UNA. Eva
Hoffmann mentioned that the Conservation Board has studied the value of biological corridors, and
that this concept has been included in some of the Conservation zones.
Fred Wilcox stated that the County letter was very positive and supportive of the overall zoning
revisions. David Klein reiterated that several of the items mentioned in the County letter, as well as
in other comments received from the public, are on the Committee’s list of follow -up items to
evaluate after the current zoning revision project is completed.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Follow-up Discussion Regarding Possible Zoning Map Changes:
Noel Desch Property Conservation Zone, Coddington Road: Jonathan reported that Committee
members had discussed this at the August 21st meeting at which there was no quorum, and outlined
the evolution of the proposed boundary line change for the Conservation zone on this property.
Jonathan indicated that the Conservation Board had proposed that the boundary be expanded from
that proposed by Noel Desch and drawn to include areas adjacent to the creek and gorge which
would have added a significant portion of the Desch property back into the Conservation zone,
including some of the open fields and less sloping land. The Committee members present at the
August 21st meeting had suggested a revised boundary that would still include the area adjacent to
the creek and gorge, but would exclude from the Conservation zone the open fields and moderate
slopes toward the east. Eva Hoffmann indicated that the Conservation Board was also concerned
3
with adding a buffer to ensure preservation of the more significant natural area. There was a
discussion regarding the number of houses and possible lot layouts with the different scenarios
proposed. John Barney indicated that the powerlines that traverse the fields on the north part of the
site are a major constraint to house development. After further discussion, a new proposed boundary
was suggested that would begin at the Conservation Board’s proposed point on the west that would
include the area adjacent to the gorge, and run to the point on the east side of the property originally
suggested by Noel Desch. The Committee’s justification for this revised boundary is (1) to preserve
the gorge area within the Unique Natural Area, (2) to preserve the mature woods on the steeper
slopes in the western area, and (3) to provide a sufficient area for development on the more disturbed
areas of the site that are more accessible to Coddington Road and Updike Road. There was a
consensus of the Committee to incorporate this revised Conservation zone boundary on the proposed
Zoning Map.
Axiohm Site, Danby Road: Jonathan reported that he had received comments from Tompkins County
Area Development (TCAD) recommending that the existing Axiohm building retain the current
Industrial zoning because of the nature of some of the industrial uses occupying the building.
Jonathan suggested that the Committee consider revising the proposed boundary between the new
Office Park zone on Danby Road and the Industrial zone by retaining the current Industrial zoning at
the developed portion of the Axiohm site, including the existing building and parking lots. This
would allow the continuation and expansion of both industrial and office uses in the Axiohm building
without making the industrial uses non-conforming. The Committee agreed with this suggestion.
Jonathan showed the Committee a copy of a tax map with a suggested modified boundary between
the Industrial and Office Park zones. Fred Wilcox suggested a minor revision in this proposed
boundary. By a vote of five in favor and one opposed, the Committee agreed to incorporate the new
boundary suggested by Fred Wilcox.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion Regarding Other Zoning Ordinance Considerations:
Regulation of Off-shore Structures in Lakefront Residential Zone: John Barney reported that he had
begun to review materials that Mary Russell had put together regarding the legal basis for municipal
regulation of off-shore uses and structures. John indicated that in the limited time that he had to
review this material, it is clear that the Town has the legal authority to regulate vessels in waters
within the Town’s jurisdiction, but that it is less clear whether the Town can legally regulate the
placement of structures, such as docks or boathouses in those waters, and that he would have to
review the relevant laws further. He mentioned that it appears that if the Town has an adopted harbor
management plan, then it can regulate docks and other structures in its off -shore waters. Mary
Russell stated that her research indicated to her that the Town’s proposed regulations regarding off -
shore structures in the Lakefront Residential zone are permitted under State laws, and that the State’s
own regulations apply to structures larger than the Town would be regulating. Mary suggested that
the key issue is whether the structures are located on land under water that is within the Town’s
jurisdiction (i.e., within the Town of Ithaca municipal boundaries). Mary suggested that she and
John Barney get together to discuss this further, but that she believes that our proposed Lakefront
Residential regulations are okay. John Barney agreed, and suggested that the Committee leave the
proposed regulations in the revised zoning, pending the completion of legal research on the matter.
Mining Regulations: Mary Russell indicated that the existing and proposed Zoning Ordinance do not
really address whether mining should be a permitted activity, and if so, where mining in the Town
should be located. Jonathan Kanter stated that the Town’s fill /excavation permit procedures do not
specifically mention mining per se, but allow mining anywhere in the Town, by implication, subject
to the fill/excavation permit requirements. Several Committee members indicated that this is a
concern that should be addressed, as evidenced by the recent Eddy mining case. Kirk Sigel
suggested that mining could help farmers economically, and could make a difference in the continued
4
viability of some farm operations. David Klein indicated that it would be preferable to restrict
mining to certain locations within the Town such as agricultural areas that are more remote from
developed residential areas. Fred Wilcox added that the Town should not prohibit a farmer from
removing topsoil even if it means reducing the agricultural quality of the soil. John Barney
suggested that the Committee consider adding provisions to the proposed Zoning Ordinance that
would restrict mining to the Agricultural zones. John added that mining is heavily regulated by the
State under the provisions of the Surface Mining Act, and that municipal regulations regarding
mining are fairly limited. The Committee unanimously agreed to add a provision restricting mining
to Agricultural zones, subject to the same special approval process that applies to fill/excavation
permits, and that the fill/excavation permit regulations would still apply to non -mining activities as
well. The Committee agreed that these new provisions should apply to surface mining activities.
John Barney agreed to draft new provisions into a revised Zoning text.
Agenda Item No.6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 16, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. Tentative
agenda items included discussion of draft amended local law regarding the Conservation Board and
review of comparison copy of revised Zoning Ordinance sections to be provided by John Barney.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 16, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Kirk Sigel, Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning;
John Barney, Attorney for the Town.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
The Committee had a brief discussion regarding Cornell University’s proposed Alumni Field
Relocation Project that was the subject of a sketch plan review at the October 15th Planning Board
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of September 18, 2002 Meeting:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by Mary Russell, unanimously approving the minutes of
the meeting of September 18, 2002, as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion Regarding Draft of Amended Local Law on Conservation
Board:
The Committee discussed the draft local law modifying the governance provisions of the
Conservation Board. David Klein indicated that the substance of the modifications has already been
discussed by the Committee, and has been drafted into local law format by John Barney for the
Committee’s consideration. Tom Niederkorn asked what the “Index” on page 2, Section 2b referred
to. Mary Russell indicated that this refers to the “Open Space Index,” mentioned on page 1 of the
draft local law, which was adopted by the Town Board in 1992, and is a New York State requirement
for establishment of a Conservation Board.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Fred Wilcox, and seconded by Mary Russell to
recommend that the Town Board adopt the draft local law regarding the Conservation Board (as
contained in the draft document dated April 26, 2002). The Committee voted unanimously in favor
of recommending adoption of the local law. In addition, it was suggested that the draft local law be
forwarded to the Planning Board for an informal recommendation, even though such referral is not
mandatory. The Committee concurred. Jonathan Kanter indicated that the proposed local law could
be provided to the Town Board at the November 7th meeting, with a request to consider setting a
public hearing on the local law, which could be suggested for December 9, 2002.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Status of Zoning Revision Process:
2
Zoning Map Update: Jonathan Kanter illustrated the additional revisions on the proposed Zoning
Map, dated October 10, 2002, that have been added since the May public meetings, all of which have
been discussed and approved by the Committee. These include the new Inlet Valley Conservation
zone, the modifications to the boundary of the Conservation zone on the Noel Desch property, the
modification of the boundary between the Industrial and Office Park zones on the Axiohm site, and
the modifications on the Auble property on Danby Road. Jonathan indicated that the Conservation
Board is actively looking at the Coy Glen Conservation zone and another Conservation zone at the
Indian Creek Gorge/Lake Slopes Unique Natural Area.
South Hill Conservation Zone Boundary: Jonathan reported that a revised proposal for the boundary
of the South Hill Conservation zone was just received by the Planning Department, based on a recent
discussion with Ithaca College officials. Jonathan pointed to the proposed revised boundary on a
map that had been prepared by the Planning Department, and indicated that the recommendation of
staff is to agree with Ithaca College’s proposed revision, except for inclusion in the Conservation
zone of a small area of significant plant habitat (identified on the map as within a “Pitch Pine Oak
Forest”), which the Town’s consultants, Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley, feel is unique and
important to preserve. The Committee agreed to modify the South Hill Conservation zone boundary
based on staff’s recommendation, and requested that the proposed boundary be presented to the
Conservation Board for their recommendation, along with the modified boundary of the Noel Desch
property Conservation zone.
Zoning Text Revisions: John Barney brought a revised draft of the Zoning Ordinance text, dated
October 15, 2002, to the meeting, and distributed copies of comparison pages showing the further
revisions that were incorporated since the May public meetings. John indicated that a new definition
of “mining” had been added to Section 302 based on the discussion at the September 18, 2002
meeting. In addition, John pointed out the revised definition of “adult care facility” on page 3 of the
revised draft, which was not changed significantly and was based on the definition in NYS Social
Services Law. John explained that he did incorporate suggested wording from Mark Macera,
Executive Director of Ithacare, expanding the definition to include people who choose to live in such
facilities or choose not to live independently, and also including “retirement homes and communities
which provide residences for the elderly with some supportive services.”
John reported that the definition of “mining” was taken from the NYS Mining Law, and asked if any
Committee members had questions or comments regarding the new provisions regarding mining in
Section 604. The Committee agreed that the buffer area of at least 100 feet around the perimeter of
the mined area is appropriate, and that site plan approval for a mining operation in addition to the fill
permit requirements is appropriate. Eva Hoffmann wondered whether a vegetative buffer would
effectively reduce noise, or whether the addition of a berm may be necessary. Kirk Sigel suggested
the addition of a provision that would allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to require more than the
100 foot buffer if needed. John Barney replied that this is already built into the buffer provision,
referring to Section 604(1)(b). John suggested that a limitation on hours of operation could be added
if noise disturbance is a concern. Kirk Sigel suggested adding a range of hours of operation within
which the approving boards could limit mining operations. Fred Wilcox suggested incorporating a
set limit on hours of operation to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., placing the burden on the applicant to demonstrate
that other hours would be acceptable based on the case at hand, and also suggested including a
restriction of mining operations on weekends and holidays. The Committee concurred with Fred’s
proposal. John Barney agreed to incorporate these additional conditions into Section 604. Tom
Niederkorn asked whether it is appropriate to limit farm operations this much, and wondered whether
farmers conducting mining might need to work on a weekend. Kirk Sigel responded that the Town is
3
treating mining as a privilege rather than as a right. David Klein asked whether the site plan approval
requirement would include the review of mining buildings. John Barney responded yes, and that the
height limitations in the Agricultural District would apply to such buildings. Mary Russell asked
why the definition of mining includes “peat”, where it is not likely that the Town has any. John
Barney responded that this is part of the State definition. John added that the definition of mining
does not include oil, natural gas, or salt (under the lake).
David Klein stated that this basically completes the Committee’s review of the draft revised Zoning
Ordinance. John Barney indicated that he would add the revisions discussed at the meeting, and run
off a clean version of the revised draft. John added that this includes all revisions since the April
2002 draft text, and asked Committee members to review the revised draft and compare it with their
notes to make sure that all agreed upon changes have been incorporated. It was agreed that we would
hold off on putting the new draft on the Town’s website until after all of the revisions have been
included.
David Klein asked when the new Zoning Ordinance would become effective after its adoption. John
Barney responded that if adopted as a local law, it would become effective after it is filed with the
Secretary of State. The Town can meet its publication requirement by publishing a summary version
in the official newspaper. Tom Niederkorn indicated that the new transition provision that was added
to the draft Ordinance would help.
Status of DGEIS: Jonathan Kanter gave a brief status report on the preparation of the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) for the Zoning Revisions. Jonathan indicated that the
DGEIS was taking longer than anticipated, and much of it had to wait until the final revisions in the
Zoning text and map were completed. Jonathan estimated that the DGEIS would probably take
another couple of months to complete.
Other Zoning Questions: Andy Frost asked whether there is any way to expedite changes or
interpretations in the Zoning Ordinance in the future, such as having a board or group of officials
determine changes or interpretations without necessarily holding a public hearing. John Barney
responded that the Attorney for the Town and the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) already do that.
Kirk Sigel mentioned that the ZBA is limited by what the Zoning laws state. John Barney added that
the ZBA does have the authority to interpret the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mary Russell
suggested that the Codes and Ordinances Committee does get involved in recommending changes
where problems with the Ordinance language are identified or clarification is needed.
Jonathan Kanter brought up the question of how the Ordinance defines a domestic animal versus a
farm animal, and discussed an example that came up as a result of a question from a prospective
buyer of a property in the Town of whether a horse is a domestic or a farm animal. Jonathan pointed
out that the Ordinance has different setback requirements for buildings for farm animals versus those
for domestic animals, yet the Ordinance does not include relevant definitions, and that perhaps the
Committee should consider how these terms might be defined more clearly. John Barney agreed that
this distinction was not clear in the Ordinance. Andy Frost added that the Ordinance currently does
not include provisions for household pets. Mary Russell raised the issue of whether the keeping of
horses is normally associated with farm operations or whether the keeping of horses on residential
properties should be recognized as permitted. After further discussion, the Committee agreed to look
at the issue of definitions and regulations regarding animals further, and asked John Barney to
research this question and report back to the Committee at the next meeting.
4
Jonathan Kanter reported that he had a meeting with Roger Battistella, owner of the Six Mile Creek
Vineyard and Winery on Slaterville Road, and that Mr. Battistella has suggested that the vineyard be
rezoned to the new Agricultural zone because he felt that such zoning would allow his vineyard and
winery operation to continue and expand. Jonathan indicated that this property is split between the
R-15 Residence District along Slaterville Road and the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation zone on
the remainder, and is in County Agricultural District No. 1. Jonathan mentioned that the right -to-
farm provisions in the State Agriculture and Markets Law apply, and that the Battistellas participate
in the agricultural tax abatement program. Jonathan also mentioned that the winery has received use
variances to permit its operation. Several Committee members suggested that it would be more
appropriate to leave the zoning as Residential and Conservation because of the proximity of many
houses along Slaterville Road and the adjacency of the Six Mile Creek Watershed. Jonathan
indicated that the new Agricultural zone allows certain uses that might not be appropriate given the
nearby houses and watershed area, such as retail sales of farm machinery and equipment and
commercial composting facilities. The Committee agreed that the current zoning of the property is
appropriate and that Agricultural zoning there would not be compatible with surrounding uses, but
that the Town supports the continued operation of the vineyard and winery, and that such use is
permitted under the use variances that have been granted by the ZBA. Jonathan indicated that he
would report the results of this discussion to Mr. Battistella.
Agenda Item No.5 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 20, 2002 at 7:30 p.m.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 20, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Will
Burbank, Town Board Member.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of October 16, 2002 Meeting:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by David Klein, unanimously approving the minutes of
the meeting of October 16, 2002, as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Consideration of Revised Zoning Language Regarding Domestic Animals
and Household Pets:
The Committee discussed a proposed provision distributed by John Barney, entitled “Possible
Amendments to Ordinance Dealing with Household Pets,” dated November 20, 2002. This is a
follow-up to the discussion at the October meeting. John reported that he had met with Mary Russell
and Jonathan Kanter to come up with a proposed approach to present to the Committee to deal with
household pets and domestic animals. John summarized the provisions, which include definitions of
“household pets” and “domestic animals.” John indicated that the new provision would not place a
limit on the number of household pets that could be kept indoors, but would limit the number kept
outdoors to no more than three. David Klein pointed out that there is a special provision in the
Agricultural zone to allow kennels by right, but not in any other residential zone. Eva Hoffmann
asked whether chickens could be considered as domestic animals. John Barney suggested adding
“chickens” to the definition of domestic animals. The Committee concurred. The Committee also
agreed to add “rabbits” to the definition of household pets.
Will Burbank asked whether chickens are currently allowed as domestic animals in the R -15
Residence (Medium Density) zone. Mary Russell mentioned that Section 903 (5) of the revised
Zoning draft allows the keeping of domestic animals or birds in accessory buildings. John Barney
added that the current Zoning Ordinance allows the keeping of domestic animals in the R -30 (Low
Density) and R-9 (High Density) zones, but not in R-15, and asked the Committee whether the
revised Ordinance should allow domestic animals in the Medium or High Density zones. David
Klein suggested that the keeping of domestic animals probably is not appropriate in the High Density
Residential zone, but should be allowed in the Medium Density zone, subject to lot size and setback
criteria. The Committee agreed as follows: allow domestic animals in the Low Density Residential
zone by right; allow domestic animals in the Medium Density Residential zone by Special Approval
by the ZBA; do not allow the keeping of domestic animals in the Hig h Density Residential zone; and
allow the keeping of household pets in all residential zones, as per the proposed wording in John
Barney’s handout. Kirk Sigel recommended keeping these provisions flexible, and not requiring any
2
minimum lot size for domestic animals. Several Committee members suggested that a minimum lot
size might be appropriate in the Medium Density zone to avoid potential conflicts with adjacent
residential uses. John Barney pointed out that the current R-15 provisions require a minimum of two
acres for the keeping of a horse, and recommended that the new, revised provisions address this
matter as simply as possible by requiring a minimum of two acres for the keeping of any domestic
animal in the Medium Density zone. The Committee agreed.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Docks and Off-shore
Structures:
Mary Russell reported that she had done some additional research regarding the regulation of off -
shore structures, and it appears that the Town would need to include the waters of Cayuga Lake
within relevant zoning districts on the Zoning map in order to legally be able to regulate structures on
those waters and over the lake bed. There was general agreement that the Zoning map should be
revised to include the Cayuga Lake portions within the Town of Ithaca jurisdiction in one or more
zoning districts. There was further discussion regarding how far out over the lake these districts
should extend. John Barney indicated that the districts might only need to extend out one hundred
feet or so from the shoreline, since structures are not likely to extend further than that. Jonathan
Kanter pointed out some questionable areas on the Zoning map, such as on the west side of Cayuga
Lake along Taughannock Boulevard, where the Town of Ithaca shoreline is adjacent to lakewaters
within the City of Ithaca. Jonathan mentioned that the Town could not zone the City of Ithaca
portion, and wondered how this would affect the Lakefront Residential regulations in this area.
Jonathan also pointed to the lake area adjacent to the Noah’s Boat Club property, which is proposed
to be zoned as Lakefront Commercial, which does not have any regulations regarding docks or off -
shore structures. Jonathan then checked a U.S.G.S. map, which confirmed the City of Ithaca/Town
of Ithaca boundaries as shown on the Zoning map. There was further discussion as to whether the
Town could discuss the possibility with the City of modifying the boundaries over Cayuga Lake, or
possibly to suggest that the City adopt similar regulation of off -shore structures. Kirk Sigel
suggested the possibility of zoning all of the Cayuga Lake waters as a “water zone” with special use
and structure regulations within the Town of Ithaca portion, so that there would be no difference
between the areas off of the Lakefront Residential and Lakefront Commercial zones. Will Burbank
asked whether the Town could modify the Lakefront Commercial provisions to prohibit buildings
from extending out over the lake waters. Mary Russell indicated that she would share her research
materials with John Barney. The consensus of the Committee was to add the waters of Cayuga Lake
within the Town of Ithaca in the Lakefront Residential zone for those areas adjacent to that zone
along the shoreline, and to add those waters adjacent to the Lakefront Commercial zone in that zone
halfway across the lake, perpendicular to the zone boundaries on the shoreline, and that the
appropriate zone colors would be added on the Zoning map. Jonathan Kanter suggested that a cross -
hatch or other pattern be added to the lake areas to help differentiate the water areas from the
shoreline and land areas. The Committee agreed to hold off on the question of whether to add
regulation of off-shore structures in the Lakefront Commercial zone because the uses are too
dissimilar from the Lakefront Residential zone, but that the Committee could revisit that question in
the future. John Barney indicated that the Planning Board’s site plan review authority in the
Lakefront Commercial zone could help to control structures along the shoreline.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Consideration of Citizens’ Planning Alliance Comments on Zoning
Revisions:
3
The Committee discussed the “Comments of the CPA on the Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions,”
(received Nov. 4, 2002), which had been distributed to Committee members. Jonathan Kanter
indicated that these comments were prepared by Joel Gagnon on behalf of the Citizens Planning
Alliance (CPA), after Jonathan had met with the CPA in July to discuss the proposed Zoning
revisions. The following is a summary of the discussion by the Committee.
In regard to the CPA comments about conservation of natural resources and implementation of
Conservation zones, Committee members indicated that most of the areas mentioned by CPA had
been, or are being considered for Conservation zoning. In particular, Jonathan Kanter reported that
the Coy Glen area has now been evaluated by the Conservation Board, and a proposed Conservation
zone boundary and report will be forwarded to the Committee in the near future. Jonathan mentioned
that it is not likely that this will be ready in time for the enactment of the overall Zoning Ordinance
and map revision, but that it could be addressed later. Jonathan also reported that the Conservation
Board is considering a recommendation for a Conservation zone regarding the Indian Creek and
Lake Slopes Unique Natural Area along Taughannock Boulevard. The current version of the revised
Zoning map also includes a new Conservation zone in the Inlet Valley corridor, including portions of
the Lick Brook area. The Committee indicated that almost all of the areas mentioned in the CPA
comments had been addressed and included in proposed Conservation zones. The only areas not
included to date are Fall Creek and Cascadilla Creek, which are already protected by Cornell
Plantations. In addition, the Cascadilla Creek area is largely included in a natural area/no disturb
portion of the Precinct 7 Special Land Use District. In response to the CPA comment regarding
extending the Conservation zone east of Butermilk Falls State Park to the western edge of existing
development, the Committee indicated that the proposed Zoning map includes an area of
Conservation zone on the eastern border of Buttermilk Falls State Park that was determined by the
Committee, after evaluating the area, to provide a reasonable buffer for the State Park, while leaving
a modest amount of developable area along Danby Road.
In regard to the CPA comments about Agriculture and Low Density Residential zoning, the
Committee felt that the low density zoning approach is appropriate for the Town of Ithaca, and that
combined with the Purchase of Development Rights program, this zoning approach would help to
protect prime agricultural areas and significant natural areas, and focus higher densities of
development toward the City and where existing infrastructure can support higher densities. As to
the exclusion of agricultural use in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zone, the Committee
responded that the priority in the MDR zone is to protect and enhance the residential character of
neighborhoods, and that the Low Density zone included provisions and much land area to allow
mixes of residential and small-scale agricultural use, but that the MDR zone is intentionally reserved
for residential use.
In regard to the CPA comments about smart growth integration and mixing of residential and
commercial uses, Will Burbank asked whether the Town might want to consider allowing more
mixing of uses in residential zones. David Klein indicated that the primary goal of the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan is to preserve the residential character of neighborhoods, but that the Town’s
Zoning includes a number of flexible provisions, including a new mixed use provision in the
Commercial zones, an expansion of allowable home occupations in residential zones, and the
Planned Development Zone (formerly Special Land Use District), which gives the Town Board
authority to allow mixed use developments with the necessary oversight to ensure compatibility with
surrounding areas and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan objectives. Will Burbank indicated
that he would like to see more flexibility built into the Zoning to allow compatible business uses in
residential zones. Will brought up an example of an owner of a property who wanted to sell antiques
4
in an accessory building in a residential zone, but that the Town’s Zoning Ordinance does not allow
that. John Barney indicated that zoning has to draw lines somewhere, and that the defined uses and
areas have to be articulated in the Ordinance. The role of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to look at
situations where the lines may be unclear and require interpretation, or where the Ordinance
provisions create unnecessary hardship for a particular landowner. David Klein added that the new
proposed regulations have more flexibility in these areas, and have balanced fairness between the
rights of individual homeowners and those of the community-at-large.
In regard to CPA comments on other integration issues, the Committee agreed that there should be a
planned approach to pedestrian access and sidewalks and that the need for new guidelines for
sidewalks and walkways was becoming more apparent as new development projects come before the
Town. Jonathan Kanter indicated that the Town’s Transportation Committee has been discussing
this, and will be addressing the subject in more detail when that Committee begins the preparation of
a townwide Transportation Plan. The Committee also indicated that the Subdivision Regulations
need to be revisited and updated after the Zoning revisions are completed, and that provisions for
sidewalks are addressed in the Subdivision Regulations. The site plan approval regulations relating
to business and multiple residence zones already include provisions for sidewalks.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Update on Conservation Board Discussion Regarding Conservation
Zones:
Jonathan Kanter gave a short report regarding the Conservation Board’s discussion of the South Hill
Conservation zone, and indicated that the Conservation Board concurred with the Codes and
Ordinances Committee’s recommendation for modifying the boundary of that zone. Jonathan also
reported that the Conservation Board has just about completed their recommendations regarding a
proposed Coy Gle Conservation zone, and showed the Committee a map of the proposed boundaries
of the zone. Jonathan indicated that the Conservation Board would prepare a summary report
regarding the proposed Coy Glen Conservation zone, which would be forwarded to the Codes and
Ordinances Committee for consideration.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, December 18, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. The
agenda will include distribution of the fully revised draft Zoning text with comparison copy of
sections changed since the April 2002 draft, which John Barney indicated that he would try to have
ready; an update on the Zoning revision process; and a discussion of work plan priorities.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 18, 2002
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost, Director of Building & Zoning..
Chair David Klein 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 November 20, 2002 Meeting:
This item was deferred until the January meeting due to lack of time.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion Regarding Proposal in Draft Zoning Ordinance for Areas
Served by Public Sewer vs. Areas Not Served by Public Sewer in Low Density Residential
Zone:
Jonathan Kanter summarized the information in his memo of December 12, 2002 regarding the
proposed Low Density Residential Zone (sewered vs. non-sewered areas), which is attached and
made a part of the record of this meeting. Jonathan provided some background relating to the
purpose and origin of the idea of differentiating lots sizes in the LDR zone based on availability of
public sewer, and indicated that the Planning Committee had proposed the idea as a way to preserve
the rural, open space character of outlying areas of the Town. Mary Russell added that the purpose is
also to prevent the need to extend public sewer to certain areas of the Town not targeted for growth.
Mary then distributed some sample Zoning provisions from the Towns of Ogden and Perinton, which
contain similar requirements, based on availability of public water and sewer, to the LDR proposal
being considered by the Town of Ithaca. Mary mentioned that these sample ordinance provisions
include residential transition zones, the purpose of which is to provide a transition between suburban
and rural residential densities.
Jonathan Kanter outlined some of the issues (described further in the December 12th memo)
regarding mapping of the sewer available vs. not available areas, and problems with interpreting
where parcels are currently or potentially served by sewer. Jonathan indicated that he had spoken
with John Barney about this matter knowing that John would not be at this meeting, and that John
had indicated that it is understood within the proposed LDR provision that a determination would be
made by the Engineering Department regarding the feasibility of a parcel being served by sewer, and
that determination would result in applying either the 30,000 square foot or three acre minimum lot
size, conditioned on confirmation by the Engineering Department that sewer is available, or by
actually providing sewer service to that property if it is not currently available. Mary Russell stated
that it was her understanding and hope that the LDR provision would be based on whether sewer is
currently available, not whether it could be extended to serve a site, and that if sewer is not currently
available, areas not served by sewer would have the three acre minimum lot size, whether or not
sewer is available in the future. Mary suggested that this approach would help to discourage the
2
extension of sewer to certain areas. Jonathan countered that this is not the case in the proposed
zoning - that based on the proposed language in the LDR zone and on John Barney’s interpretation,
the lot size provision is flexible, and once sewer is extended to an area, either by the Town or by a
developer, the minimum lot size required would be 30,000 square feet. Kirk Sigel concurred that that
was his understanding of the LDR proposal. Mary Russell then suggested that the Committee
consider a new separate three-acre residential zone that would remain at three-acre lot size even if
sewer is extended. Jonathan then suggested that this discussion raises questions as to the objective of
the LDR lot size provision, and that the Committee might want to revisit the basic purpose of the lot
size differentiation.
David Klein mentioned that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan encourages development in areas where
existing infrastructure is available. He suggested that perhaps some areas proposed as LDR that
currently have sewer should be changed to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Eva Hoffmann
stated that there may be other reasons for zoning lands in LDR, such as topography or other
environmental constraints. David mentioned that there may be health reasons for extending sewer to
certain areas, and that this is recognized in the Comprehensive Plan. Carolyn Grigorov suggested
that extending sewer lines could create strip development. Carolyn went on to say that there were
early expectations that all areas of the Town would eventually be served by sewer when the town -
wide sewer district was formed, and that creates a problem for the Town Board now.
Jonathan Kanter explained the maps that Planning staff had prepared, one of which shows existing
sewer lines and those areas proposed for the LDR zone where sewer is available and where sewer is
not available; and a second map showing the same as the first, with areas proposed for Agricultural
and Conservation zoning added. Jonathan then illustrated on the first map that there are actually a
number of parcels shown as “sewer not available,” that are listed as being charged with sewer units
(i.e., are served by sewer) on the assessment roll, further pointing out that the maps are not
necessarily accurate. Jonathan then outlined the points in the December 12 th memo that illustrate that
there are a number of reasons why the three acre lot size provision in LDR would not be very
effective in achieving the objective of open space preservation in outlying areas of the Town,
including the areas on East Hill mostly owned by Cornell university, where educational uses would
be subject to special approval, and the three acre lot size would be irrelevant; many of the areas
shown on the map in LDR where sewer is not available are actually already developed or subdivided;
many of the areas in LDR where sewer is not available do not necessarily correspond with the “Rural
Residential” category in the Comprehensive Plan; and several areas in LDR where sewer is not
available are being proposed for new Conservation zoning (e.g., Coy Glen and Indian Creek/Lake
Slopes UNA).
Kirk Sigel suggested that the objective of the proposed LDR provision is to encourage higher
densities of development in areas where sewer and other infrastructure already exist. He suggested
that the three-acre provision in a sense penalizes people who want to live in a lower density area and
do not want to extend sewer. Tom Niederkorn added that if a developer wants to extend sewer to a
parcel in order to develop it, he/she can and should be able to do that at his/her own expense.
Jonathan suggested that the Town Board has never actually identified areas where sewer should and
should not be extended, other than in a very general way in the Comprehensive Plan, and that this is
partially what the current discussion is about.
Kirk Sigel summarized what he saw as the alternative approaches for the LDR zone, based on the
discussion at the meeting: (1a) keep the current LDR proposal for 30,000 square foot lots if sewer is
available and 3 acre lots if sewer is not available, and allowing 30,000 square foot lots if sewer
3
becomes available (as currently worded in the Zoning Ordinance draft); (1b) modify the wording of
the LDR proposal to require 30,000 square foot minimum lots if sewer is currently available and 3
acre minimum lots if sewer is not currently available, regardless of whether sewer becomes available
at some time in the future (in other words, the 3 acre lot size would be permanent, unless a rezoning
is requested; (2) eliminate the sewer vs. non-sewer approach in LDR, and create two separate low
density zones, one with a 30,000 square foot minimum lot size (comparable to the existing R -30
District), and a second lower density zone with three acre minimum lot sizes required; and (3)
eliminate the 3 acre concept in the proposed LDR zone, and modify the wording in the draft Zoning
to delete the reference to sewer availability (i.e., go back to just the R -30 lot size requirement of
30,000 square feet). Fred Wilcox asked the Committee when they want to adopt the revised Zoning
Ordinance and Map, since at least one of the alternatives discussed by the Committee could involve
further delays. Caroline Grigorov indicated that the Town should be using the zoning to help direct
growth into desired areas of the Town. Eva Hoffmann asked why availability of sewer should be a
determining factor in establishing zoning district requirements, and that it would be more appropriate
to determine areas where growth is desired, and zone for that growth, and similarly, determine where
growth is not desired, and zone for lower densities. Eva suggested that the Town should extend
sewers to areas that are designated as appropriate and necessary, and that extending sewers does not
necessarily have to mean that growth will occur. Kirk Sigel added that the Town Board should
determine where lower densities should be located.
Jonathan Kanter distributed a summary table prepared by the Planning Department as part of the
Generic Environmental Impact Statement being prepared, which shows acreages of land in existing
and proposed zoning districts (a copy of that table is attached to these Minutes as part of the record).
Jonathan indicated that there are large amounts of land in the proposed Agricultural zone (4234.5
acres, or 24.1% of the land in the Town) and Conservation zone (2887.1 acres, or 16.4% of the
Town), totaling 40.5% of the Town’s land area in very low densities. Jonathan suggested that this be
taken into consideration in determining whether additional lands should be in a lower density
residential category, such as 3-acre lot sizes, as discussed by the Committee, and as proposed in the
current draft of the LDR zone.
Fred Wilcox made a motion to eliminate the three-acre provision and the references to availability of
sewer in the proposed LDR zone drafted in the Zoning Ordinance, and to just have a 30,000 square
foot minimum lot size in the LDR zone, as mapped on the proposed Zoning Map. David Klein asked
for someone to second the motion. No one seconded the motion. Kirk Sigel suggested that a benefit
of creating a new lower density zone would be to include its own separate density and dimensional
requirements. Mary Russell indicated that she would like to see a new transitional residential zone
between the very low density Agricultural and Conservation zones and the low to medium density
residential zones. Jonathan Kanter indicated that Fred’s motion reflected the staff recommendation
as well. After further discussion, Fred Wilcox withdrew his motion in the absence of a second.
David Klein suggested that the Committee continue this discussion at the next meeting. Tom
Niederkorn asked if the Planning Department could prepare another map showing areas within LDR
referenced in the December 12th memo where the 3 acre minimum lot requirement would be moot
because of already developed or subdivided lots, Cornell educational lands, etc. as described above.
Jonathan said that he would have this available for the next meeting.
4
Agenda Item No. 4 – Approval of Schedule of Meetings for 2003:
Moved by Carolyn Grigorov, and seconded by Eva Hoffmann, the 2003 Meeting Schedule, as
outlined in the draft that had been distributed in the meeting packets, was approved unanimously.
This will continue the meeting schedule of the third Wednesday of each month.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, January 15, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. The agenda
will include distribution of the fully revised draft Zoning text with comparison copy of sections
changed since the April 2002 draft, if John Barney has it ready; continuation of the discussion
regarding sewered vs, non-sewered areas in the LDR zone; an update on the Zoning revision process;
and a discussion of work plan priorities.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 15, 2003
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Eva Hoffmann.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Andy Frost,
Director of Building & Zoning; Will Burbank, Town Board Member.
GUESTS: Andrew Dawson, Student (256 Renwick Drive); Sarah Estes-Smith, Student (501 Enfield
Center Road East).
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes of November 20th and December 18th, 2002 Meetings:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by Carolyn Grigorov, unanimously approving the
minutes of the meeting of November 20, 2002, as submitted, and the minutes of the meeting of
December 18, 2002, modified to add the words “have to” on page 3, paragraph 1 in the second to last
sentence to read … “Eva suggested that the Town should extend sewers to areas that are designated
as appropriate and necessary, and that extending sewers does not necessarily have to mean that
growth will occur.”
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Proposal in Draft Zoning
Ordinance for Areas Served by Public Sewer vs. Areas Not Served by Public Sewer in Low
Density Residential Zone:
This discussion was carried over from the December 18, 2002 meeting. Jonathan Kanter explained
the series of maps that had been distributed with the mailout materials. In addition to the basic map
titled “Low Density Residential – Sewer/Non-Sewer,” (Jan. 6, 2003) showing the general availability
of public sewer facilities in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone, Jonathan indicated that two
other maps with the same title and date had been prepared by Planning staff, one showing proposed
Agricultural and Conservation zones and the “Rural Residential” designation from the 1993
Comprehensive Plan in addition to “Sewer Available” and “Sewer Not Available” areas; and a
second map showing within the “Sewer Not Available” area “Potential Conservation District
Properties,” including the Coy Glen area and Indian Creek/Lake Slopes UNA; “Cornell
University/NYS Owned Properties,” including most of the land on East Hill where sewer is not
available; “Existing Subdivided Properties” and “Already Developed Lots with Little of No
Additional Development Potential”; and “Remaining Sewer Not Available Properties.” David Klein
reiterated some of the points regarding the sewer/non-sewer issue that had already been discussed at
the December 18th meeting for the benefit of the student visitors attending the meeting, and stated
that the maps show that the land use/zoning pattern resulting from the LDR 3 -acre lot size provision
did not end up being what the Committee had thought it would be.
2
Tom Niederkorn asked why the 3-acre lot size had been chosen by the Committee for areas not
served by public sewer. John Barney thought that it might have related to the typical lot size required
by the County Health Department if an on-site septic system and well have to be provided, and that
the original lot size selected by the Committee was two acres, but that was revised to three acres in
the April 2002 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance. David Klein mentioned that there was a wide
diversity of opinion on the lot size for non-sewered areas in LDR. Carolyn Grigorov indicated that
the three acre lot size was a compromise.
Jonathan Kanter stated that part of the problem with this issue is that the Town Board has not
actively targeted areas where sewer should be provided to promote growth, nor has it specifically
targeted areas where sewer should not be extended. David Klein added that the 1993 Comprehensive
Plan does not map out a plan for “Rural Residential” or lower density residential areas, and that there
may be other factors than sewer that should dictate where lower density areas should be located, such
as steep slopes. Eva Hoffmann suggested that the Town could designate where larger lots should be
located, and still extend sewer to these areas for reasons of environmental protection. There was
additional discussion regarding how Health Department regulations relate to septic systems and
environmental constraints such as steep slopes and soil characteristics.
Andy Frost raised the issue of whether large lot zoning makes affordable housing less likely to occur.
Carolyn Grigorov indicated that clustering may be better than development on larger lots. David
Klein mentioned that the benefit assessment formula for public sewer was recently adjusted to be
fairer based on lot frontage, so as not to place undue pressures on property owners to develop their
properties. David added that the LDR sewered/non-sewered provision was intended to result in a
transitional area between very low density areas, such as Agricultural or Conservation zones, and
Medium Density Residential areas. Tom Niederkorn stated that the LDR frontage requirement of
100 feet could result in a lot of strip development, which could have a negative visual impact on the
community. David Klein suggested that the Planning Board can require clustering to help preserve
the open space character. Will Burbank stated that fairness and affordability are issues for the Town
to consider.
John Barney brought up the alternative that was discussed at the December 18 th meeting, i.e., to set
up two separate zones, one having the R-30 minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet, and the other
being a new zone having a minimum lot size of three acres or whatever the Committee would
recommend. David Klein suggested that areas zoned for three -acre lots would create less pressure to
extend sewers to those areas. Jonathan Kanter indicated that this approach might be a good idea, but
that it would take a long time to evaluate and make recommendations for such zoning, and that some
of those areas probably would turn out to be quite different from the “Sewer Not Available” areas
shown on the above-referenced maps. Further discussion ensued regarding the approach of a new
three-acre zone.
Eva Hoffmann stated that she understands the need to proceed with the Draft Revised Zoning
Ordinance now, and not hold up the process while evaluating a new lower density zone, as long as it
is understood that the Committee would pursue this new three -acre zone approach as a next step.
David Klein suggested that it is helpful in discussing issues such as this to drive around Town to
actually see the character of areas that the Committee is discussing, and pointed to the example of the
site visits made by the Committee regarding the commercial zones, which led to further adjustments
in the commercial zoning. David added that there clearly would need to be more work done to
propose a new three-acre zone, and the Town needs to move the Zoning revisions ahead. David
proposed going back to the 30,000 square foot minimum lot size in the LDR zone, as recommended
3
in the staff memo (dated Dec. 12, 2002), move the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance ahead, and then
actively pursue a new lower density zone which could amend the revised Zoning later. Eva reiterated
that the Town needs to have a balance between the low densities of the Agricultural, Conservation
and LDR zones, and the higher density zones where growth should be encouraged.
Carolyn Grigorov indicated that Mary Russell, who could not attend this meeting, would have
wanted to see a different approach than what the Committee discussed above, and that she feels
strongly about a lower density zone to preserve open space. Jonathan Kanter mentioned the sample
lower density zone approaches in the Towns of Perinton and Ogden that Mary had distributed at the
December 18th meeting, and that these and other samples might help to develop a new lower density,
transitional zone. Jonathan added that the Town should look further into encouraging higher
densities in areas where growth would be desirable as a balance to the large percentage of land in the
Town proposed for very low densities. David Klein mentioned that there is a large area of
undeveloped land in the Medium Density Residential (R-15) zone on West Hill east of West Haven
Road.
Tom Niederkorn asked whether the Committee should vote on this issue without Mary Russell and
other Committee members present. Carolyn Grigorov and Eva Hoffmann stated that it would be
better to wait until the others could be present. Eva suggested setting up a special meeting to
complete discussion and vote on the LDR issue. David Klein indicated that he is in favor of going
back to the 30,000 square foot lot size in the LDR zone, and working later on a new three -acre zone.
Tom Niederkorn agreed with David, but said that he was hesitant to proceed without Mary Russell
and the other Committee members. The consensus of the Committee was to schedule a special
meeting on either Wednesday, January 22nd at 3:30 p.m. or Friday, January 24th at 8:30 a.m.
Jonathan Kanter agreed to follow up with Committee members and coordinate this special meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Distribution of Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance:
John Barney distributed the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance, dated January 15, 2003, and a
comparison copy of pages that have been revised since the October 2002 Draft. John briefly
described the revised draft.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Report on Status of Zoning Revision Process:
Jonathan Kanter distributed an Updated Timetable for Completion of Zoning Revisions (revised
January 14, 2003), and briefly outlined the new timetable with an estimated completion date of late
May or early June of 2003.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business:
Jonathan Kanter announced that the Citizens Planning Alliance had invited members of the
Committee to attend their meeting on January 23rd to further discuss the Zoning Revisions, and asked
members to let him know if they could attend. [Note: that meeting was subsequently postponed due
to weather, and was re-scheduled for January 30, 2003.]
Andy Frost raised a question of what the benefits of open space preservation are, why zone for open
space, and what are the environmental benefits? A brief, general discussion regarding open space
preservation followed.
4
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting(s):
A special meeting will be scheduled for either Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 3:30 p.m. or Friday,
January 24, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. to complete discussion regarding the Low Density Residential Zone
provisions and to approve circulation of the revised draft Zoning Ordinance text and map. The next
regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 19, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. The agenda will
include a discussion of work plan priorities for 2003 and beyond.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2003
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Kirk Sigel, Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Will
Burbank, Town Board Member.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Proposal in Draft Zoning
Ordinance for Areas Served by Public Sewer vs. Areas Not Served by Public Sewer in Low
Density Residential Zone:
David Klein summed up where the Committee left off at the January 15th meeting, indicating that
there was general agreement that the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance should be revised to delete the
provision in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone requiring a three -acre minimum lot size if
public sewer is not available, and returning to the 30,000 square foot minimum lot size currently in
the R-30 Residence District for all areas in the LDR zone, and then work on a new three -acre lower
density zone later. David added that since three Committee members were not present at the January
15th meeting, those members present agreed to hold off on a decision until the other members were
available to complete the discussion.
Mary Russell said that it would be awkward to go from a zone with a minimum lot size requirement
of 30,000 square feet to the Agricultural and Conservation zones that have average densities of one
house per seven acres without a transition zone in between. Mary did not agree with the proposal to
go back to the 30,000 square foot minimum lot size without a three-acre provision or zone. John
Barney reiterated from previous Committee discussions that sewer is not necessarily tied to where
the Town might want three-acre minimum lot sizes, and that it would take a large effort to map a new
three-acre zone not necessarily tied to availability of public sewer. John continued that such an effort
could take a number of months, which would delay the adoption of the overall Zoning revisions if we
waited on preparing a new three-acre zone. Jonathan Kanter suggested that the Town Board should
also establish a policy and plan regarding where public sewer should and should not be extended
because there is an absence of such a policy plan at this point. Tom Niederkorn stated that if we go
back to the 30,000 square foot minimum lot size for the LDR zone, actual lot sizes would be
determined by the County Health Department pursuant to the Sanitary Code requirements. Eva
Hoffmann summarized that if we go back to the 30,000 square foot lot size now and defer a decision
on a new three-acre zone, the Committee and Town Board’s task would be to establish a policy and
map where public sewer should go, establish criteria for a new three-acre minimum lot size zone, and
then map where that zone should be located based on the criteria.
Kirk Sigel added that some people do not want public sewer. Mary Russell suggested that
developers argue that if public sewer is present, they should have the right to a smaller minimum lot
2
size. Kirk asked whether a three-acre zone would be a no-sewer zone? John Barney responded that
it would be costly to extend sewer to areas zoned for three-acre lots, but that sewer might be needed
in some areas in order to promote clustering. David Klein stated that the Committee should look
closely at properties involved in a lower density zone since the Committee has seen the maps that
were prepared of LDR areas, similar to the site visits conducted by the Committee regarding the
commercial zones. David added that the maps demonstrate that some of the “Sewer Not Available”
properties are in strange locations, not necessarily areas that the Committee expected. Tom
Niederkorn asked the Committee to consider whether additional studies on a three -acre zone should
be done now, or should the Committee move the Draft Revised Zoning ahead for the Town Board’s
consideration, and then study the possibility of a three-acre zone later? Kirk Sigel said that if we
keep the LDR provision as it is in the current draft, requiring three -acre minimum lots if public sewer
is not available, then it would be awkward to change that provision later, especially not knowing at
this point where the Committee’s recommendations for three-acre zoning might be. Jonathan Kanter
described the sections of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan relating to “Rural Residential” areas, and
indicated that there is a lack of direction and detail in the Comprehensive Plan regarding a
transitional or three-acre zone as is being discussed by the Committee, and that the Comprehensive
Plan itself should be re-visited if the Committee wants to pursue such a zone. Jonathan reiterated his
statements from previous meetings that the sewer available/sewer not available approach in the
current draft of the LDR zone does not produce the results that had been desired by the Committee,
and that the recently completed maps of LDR areas show a hodge -podge of areas that would result in
three-acre minimum lot sizes, not any pattern recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. John
Barney added that some areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan as “Rural Residential” actually
ended up on the proposed Zoning Map as Conservation or Agricultural zones at even lower densities
than three-acre minimum lots. Fred Wilcox reminded the Committee that zoning has to be consistent
with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
Eva Hoffmann indicated that the Committee would need to come up with good reasons and criteria
for a new three-acre lower density zone. Kirk Sigel stated that if the Health Department requires 1½
to 2 acre lots for septic systems, then the deletion of the three -acre minimum lot size provision in the
LDR zone would not matter that much, comparing two-acre lots with three-acre lots, and therefore,
there does not appear to be a critical need to come up with a three -acre zone approach immediately.
Tom Niederkorn added that the Health Department also requires a minimum lot width or diameter for
separation of a septic system from a well, and that this tends to make lots appear wider. Eva
Hoffmann suggested that the Committee should also look at street frontage and other lot dimensions
when the Committee studies the possibility of a new three-acre zone.
Carolyn Grigorov posed the question of whether the Committee should conduct this study now and
hold off on advancing the draft Zoning, or do a three -acre zone study later and move the Zoning
proposal ahead now. Tom Niederkorn asked if it was the goal of the Town to adopt the revised
Zoning soon? David Klein stated that the Town should adopt the new Zoning soon and not delay it
further, and that it has been in the works for a long enough time. Carolyn Grigorov indicated that she
would like to see the Zoning adopted in a condition that will not cause problems for the community,
and if that means delaying its adoption, then she would prefer a delay. Eva Hoffmann suggested that
the Committee look over its work plan priorities, and that the Committee could decide to make the
study of a lower density zone a priority as a follow-up work item following adoption of the revised
Zoning. Eva suggested that the proposed Zoning could be presented in a way in which the public
would understand that, although the three-acre provision is deleted in the proposed draft, the Town is
working on a number of follow-up items, including the possibility of a lower density, transitional
zone.
3
Tom Niederkorn stated that he supports keeping the 30,000 square foot minimum lot size
requirement in the LDR zone, and deleting the three-acre minimum lot size if public sewer is not
available, with the understanding that the Health Department regulates the actual size of lots to
accommodate septic systems. Tom added the suggestion that the LDR boundary remain as shown on
the proposed Zoning Map (Nov. 26, 2002) and that the draft Zoning Ordinance be revised so that all
lands within the LDR zone would be subject to a minimum lot size requirement of 30,000 square
feet. Tom reiterated that he would support establishing as a high priority the Committee studying the
possibility of a lower density transition zone as a follow up, but does not support delaying the
adoption of the revised Zoning while waiting for such a study to be completed. David Klein asked
Tom if he would make this a motion. Tom moved as follows:
RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee hereby amends Section 809 of the April
24, 2002 Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance (and subsequent internal drafts) by eliminating the
requirement for three-acre minimum lot size if public sewer facilities are not available, and returning
to the current R-30 Residence District lot size minimum requirement of 30,000 square feet for all
parcels in the Low Density Residential zone in the updated Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance (to be
dated January 15, 2003); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee hereby acknowledges that the 30,000
square foot minimum lot size requirement is further subject to the rules and regulations of the
Tompkins County Health Department under the terms of the County Sanitary Code, and that Section
2709 of the Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance already includes this reference; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That it will be a very high priority of the Codes and Ordinances Committee in its work plan, after the
Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance is adopted, to study the possibility of a lower density/transitional
zone based upon an evaluation of the Low Density Residential, Agricultural and Conservation zones
and their proximity to higher density zones.
The motion was seconded by Fred Wilcox.
David Klein asked if there was further discussion. Carolyn Grigorov indicated that she would like to
see the proposal go the other way, i.e., to keep the three -acre provision in the LDR draft and indicate
to the public that we will study a new lower density zone later, but meanwhile have the three -acre
provision proposed for adoption on an interim basis. David Klein indicated that he preferred the
approach in Tom Niederkorn’s motion, and that if the Committee keeps the three -acre provision in
the draft Ordinance now, as suggested by Carolyn, this would represent an initial substantial change
from the existing R-30 (30,000 square foot) minimum lot size, and then another major change later if
we proposed a new, different three-acre zone. David suggested that it is better to keep the status quo
of the R-30 density now, and then propose a change to a new three -acre zone later that has been well
documented and substantiated. Fred Wilcox indicated that the overall goal of the Town to have a
lower density, transitional zone has not changed, but that the process for achieving that goal is now
4
proposed to be changed. David Klein reiterated the need to provide good documentation for a
change to three-acre zoning, and that site visits could help to achieve this goal. Carolyn Grigorov
indicated that deleting the three-acre provision in the LDR zone would be like leaving out a whole
zone that was proposed. David Klein responded that the environmental review process and mapping
uncovered problems and inconsistencies with the approach that the Committee had proposed. Kirk
Sigel reiterated that keeping the three-acre sewer/non-sewer approach would be a big change from
existing zoning. Jonathan Kanter mentioned that studying a new three -acre zone might allow an
opportunity to look at whether some LDR areas should be rezoned to Medium Density Residential.
David Klein agreed. Jonathan added that Cathy Valentino had asked to relay her concerns to the
Committee that the Town has not done enough to promote higher density and affordable housing
opportunities, and that the Committee should consider a balanced approached. Tom Niederkorn
asked whether it would look strange to go back to the R -30 density, and then propose an entirely new
three-acre zone later. John Barney reiterated that the proposed Zoning Map includes significant areas
of very low density zones with the Agricultural and Conservation zones, and supported moving
ahead with the motion as proposed by Tom, and then studying the question of a new transition zone
later. David Klein suggested that moving the Zoning proposal ahead based upon Tom’s motion, and
holding public hearings on the draft would allow the public an opportunity to provide comments and
input to the Town on this issue, and that it would be up to the Town Board to determine how to
handle those comments. John Barney added that many changes in the draft over the years have
delayed addressing adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, and he does not recommend another such
delay.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
AYES: Hoffmann, Klein, Niederkorn, Sigel, Wilcox.
NAYS: Grigorov, Russell.
The motion was declared to be carried by a vote of 5 affirmative, 2 negative.
Fred Wilcox then made a motion to accept the draft Zoning Ordinance, as amended by the first
motion, which was passed, and to forward the draft to the Town Board as follows:
RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee hereby accepts the January 15, 2003
Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance, as amended by Resolution No. 1 – January 24, 2003, with regard to
Section 809 of the Low Density Residential Zone, eliminating the requirement for three -acre
minimum lot size if public sewer facilities are not available, and returning to the current R -30
Residence District lot size minimum requirement of 30,000 square feet for all parcels in the Low
Density Residential zone; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee hereby forwards the January 15, 2003
Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance, as amended above, to the Town Board for its consideration
regarding adoption.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
5
AYES: Hoffmann, Klein, Niederkorn, Sigel, Wilcox.
NAYS: Grigorov, Russell.
The motion was declared to be carried by a vote of 5 affirmative, 2 negative.
Agenda Item No. 3 - Other Business:
Jonathan Kanter reported that he was unable to attend the January 23rd meeting of the Citizens
Planning Alliance (CPA) due to bad weather, and that the CPA is trying to set up a new meeting date
with Committee members to discuss the Zoning revisions in the near future. Jonathan indicated that
he would let Committee members know when he finds out a new date.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting(s):
The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, February 19, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. The agenda
will include a discussion of work plan priorities for 2003 and beyond. John Barney indicated that he
would not be able to attend that meeting.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 19, 2003
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Jonathan Kanter announced the special Town Board meeting scheduled for February 27, 2003 to
discuss the revised draft Zoning Ordinance and Map, and that the Town Board had invited other
Codes and Ordinances Committee members to attend that meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of January 15, 2003 and January 24, 2003 Meetings:
Motion made by David Klein, seconded by Eva Hoffmann, approving the minutes of the meeting
of January 15, 2003, as submitted, with Mary Russell abstaining, indicating that she had not
attended the January 15th meeting.
Motion made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Tom Niederkorn, unanimously approving the
minutes of the meeting of January 24, 2003, as submitted
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Work Plan Priorities for 2003:
Jonathan Kanter described the draft list of Work Plan Priorities for 2003 (Jan. 31, 2003) that had
been distributed in the meeting packets. David Klein asked whether any of the items on the list could
be done quickly, and which items would involve a lot of work. David added that as an example, the
revision of the Subdivision Regulations would be an important follow -up to the Zoning revisions, but
would likely be a major, time-consuming effort. On the other hand, a stream buffer ordinance draft
has already been prepared, and might not take too long additionally to complete.
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance: Tom Niederkorn asked what the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance on the
list was about. Jonathan indicated that this would regulate the type of outdoor lighting permitted
both in conjunction with new development and with the intent of upgrading existing light fixtures.
The primary purpose is to prevent excessive light spillage onto adjacent properties, and to require
lighting that focuses light downward, not into the sky or onto adjacent properties. Jonathan indicated
that Planning staff and the Conservation Board had collected sample ordinances and prepared a
rough draft that had been forwarded to the Committee, but that the Committee had deferred
discussion on it until after completion of the Zoning revisions. Jonathan added that Planning staff is
currently revising this draft with some updated information, and that it could be sent to the
Committee for consideration soon.
2
Telecommunications Law: Jonathan mentioned the recent amendment to the Telecommunications
Law regarding the definition of “telecommunications facilities”. Mary Russell indicated that this
amendment resulted in part from the need to address the County’s proposed communications project.
Jonathan added that Cornell had sent a memo to Cathy Valentino raising some questions and
concerns about the new definition, and that this memo had been forwarded to the Committee, but had
not been discussed. Cornell’s main concern related to the large number of very small roof antennae
that would apparently come under the full regulations of the law with the new definition. Tom
Niederkorn said that this was probably not a high priority. Mary Russell added that there has been a
lot of case law since the Town passed the original law, and that we might want to revisit certain
aspects, such as restricting telecommunication towers to certain zones. The Committee suggested
that John Barney could follow up with Cornell representatives regarding their concerns with the new
definition, and report back to the Committee with recommendations for further revisions if necessary.
Fees: David indicated that it has been ten years since the law addressing fees for building permits,
development review, etc. was adopted, and suggested that we could look at other municipalities to
see what their fees are. Andy Frost mentioned that the Town Clerk’s office has been collecting
information on fees from other municipalities. Jonathan added that John Barney had suggested that
we should re-evaluate our development review fees to make sure that our fee structure is consistent
with recent court decisions. Tom asked whether the Building Department keeps track of staff hours
spent on each permit. Andy indicated that the building permit fee structure is based on estimated
project cost or size, and that it works well but hasn’t been updated since the 1994 local law. Andy
added that the Building Department receives about $40,000 each year in permit fees. David
suggested that it would be helpful to evaluate the amount of time spent by staff in order to determine
whether our fees are covering actual staff review time. Jonathan indicated that Planning and
Engineering staff do keep detailed records of time spent on each project review or inspection because
that is how development review fees are determined (i.e., to cover the actual time of staff review).
David suggested that this should be a high priority because it has been ten years since we looked at
the fee amounts. Kirk Sigel suggested that fees should updated annually to factor in increased costs
to the Town. Jonathan mentioned that the development review fees are adjusted annually by
incorporating updated Planning and Engineering staff salaries into the charge -back formula.
Jonathan added that the current development review fee structure is fair and we do not receive many
complaints about it, so we should try to keep our fee structure similar to what it is now. Tom said
that this sounds important, but is it one of our high priorities?
Water Resources: David Klein indicated that the Committee has already done preliminary work on a
storm water management ordinance and a stream buffer ordinance, and that it is difficult to define
what streams would be affected. This was deferred until the Zoning Ordinance is completed, and it is
a complex subject. David added that the new Zoning Ordinance gives the Planning Board latitude in
addressing storm water impacts in the site plan approval process.
Environmental Review Law: Jonathan explained that this would primarily be a matter of revising the
law to make it consistent with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) regulations that
were revised in 1996, and that the Conservation Board might want to take a look at this also. Eva
Hoffmann mentioned that the Conservation Board is interested in looking at the process for referring
proposals to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to allow for ERC comments to be sent to
approving boards in a more timely manner and to ensure that ERC receives all of the information
necessary to review proposals. Jonathan explained the process used for referring proposals to the
ERC. Mary Russell indicated that this was also an issue when she was on the Conservation Board,
3
and that it is more of an internal ERC issue rather than something the local law could address. Tom
Niederkorn suggested that this law could probably be updated fairly quickly.
Subdivision Regulations: David reiterated that a revision of the Subdivision Regulations should
follow the adoption of the revised Zoning, but that it could be a lengthy review. Tom added that the
Transportation Committee will be looking at new standards for roads and rights-of-way, sidewalks
and other elements that may be included in the Subdivision Regulations. David added that the Public
Works Committee should be involved in this as well.
Open Burning Law: Andy Frost indicated that this is an area that he believes the Town should
address. He is involved in a court proceeding against someone who allegedly violated open burning
laws. Andy added that there are building code controls regarding open burning, but they are not all
encompassing. This was discussed with the Town Board several years ago, but nothing was pursued.
David agreed that there should be regulations, especially for densely populated areas. Andy
indicated that he has information and sample laws regarding open burning. Mary Russell mentioned
that farm operations need to burn certain materials, and that farmers should not be unduly restricted.
The Committee suggested that Andy should put a draft proposal together, and the Committee could
discuss it.
Zoning Follow-up Issues: The Committee agreed that studying a new low density/transition zone
should be one of the Committee’s highest priorities. Mary Russell indicated that she has been
collecting samples of tree cutting/tree preservation regulations, and could make those available.
David Klein suggested that a new Educational/Institutional zone could be a major task, and that the
Committee had been split in the past on whether such a zone would be beneficial to the Town – some
Committee members felt that the Town has more control over educational uses now through the
special approval process. There was a brief discussion about parking lot landscaping standards, and
it was suggested that we would need to look at samples from other communities, but that this was not
a high priority. On the subject of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s), the
Committee agreed that these uses are not likely to locate in the area, and that there is not much a
municipality can do to regulate them beyond the State DEC regulations.
Regarding sidewalks and walkways, Jonathan reiterated that the Transportation Committee would be
evaluating the Town’s policies and standards for these in the town -wide transportation planning
process, and that revised guidelines could be incorporated into subdivision and site plan approval
regulations. Jonathan referred to a recent development proposal before the Planning Board where it
would have helped to have more specific guidelines regarding sidewalks/walkways relating to
whether or not a sidewalk should have been required to extend to a town road. Carolyn Grigorov
indicated that walkways on Mitchell Street and Pine Tree Road have been beneficial to Town
residents. David mentioned that the Town plows these in winter. Mary suggested that Deer Run
would benefit from sidewalks. Tom agreed, and indicated that the drainage ditches should be
eliminated there as well. David added that it is difficult to install sidewalks where there are open
ditches, and that this approach needs to be revisited – this involves revising the standards in the
Subdivision Regulations.
Other Issues: Mary recommended that the Committee look at the possibility of new wetland
regulations because of a recent Federal court decision saying that the Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) can no longer regulate isolated upland wetlands. Mary added that as a result, Federal
wetland regulations are being re-written, and State DEC only regulates wetlands greater than 12.4
acres. ACOE will still regulate wetlands that are linked to navigable waters, but this will leave many
4
local wetlands unregulated. Mary suggested that this be lower on the priority list, but that it could be
studied further, and perhaps evaluated in conjunction with the storm water management plan that the
Town will be preparing under the new Phase 2 storm water requirements.
Summary: Several members reiterated the Committee’s commitment to study the possibility of a
new, lower density transition zone as a very high priority. Andy suggested that some of the work
items overlap, citing as an example the relation between tree cutting regulations and storm water
management. The Committee went back through the items already discussed to determine overall
priorities. Mary suggested that CAFO regulations should be very low on the list. Jonathan suggested
that a stream buffer law could be pursued as an early part of the storm water regulations as soon as
the Conservation Board’s sub-committee completes their revised draft, but that a comprehensive
storm water management ordinance would take much longer and really cannot be done until the
Town completes its storm water management plan. David indicated that the Environmental Review
Law should be relatively quick and easy to complete, and should be considered a high priority.
David added that the revision of the local law regarding fees should also be a high priority and
shouldn’t take too long to complete. Andy indicated that storm water management regulations are
very important because this is an area that actually can cost the Town money, referring to flooding
and property damage. The Committee agreed on the following revised list of work plan priorities:
1st Tier (High Priority): 1) Study New Lower Density/Transition Zone
2) Revise Environmental Review Law
3) Revise Local Law regarding Fees
4) Water Resources Protection (start with stream buffer regulations;
also begin studying possible wetland regulations – but not as high a
priority)
2nd Tier (Next Priority): 5) Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (refer to Committee as soon as ready)
6) Open Burning Law (Andy to prepare draft for submission to
Comm.)
7) Revision of Subdivision Regulations
3rd Tier (Lower Priority): 8) Tree Cutting/Tree Preservation Regulations
9) Guidelines for Sidewalks/Walkways
10) Parking Lot Landscaping Standards
11) Revision of Telecommunications Law (J. Barney to discuss with
Cornell and report back to Comm.)
12) Study New Educational/Institutional Zone
13) CAFO Regulations
The Committee agreed on the above as a general guide, and that if work progressed by others on any
of the 2nd or 3rd Tier items, such as outdoor lighting or open burning, the Committee could consider
such material as it becomes available.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business:
There was a short discussion regarding the status of the Forest Home Traffic Calming Study. David
Klein mentioned that the Study final report has been delayed because of a lack of consensus within
Forest Home about the study recommendations.
5
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting(s):
The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, March 19, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 19, 2003
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
David Klein mentioned the public hearing that was held by the Planning Board regarding the
proposed Zoning revisions. Jonathan Kanter indicated that several comments had been received
regarding the proposed revised Zoning, including a letter from the County Planning Department, a
letter from Evan Monkemeyer, and a request from Susan McCutcheon to consider permitting bed and
breakfast establishments by special permit in the Conservation zone. The Committee discussed these
briefly, and focused on the bed and breakfast issue. John Barney indicated that the definition of “bed
and breakfast” limits occupancy to no more than 3 persons, then becomes a “boarding house’,
however, it does not appear that boarding houses are allowed in any of the zoning districts. John said
that he would look at this potential inconsistency, and may come back to the Committee with a
recommendation for revision. The Committee favored including bed and breakfast establishments in
the Conservation zone and asked John Barney to come back with appropriate revisions.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of February 19, 2003 Meeting:
Motion made by Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Mary Russell, unanimously approving the
minutes of the meeting of February 19, 2003, as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Confirmation of List of Work Plan Priorities for 2003:
Tom Niederkorn reported that Cathy Valentino had asked at the last Town Board meeting that the
subject of tree cutting/tree preservation be raised on the Work Plan list to a higher priority. Mary
Russell indicated that she had collected samples of approaches ranging from tree cutting limitations
to full tree preservation ordinances. Mary distributed a summary of approaches to get the Committee
thinking about possible approaches to consider for the Town of Ithaca. Mary added that she had read
an interesting article in the New York Times that she would distribute to Committee members. Tom
Niederkorn asked whether there had been any recent logging activities in the Town that the
Committee should be concerned about. Kirk Sigel mentioned some messy logging situations that
Andy Frost has talked about at Zoning Board meetings. Mary mentioned the Muka property on
Sheffield Road where many trees had been cut for logging, and that Cathy Valentino was particularly
concerned about logging potential in the Negundo Woods area. David asked for the Committee’s
opinion on moving tree cutting/preservation regulations up on the priority list. The Committee
agreed to move this item up from the “Lower Priority” to the “Next Priority” category, but to keep it
at #8 on the priority list.
2
Tom asked about sidewalks/walkways. Jonathan Kanter indicated that the Transportation Committee
will be looking at guidelines and policies for sidewalks at their next meeting. Several Committee
members expressed interest in seeing what the Transportation Committee comes up with regarding
sidewalk requirements.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion Regarding How to Approach a New, Lower Density Transition
Zone:
David Klein asked what is the timeframe for completing and adopting the Zoning Revisions.
Jonathan Kanter indicated that the work on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is progressing,
and that the earliest possible time for adoption of the new Zoning would be in June, possible longer.
Jonathan added that staff would not have time to work on both the completion of the EIS/Zoning
revisions and a new Transition Zone at the same time because both will involve much staff time.
Jonathan indicated that the original idea for a new lower density residential zone came from the
Planning Committee, which recommended consideration of a “Rural Residential” (RR) zone. John
Barney recalled that the Codes and Ordinances Committee had drafted a proposed Rural Residential
zone in an early version of the revised Zoning, but that it was felt to be too similar to the Low
Density Residential (LDR) zone, and that is when the idea for two densities in the LDR zone based
on availability of public sewer was proposed. Jonathan referred to a draft purpose statement that had
been prepared by the Planning Committee (3/18/96 – copy is attached to these Minutes), which stated
that …“the purpose of the Rural Residential District is to permit low density residential development
in areas not served by or planned for public sewer or water, while at the same time, preserving the
natural resources and open space qualities of the Town, …”. Jonathan indicated that one problem
with this statement is that the Town Board has not clearly defined where public sewer is planned to
be extended. David Klein stated that the RR zone purpose statement is not too far off the mark for a
new lower density transition zone, except that it does not mention the concept of a transition. Tom
Niederkorn suggested that it would help to see where public sewer and water lines are now, and then
have the Town Board decide where to add sewer and water in the future, and that a topo map would
also be helpful. Jonathan showed the Committee a map of Unique Natural Areas (UNA’s) in the
Town that also includes topography. Mary Russell indicated that the County has a relief map that
shows terrain in three dimensions. Jonathan added that the Engineering interns are in the process of
completing mapping of existing sewer and water lines, but that they are not done yet.
Mary Russell suggested that it would be helpful to see where County Agricultural Districts are
located, both within and adjacent to the Town of Ithaca. Eva Hoffmann added that the Committee
could look at Conservation and Agricultural zones to see where transition zones might be
appropriate. Eva suggested that the Committee should also look at where higher density zones might
be added. Mary agreed that there has to be a balance of lower and higher densities. David added that
a map of bus routes would be helpful.
Regarding density, David asked whether three-acre lot size is what the Committee wants for a
transition zone. Mary suggested that a new zone could be called either “Rural Residential” or “Rural
Transitional”. Tom Niederkorn indicated that he would like to address minimum lot frontage
requirements in this new zone as well. Jonathan added that we should probably look at all lot
dimensions in this new zone.
Regarding permitted uses, the Committee agreed that uses should be similar to the LDR zone, and
should include residential, agricultural, and bed and breakfast establishments.
3
Regarding possible locations for a new transitional zone, Carolyn Grigorov suggested that
Committee members could go on field visits to look at the character of potential areas. John Barney
asked whether the Committee should define what the zone should be first, or whether it would make
more sense to sketch out areas on a map first to see where a transition zone might make sense. John
added that if there are not many areas in an initial mapping exercise that look appropriate for a
transition zone, then the Committee might decide that it is not needed. John concluded that the
Committee could start by targeting areas that should have lower densities.
David Klein indicated that the Committee should look at already developed or subdivided lots so that
a minimal number of non-conforming lots are created in a new lower density zone. Mary Russell
suggested that the Committee should look at borders between Agricultural and LDR zones,
Conservation and LDR zones, and also look at sewered vs. non. sewered areas. Kirk Sigel asked
whether it would be appropriate to change the zoning of areas in County Agricultural Districts.
David indicated that areas on the West Hill appear to make the most sense for a lower density
transition zone, especially areas where R-15 Residence abuts the Agricultural zone. The Committee
briefly reviewed maps of the County Agricultural Districts. The Committee agreed to continue this
discussion at a future meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion of Cornell University Comments Regarding the Proposed
Zoning Revisions:
The Committee began review of a letter from Cornell University representatives to Town of Ithaca
officials, dated March 6, 2003, regarding the proposed Zoning revisions. Jonathan indicated that
Town and Cornell representatives met on March 6 th to discuss the concerns outlined in the letter.
Regarding #2, John Barney indicated that he had drafted a new criterion to give the Planning Board a
basis to limit impacts from educational uses that might be incompatible with adjacent areas. John
indicated that he is comfortable with the new criterion, and that recent court cases provide parameters
for how educational uses should be regulated in residential zones. Kirk Sigel mentioned that
“objectionable” is loosely defined and might be difficult to interpret. David mentioned that he is not
in favor of a new educational zone because the Town would lose control over the impacts of
educational uses on surrounding areas.
Regarding #3, Mary Russell indicated that the Town had asked Cornell to submit concept plans for
proposed development at the East Shore Drive property, and that the Town would consider a zone
change as a Planned Development Zone.
Regarding #5, Carolyn Grigorov asked why the Town does not allow educational use in the Multiple
Residence (MR) zone. John Barney responded that MR zones are usually done as a result of specific
development proposals, and that these do not normally include an educational component. John
mentioned Hasbrouck as an example, which is a Cornell development, but it is an apartment
complex, and is therefore, zoned MR.
Regarding #10, John Barney mentioned that the Conservation zone was not intended to exclude
educational uses, but that the wording came from the Planning Committee’s original language for the
Six Mile Creek Conservation zone.
With time running late, the Committee agreed to continue discussion of the Cornell letter at the next
meeting.
4
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting(s):
The next regular meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 24, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. because several
Committee members would not be available for the regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,
April 16th. The agenda will include continuation of discussion regarding Cornell’s comments on the
revised Zoning, discussion of revision of the Town’s Environmental Review Law, and follow -up on
the Planning Board’s public hearing and discussion regarding the proposed draft of the Zoning
Ordinance and Map.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 24, 2003
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: Will Burbank, Town Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan
Kanter, Director of Planning; Shirley Egan, Counsel for Cornell University.
Chair David Klein 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 March 19, 2003 Meeting:
Motion made by David Klein, seconded by Mary Russell, unanimously approving the minutes of
the meeting of March 19, 2003, as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Discussion of Cornell University Comments Regarding
the Proposed Zoning Revisions:
The Committee continued review of a letter from Cornell University representatives to Town of
Ithaca officials, dated March 6, 2003, regarding the proposed Zoning revisions.
Regarding #10 (educational uses in Conservation zones), Jonathan Kanter mentioned that the
wording in the draft Zoning Ordinance came from the original Six Mile Creek Conservation District,
and it was never the intent to exclude educational uses or institutions of higher learning from the
Conservation zones. The consensus of the Committee was to revise the wording for Conservation
zones to clarify that institutions of higher learning are permitted in Conservation zones by special
permit as in the residential zones. The Committee agreed that this clarification would also address
the situation of the Laboratory of Ornothology being located within the proposed Conservation Zone
at Sapsucker Woods. This change was recommended by the Planning Board as well.
John Barney distributed proposed revisions to Sections 302, 502, 602 and 1203. Section 302 would
add new definitions of “bed and breakfast” and “boarding house.” Section 502 would add public
library, public museum and any institution of higher learning including dormitory accommodations
as principal uses authorized by special permit in Conservation zones. John Barney distributed
additional suggested modifications to Section 2405 regarding considerations for special approval
regarding public buildings, churches and educational uses to conform to recent court decisions which
require a balancing test for these types of uses comparing their benefits with their detrimental effects
on the community. Shirley Egan, representing Cornell University, indicated that she would be happy
with the proposed modifications. Upon a motion by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by David Klein, the
Committee unanimously approved the modification to Section 2405 Considerations for Approval
recommended by the Attorney for the Town.
2
John Barney asked the Committee to return to the proposed revisions in Sections 302, 502, etc.
David Klein indicated that the proposed definition of boarding house would result in more students
or individuals (more than three persons) than the Town currently allows. There was discussion by
the Committee regarding the applicability of and need for boarding houses in today’s environment.
Carolyn Grigorov suggested deleting boarding houses from all zones to avoid possible problems.
Several Committee members concurred that there are boarding houses in the City of Ithaca, but not in
the Town. The Committee agreed by consent to take out boarding houses in all zones and delete the
definition of boarding house.
Discussion then focused on bed and breakfasts and how many bedrooms should be allowed. After
further discussion regarding the possibility of linking number of bedrooms with lot size in certain
zones, it was agreed that bed and breakfasts would be added in Conservation and Agriculture zones
by special permit with up to four bedrooms as in the proposed definition, and to limit bed and
breakfasts in the Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential zones to no more than
two bedrooms, unless the lot size is greater than 30,000 square feet, in which case up to four
bedrooms would be allowed. [Editor’s note: The Low Density Residential zone already was drafted
to include bed and breakfast which would go by the new definition of no more than four bedrooms.]
The Committee then returned to the Cornell letter. Regarding #3 in that letter (permitted uses in the
Lakefront Commercial zone), David Klein stated that the Committee’s letter of response to Cornell
(letter dated 1/13/03) still applies, and that the best way to address a mixed use proposal on the East
Shore Drive site would be with a Planned Development zone. The Committee agreed.
In regard to #’s 2 and 3, John Barney indicated that the modification in special approval criteria
(Section 2405 discussed above) should address Cornell’s concerns regarding the issue of educational
uses in residential zones. In regard to #4 (rezoning of portion of Cornell site next to East Hill Plaza
from R-30 to MR Multiple Residence), David Klein indicated that the Committee had discussed this
at great lengths, and the Committee believes that it is appropriate for this area to be zoned MR.
Shirley Egan mentioned that Cornell would prefer that it remain R -30 because it would allow
educational uses by special approval, while MR does not. David added that MR makes sense
because it is in a highly developed area, is served by sewer and water and public transportation, and
is next to the existing Summerhill Apartment development. Jonathan Kanter suggested that if the
Committee deletes the proposed MR zone from this area, it should replace it somewhere else because
of the lack of undeveloped MR zoned land in the Town. The consensus of the Committee was to
leave the proposed MR zone there on the revised Zoning Map.
In regard to # 5 (educational uses not permitted in MR zone), Shirley Egan indicated that Cornell
officials felt that the site proposed for MR zoning at East Hill Plaza is too far away from central
campus to be useful for student housing. Jonathan asked whether there are any other MR zones
where educational uses would not be appropriate, suggesting that the Town might consider allowing
educational uses in MR zones. John Barney indicated that the Town usually does not zone sites MR
ahead of time, and wondered whether it would be better to delete the proposed MR zoning from that
site. Jonathan suggested that in this case, the site meets all of the MR criteria, and is one of the few
sites in the area where MR zoning seems appropriate. David asked for the Committee’s viewpoint on
allowing educational uses in the MR zone. Carolyn Grigorov made a motion to propose adding
educational uses as permitted uses in the MR zone. John Barney suggested that the Committee think
through the criteria for allowing educational uses in the MR zone, and asked whether anyone would
want to see a school, for instance, at the Candlewyck Apartments. Tom Niederkorn stated that he
does not see any benefit to adding educational uses in the MR zone. After further discussion,
3
Carolyn Grigorov withdrew the motion, after which she proposed a new motion to change the
proposed zoning for the Cornell property at East Hill Plaza back to R-30 Residence (i.e., deleting the
proposed MR zone). David Klein seconded the motion for discussion purposes. Carolyn indicated
that she did not want to limit Cornell’s use of the property. Eva Hoffmann stated that this site is
appropriate for MR zoning. Mary Russell also felt that it makes sense for it to be zoned MR because
of its location and from a larger community viewpoint. John Barney asked what happens if Cornell
wants to build a school facility on this site. Discussion continued for a while. David Klein asked for
a vote. Tom Niederkorn asked Jonathan to repeat why the site is appropriate for MR zoning.
Jonathan summarized as follows: it is in a high density, mixed-use area, public sewer and water are
available, public transportation is available, it is isolated and buffered from single -family houses, and
it is adjacent to existing MR zoning and apartment development. A vote on the motion (the motion
to recommend deleting the proposed MR zoning and return it to the current R -30 Residence
zone/proposed LDR zone) resulted in 2 voting in favor (Tom Niederkorn and Carolyn Grigorov) and
4 voting in opposition (Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, David Klein and Mary Russell). The motion
was defeated.
In regard to #’s 8 and 9 (allowing educational uses in commercial and light industrial zones), the
Committee agreed that the Town should focus on commercial/industrial uses in these zones because
of their scarcity. In regard to # 11 (site plan thresholds), David Klein indicated that the Committee
has had long discussions about thresholds that trigger site plan modifications going back to the
Planning Board, and that the new regulations are appropriate. The Committee agreed.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of Planning Board Recommendation and Public Comments
Received Regarding Revised Zoning:
There was a brief discussion regarding the Planning Board’s resolution (April 1, 2003) containing a
positive recommendation to the Town Board regarding enactment of the proposed revised Zoning
Ordinance and Map. The Committee concurred that it had already addressed the recommendations to
add educational uses and bed and breakfasts in the Conservation zone. The Committee also
discussed other public comments that had been received by the Planning Board during their public
hearing process. David Klein mentioned the comments by Rod Lambert (email dated 3/18/03), and
indicated that it would be difficult to add the kind of wording in the Zoning Ordinance recommended
by Mr. Lambert. Will Burbank asked whether the Town is doing enough in the proposed Zoning to
encourage more environmentally friendly development. John Barney indicated that the current
cluster provisions in the Subdivision Regulations provide similar opportunities to what Mr. Lambert
was suggesting. David Klein added that the EcoVillage approach was unique, and that other
developments would not likely follow the same kind of process. David referred to the comments by
Evan Monkemeyer (letter dated Marcgh 17, 2003), and suggested that no response is warranted.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Review of Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Law:
Jonathan Kanter indicated that he had reviewed the Town’s Environmental Review Law (Local Law
No. 5 of 1988), and found a number of discrepancies with section references and provisions
compared with the revised State Environmental Quality Review Act regulations (6NYCRR Part 617).
In response to a question from Tom Niederkorn, Jonathan described the Planning Department’s role
regarding SEQR reviews. David Klein suggested that the Committee should compare the Town’s
Type I action thresholds with those in the SEQR regulations. Tom asked whether the Town’s
environmental law could be shortened by including references to appropriate sections in the State
regulations instead of repeating them in our law. Jonathan offered to annotate a copy of the Town
4
law with references to section numbers in the SEQR regulations and preliminary comments. The
Committee agreed that after reviewing the law, it could be referred to the Conservation Board for
comments and suggestions.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting(s):
There were several conflicts with the next regular meeting date of Wednesday, May 21, 2003, so the
next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, May 29, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.. The agenda will include an
update on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Zoning Revisions, continuation
of discussion regarding revision of the Town’s Environmental Review Law, and possibly initiate
discussion regarding update of the Fees Local Law.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
MAY 29, 2003
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann.
OTHERS: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost,
Director of Building and Zoning; Jeff Hanavan, Owner of Property on Mecklenburg Road.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of April 24, 2003 Meeting:
Motion made by Tom Niederkorn, seconded by Mary Russell, unanimously approving the
minutes of the meeting of April 24, 2003, as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion Regarding Request to Rezone Property on Mecklenburg Road
to the Proposed New Agricultural Zone – Jeff Hanavan, Property Owner:
David Klein welcomed Jeff Hanavan on behalf of the Committee, and asked Mr. Hanavan to explain
his request for zoning changes on his property at 1407 Mecklenburg Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1-
10.42. Mr. Hanavan explained his request, which is described in detail in his letter of April 29, 2003
that was referred to the Committee by the Town Board. Mr. Hanavan indicated that he purchased the
property recently, and intends to cultivate fruit trees, flowers, herbs and vegetables, and would like to
set up a small distillery to process fruit brandies and essential oils. The property is currently zoned
R-30 Residence and is proposed for the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone on the proposed,
revised Zoning Map. Mr. Hanavan indicated that he feels that the new Agricultural Zone would be
more appropriate for his property and situation, and he is also interested in possibly pursuing the sale
of development rights to the Town under the Agricultural Land Preservation Program. Mr. Hanavan
also suggested that he is not interested in developing his property for residential use. Mr. Hanavan
explained that the two adjacent properties to the west also might be more appropriately zoned as
Agricultural, and that they are currently split between the R-30 and Agricultural zones. Mr. Hanavan
also indicated that he was aware of the pending proposal for the Coy Glen Conservation Zone, and
that he would support extending the Conservation Zone boundaries to include his and the two
adjacent properties to the west to protect them from intense development.
Mr. Hanavan described a dump that has been established on the adjacent Teeter property, which he
believed received some approval from the Town. He indicated that he is concerned with the
condition of the dump, which he feels may contain hazardous substances and is eroding. Mary
Russell asked what approval was given by the Town. Jonathan Kanter responded that it did not go
through the Planning Board, and that Dan Walker may have issued a fill permit. John Barney
suggested that the State Department of Environmental Conservation may have some interest in this.
David Klein asked Jonathan to check with Dan and to let him know that there may be problems with
farm waste and other substances being buried there.
2
David suggested that the extension of the Coy Glen Conservation Zone to this area might make
sense, especially considering the presence of the headwaters of Coy Glen Creek and inclusion of this
area in the Unique Natural Area. Jonathan recommended looking at this area further regarding the
possibility of Agricultural, Conservation, or the possible new lower density transition zone that the
Committee will be studying. Jonathan indicated that these properties are located in the County
Agricultural District, and farm uses would be protected by the State’s right -to-farm provisions.
Mr. Hanavan described the distillery operation that he is considering. He would like to produce fruit
brandies and extracts, and also floral and herbal essences through organic farming. He has started to
plant small fruit trees, such as apple, plum and cherry. Jonathan indicated that a distillery or winery
would not be permitted in the proposed Agricultural Zone as currently drafted, and suggested that
this is something the Committee may want to look at further in order to provide more flexibility for
farming operations to be economically successful. Mr. Hanavan described the State process for
approval of distilleries. He did not think that products distilled on site could be sold from that same
site under State regulations. He would probably sell his distilled products to distributors to sell to
liquor stores or other specialty stores. Mr. Hanavan indicated that he would be coming to the Town
in the near future to request approvals to establish his distillery operation, and that he would prefer to
do it on the his Mecklenburg Road property, but would look into other site options if this is not
possible. David suggested that he could appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals to request a
variance. John Barney proposed that the Committee could add distilleries or wineries to the
Agricultural Zone subject to special permit criteria and size limitations to only allow small -scale
operations.
Jonathan mentioned that another rezoning possibility not discussed yet would be to zone the
agricultural fields on the Hanavan property as Agricultural and to zone the wooded, natural area on
the Hanavan and adjacent properties designated as a Unique Natural Area to the proposed
Conservation Zone. The Committee thanked Mr. Hanavan for attending the meeting and agreed that
further discussion on this subject would be necessary. Jonathan suggested that the Committee
consider a plan of action to address these issues. John Barney suggested that it would be best to
address these issues in a way that would not further delay adoption of the revised Zoning. Mary
indicated that she would like the Committee to consider adding flexibility for farm uses for
processing or refining locally grown products, such as described by Mr. Hanavan, and that sale of
local products is already allowed at farm stands in both the Agricultural and LDR Zones. David
suggested leaving the Hanavan property in the LDR Zone for now, and considering a rezoning and
further revisions to the Agricultural Zone later. The Committee agreed to put this high on the
priority list of follow-up items to consider after the revised Zoning is adopted.
John Barney suggested the need to clarify the sale of farm products at farm stands – is the current and
proposed wording intended to limit the sale of products grown on the site of the farm stand, or is it
intended to allow the sale of products grown elsewhere? Andy Frost indicated that it has been his
understanding through the years that the Zoning wording does not permit the sale of products grown
off of the site of the farm stand. The Committee discussed this further, and concurred that the farm
stand provision should be more flexible. John Barney asked for further direction on clarifying the
farm stand provision sooner rather than later. Eva Hoffmann indicated that the intent should be that
farmers mainly sell products that they have grown or raised. Tom Niederkorn suggested revising the
farm stand language to indicate that the majority of products sold at a farm stand should be grown on
the site of the farm stand. John Barney said that he would draft some language for the Committee’s
consideration indicating that a majority of the products sold at such farm stand shall be grown on the
site of the farm stand.
3
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of Progress Draft of Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Regarding Proposed Zoning Revisions:
David indicated that time was getting late, but asked if Committee members had comments on the
progress draft of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Zoning
revisions. Tom indicated that he was very impressed with the depth of the EIS discussions. Tom
then asked how the Committee wanted to address some of the issues that had been raised in the EIS,
such as has been discussed in the section on Agricultural Resources? The Committee had a brief
discussion on some of these issues, including how deed restrictions or conservation easements on
subdivided parcels in the Agricultural Zone would be implemented, whether the Purchase of
Development Rights program should be used to compensate owners where open space areas have
been set aside to remain as open space, and the large number of parcels under 14 acres in the
proposed Agricultural Zone that could not be further subdivided under the new Agricultural Zone
provisions.
Jonathan mentioned some of the other sections in the EIS that need additional work. Mary Russell
suggested that the Committee consider setting a special meeting to continue discussion of the EIS
instead of waiting until the next regular meeting. The Committee agreed. [John Barney indicated
that he would not be able to attend if it is held on June 10 th because of other meeting commitments.
Committee members indicated that that would be okay.]
Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting(s):
A special meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, June 10, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. to continue discussion
regarding the preliminary draft of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Zoning
Revisions. The next regular Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 18, 2003.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2003
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Continue Discussion of Progress Draft of Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) Regarding Proposed Zoning Revisions:
David Klein suggested that the Committee go through the memo dated June 3, 2003, prepared by
Jonathan Kanter, raising questions and discussion items regarding the progress draft of the Generic
EIS on the Zoning Revisions.
Natural Features: Jonathan mentioned that he would like to see descriptions added to this section
regarding the work that went into identifying areas and boundaries for the new proposed
Conservation Zones. The Committee agreed.
Agricultural Resources: Tom Niederkorn asked what is the Committee’s responsibility to address the
issues that were raised in the progress draft of the EIS and outlined in Jonathan’s June 3 rd memo
regarding agricultural resources. Mary Russell suggested that the Committee discuss each point
briefly, but that it appears to be appropriate to any issues that may be problematic as future issues
after the revised Zoning is adopted.
Regarding points raised regarding whether the Town’s Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
program should be used in conjunction with the subdivision procedures in the new Agricultural Zone,
there was discussion regarding whether the remaining open parcel after subdivision would have any
value above and beyond farming. Mary Russell suggested that the development rights of the open
area after subdivision, subject to deed restrictions or conservation easement, would decrease in value
according to how many permitted lots under the Agriculture Zone provisions were subdivided out of
the parent parcel. If less than the maximum permitted number of lots were subdivided off of the
parent parcel, then the development rights would decrease proportionately. Mary felt that this would
have to be acknowledged in any subsequent appraisal on the remaining open land. In other words, if
a parent parcel has not been subdivided, the Town could purchase development rights based on the
parcel’s full appraised value (development potential fully available). However, if a parent parcel is
subdivided, the appraisal would reflect diminished value based on how many lots could lawfully be
subdivided off and how much development potential remains on the open land. Mary felt that, based
on this approach, the Town’s PDR program might discourage subdivision and development of farm
parcels, and that the Town’s funds available for PDR would not necessarily be strained as a result of
parcels going through the subdivision process. The Committee agreed that the way to approach this
in the EIS is through a discussion in the background section of Agricultural Resources, and that this
could be addressed as a positive aspect, not a negative environmental impact. The Committee agreed
2
that the discussion should emphasize that the PDR program can be used in conjunction with the new
Agricultural zoning to help preserve and protect agricultural lands.
Regarding the issue of fairness of being able to use the PDR program for targeted parcels in the new
Agricultural Zone, but not for non-targeted parcels, the Committee indicated that the issue of fairness
is not an environmental impact issue, but that there could be future re -evaluation of parcel status,
both regarding Agricultural zoning and PDR target status, if relevant information became available to
the Town.
Regarding the implementation of the deed restriction/conservation easement requirement of the
subdivision provisions in the Agricultural Zone, Tom Niederkorn asked what the proposed Zoning
actually says. Jonathan referred to Section 610(3) on page 33 of the January 15, 2003 Draft Zoning
Ordinance, which reads, “The Planning Board, as a condition of granting subdivision approval, shall
require, unless good cause is shown for omission of same, the developer to encumber the larger tracts
(the non-cluster lots) by deed restrictions, conservation or agricultural easements, or other
mechanism satisfactory to the Planning Board, to ensure that such parcels shall remain permanently
as open space or agricultural land.” David Klein indicated that this wording allows for some
flexibility on the part of the Planning Board to waive or modify this condition if good cause is
shown. Mary added that the question of permanency of the deed restriction or easement may be a
legal or technical issue, and should be referred to John Barney for his opinion as to whether deed
restrictions or easements can be undone in the future if conditions change (e.g., if the Town decides
that farming is no longer viable in the Town). Mary added that she is aware of some deed
restrictions and easements that can be reversed or terminated by mutual consent of the parties to the
restrictions. Jonathan brought up an example of a farmer who owns a 100-acre parcel and wants to
subdivide off two frontage lots, and asked how the Planning Board should address the deed
restriction/easement requirement on the remaining open land, which has additional development
potential. Mary responded that the Planning Board could require the deed restriction or easement
indicating that the remaining open land can only have the remaining number of lots on the remaining
parcel permitted under the Agricultural Zone density limitations. In other words, if the 100 -acre
parent parcel has an original development potential of 14 lots (100 divided by 7), and 2 lots are
subdivided off, the deed restriction/easement would indicate that the remaining parcel only can be
subdivided into 12 additional lots (i.e., its remaining development potential). Mary added that this
mechanism was intended to keep track of the amount of development potential remaining on partially
subdivided parcels. These deed restrictions or easements would be filed with both the County Clerk
and the Town, and it would be up to the Town to keep track of these records.
Regarding the issue of the relatively small number of parcels (45) in the proposed Agricultural Zone
that are greater than 14 acres, and thus could be further subdivided based on the zone’s density
limitations, Tom raised the issue of the economic viability of farming in the Town, and whether it is
appropriate to limit further subdivision and development in this way. Mary responded that the
Committee worked very hard on this issue, and concluded that it was important to limit development
potential in a large contiguous block of land around agricultural parcels to minimize development
pressures and ensure their ability to continue farming. Mary confirmed that the intent is to restrict
subdivision potential in the Agricultural Zone. David indicated that the EIS now for the first time
shows how many parcels would be affected by the subdivision/density limitations in the new zoning.
David added that relief is available through the variance procedures at the Zoning Board of Appeals
(ZBA). Jonathan added that there could be a large number of variance applications going to the ZBA
to subdivide parcels under 14 acres.
3
Jonathan asked for the Committee’s direction on how to approach the discussion of the above issues
in the EIS. It was agreed that none of the above-described issues are environmental impact issues,
and that discussion should be moved to another section, such as in the description of background and
existing conditions in the Agricultural Resources section. It was also agreed that there really are no
negative environmental impacts associated with the new Agricultural Zone, and that the main impact
would be a reduction in the number of potential housing units that could be built under the lower
density of that zone. Jonathan suggested that this can be addressed in the Growth Inducing Impacts
section.
Demographics, Business & Commerce, and Growth Inducing Impacts Sections : After a brief
discussion on these remaining sections of the EIS, the Committee has some minor editorial
comments, and agreed that these sections looked good as a basis to proceed with completing the EIS.
David provided Jonathan with some editorial comments in his copy of the EIS. The Committee
agreed that staff should proceed with completion of the EIS and try to meet the estimated time line
(summarized in the memo to the Committee dated May 22, 2003). Jonathan indicated that staff
would try to have the completed draft of the EIS to the Town Board in advance of either the July 7 th
or August 11th Board meeting, or that a special meeting could be scheduled by the Board at the end
of July.
Agenda Item No. 3 - Other Business: Jonathan distributed copies of a project narrative for the
Remington Inn and Restaurant proposal on East Shore Drive for discussion at the June 18 th meeting,
as well as a draft agenda for the June 18th meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 18, 2003. Agenda items
will include discussion regarding The Remington Inn and Restaurant proposal on East Shore Drive
(existing vs. proposed zoning), continuation of review of the Town’s Environmental Review Law,
and begin discussion regarding the Local law establishing fees for Town Clerk, Building, Zoning,
Engineering, permits and other fees.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 18, 2003
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of May 29, 2003 Meeting:
Motion made by Mary Russell, seconded by Tom Niederkorn, unanimously approving the minutes of
the meeting of May 29, 2003, with Kirk Sigel abstaining.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion Regarding the Remington Inn & Restaurant Proposal:
Eva Hoffmann reported on the sketch plan discussion held by the Planning Board on June 17, 2003
regarding the proposed Remington Inn and Restaurant on East Shore Drive. The proposal would
include a 250-seat restaurant and 20-room inn, retaining the existing marina, on the 5 +/- acre site
(2.5 acres net excluding the railroad right -of-way). Eva indicated that issues discussed by the
Planning Board and the public included traffic, the railroad crossing, parking adequacy, possible soil
contamination from previous uses, flood zone, storm-water management and water quality, noise
impacts on nearby residences, and visual impacts. David Klein suggested that the developer
probably wants to get the project through the approval process before the proposed Zoning Revisions
go into effect. David added that the revised zoning in the new Lakefront Commercial (LC) Zone
would allow restaurants and hotels by special permit, where the existing Business “E” Zone allows
those by right, and that the new LC Zone would require hotels to be set back at least 100 feet from
the shoreline (whereas the Business “E” does not). Carolyn Grigorov asked whether the proposed
Remington Inn meets all of the current zoning requirements. David said that he thinks it does.
Jonathan Kanter confirmed that the preliminary concept plans appear to meet all of the Business “E”
requirements.
David asked the Committee how strongly they feel about the proposed changes in the new LC Zone?
The Committee briefly discussed aspects of the proposal that would limit future boating uses on this
site, such as the Cornell Sailing Club. Jonathan suggested that if there was a legitimate public
purpose regarding use and access on this site, the Town could purchase it. John Barney explained
that the agreement with Cornell resulting from the approval of the Lake Source Cooling Plant gave
the Town a right of first offering if the lakeshore property is offered for sale. John added that this
might not apply to a lease situation, which is what appears to be the case with the Remington
proposal. John suggested that the Town could use eminent domain if there was a legitimate public
purpose in acquiring the property. David indicated that the Remington proposal appears to be a good
project, but isn’t sure if this site is appropriate. Tom Niederkorn added that the main problem
appears to be with the railroad crossing and related issues with traffic safety. Kirk Sigel agreed, and
mentioned that traffic visibility at the curb-cut is a potential problem. Jonathan reminded the
Committee that the Town Board has asked for the Committee’s opinion regarding the zoning of the
2
site. David suggested that one option would be to change the zoning now to incorporate the new use
and setback provisions of the LC Zone now, that the Town has been working on the Zoning
Revisions for a long time, and that Cornell has been aware of the proposed changes for quite a while.
Tom suggested that there is not a lot of other shorefront area on Cayuga Lake in the Town, and
would like to see the Remington proposal work its way through the approval process, and see what
kind of potential impacts are identified in the environmental review. John Barney brought up the
issue of vested rights, and indicated that if the developer can demonstrate that a certain amount of
investment has been made on a proposal, then the developer may have vested rights in the property,
even if the zoning is changed. Carolyn wondered why the developer is proposing the hotel portion
with only 20 rooms. Mary responded that she did not know, but that the large restaurant is what
seems to make the proposal economically viable.
David Klein suggested that the zoning be left alone for now, and see how the proposal works its way
through the approval process. Kirk agreed with Tom – that the main issue seems to be the railroad
crossing. David added that Route34/East Shore Drive is a state highway, and that NYS Department
of Transportation will look at this proposal very closely. The consensus of the Committee was to
leave the zoning as is for now, and let the proposal go through the approval and environmental
review process, with the Planning Board as Lead Agency.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continue Review of Environmental Review Law:
Jonathan Kanter summarized the annotated version of the local law (5/19/03), which includes
preliminary suggestions for possible revisions, and suggested deleting sections that duplicate
provisions already in the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). John Barney agreed that
he likes the idea of simplifying the law where possible. Jonathan indicated that there are a number of
sections of the Town’s law that are no longer consistent with the 1996 amendments to SEQR, and
highlighted some of those sections. Carolyn Grigorov noted that a definition should be added for
“designated freshwater wetland” because Section V.5 of the local law includes “any facility,
development or project which is to be located in a designated freshwater wetland” as a Type I action.
Jonathan agreed, adding that it is not clear whether this refers to designated State wetlands, which are
12.4 acres or larger, or other types of wetlands. Carolyn asked whether the Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) designates wetlands. Mary Russell responded that the ACOE has regulations and a permit
system for disturbing wetlands, but that their jurisdiction over small, isolated wetlands has recently
come into question as a result of a federal court case. Mary added that she wasn’t sure how the Town
would document the presence of a wetland in order to classify an action as Type I. Jonathan
suggested referring the question of defining “designated wetland” to the Conservation Board, and
asking for their recommendation.
David referred to Section V.7, which classifies any facility or development generating more than
2,000 vehicle trips per any eight-hour period per day as a Type I action. David asked whether staff
could come back to the Committee with samples of facilities with their trip generation ranges to get a
better idea of the magnitude of these facilities.
Jonathan suggested deleting Section V.11 regarding abandonment of a Town highway or highways
from the Type I list of actions. The Committee agreed that this is not so much an environmental
issue as it is a policy issue, and that it would make sense to delete this.
The Committee agreed to check the Type I and Type II lists in both the local law and the SEQR
regulations to make sure that they are not in conflict. The Committee gave additional feedback on
other sections in the local law. It was agreed that Jonathan and John Barney should meet to review
3
sections of the local law, and come back to the Committee with a further revised draft local law for
another review, after which it could be referred to the Conservation Board for review and comment.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion Regarding Possible Amendments to Local Law Establishing
Fees:
Jonathan began the discussion regarding Local No. 10 – 1994 “Establishing and/or Amending Town
Clerk, Building, Zoning, Engineering, Permits, and Other Fees and Repealing the Provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance and Other Local Laws Related Thereto.” Mary Russell showed the Committee a
summary of town clerk fees from other municipalities that had been compiled by our Town Clerk’s
office. Mary indicated that many municipalities adopt enabling laws to establish fees, and then adopt
specific fees and updates by resolution. Mary mentioned that Tee Ann Hunter would like to attend
the next Committee meeting to discuss clerk’s fees, and to ask the Committee to consider adopting
fees by resolution. John Barney suggested that such a procedure would still require a public hearing
under State law.
Jonathan explained the Town’s current development review fee system, which is based primarily on
the actual staff time involved in reviewing each project. This applies to certain site plan and
subdivision reviews. Jonathan indicated that recent court cases might raise questions about our
current development review fee system. Mary distributed a copy of recent case law regading
development review fees. David added that Andy Frost should probably review the current building
and zoning fees to see whether they need to be updated. Mary mentioned that Chris Balestra did an
analysis of the cost to print maps in Town Hall, which could be added to a fee schedule. Jonathan
indicated that Mike Smith has compiled information regarding review fees, and has done some
analysis of specific projects that have been reviewed by the Town, and suggested that the Committee
invite Mike to the next meeting to discuss this and possible alternate approaches. Jonathan suggested
that our current subdivision regulations do not include provisions for a performance guarantee for
completion of roads or utilities, while the site plan regulations do. This discrepancy could be
addressed in a revised local law on fees, or it could be added in conjunction with the future revision
of the subdivision regulations.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, July 16, 2003. Agenda items
will include continuation of review of the Town’s Environmental Review Law, and continuation of
discussion regarding the local law establishing fees for Town Clerk, Building, Zoning, Engineering,
permits and other fees (inviting Tee Ann Hunter and Mike Smith to discuss research they have been
working on). [Editor’s note: The July and August meetings were subsequently cancelled.]
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 17, 2003
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning;
John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Tee Ann Hunter, Town
Clerk.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Tom Niederkorn mentioned the field visit conducted by Town Board members to the two proposed
affordable housing project sites on Trumansburg Road that was held on Saturday, September 13 th.
Kirk Sigel asked whether Town Board actions would be required for these projects. David Klein
responded that the Town Board is being requested to rezone the two properties in conjunction with
those developments.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of June 10, 2003 Meeting:
Motion made by David Klein, seconded by Mary Russell, approving the minutes of the meeting of
June 10, 2003, with Eva Hoffmann abstaining.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Approval of Minutes of June 18, 2003 Meeting:
Motion made by Mary Russell, seconded by David Klein, unanimously approving the minutes of the
meeting of June 18, 2003.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion Regarding Possible Amendments to Local Law Establishing
Fees:
The Committee began with a discussion of whether fees should be established in a local law (as is the
current practice), or whether they could be set by Town Board resolution. Tee Ann Hunter indicated
that some communities authorize the charging of fees by local law, and then update fee schedules
periodically by Town Board resolution. Kirk Sigel asked whether doing this by resolution still
requires a public hearing. Tee Ann responded yes, but that there is more paperwork involved with
adopting a local law. Tom Niederkorn asked how the Town knows if it is losing money on certain
fees. Tee Ann cited the marriage license fee for which the State allows municipalities to charge up to
$40, but the Town of Ithaca only charges $35, and the Town only keeps a portion of the fee amount.
David Klein suggested that the Town Board would have to monitor and review fees each year, which
could be done by resolution annually at the organizational meeting. Jonathan Kanter indicated that
most fees have not been updated since the local law was adopted in 1994.
Jonathan provided a brief overview of the staff’s review of current fees – Mike Smith has been
looking at planning fees for development review; Tee Ann is looking at the Clerk -related fees; Andy
Frost is reviewing building and zoning fees. David suggested that each department, upon review of
2
their related fees, should bring back recommendations for updating or revising to the Committee.
Tee Ann added that her office has collected sample administrative fees from other municipalities.
Returning to the issue of setting fees by local law vs. resolution, John Barney indicated that the only
difference is that a local law requires filing with the Secretary of State. Adopting fees by resolution
still requires a public hearing. John Barney expressed his preference for including the entire fee
system and amounts in a local law so that they will be in one place for easy reference. Tee Ann
added that regardless of local law or resolution, fees amounts should be reviewed each year.
David asked Mike Smith to discuss what he has been finding out about development review fees.
Mike referred to his memo dated 9/4/03 in which information regarding planning and development
fees was summarized. Mike indicated that he has collected sample fees and approaches from a
number of municipalities, and that there is no consistent approach or fee amounts among those
communities sampled. Most have standard set fee amounts, based on size of project, acreage of site,
or cost of project and improvements. The Town of Ithaca approach to development review fees is
based on actual cost of staff review time. Mike added that our approach does not give an applicant
an idea before the review starts of what the total review costs will be, and there are variables, such as
different hourly rates for different staff reviewers. It also takes a lot of staff time to keep track of the
development review fee amounts and accounting system the way we do it now. Eva suggested that
in the private sector, one cannot always get an accurate estimate of costs ahead of time. Mary
Russell asked if the Planning staff is recommending going to a set fee approach? Mike responded
that he is suggesting that. Jonathan explained the current development review process in more detail.
For example, the Town collects an initial deposit at the beginning of a project review, and then staff
keeps detailed time sheets to keep track of time spent on each project. Planning and Engineering
staff review hours are assembled quarterly by Mike, and depending on the status of each project,
letters are sent to applicants either requesting additional funds to be deposited (if current deposit has
been used up) or refunding unused amounts deposited if a project has been completed. Mike
explained that the table he had prepared in the memo attempts to indicate average costs of project
reviews linked to estimated costs of recent projects reviewed by the Town. Mike proposed that a fee
based on estimated project cost appears to be the most accurate way of establishing a set fee system,
based on our past experience. Eva mentioned that Ithaca College projects are usually well -thought
out and documented, and may not involve as much staff time to review as other types of projects, and
that Ithaca College now has a master plan to provide an overall context for their projects.
Kirk indicated that he likes the development review system the way it is now in that the more
efficient applicants, or the ones that provide the necessary information, benefit from potentially lower
fee costs. David suggested that one way to handle the varied hourly rates would be to set a single,
average hourly rate, which would be applied no matter which staff member is reviewing the project.
John Barney added that a maximum cap could be established, limiting the fee amount that an
applicant would be responsible for. Mike suggested that staff would like to explore other approaches
that would not take as much staff time relating to accounting and monitoring the review fee
collection and refund system. Mary indicated that the Town of Onondaga was upheld in the courts
with an open-ended fee approach. David asked how many hours per month are spent on
development review accounting and administration. Mike responded that this involves a day or two
each quarter, and that it takes about a half hour to set up each project account when it is initiated.
David asked whether staff keeps track of hours spent on each project. Mike responded, yes.
Jonathan indicated that New York courts have ruled that fees should be based on average costs for
similar projects, and that municipalities should compare their fee amounts with those of other
communities to see whether the amounts charged are comparable. Jonathan added that he would
3
want staff to keep track of hours spent on reviewing each project even if we went to a set fee system,
so that we could do an annual review to determine whether the amounts collected related to actual
staff time spent on reviewing projects. Mary asked about information collected from other
municipalities. Mike indicated that he and the Clerk’s office have collected samples from
communities around New York. David asked whether development review fees include time spent
by Engineering staff. Mike answered yes. David asked whether Town staff ever does the actual
project analysis for an applicant. Jonathan responded that the applicant is usually required to hire a
consultant to conduct whatever analysis will be required during the project review. Jonathan added
that sometimes staff will do some general analysis, such as looking up the trip generation rates for a
limited environmental review when a full traffic study is not required, but that such analysis is
usually limited to a short SEQR description. John Barney indicated that separate SEQR fees can be
required pursuant to the State law and the Town’s local law pertaining to fees, and that these SEQR
fees can continue to be authorized. John asked how legal fees would be tracked if we went to a set
fee amount. Mike indicated that this could be tracked in the statements submitted by John Barney to
the Town. Kirk suggested that the Town could have set fees for smaller projects, and still use a time -
based system for larger projects. David responded that such a hybrid approach would be too
complicated. Eva observed that some of the project reviews outlined in the table in Mike’s memo
were more complicated than the fee amounts indicated in the table.
David proposed that staff develop a proposed fee schedule based on estimated project size or cost for
the Committee’s review. John Barney indicated that he would prefer that it be based on estimated
project cost, which could be provided by a licensed engineer and confirmed by the Town Engineer.
The consensus of the Committee was to pursue a set fee approach (i.e., fee schedule), and asked staff
to come back to the next meeting with recommendations for the Committee’s consideration. David
asked Andy Frost to also bring in his proposals for updates to the building and zoning fees, and for
Tee Ann to do the same for Clerk fees.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Update Regarding Draft GEIS for Zoning Revisions and Discussion of
Possible Grand-fathering Provisions for Undersize Lots in Revised Agricultural Zone:
Jonathan Kanter reported on the status of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
for the Zoning Revisions, and indicated that it had been accepted as complete by the Town Board and
circulated for public comment. A public hearing is scheduled for October 2, 2003 at the Town Board
meeting.
Jonathan indicated that the GEIS includes an analysis of existing parcels that would become non -
conforming in the new Agricultural Zone, summarizing that 76 of the 225 parcels in the proposed
Agricultural Zone would be smaller than the required two -acre minimum lot size, and an additional
16 parcels are already non-conforming because they are under the current 30,000 square foot
minimum lot size. This amounts to about one -third of the parcels. Jonathan added that the GEIS
includes a suggested mitigation strategy to “grand-father” existing legal lots – there are provisions in
the existing and proposed Zoning that allow the construction, enlargement or alteration of a single -
family dwelling on a lot less than the required lot size in the zone, but these provisions would not
allow a second dwelling unit (as is commonly allowed by right on conforming lots). Jonathan
suggested adding some kind of grand-fathering provision to avoid numerous variance applications
going to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Andy Frost agreed. Kirk suggested that such a
provision could be added to Section 2707 to allow a second unit. John Barney mentioned that the
rationale for limiting undersized lots to single-family only was to account for the smaller lot size and
to limit density. After brief discussion, the Committee agreed that it would be desirable to add a
special approval provision to allow the second dwelling unit on lots that are or would become non-
4
conforming because they do not meet the minimum size requirement. This would apply to all zones
where one and two-family dwellings are permitted, and would require special approval from the ZBA
(thus not requiring the variance criteria to be applied). This would still give some control over the
location of such dwellings and would allow the ZBA to consider the affect on the surrounding
community (one of the special approval criteria). This would involve modifications to Sections
2500, 2505, and 2707, and would be included in the Final GEIS as an additional revision. John
Barney agreed to have the modified language available for the October 15th meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 15, 2003. Tentative
agenda items will include follow-up on revisions in draft proposed Zoning Ordinance regarding
Sections 2500, 2505 and 2700 allowing a second dwelling unit (by special approval) on lots not
conforming to the size requirements of the zone in which located; continuation of review of the
Town’s Environmental Review Law; and continuation of discussion regarding the local law
establishing fees for Town Clerk, Building, Zoning, Engineering, permits and other fees.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 15, 2003
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann,
Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning;
John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Tom Niederkorn indicated that he had spoken with Evan Monkemeyer about zoning on his property.
Tom mentioned that Mr. Monkemeyer had two concerns: (1) why can’t his property near Danby
Road be zoned for higher density (e.g., Medium Density Residential), and (2) why does the Zoning
say that a Planned Development Zone must have the same requirements as the original zone. John
Barney read from the Zoning section on PDZ’s, and replied that is not the case. The Committee felt
that Mr. Monkemeyer should submit a proposal to the Town with a specific proposal that the Town
Board can review and respond to.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of September 17, 2003 Meeting:
Motion made by David Klein, seconded by Mary Russell, unanimously approving the minutes of the
meeting of September 17, 2003.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Zoning Revisions - Follow-up Discussion Regarding Non-conforming
Lots:
John Barney distributed a revised “Addendum Containing Language Changes Suggested by the
Codes and Ordinances Committee or the Planning Board Subsequent to January 15, 2003,” which
includes revisions to Sections 2500, 2505, and 2700 to permit a second dwelling unit on non -
conforming lots by special approval. John indicated that this would apply to lots that are non -
conforming because of size or area, but that meet the other setback requirements of the zone. John
added that these revisions reflect the Committee’s discussion at the September 17th meeting.
Kirk asked for clarification that if the house already has two dwelling units, then special approval
would not be required? John indicated that this is correct. Kirk asked whether an addition that is
non-conforming with respect to setback would have to meet the special approval criteria. John
responded that the variance criteria would apply in that case pursuant to Section 2510 in the revised
Zoning Ordinance. John added that if a yard variance had been granted previously for an addition,
then the addition on that yard is conforming, and no further Zoning Board action would be required
with respect to that yard. Jonathan Kanter added that Section 2505 covers alterations to dwellings on
non-conforming lots. John Barney suggested deleting Section 2700 because it is redundant. The
Committee agreed to include the suggested revisions to Sections 2500, 2505, and 2700 included in
the “Addendum.” Jonathan mentioned that these will be added to the Final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (GEIS) as proposed revisions.
2
Agenda Item No. 4 – Zoning Revisions - Report on Public Comments Received Regarding
Draft GEIS:
Jonathan distributed copies of public comments regarding the Draft GEIS that had been received by
the deadline of October 14th, and reported briefly on the range of comments received. John Barney
mentioned that he had received a call from Ed Hooks, Harris Beach Attorneys, regarding the
Babcock parcel on Trumansburg Road, and that he would follow-up with Mr. Hooks. Jonathan
indicated that Mr. Hooks, in his letter of October 14, 2003 on behalf of the Babcocks, indicated that
public sewer could be extended to the property, and that the Babcocks are asking the Town Board to
consider rezoning the property to LDR Low Density Residential instead of Agricultural. Several
Committee members indicated concern regarding extending the sewer to this site for higher densities
resulting in increased development pressures on surrounding agricultural parcels.
There was brief discussion regarding Evan Monkemeyer’s letter and the email from Kate Lunde.
Jonathan indicated that responses to all of the comments would be included in the Final GEIS that
would be ready for the Town Board to review at the November 6th Town Board meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Zoning Revisions - Discussion Regarding Preliminary Comments From
NYS Ag & Markets:
Jonathan referred to his memo dated October 7, 2003 regarding preliminary discussion with the New
York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (Ag & Markets) regarding the proposed Zoning
Revisions. Jonathan indicated that several Town officials, including himself and John Barney, met
with a representative of Ag & Markets to discuss possible areas of conflict between the Zoning
Revisions and the State Ag & Markets Law. David asked whether there is a difference between our
proposed Agricultural Zone and the County/State Agricultural Districts. John Barney responded yes,
and that there are some areas in the County Agricultural District not included in the Town’s
Agricultural Zone. Jonathan and John went through a list of five areas outlined in the memo in
which it was felt that the State’s concerns could be fairly easily addressed with minor wording
changes. These include definition of “farm”, limitations on roadside stands, storage of manure,
mining, and farm worker housing. The Committee agreed with most of the proposed revisions based
on the memo, except with respect to storage of manure. The consensus of the Committee was to
delete the reference to best management practices established by the U.S. Agricultural Stabilization
& Conservation Service because there are no such guidelines, but to retain general language relating
to reasonable agricultural practices for storage of manure. In regard to mining, it was agreed to use
the same thresholds used for fill and excavation permits, and to cross-reference the mining and fill
permit requirements. John Barney agreed to revise the relevant sections in a cumulative
“Addendum” that would be included in the Final GEIS.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Possible Amendments to Local
Law Establishing Fees:
Tom Niederkorn asked what the rationale was for the Building & Zoning fees changes outlined in the
materials that had been distributed. Andy Frost indicated that consistency of the fees in relation to
project value was an important criterion, especially in relation to the fees starting at the $100
threshold. Andy added that staff is spending a lot more time in reviewing permit applications with
the new Building Codes that went into effect this year, as well as more time on inspections. John
Barney asked whether this is also true for less expensive houses? Andy said yes, although some are
modular and are pre-approved by the State.
3
Mike Smith explained the materials he had distributed regarding development review fees, which
factored in actual staff time spent and fees charged for sample projects over recent years. Mike
observed that the overall averages in comparing suggested fee amounts with sample project averages
is very similar.
Andy mentioned that his staff had reviewed fee schedules in other communities, and that those
suggested for the Town of Ithaca are in the middle range. Andy indicated that he is proposing to add
a fee for re-inspections, where there is no charge now, to act as an incentive for applicants to get
things right the first time.
Tom asked about fees for interior renovations. John Barney responded that the current law exempts
interior renovations from site plan review if there is no change in use or occupancy.
Jonathan distributed a memo prepared by Tee-Ann Hunter (October 15, 2003) regarding Town Clerk
fees, and asked Committee members to review that memo and be prepared to provide feedback at the
next meeting, as well as on the Building & Zoning and development review fees proposed.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 19, 2003. Tentative
agenda items will include continuation of discussion regarding the local law establishing fees for
Town Clerk, Building, Zoning, Engineering, permits and other fees; and continuation of review of
the Town’s Environmental Review Law.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19, 2003
PRESENT: Chair David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, Tom Niederkorn, Mary Russell, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning;
John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Tee -Ann Hunter, Town
Clerk.
Chair David Klein called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of October 15, 2003 Meeting:
Motion made by David Klein, seconded by Carolyn Grigorov, unanimously approving the minutes of
the meeting of October 15, 2003.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Possible Amendments to Local
Law Establishing Fees:
Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, December 17, 2003. Tentative
agenda items will include continuation of discussion regarding the local law establishing fees for
Town Clerk, Building, Zoning, Engineering, permits and other fees; continuation of review of the
Town’s Environmental Review Law, and consideration of tentative meeting schedule for 2004.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 2004
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Cathy Valentino, Herb Engman, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning;
John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; David Klein (former
Town Board member), Mary Russell (former Town Board member).
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Kirk Sigel reported that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) had recently considered an
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the size of the second dwelling unit that would
be permitted in most residential zones, which says that the second unit can be no larger than 50% of
the primary unit, unless the second unit is located in the basement. The ZBA concluded that the
basement would be defined as anything below ground level (i.e., basement or cellar). Kirk indicated
that the new building code does not include a definition of cellar. Kirk explained that a developer
had built several side-by-side units (duplex style). Kirk added that this approach appeared to conflict
with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, which was to retain the single -family character of residential
zones, while allowing a smaller second unit.
Andy Frost mentioned that the 50% calculation counts the basement and upper portions of the second
unit, and therefore, the developer had exceeded the size limit of the second units. Kirk added that the
ZBA granted variances for the second units that had already been built, but denied a variance for the
remaining units proposed. Kirk asked the Committee whether the interpretation made by the ZBA is
what the Town Board intends for the second unit provision in the Zoning Ordinance. Carolyn
Grigorov indicated that the second unit provision started as a way to allow affordable housing in the
Town. Cathy Valentino added that people do sometimes try to take advantage of the provision. The
Committee concluded discussion on this matter without coming to any consensus one way or the
other.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Discussion Regarding Work Plan Priorities for 2004:
Jonathan Kanter referred to the approved list of Work Plan Priorities for 2003 that had been
distributed with the meeting packet. Carolyn Grigorov began by referring to the first item on the list,
which is to consider the development of a new low-density/transition zone. David Klein indicated
that last year’s Committee felt this would be an important follow-up to the new Zoning Ordinance
that was adopted by the Town Board, and considered this as a high priority. Kirk mentioned that
there was a split on the Committee regarding the original 3 -acre lot size provision in the Low Density
Residential (LDR) zone and a possible new low-density transition zone. David mentioned that Mary
Russell had prepared a memo regarding the rationale for a lower density zone provision and that the
Committee had received samples of similar zones in other communities.
Jonathan indicated that the Committee is currently working on items 2 and 3 (revisions of
Environmental Review Law and Fee Law respectively) and that these should be relatively short -term
to complete. Carolyn suggested adding revision of the Noise Ordinance on the priority list. Cathy
2
indicated that she is on a committee working with the City and Ithaca College regarding
neighborhood issues relating to noise and other impacts from student residents, parties, etc. Cathy
added that she had received a sample noise ordinance from a community in Colorado that deals with
similar issues.
Herb Engman asked whether the Town has an open burning law. Andy responded that we do not,
and that it is something he has wanted to pursue. It is #6 on the priority list. Herb mentioned that
County Legislator Dan Winch attended a recent meeting of the Environmental Management Council
and indicated that Mr. Winch is interested in pursuing an open burning law. Andy added that there
have been problems with regulating open burning in developed areas, and one such case resulted in a
court action.
David suggested that a new lighting ordinance may not be a high priority because the Planning Board
considers lighting in site plan approvals. Carolyn indicated that it would be good to have guidelines
that the Planning Board could use in reviewing site plans. Jonathan mentioned that Mike Smith has
been working with the Conservation Board on a draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. Mike added that
the draft includes guidelines received from the “Dark Sky” organization, and the draft includes both
standards for new lighting and retrofitting existing lighting. It would apply to individual houses, as
well as larger developments. Mike indicated that the Conservation Board is almost done with its
review of the draft, and it would be ready to bring to the Codes and Ordinances Committee soon.
Carolyn asked about the water resources ordinances on the list. Jonathan indicated that the
Conservation Board has also been working on a draft stream buffer ordinance, and is almost ready to
pass this along to the Committee for review. Other aspects of stormwater management will be part
of the work that the Town will be doing under the new Phase II stormwater program requirements of
the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation.
Cathy indicated that the Public Works Committee and Transportation Committee are working on
guidelines for sidewalks and walkways, and that the Transportation Committee will be looking at this
in the transportation plan over the next couple of years.
Jonathan indicated that there might be some further suggested revisions to the new Zoning Ordinance
based on upcoming discussions with the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, as a follow -up
to comments by that department on the proposed zoning.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Approval of 2004 Meeting Schedule:
Jonathan referred to the draft meeting schedule for 2004. Cathy indicated that she would not be here
for the August meeting. The consensus of the Committee was to approve the proposed meeting
schedule, and that any individual dates that might become a problem could be adjusted. Upon a
motion by Cathy Valentino, seconded by Carolyn Grigorov, the Committee unanimously approved
the 2004 meeting schedule as proposed in the draft.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Possible Amendments to Local
Law Establishing Fees:
The Committee read a memo (dated 1/20/04) prepared by Mary Russell regarding development
review fees. Mary summarized her memo, and suggested that the current development review fee
system might be subject to legal challenge because of its open -ended nature. The proposed new
development review fee system would set a fee schedule based on estimated cost of the project, or
3
number of lots in a subdivision. Mary added that the court cases have indicated that the Town could
use categories of projects to establish fees for similar projects. Kirk indicated that the Town could
not arbitrarily set categories – that they would have to be based on actual project characteristics.
Mike Smith reported that he had reviewed actual project reviews, and compared the estimated project
costs with the actual review fees that had been collected. Based on that data, it was determined that
projects from Cornell and Ithaca College were typically charged more than other categories of
projects, including other institutional uses, because of the scale and complexity of the university
projects. Mike added that these would generally be included at the higher end of the proposed new
fee schedule because of their higher project cost. John Barney asked if Mike had looked at all of the
Ithaca College and Cornell University projects, and whether Cornell and Ithaca College would be
paying more or less under the new fee schedule than they were actually charged under the current
system. Mike responded that overall the fees would be about the same under both systems, and
referred to the table in his 12/8/03 memo to illustrate that. Mary asked whether the new fee schedule
would be based on project cost. Mike said yes, and that the revised fee schedule distributed at this
meeting comes out much closer to actual costs under the old system.
Cathy asked why we would change the current system. John Barney responded that it could be
subject to legal challenge because of its open-ended nature. Mary added that it is much easier to
administer, and would take less staff time to monitor.
David asked whether the same court guidelines would apply to the building permit fees. John Barney
said yes.
Cathy suggested that the Committee move ahead with recommending the new development review
fee schedule proposed by the Planning Department. Mike asked for direction on a couple of
additional items on the fee schedule, including whether fees for final approvals for site plans and
subdivisions should be one-half the charge of preliminary approvals, since staff time typically is
much less on final approvals. The Committee agreed. It was also agreed to add a $100 fee for
special permits under Planning Board review if not done in conjunction with a site plan review (this
would not happen very often). The Committee agreed. The Committee also agreed to change the
charge for subdivision review fees to $100 plus $20 per lot for subdivisions with 1 – 10 new lots (and
no new road or utilities) and $100 plus $40 per lot for all other subdivisions. The Committee agreed
to recommend the proposed new schedule with these additional changes. Mike indicated that he
would put a final draft together for the Committee based on the discussion at this meeting.
Jonathan suggested that the Committee look at the Building and Zoning fee schedules, referring to
the memo from Andy Frost, dated 10/8/03, and that the Committee also should finish looking at the
Clerk fee recommendations (in the memo from Tee Ann Hunter dated 10/15/03). It was suggested
that a representative from the Clerk’s Office attend the February meeting to complete review of those
fees. Jonathan added that the wording of the local law establishing all of these fees would need to be
revised to accommodate the revisions recommended by the Committee.
Andy described the proposed changes in the Building and Zoning fee schedules. John Barney asked
why the fire safety fees are $50 for the first hour, and $30 for each additional hour, and how many
hours does a normal inspection take. David added that it might be difficult to justify using a different
amount for hours after the first hour. Mary asked whether Andy had ever tried to estimate the actual
amount of time spent on fire safety inspections and average the costs out to cover those expenses.
Andy replied that it is difficult to estimate the typical cost because each inspection is so different and
depends on the number of violations that are found. Andy added that most inspections average about
1-1/2 hours. Carolyn indicated that she likes Andy’s proposal. The Committee decided to keep it as
4
suggested in Andy’s memo of 10/8/03, but to change the wording so that it would read “$50 per
inspection, and $30 for each additional hour after the first hour.” This would apply to re -inspections
as well.
Cathy asked what other changes were recommended in the Building and Zoning fees. Andy replied
that the biggest change is at the high end of the building permit fee schedule where, for instance, the
fee for projects costing between $1 million and $2 million would increase from $4,500 in the current
fee schedule to $8,000 in the recommended fee schedule. Cathy asked whether this was based on a
comparison with other communities. Andy responded that the Town Clerk’s Office had collected fee
samples from other communities. Mike added that he and Kristi Rice had looked at samples from
other communities. Cathy suggested that Andy do an in-house analysis of actual staff time and
associated costs spent on processing building permit applications so that we have a better comparison
of how the fee schedule based on project cost is working.
Andy reviewed the other changes recommended in the Building and Zoning fee schedule, which are
mostly minor updates. He indicated that “use permits” have been deleted from the fee schedule
because they are not done anymore. The Committee agreed to recommend the proposed new
Building and Zoning schedule with the revisions as discussed at this meeting.
Jonathan mentioned that “inspection fees” are included in the local law under development review,
and that the new fee schedule recommended by the Planning Department factors inspection costs into
the one new set fee amount. The Committee agreed with this approach. Jonathan mentioned that he
thought that inspection fees should be charged to the Southwoods developers because Town staff has
spent quite a bit of time on following up on compliance and site inspection issues. Jonathan
explained that this is an old project approved in the late 1980’s, and that the development fee account
has been closed for many years. Cathy indicated that she will check with The Engineering and
Highway staff to find out how many hours they have spent on this project, and that she would
recommend that they send a bill to the Southwoods developers to cover these costs.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, February 18, 2004. Tentative
agenda items will include continuation of discussion regarding the local law establishing fees for
Town Clerk, Building, Zoning, Engineering, permits and other fees; and continuation of review of
the Town’s Environmental Review Law.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 18, 2004
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Eva Hoffmann, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Lenore Durkee, Chair of Conservation Board; Andy Frost, Director of Building and
Zoning; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney at Law; Mike Smith,
Environmental Planner; Carrie Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Herb Engman raised the issue of sidewalks and suggested that it would be important to prioritize
areas where the installation of sidewalks is important. Jonathan Kanter referred to the interim
sidewalk policy recently adopted by the Town Board and the Sidewalk Ordinance adopted in 1994.
Herb asked for copies of these, and Jonathan indicated that he would provide them.
Kirk Sigel asked whether the Committee is interested in pursuing a Zoning amendment to clarify the
size issue associated with the second dwelling unit in residential zones as a follow -up to the
discussion at the January meeting. Kirk said that he would be willing to draft some suggested
wording for the Committee’s consideration. Eva mentioned that the second dwelling unit provision
has always been thought of as a way to allow homeowners a way to rent out a small apartment for
extra income, and has been a successful tool to promote affordable housing, but that the intent is to
retain the single-family character of neighborhoods. Herb added that it is apparent that our current
law is being abused in some cases. Kirk indicated that if the variance requests for the second units
on Troy Road had come to the Zoning Board prior to the units being constructed, the Zoning Board
probably would not have approved them. The Committee thanked Kirk for his offer and asked him
to bring in draft wording regarding second dwelling units at a future meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of January 21, 2004 Meeting:
Herb pointed out a correction that he would like to see in the draft Minutes of the January 21 st
meeting – on page 2 in the second paragraph, to change the following … “Dan Winch attended a
recent meeting of the Environmental Management Council and indicated that the Town of Newfield
is interested in pursuing an open burning law” to … “Dan Winch attended a recent meeting of the
Environmental Management Council and indicated that Mr. Winch is interested in pursuing an open
burning law.” Moved by Herb Engman, seconded by Kirk Sigel, the Minutes of the January 21, 2004
meeting were approved with the above-referenced correction, with Eva Hoffmann abstaining.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Distribution of Revised Work Plan for 2004:
Carolyn Grigorov asked if anyone had any further changes on the 2004 Work Plan Priority List that
had been distributed (dated Feb. 11, 2004). The Committee agreed that it was fine. Carolyn
suggested that members keep it as a reference, and that the list could be revised and updated as
needed.
2
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Possible Amendments to Local
Law Establishing Fees:
Mike Smith described the revised draft local law that he prepared, incorporating all of the proposed
fee changes discussed by the Committee so far. Jonathan pointed out that the draft (page 8) included
a change regarding waiver of fees – the current law provides for possible waiver of fees by the Town
Board, whereas the revised draft indicates that the Town Supervisor, Town Planner, or Town
Engineer may waive or modify fees for good cause shown. Jonathan indicated that he would prefer
keeping that responsibility with the Town Board because shifting it to staff would put too much
pressure on staff. Cathy Valentino agreed that she would prefer that the Town Board should have
that responsibility. The Committee agreed.
The Committee agreed to change the fee for a marriage license from $35 to $40.
Herb then asked about charges for FAX’s. Susan Brock indicated that the Freedom of Information
Law (FOIL) has requirements relating to how much a government can charge for copies of requested
documents, but it does not say anything about FAX documents. The FOIL indicates that you can
charge up to $.25 per page for photocopies of requested records, and it is intended to cover the actual
costs of the copy, not the staff time that it may take to produce the copy. Carrie Whitmore added that
FAX’ing tax bills is the main concern. Susan suggested that we could specify a charge only for
FAX’ing tax bills. Susan asked whether the Town has a confidentiality statement on its FAX cover
page. Carrie said no. Susan suggested that we add one. Herb suggested that the Town not make
public records available by FAX, and not have a charge referenced in the fee schedule for FAX’s.
The Committee agreed to specify charges for copies as follow: charge $.20 per page for letter or legal
size documents after the first 5 pages (which would have no charge), and $.25 per page for 11” by
17” documents. Larger size documents would be charged the actual costs of copying. Susan
mentioned that the wording in the draft regarding providing documents under the FOIL should be
revised to reflect the actual requirements of FOIL. Susan provided the appropriate excerpt from
FOIL to be incorporated into the draft.
Regarding costs of postage, Herb asked whether the Town should waive the fee if under a certain
amount. Fred Wilcox suggested that anything up to the first ounce not be charged postage, but to
charge the actual amount after that first ounce. The Committee agreed.
Fred pointed out that the fee table for building permits (page 3) and the table for site plan fees (page
9) should be corrected to cover the full range between categories (e.g., instead of $1 - $10,000 and
$10,001 - $25,000, etc., should be $1 - $10,000.99 and $10,001 - $25,000.99, etc., or similar).
Regarding fill and excavation permits, Andy Frost indicated that he doesn’t think that the
Engineering Department (which is responsible for these permits) is charging any fees, but that the fee
law indicates a charge of $25 plus the actual costs of review. Fred suggested that the fee be set at
$100 for the fill permit, plus additional fees for Planning Board or Zoning Board reviews if required.
Mike added that the fee schedule includes charges for “additional meeting fees,” which would cover
that. Susan asked whether the fee would reflect the actual cost of review. Jonathan suggested that
the Engineering Department could be asked to provide information on staff time involved in
reviewing fill permits. The Committee did not wish to pursue that, and agreed to use Fred’s
suggested approach (described above).
Susan suggested that under SEQRA related fees, the same wording for waiving fees be added as in
the previous section on page 8 defining what “good cause shown” is.
3
Jonathan indicated that this discussion completes the review of the fee law, and asked whether the
Committee intends to re-adopt this as a local law. Carrie asked whether a basic local law can be
adopted authorizing fee schedules and amounts to be updated periodically (e.g., annually). Kirk
mentioned that John Barney had previously stated that fees could be adopted by either a local law or
by resolution, but that either approach would still require a public hearing before implementing.
Susan suggested that she would check the state laws to determine what the requirements are for
charging fees and report back to the Committee at the next meeting. Mike added that he would
revise the draft fee law based on the discussion at this meeting and provide it to the Committee for
confirmation at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continuation of Review of Environmental Review Law:
Jonathan described the purposes of revising the Town’s Environmental Review Law, which include
updating its provisions to be consistent with the current State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) requirements, simplifying its provisions by minimizing duplication and repetition of SEQR
regulations, and reviewing the Type I and Type II lists. Jonathan referred to several highlighted
sections in Section V on page 4 of the draft (Nov. 12, 2003) that had been distributed, which is the
list of Type I actions. The current law includes “any facility, development or project which is to be
located in a designated freshwater wetland” as a Type I action. Jonathan indicated that the term
“freshwater wetland” is not defined in our local law, so it is not clear if it is intended to mean State
designated and regulated wetlands, which include large wetlands over 12.4 acres in size, wetlands
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which are not pre -designated), or locally designated
wetlands (which would require a local wetlands law). Jonathan suggested referring the question of
defining the term “designated wetland” to the Conservation Board for a recommendation. The
Committee agreed.
Jonathan indicated that the revised draft modified the threshold for “mining” (#6 on page 4) to be
considered a Type I action to be consistent with the threshold of 2,500 cubic yards used in our fill
and excavation permit requirements, which provides for the greatest review by both the Planning
Board and Zoning Board. Jonathan suggested that this would be an easier measure than the previous
threshold of 1,000 tons, which is equivalent to only about 500 cubic yards. The Committee agreed.
Jonathan indicated that #7 on page 4 is suggested to be modified to refer to “more than 2,000 vehicle
trips per any 24 hour period” rather than per any 8 hour period because the standard trip generation
rates used by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) typically provide trip generation rates
either for a.m. or p.m. peak hours or for daily rates, not for 8 hour periods. Jonathan distributed
sample trip generation rates for a number of types of uses complied from the ITE Trip Generation
Manual to illustrate the range of uses that would fall into this Type I threshold. Jonathan added that a
number of the other Type I triggers in the local law would also include many uses covered by the
2,000 vehicle trip threshold. The Committee agreed on this modification for now, subject to
revisiting it before completing review of the law.
Susan noted that the Type II list on page 5 might be able to be completely deleted if item # 1 “all tree
planting, landscaping, and trimming by the Town of Ithaca Highway Department” could fall under
the SEQR Type II category of “routine or continuing agency administration and management”.
Susan indicated that she would study this further and report back to the Committee.
Agenda Item No. 6- Other Business: None.
4
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, March 17, 2004. Tentative
agenda items will include continuation of discussion regarding the local law establishing fees for
Town Clerk, Building, Zoning, Engineering, permits and other fees; continuation of review of the
Town’s Environmental Review Law; and consideration of the definition of “telecommunications
facility” in the Zoning Ordinance.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 17, 2004
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Eva Hoffmann, Fred Wilcox.
OTHERS: Lenore Durkee, Chair of Conservation Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning;
Susan Brock, Attorney at Law; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Tee Ann Hunter, Town Clerk.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Lenore Durkee reported that a sub-committee of the Conservation Board has been reviewing the
proposed stream buffer ordinance, and has concerns with certain regulatory issues in it. Lenore
asked whether the Codes and Ordinances Committee would be willing to take an early look at the
draft and provide feedback to the Conservation Board. The Committee indicated that it would be
willing and would target the April meeting to review it if the draft is ready for that meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of January 21, 2004 Meeting:
A typographical error was pointed out on page 2 of the draft Minutes. With that correction, the
Committee approved the Minutes of the January 21, 2004 meeting by consensus.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Law:
Jonathan Kanter reviewed the revisions in the November 12, 2003 draft of the Town’s Environmental
Review Law, and noted several changes that had been suggested by John Barney in a letter dated
January 22, 2004. The Committee picked up review on page 4, #11 in the Type I list regarding the
abandonment of a Town highway. Jonathan indicated that there was no apparent reason why this
item is on the Town’s Type I list and that such abandonment does not really involve environmental
considerations. The Committee agreed to delete this item from the Type I list.
The Committee then reviewed the Type II list beginning on page 5 of the draft. Jonathan indicated
that all but one item had been deleted in the draft because of either duplication or conflict with the
current SEQR regulations. Susan Brock mentioned that she had reviewed the remaining item (“all
tree planting, landscaping, and trimming by the Town of Ithaca Highway Department”) and
suggested that this item might be interpreted to be covered under the SEQR Type II list under routine
agency management and administration, but that it is really a policy decision of whether to
specifically include this in the Town’s Type II list. Jonathan added that this would probably not even
be considered an “action” because there is no approval, permit, or funding involved when the
Highway Department does this kind of maintenance or improvement, and therefore, might be a moot
question. Susan suggested that some agencies include language in their environmental regulations
excepting actions from further review unless they are located in an environmentally sensitive area.
The Committee agreed to leave this item in the Type II list.
[The Committee decided to table review of the Environmental Review Law and go on to complete
review of the local law regarding fees as Tee Ann Hunter, Town Clerk arrived at the meeting.]
2
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Possible Amendments to Local
Law Establishing Fees:
Mike Smith indicated that he had distributed a revised draft of the local law based on discussions at
previous meetings. Tee Ann reported that she had spoken with Laurie Miffin at the NYS Department
of State and found out that dog license fees must be adopted by local law. Tee Ann added that she
felt that since all of the Town’s laws and regulations will be compiled in the new Code, that it
probably would make sense to adopt the revised fees by local law, so that all of the fees would be
readily available on the website.
Several typos and minor wording changes were suggested by the Committee. The Committee
confirmed that the $40.00 fee for a marriage license (page 1) is appropriate. Susan Brock noted on
page 3 that wording from the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) had been added. The Committee
felt that this wording is not necessary since the Town Clerk refers regularly to FOIL, and there is no
need to repeat this wording in the Town’s law. Eva Hoffmann noted that the footnote at the bottom
of the table on page 10 is missing and should be added. Susan suggested adding a reference in
Section 9 (page 11) regarding the fee for fill permits to the Zoning Board or Planning Board fees as
specified in Section 8.
Tee Ann asked how the Town should adopt the new fee schedule. Susan responded that it should be
by local law, as previously discussed. Mike asked if anyone had questions or comments on the
Transition Provisions (Section 11, page 11). Susan indicated that she had not reviewed it, and asked
the Committee to clarify when the new fee schedule should begin to be implemented. Mike indicated
that his proposal is, upon adoption of the new fees, to allow an applicant to continue under the old fee
system until reaching the next phase of the application process, at which point the new fee structure
would be applicable. The Committee agreed that the wording in the transition section should be
clarified and simplified to reflect Mike’s description. Susan Brock agreed to work with Mike on
revising this wording, and indicated that she would send the new wording around to Committee
members by email so that it would not have to come back to the Committee.
The Committee agreed that this completes the review of the revised fee law. The next step is to ask
the Town Board to set a public hearing date to consider adoption of a revised local law with the new
fees. Tee Ann added that she would check on the codification project to see how this new local law
would be incorporated into the Code. Mike asked whether the references to carryover amendments
that had been cited in the 1994 version of the local law should be included in the new law. Susan
said that she would review the previous laws to determine whether this is necessary. Tee Ann
indicated that she would FAX a copy of the draft Code version of the current law to Susan for
review, so that Susan can incorporate this into the final format to go to the Town Board.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Consideration of Definition of “Telecommunications Facility”:
Cathy Valentino indicated that she would like the Committee to consider amending the definition of
“telecommunications facility” in the Zoning Ordinance because it appears that the small antennas
being installed by Bolton Point and the Town may come under the current definition and be subject
to the full regulations. Cathy suggested that it would be desirable to add exemptions or expedited
review procedures for certain kinds of small antennas and equipment. Cathy referred to the example
of Bolton Point using small antennas in association with pump stations for transmission of signals to
start up and shut down the pumps.
3
Jonathan mentioned that he had discussed this briefly with Susan, and that it would be possible to
exempt certain types and sizes of antennas and facilities from the full approval process, which
requires coverage studies and other technical submissions, and these exempted facilities could be
simply subject to a ministerial permit (e.g., building or installation permit). Susan added that she has
examples of several ordinances, including Smithtown and the City of Ithaca, which include such an
expedited process for small antennas. Fred Wilcox suggested that he would like to see an
amendment to the current law that would exempt certain antennas from regulation. Cathy suggested
that it would be helpful to get information from Bolton Point regarding the types and size of antennas
they use. Herb agreed and added that it would be helpful to obtain information on the technology of
these antennas regarding possible interference with other facilities or equipment. Susan suggested
that an amendment exempting certain antennas from regulation could include interference as a factor
to be considered for such exemption. Cathy suggested that it might be helpful to ask someone from
Bolton Point or the Town Engineering staff to attend the next Committee meeting to describe the
technical aspects of the antennas. Cathy indicated that Cornell University had also sent comments
regarding the current definition of “telecommunications facility” when the Town recently amended
that definition, expressing concern that the many hundreds of small antennas on the Cornell campus
could be subject to the full regulatory process in the Zoning Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 6- Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, April 21, 2004. Tentative
agenda items will include continuation of review of the Town’s Environmental Review Law;
consideration of the definition of “telecommunications facility” in the Zoning Ordinance;
consideration of possible Zoning Ordinance amendments regarding agricultural uses as a follow -up
to discussions with NYS Ag. & Markets (if draft amendments are ready); and consideration of
proposed draft of Stream Buffer Ordinance (if ready).
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 21, 2004
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Eva Hoffmann, Fred Wilcox,
Kirk Sigel, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney at Law.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Lenore Durkee raised a concern regarding a house that was constructed on Woolf Lane near where
she lives. According to Lenore, a modular house was constructed on a lot in an odd position that
appears to negatively impact the adjacent house. She indicated that the new house appears to exceed
the zoning lot coverage requirements, and wondered if there is anything the Town can do to modify
the zoning regulations to prevent this type of situation from occurring. Kirk Sigel said that he
thought this application would be before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, and that is
usually how these situations are handled.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of March 17, 2004 Meeting:
Susan Brock noted two corrections that should be made in the draft Minutes of the March 17, 2004
meeting. At the bottom of page 1, Susan indicated that the Committee had agreed to leave the item
referred to in the Type II list, but had not decided to add language regarding location in
environmentally sensitive areas, so that this reference to environmentally sensitive areas should be
deleted. In the third paragraph on page 2, Susan noted that she had not reviewed the Transition
provisions (Section 11, page 11) in the Fee Law, so that this should be corrected. The Committee
concurred on both of Susan’s suggested changes in the Minutes. Moved by Cathy Valentino, and
seconded by Fred Wilcox, the Committee unanimously approved the Minutes of the March 17, 2004
meeting as corrected above.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Law:
Jonathan Kanter indicated that the review had left off on page 6 at the March 17 th meeting. Jonathan
mentioned that most of Section VIII in the draft had been suggested to be deleted. This relates to
lead agency determination. Jonathan added that the revision would simplify the designation of lead
agency to follow the provisions in SEQR Part 617, instead of outlining the possible scenarios as in
the original local law. Jonathan suggested that this might be considered a policy change, but that the
SEQR regulations appear to adequately cover the situations encountered in the Town. Susan
suggested that all references to the SEQR regulations be made consistent throughout the local law
(e.g., 6 NYCRR 617). Fred Wilcox brought up several examples in which the lead agency was
determined under the provisions in SEQR, where other municipalities or State agencies were
involved, such as the Lake Source Cooling project, where the State Department of Environmental
Conservation became lead agency, and Cornell’s North Campus Housing Initiative, where the City of
Ithaca was lead agency, illustrating that the SEQR procedures seem to work well. Cathy and Carolyn
both agreed that it would be better to simplify this section as suggested in the draft. The Committee
concurred.
2
Susan suggested several minor wording changes on page 8. Fred asked whether the terms “effects”
and “impacts” should be used interchangeably? Jonathan responded that SEQR defines the term
“impact”, but appears to frequently interject the term “effect” without defining it. The Committee
agreed to use the term impact consistently.
On page 9, Section XIV, Susan recommended adding the words “as satisfactory with respect to
content and adequacy” after … “acceptance by the lead agency of a D/EIS”.
The Committee agreed that this completes the review of the local law, and that the revised draft
should be sent to the Conservation Board for review and comment, especially to get their input on
defining the term “designated freshwater wetland” in Section V (Type I list).
Agenda Item No. 4 – Consideration of Definition of “Telecommunications Facility”:
Cathy referred to the copy of the email from John Gutenberger (12/20/01) raising concerns on the
part of Cornell University regarding how the amended definition of “telecommunications facility”
might impact such facilities on the Cornell campus. Susan mentioned that the Committee is looking
at the possibility of excluding small antennae from the full review and approval process in the
Zoning Ordinance or having an expedited approval process. Cathy offered to ask Ken from Bolton
Point to attend the next Committee meeting to describe the antennae used for the water facilities
communication system. Susan gave Jonathan a copy of the City of Ithaca and Town of Smithtown
laws that include expedited review for certain types of antennae. Kirk said that it would be desirable
to simplify the approval process for certain types of small antennae. It was agree that the Committee
would want to see other sample ordinances to see what approaches are used and to invite Bolton
Point representatives to a future meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5- Other Business:
Susan distributed new draft wording regarding the transition provision for the proposed fee local law.
Susan indicated that the substance of the transition provision reflects what Mike Smith had described
at the last meeting, including following the fees in effect when the application was submitted to
complete that phase of the application, but that the new fee schedule would apply to future stages of
the application. Susan added that the portion dealing with inspection fees would cover project
inspections for nine months after the effective date of the new law, which would take us through the
end of this construction season. After that, staff can close out the old accounting process. Cathy
suggested that in the future, the Town may need to address fees in relation to the new stormwater
requirements, and we will be developing a new stormwater management ordinance. Fred indicated
that the draft transition provision is clear and understandable. Kirk asked whether it is fair to change
the fee structure in the middle of an application. After brief discussion, the Committee agreed that it
is better to make a clean cut from the old system as soon as possible, and that it would be important
to let applicants know about the change. Jonathan indicated that the Town Board is planning to hold
a public hearing on the proposed revised local law at their May 10th meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6- Consideration of Draft Stream Buffer Ordinance:
Jonathan introduced the subject of the draft stream protection ordinance by indicating that the
Committee had looked at the possibility of such an ordinance several years ago, and had struggled
with the question of how to define streams, whether to map those that would be regulated, and other
issues. Jonathan added that Susan Ritter came up with a method using the Town’s GIS mapping
program to measure the drainage areas related to each stream and relate the area of the watershed to
3
the proposed buffer widths, and worked with a sub-committee of the Conservation Board on the
proposed stream protection ordinance. Jonathan referred to the memo from Susan Ritter (4/15/04),
the draft ordinance, and materials regarding stream protection that had been distributed. Jonathan
added that it might be helpful at a future meeting to have Susan Ritter explain the methodology of the
mapping for the stream buffers. Susan Brock indicated that the proposed law appears to affect many
residential properties that would end up with areas of no disturbance. Lenore responded that the
intention is to apply the no disturb areas to new development only. Lenore added that the proposed
buffer would have two zones (1 and 2), which have different levels of restrictions, and that current
property owners would be allowed to continue activities already going on, but would not be allowed
to expand restricted activities in the buffer areas.
Susan raised a question regarding the proposed restriction limiting plantings in buffer zones to native
species, and wondered whether this would accomplish the goals of the ordinance. Carolyn suggested
that maybe the wording could be changed to prohibit the planting of “invasive species”. Herb added
that perhaps native species could be encouraged. Susan suggested that the goal relating to the
importance of preserving the natural habitat in the stream buffers could be beefed up.
Susan asked what the rationale is for not counting the wetland and steep slope areas within the buffer
as part of the buffer distance requirement. Susan suggested that wetlands provide a buffering
function themselves, and that they could be counted as part of the stream buffer area. Lenore
responded that wetlands should be protected and should not be allowed to be disturbed. Kirk
suggested that it might make sense to combine a stream and wetland protection ordinance. Herb
added that it is not easy to define where a wetland exists, and that this could create problems in
implementing the stream buffer provision. Jonathan mentioned that the stream buffer sub -committee
struggled with the question of whether to include wetland and stream protection in the same
ordinance.
Carolyn asked whether the stream protection provisions would apply to farming. Herb indicated that
it appears that farming would be allowed under the stream protection provisions, and suggested that
the Committee should look at agricultural management practices to see how these might affect
streams and water quality. Herb added that Section 6.1.11 of the draft ordinance prohibits the
application of non-organic pesticides and fertilizers within the buffer zones.
Lenore asked each Committee member to review the draft ordinance and send comments to her at her
email address (vdurkee1@twcny.rr.com). Jonathan suggested continuing the discussion at the next
meeting. Lenore asked the Committee to also review the educational materials regarding stream
protection that had been included in the mail -out materials. The Committee agreed to ask Susan
Ritter to attend the next meeting to discuss some of the technical and mapping aspects of the
proposal. Lenore mentioned that the stream protection sub-committee had visited many of the
streams to see what stream and buffer conditions actually look like. Carolyn asked how the steep
slope calculation would work in determining the buffer widths. Lenore described this briefly. There
was further discussion regarding whether excluding steep slope areas from the buffer width
calculation would be appropriate. Jonathan suggested that there would have to be a definition of how
the slope would be measured to make this determination. Lenore added that once the ordinance is
adopted, information could be put on the Town’s website to describe how buffers are established on
specific properties.
Agenda Item No. 7- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
4
The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, May 19, 2004. Tentative
agenda items will include continuation of consideration of the definition of “telecommunications
facility” in the Zoning Ordinance and continuation of consideration of the proposed draft of the
Stream Buffer Ordinance.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
MAY 19, 2004
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Cathy Valentino, Fred Wilcox, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney at Law; Andy Frost,
Director of Building and Zoning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant
Director of Planning; Barney Unsworth, Conservation Board; Paul Tunison, Bolton Point Water
Plant; Ken Butler, Bolton Point Water Plant.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of April 21, 2004 Meeting:
Moved by Fred Wilcox, and seconded by Lenore Durkee, the Committee unanimously approved the
Minutes of the April 21, 2004 meeting as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Definition of “Telecommunications Facility”:
Cathy Valentino introduced Paul Tunison and Ken Butler from the Bolton Point Water Plant to
describe their proposed radio communication system for water facilities. Paul described the
materials that were distributed with the meeting packets, and provided some additional photos of
antennas on water tanks. Paul indicated that Bolton Point currently leases telephone lines from
Verizon to control water tank valves and pump stations at a cost of about $15,000 per year. Paul
suggested that these phone lines can be unreliable and Bolton Point is proposing to convert these to a
radio system. This will require the installation of antennas on water facilities in two phases. The
first phase will be on West Hill where the new water system has been installed. Cathy asked whether
the proposed communication facilities would have to go through the Town’s approval process under
the telecommunications law. Dan indicated that the radio system would not be regulated by the FCC,
so it could be interpreted as not being subject to the Town approval process. Susan Brock (Susan)
responded that the current definition of “telecommunications facility” is broad enough to include
these types of antennas and facilities, and that there are only three exclusions listed in the Town’s
law. Dan indicated that this issue had been raised when the definition of “telecommunications
facility” was revised in 2001. Carolyn asked whether the definition also includes the many Cornell
small rooftop antennas. Jonathan responded that it appears to include these. Jonathan asked whether
the Bolton Point communications system would include any equipment cabinets. Ken responded that
the equipment would be included within existing buildings.
Susan suggested that the Town could amend its telecommunications law to include a streamlined
approval process for small antennas and related facilities, perhaps subject only to issuance of an
administrative permit, rather than going to the Planning Board for approval. These could also be
subject to location and design standards. The Committee agreed that this would be a good approach.
Lenore asked whether interference with radio frequencies might be a concern with the Bolton Point
types of facilities. Paul indicated that the system is set up so that frequencies can be switched if
interference is occurring.
2
Jonathan mentioned that the Zoning definition of height appears to include communications antennas
as structures, which would be subject to the Zoning height limits, and that it might be good to also
come up with an exemption of some sort for small antennas attached to other structures so that they
would not all have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for height variances. Jonathan suggested
that he and Susan get together to draft a proposed amendment to the telecommunication law and
bring it to the Committee for review when ready, and that it could also be reviewed by Bolton Point
and Cornell to see if it would meet their needs.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Consideration of Proposed Stream Buffer Ordinance:
Susan Ritter (Sue) described the Spatial Analyst program that was used to calculate watersheds as a
basis for determining stream buffer widths, indicating that the program creates a three -dimensional
terrain map using a digital elevation model. This was used to classify streams into categories based
on size of watershed, as shown on the map of “Proposed Buffer Widths and Stream Drainage Areas”.
Dan asked whether the streams shown in white are below the threshold for regulation. Sue said yes.
Sue added that the reason the Stream Buffer Committee decided that this mapping approach was the
way to go was that in past discussions at both the Codes and Ordinances Committee and their
committee, it was difficult to define streams and buffer sizes unless they were mapped and classified.
The USGS Creek Map was not up to date, and the County creek map includes every creek including
drainage ditches. Sue indicated that the mapping technique that the Committee came up with allows
the Town to classify streams according to how we want to regulate them. Sue added that the
Committee members went out on field inspections to visually check many of the streams to see how
they match up with the mapping results, and that some fine-tuning of the mapping resulted.
Carolyn asked whether some of the streams start in the white (unregulated) category upstream, and
then become classified (regulated) downstream. Sue responded that sometimes this is the case. Sue
mentioned that the draft map needs further field and model checking for accuracy. Dan asked how
recent the USGS data is that was used. Sue said she was not sure, and that some of the urban area
streams need to be checked, especially in developed areas. [At this point, Sue showed a video,
entitled “Riparian Forest Buffers,” produced by the Cayuga Lake Watershed Network.]
Lenore asked if Committee members had any questions on the proposed draft ordinance that had
been discussed at the April meeting. Sue clarified that streams with smaller watersheds would have
narrower buffers, and those with larger watersheds would have wider buffers, and that the proposed
ordinance has two buffer zones with the inner zone more restrictive than the outer zone. Carolyn
thought that the overall approach appeared to be good, as long as it does not become too burdensome.
Lenore mentioned that there are provisions at the end of the ordinance that allow a property owner to
appear before the Planning Board to appeal their case if they are not able to comply with the
ordinance requirements. Carolyn asked whether the regulations are targeted at new development.
Sue responded yes, to some degree – existing structures in buffers may remain, but cannot be
enlarged. Jonathan suggested that the term “development applications” (Section 4.9, page 5 of draft
ordinance) should be clarified as to whether that includes building permit applications, or is intended
to only include those applications requiring Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals approval.
Susan asked whether the ordinance would allow people to mow up to the stream edge. Sue thought
that would be an educational aspect. Andy mentioned that enforcement of the ordinance provisions
would be a concern from the Building and Zoning Department’s point of view. Cathy suggested that
if the Town Board felt that this kind of regulation is important, then enforcement of the new
ordinance would have to become a priority. Fred indicated that in some cases, the enforcement
office might not know about a violation until several years after it happens. Dan added that the Town
3
will have to provide the finances and staff to allow proper enforcement of an ordinance like this, as
well as the stormwater management ordinance that the Town will be working on.
Carolyn asked whether timber harvesting would be allowed in the stream buffer. Sue responded that
the proposed ordinance would not allow this, and suggested that the forest edge along streams should
be managed, but not cleared. Carolyn indicated that this is not clear in the draft ordinance. Susan
added that it is not clear whether trees could be cut or trimmed to open up or maintain views. Susan
asked whether the ordinance would allow a footpath to be cleared within a buffer area. Sue
responded that the draft ordinance would not allow this, but the Committee could consider modifying
the ordinance to allow it. Lenore added that a property owner should be able to trim trees in the
buffer, as long as it does not destroy the trees. Sue suggested the option of requiring replacement
trees to be planted.
Jonathan indicated that he was impressed with the educational aspect of the video that was shown,
and suggested that local agencies such as Cooperative Extension, Soil & Water Conservation
District, and Water Resources Council could play a role in this educational element. The Committee
agreed.
Susan indicated that it is not clear in the draft that the regulations are intended to primarily apply to
new development. Susan added that she had reviewed examples of other similar ordinances to see
how they deal with excluding small parcels from the restrictions. Sue suggested that an analysis
could be done to see how many small parcels (say less than one acre) would be affected by the
proposed ordinance. Susan said that she could provide some examples of how other communities
have dealt with existing development and small parcels with her commentary on those.
Carolyn asked about stream bank maintenance. Sue indicated that the ordinance would allow stream
bank stabilization projects, and that some farmers are participating in programs to protect streams.
Sue asked the Committee if they had any comments regarding the steep slope provision in the buffer.
Susan asked whether it makes sense to exclude steep slopes from the area of buffer calculation.
Lenore mentioned that the Committee did not want to end a buffer at a steep slope area. Susan drew
a diagram showing an example in which a 15 % slope extends the required buffer beyond the
normally required width, and asked why it would not be appropriate in that case to end the buffer at
the end of the slope area, rather than extending the buffer even further beyond the slope area. Sue
responded that water runs off of steep areas faster than other areas, and one of the purposes of the
buffer is to provide an area for water quality control and to minimize erosion into the stream.
Jonathan suggested that the definition of steep slope should be clarified to include a minimum
horizontal distance over which a 15 % slope would be measured in order to be excluded from the
buffer calculation. Sue mentioned that the Stream Buffer Committee felt that is was important to
exclude even very small pockets of steep slope from the buffer calculation.
Jonathan asked how the term “bankfull” is defined to establish the beginning of the required buffer
area, and whether that is a measurable thing that could be identified in the field from an enforcement
perspective. [No one present could explain this.] Susan indicated that it might help to see some of
the ordinance examples that she had referred to previously. Dan added that stream banks tend to
change over time. Lenore referred to a New Jersey example in which ten communities got together
to adopt an ordinance that uses “bankfull” to define the edge of the stream. Dan added that a gorge
should be measured from the top of the gorge.
4
Sue asked the Committee for direction on how to proceed with the draft ordinance. Susan said that
she would provide her comments regarding the draft. Fred indicated that the Committee should
discuss further some of the issues raised, such as whether steep slopes should be included in the
buffer calculation. Sue suggested that she meet with Andy to see how some of the measurement and
enforcement issues might be addressed. Fred added that he does not want to see overly restrictive
buffer widths established on the basis of steep slope areas. Susan reminded the Committee that the
same issue regarding the presence of wetlands came up at the last discussion, and this should be
further considered by the Committee.
Agenda Item No. 5- Other Business:
Cathy mentioned that the Town Clerk’s office suggested modifying the process for issuing noise
permits under the Town’s Noise Ordinance because it is burdensome bringing applications to the
Town Board. Jonathan asked why it was felt to be burdensome, and indicated that only a couple of
noise permit applications come before the Town each year. Cathy added that John Barney had
originally recommended that the Town Board allow public comment in regard to noise permit
applications to hear from affected neighbors. Carolyn agreed that it is important to hear from those
neighbors. Cathy acknowledged that it probably would be better to keep the process for noise
permits the way it is. Cathy added that the Committee should at some point look at revising other
portions of the Noise Ordinance, and that the City has just amended theirs.
Agenda Item No. 6- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 16, 2004. Tentative
agenda items will include continuation of consideration of the definition of “telecommunications
facility” in the Zoning Ordinance and continuation of consideration of the proposed draft of the
Stream Buffer Ordinance.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 16, 2004
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel,
Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney at Law; Andy Frost,
Director of Building and Zoning; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of May 19, 2004 Meeting:
Moved by Cathy Valentino, and seconded by Herb Engman, the Committee unanimously approved
the Minutes of the May 19, 2004 meeting as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of “Telecommunications Facility” Regulations:
Jonathan asked if Committee members had received the “Conceptual Framework” for
Telecommunications Facilities Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance (June 14, 2004) that had been
prepared by Susan Brock (Susan) and distributed by email. Copies were distributed to those who had
not received it.
Susan described the basic elements of the framework (refer to copy attached). Susan indicated that
Paul Tunison, Manager of Bolton Point, had sent some commentary on the “Conceptual
Framework”, and has suggested that the “safety analysis” requirement might be too burdensome.
Susan added that the safety analysis requirement is in the Town’s current regulations. Kirk
mentioned that the Bolton Point antennas would not have a high level of radiation. Susan suggested
that an engineer could certify that any proposed antenna has radiation levels below FCC standards.
Eva indicated her desire that a safety analysis of some kind be required to address proximity to
neighbors and possible cumulative impact of several antennas co -located on a structure. Susan
summarized the discussion as follows: eliminate the safety analysis requirement, but require that an
engineer certify safe radiation levels, including the cumulative effects of more than one antenna. The
Committee agreed.
Andy asked how we handle the term “public utility” in the regulations (e.g., how do we deal with
NYSEG and other utilities). Susan responded that case law says that municipalities cannot prohibit
utility uses and structures. Kirk mentioned that by eliminating the requirement that only public
utilities can establish telecommunications facilities, many more entities would be able to put up
antennas or towers. Jonathan indicated that the original law was targeted for large towers because
that was the technology at that time, and now, we are seeing small antennas being installed on
rooftops, water tanks, and other structures. Susan suggested that any applicant who meets the criteria
for the streamlined approval process could receive approval to install a small antenna. Susan
suggested that she could speak with Joe Lalley at Cornell University to ask about technical aspects of
small antennas and report back to the Committee.
2
Eva asked whether an environmental review could be done if an antenna is processed under a new
streamlined process. Jonathan said no, and that is why we need to carefully define the threshold of
antennas that would qualify for the streamlined review. Susan suggested that special geographic
areas of concern could be used to further define whether antennas receive streamlined review or not.
Herb indicated that historic districts are the only special areas in which he could see not applying the
streamlined process because installations on existing buildings or structures will occur in areas where
disturbance has already occurred. Susan confirmed that no SEQR review would be required for
ministerial actions not involving Planning Board or Zoning Board approval. Susan added that if an
antenna is proposed inside of a building, then she would recommend that no telecommunications
permit or approval be required, and that only the normal building permit apply. Carolyn asked the
Committee whether inspections should be required every two years. Andy suggested that an
operating permit could be required, which triggers the need to re-apply periodically. Eva suggested
that the inspection period could be less often than every two years. Susan said that she could ask Joe
Lalley what a reasonable inspection period might be.
Carolyn asked whether building permit fees would cover the staff time involved in reviewing these
applications. Susan referred to the newly adopted fee schedule. Andy responded that this would not
be an issue because accessory buildings and structures are easy to inspect. Jonathan distributed Paul
Tunison’s comments that had been annotated on Susan’s Conceptual Framework. Susan referred to
Paul’s comment regarding 3 foot antennas on top of a building, and said she would check with Paul
to find out what his concern is. Jonathan asked whether the Committee would want to exempt small
ground cabinets from the approval process. Susan indicated that her suggestion in the Framework is
to require at least site plan approval for any equipment cabinet or building associated with an antenna
so that issues of fencing and landscaping could be addressed. The Committee agreed.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Consideration of Draft Statement of Committee Purpose and
Responsibilities:
Jonathan indicated that the draft Statement of Purpose and Responsibilities that had been distributed
to the Committee was in response to a request from the Town Board for each Committee to prepare
such a statement so that all Committee descriptions could be compiled and made easily accessible.
Kirk asked why the Statement includes examples of Committee work that might soon become
outdated. Jonathan responded that he thought that such examples would help to illustrate the type of
work done by the Committee and that the Statements most likely would be updated on a regular
basis. After a brief discussion, the Committee agreed by consensus that the draft Statement is
appropriate and requested that it be sent to the Town Board.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continuation of Consideration of Proposed Stream Buffer Ordinance:
Susan summarized her memo of June 10, 2004 regarding the proposed stream buffer ordinance.
Susan suggested that the ordinance should have an applicability section clarifying what is intended to
be regulated. Sue Ritter (Sue) referred to a map analysis that she had prepared showing many small
parcels would be affected by the stream regulations, and indicated that about 400 parcels under 2
acres in size would be affected (about 200 of those being under 1 acre). Susan mentioned a study
done by the University of Georgia that looked at the issue of affect of stream buffer regulations on
small property owners, which warned about the takings issue if regulations on small property owners
are too burdensome. Susan suggested that the Committee could consider grand -fathering existing
developed lots from the regulations and perhaps exempting lots smaller than one acre. Kirk added
that there could be a smaller buffer area required for smaller lots. Herb asked why we wouldn’t want
to include existing developed lots in the regulation. Susan brought up an example of a homeowner
3
who wants to plant a garden within the buffer area, which might not be consistent with the buffer
requirements. Sue indicated that the intent of the draft ordinance is mainly to retain natural buffer
areas for new development. Andy asked how far the Town wants to go with regulating where people
can put their houses and driveways. Carolyn said that we should start with an ordinance that will be
acceptable to a large number of people. Cathy added that the Town will also be working on a storm
water management ordinance soon. Lenore suggested that it would be important to educate residents
about the need to preserve and protect stream buffers. Kirk added that enforcement of the proposed
ordinance would be difficult in that it would be hard to distinguish what was done before the
adoption of the ordinance vs. things that occurred after its adoption.
Sue then showed the Committee a map that she had prepared showing how affected streams relate to
the County Agricultural Districts and active farms in the Town, indicating that many farms would be
affected. Susan suggested that the discussion regarding impact of the regulations on agricultural
operations continue at the next meeting. Lenore added that there are financial incentives for farmers
to protect streams.
Agenda Item No. 6- Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, July 21, 2004. Tentative agenda
items will include continuation of consideration of possible amendments to the “telecommunications
facility” regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and continuation of consideration of the proposed draft
of the Stream Buffer Ordinance.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 21, 2004
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Eva Hoffmann, Fred Wilcox,
Kirk Sigel, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney at Law; Susan Ritter,
Assistant Director of Planning.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of June 16, 2004 Meeting:
Moved by Kirk Sigel, and seconded by Cathy Valentino, the Committee unanimously approved the
Minutes of the June 16, 2004 meeting as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of “Telecommunications Facility” Regulations:
Susan Brock (Susan) referred to her memo of July 13, 2004 that had been provided to the Committee
summarizing the discussions at previous meetings regarding the proposed telecommunications
revisions and outlining the outstanding issues. Susan indicated that she had spoken with Paul
Tunison at Bolton Point, and they are in agreement with the amendments that were discussed at the
last meeting. Susan mentioned that she had spoken with Joseph Lalley, Cornell’s Director of
Business Operations, about technical aspects of telecommunications antennas that Cornell operates,
and that she will have further discussions with him to make sure that we adequately address the
technical aspects of the many small antennas that an institution like Cornell has.
Susan turned to the “outstanding issues” in the 7/13/04 memo, and suggested that the current
telecommunications ordinance allows only public utilities to install telecommunications facilities (by
special permit), leaving other entities (non-public utilities) in limbo, and that the current law does not
allow institutions like Cornell, Ithaca College, Cayuga Medical Center, etc., to apply for
telecommunications facilities. Kirk asked whether the proposed County tower would be allowed
under our current regulations because it is not clear that Tompkins County is a public utility. Fred
added that any entity qualified to install and operate a telecommunications facility should be treated
equally in our law. Susan asked whether Cornell is zoned as a Special Land Use District (SLUD).
Jonathan responded that the only part of Cornell located within a SLUD is the Precinct 7/Orchards
area off of Route 366 and Game Farm Road, and that most of Cornell and Ithaca College are zoned
in one of the Residence Zones. After further discussion regarding whether the law should clarify the
issue of public utility, Jonathan pointed to several sections of the current law that appear to show the
intent that private commercial uses and public uses should be allowed to install and operate
telecommunications facilities (e.g., the definition of “telecommunications facility”). Susan suggested
the following: that by leaving the current wording of the law as it is, but adding the new streamlined
procedures that would not require a special permit for small antennas, the issue of public utilities
would be moot because public utilities would still be the only entities allowed to erect a
telecommunications tower, but any entity could install a small antenna under the streamlined
procedures. The Committee agreed that this would be the simplest approach.
2
Kirk asked whether the intent would be to regulate satellite dish antennas under the proposed
streamlined regulations. The consensus of the Committee was that satellite dishes would not be
regulated as a telecommunication facility – that the Zoning Ordinance previously included
regulations for dish antennas, but that those regulations were eliminated once the technology resulted
in very small dishes.
The Committee confirmed that the streamlined process should apply to antennas in all areas, except
for historic districts, where antennas would have to go through the full approval process. Susan
asked the Committee for direction on the size of antennas intended to be allowed under the
streamlined procedure. It was agreed that the antenna height covered under the streamlined
procedure would be a maximum of 10 feet, and would include Kirk’s suggested threshold of the
largest face not exceeding 300 square inches. [Note: At the September 15, 2004 meeting, the
Committee added to this discussion, indicating that they would like to consider a threshold of not
exceeding 400 square inches for the maximum face of an antenna (refer to Minutes of September 15,
2004 meeting).] It was also agreed that height variances should not be required for antennas meeting
the criteria for the streamlined review process. The Committee agreed that site plan approval should
be required for all telecommunications equipment cabinets (e.g., to be located on the ground) because
they may involve fences or screening. The Committee also agreed that small antennas added to
existing towers should only have to go through the streamlined process. Eva suggested that
additional wiring on an existing tower could be a concern regarding visibility. Kirk suggested adding
a provision that site plan approval be required if other features, such as wiring, are proposed to be
added to an existing tower, but not requiring special permit. The Committee agreed.
After a brief discussion regarding the relative impacts of monopole vs. Lattice towers, the Committee
asked Susan to draft a proposed local law amending the telecommunications provisions in the Town
Code, based on the discussions at the Committee meetings.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Consideration of Proposed Stream Buffer Ordinance:
Sue Ritter (Sue) asked the Committee for additional comments on the proposed draft of the Stream
Buffer Ordinance. Lenore Durkee indicated that she had been thinking about the issue of “taking” of
individuals’ property rights, and that there is a need to educate the public regarding the benefits of
preserving stream buffers. Lenore added that an earlier version of the draft more specifically
targeted new development to be regulated under the proposed stream buffer regulations, but that later
versions lost this reference. The Committee would have to think carefully about how to add such a
reference back into the proposal. Susan mentioned that some municipalities have excluded small
properties with existing houses from such regulations.
Susan indicated that she is concerned with the proposed regulations that would not count the area of
wetlands or steep slopes as part of the required buffer (referring to #4 in her memo of 6/10/04),
thereby adding even more land to buffer areas. Her concern is that landowners might argue that the
value of their property has been so diminished that a taking has occurred. Susan added that courts
would look at the effect of the regulation on the landowner, what the economic effects are, what are
the public purposes of the regulation, and is the ordinance meeting the stated purposes. Susan
suggested that if the Committee believes that it is important to preserve the streamside wetlands, then
a clear statement should be added into the purpose section of the draft ordinance, and that she has
examples of how other municipalities handle this and can send those to Lenore. Cathy indicated that
she feels that a streamside wetland should be counted as part of the buffer because they provide good
filters for runoff and contaminants. Herb responded that different soil types might handle that
filtering function differently. Susan suggested that a compromise approach might be to count a
3
wetland as part of the buffer, but that if the wetland extends beyond the normal required width of the
buffer, then the ordinance could require an additional 25 feet to the normal buffer width. Fred and
Cathy agreed with this approach. Others on the Committee were not sure and wanted to think about
it further. Kirk suggested that it would be easier to include wetland and stream protection together in
the same ordinance. Sue responded that the Conservation Board sub -committee had thought about
this, but decided that combining the two subjects was too complex and would delay the consideration
of the stream ordinance aspects. Sue added that it might be necessary to define “streamside
wetlands” and clarify that the intent of the ordinance is to protect the stream and related wetland
complex as one entity.
Sue addressed the question of steep slopes in the buffer area, and mentioned that slopes are proposed
to not be counted as part of the required buffer because of the potential for erosion problems. Kirk
added that slopes do not provide the necessary buffer function of filtering.
Carolyn asked whether the Conservation Board had further thoughts on whether the buffer
regulations should apply to all parcels with existing development. Lenore responded that the intent is
to have the regulations apply to any changes on any property, and that the draft section regarding
compliance (Section 7) includes an application procedure in which the Planning Board can modify
the requirements of the ordinance. Herb agreed that the regulations should apply to all parcels
because incremental changes or additions to properties can have adverse impacts on streams. Kirk
indicated that the Zoning Ordinance normally allows grand-fathering of existing conditions, but
eventual compliance with new regulations. Fred raised an example: suppose a homeowner has an
existing tennis court, and wants to replace it with a garage – would that be grand-fathered, or would
it conform to the proposed buffer requirement? Kirk responded that it would probably require the
modification/variance as provided in draft Section 7. Susan suggested that the Conservation Board
should add clarification regarding how the regulations should be applied to parcels with existing
development, and an expanded list of possible exemptions from the buffer requirements. Kirk asked
whether the suggested variance procedure should go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, as do other
variances. Jonathan suggested that the draft should be clear on what the Town would consider
reasonable uses in the buffer, so that the number of applications for waivers/modification can be kept
at a minimum.
In regard to Susan’s memo of 6/10/04, # 2, Susan suggested that more specific criteria should be
developed for streams with drainage areas less than 50 acres in order for the Planning Board to make
a determination as to the application of the regulations. Sue mentioned that there had been a
difference of opinion on the sub-committee when this aspect was discussed, so this draft provision
was included as an option for the Town’s consideration, and asked whether the Committee wants to
include this. Jonathan added that Sections 2306 and 2307 in the revised Zoning Ordinance include
specific considerations for environmentally sensitive areas, such as steep slopes, wetlands, streams,
etc., in conjunction with site plan review, which may be able to address the same considerations
proposed in this part of the Stream Buffer Ordinance. Jonathan indicated that these are not currently
found in the Subdivision Regulations, but that they could be added. Susan agreed that this wording
should be added to the Subdivision Regulations with a simple amendment. The Committee
concurred. Susan suggested showing the Section 2306 and 2307 provisions to the Conservation
Board and seeing if they agree on this approach.
In addressing # 3 in the 6/10/04 memo, Susan suggested beefing up the purpose section of the draft
ordinance to indicate why the use of native vegetation is important in protecting streams. Susan also
suggested using a consistent approach in referring to “non-native” and “exotic invasive” species.
4
In addressing # 5 in the 6/10/04 memo, Susan suggested that wording could be added to the draft to
clarify that certain uses such as adding a footpath or selective tree cutting or trimming to preserve the
health of the forest would be permitted in the buffer.
In addressing #6 in the 6/10/04 memo, Susan indicated that there could be legal problems with
implementing restrictions on farm uses within County Agricultural Districts if such restrictions are
not consistent with the State Agriculture and Markets Law. Kirk suggested that the buffer
restrictions not apply to farms. Lenore responded that that would bother her. Herb agreed. Lenore
asked how many farms would be affected by the proposed ordinance. Sue responded that she had
looked at this and had prepared a map showing active farms in the proposed buffer areas. Cathy
asked the Committee to hold off on discussing the agricultural aspects until John Barney has drafted
proposed zoning amendments addressing some of the NYS Ag and Markets concerns regarding
agricultural uses in the recently revised Zoning Ordinance. Herb asked whether the best management
practices for agricultural operations are voluntary. Lenore suggested that farm operations can be
very polluting and can affect streams. Cathy indicated that many farmers are very conscientious
about protecting streams that run through their properties. Jonathan thought that the agricultural tax
abatement program under the Ag District Law requires the submission of a farm management plan,
which includes runoff control and pollution prevention measures in order to qualify. Eva suggested
that the water quality issue should be linked to the need to protect our drinking water in Cayuga
Lake. Herb added that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the
southern end of Cayuga Lake as an impaired water body because of its turbidity, and that such a
designation might allow the Town to address the agricultural practices in a stream buffer ordinance.
The Committee agreed to discuss this aspect further after the agricultural zoning issues have been
addressed.
Agenda Item No. 5- Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
Moved by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Cathy Valentino, the Committee voted unanimously to cancel
the August 18, 2004 meeting because of summer vacation schedules. The next regular Committee
meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 15, 2004. Tentative agenda items will include
continuation of consideration of possible amendments to the “telecommunications facility”
regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, continuation of consideration of the proposed draft of the
Stream Buffer Ordinance, and possible consideration of proposed Zoning amendments regarding
certain agricultural uses and regulations (to be drafted by John Barney).
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2004
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Susan
Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of July 21, 2004 Meeting:
Kirk Sigel referred to the second paragraph on page 2 of the draft Minutes of the July 21, 2004
meeting, in which there is a reference to a suggested threshold of 300 square inches of the largest
face of an antenna. Kirk indicated that he thought that the Committee had agreed to a possible
maximum of 400 square inches as the threshold for antennas undergoing the streamlined review
process. The Committee agreed to leave the 300 square foot threshold in the official Minutes of the
meeting, but suggested adding a note that the Committee is interested in considering a threshold of
400 square inches. Moved by Herb Engman, and seconded by Eva Hoffmann, the Committee
unanimously approved the Minutes of the July 21, 2004 meeting as submitted, with a note annotated
to those Minutes as described above.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Report/Update on Proposed Stream Buffer Ordinance:
Lenore Durkee reported that she and Sue Ritter have had follow-up discussions regarding the
Committee’s comments about the proposed stream buffer ordinance, and had some ideas about how
to address some of the issues that were raised. Lenore indicated that they are working on a revised
“purpose” section to stress why buffer regulations are important, such as minimizing the erosion of
stream banks due to storm water runoff, reducing the impact of pollutants on water quality of
streams, and ultimately on Cayuga Lake. Lenore explained that the stream buffer committee
originally thought that a short statement of purpose in the ordinance would be better, but that after
hearing comments raised during COC discussions, she thinks that expanding the purpose statement
may be helpful. Carolyn stated that the original intent of the draft ordinance appeared to be more
focused on water quality aspects. Lenore added that other aspects, such as the preservation of native
vegetation in stream buffers, and the maintenance or enhancement of property values, are also
important to highlight in the purpose section. Sue mentioned that this is a report to the Committee
for now, but that she and Lenore will prepare a written draft for the Committee’s review.
Herb pointed out that protection of stream buffers would help to avoid expensive repairs of stream
banks, and would also lower the amount of sediments transported by streams into Cayuga Lake,
thereby reducing the cost of dredging sediments from the Inlet and shoreline areas – these aspects
could have actual cost savings for individual landowners and the public. Kirk agreed that stating the
broader economic benefits of the ordinance would be a good idea. Herb added that another point that
could be added to the purpose section might be a reference to the loss of swimming at Stewart Park
as a result of sediments flowing into the Inlet and Lake. After the Committee debated this point,
2
Jonathan suggested that a general reference to the recreational and aesthetic benefits of stream buffer
protection on the Lake might be appropriate. The Committee agreed.
Sue reported that she and Lenore discussed the Committee’s concerns with applying the proposed
buffer regulations to all properties for both existing and new development, and they suggest adding
an applicability section in the draft ordinance indicating that the buffer provisions are intended to
apply to new development activities. Sue added that they are considering adding a grandfather
provision exempting existing agricultural operation, but they are reluctant to go further. Kirk
indicated that under the new zoning provisions, a homeowner who wanted to expand an existing
structure that would not conform to the proposed buffer regulations would have to apply to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, and asked the Committee whether this is what is intended.
Kirk added that requests for use variances have to meet more stringent criteria than area variances.
Jonathan suggested that another way to handle non-conforming situations in the buffer areas would
be to allow certain types of expansions or additions by special permit rather than by variance.
Lenore referred to Susan Brock’s memo dated June 10, 2004 regarding the NYS Agricultural
Districts Law, and how it may be difficult for a municipality to restrict farm operations in County
Agricultural Districts. Herb indicated that he does not want to see a blanket exemption of
agricultural uses from the buffer requirements.
Sue brought up the takings issue and whether small parcels could be exempted from the buffer
regulations, perhaps for parcels under a certain size, or if the buffer takes up more than a certain
percentage of the area of the property. Lenore added that another option would be to use buffer
averaging – i.e., using an average buffer width if a landowner owns both sides of a stream.
Sue referred to the question of whether steep slope areas should be counted toward the buffer area
calculation, and indicated that she and Lenore are reluctant to allow steep slopes to be included in
that calculation. Sue added that steep slopes have very little buffering or filtering function. Sue
indicated that there are various ways to define the handling of steep slopes in sample buffer
regulations that they have researched, and that it is difficult to use average slope as a measure. Sue
suggested that she and Lenore look further into this issue and report back to the Committee at the
next meeting. Sue mentioned that a related issue is how to define the top of the bank for establishing
the buffer area. Jonathan indicated that the current draft ordinance excludes 15 % slopes and greater
from the buffer calculation, which could be problematic in that slopes in the 15 % range are
considered moderate, rather than steep. Sue responded that she and Lenore are now suggesting using
slopes of 25 % or greater to be excluded from the buffer calculation. Sue added that there are more
complicated options, such as counting percentages of different slope categories in the buffer area,
depending on how steep they are, but that it can get very complicated, and often still leaves the
question of the location of the top of the bank unresolved.
Sue mentioned that they are looking at the list of permissible activities in the buffer, and will report
back to the Committee on suggested revisions in the draft. Lenore raised the possibility of foot paths
being allowed in buffer areas. Carolyn asked Sue and Lenore to provide the Committee with their
suggested revisions prior to the October meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Consideration of Proposed Zoning Amendments Regarding Agricultural
and Related Activities in Certain Zones:
John Barney referred to the draft zoning amendments regarding agricultural and related activities in
certain zones that had been distributed to the Committee. John indicated that the suggested
3
amendments are based on discussions that were held between Town officials and Matt Brower from
the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets (Ag & Markets). John also referred to his
commentary that had been provided to the Agriculture Committee explaining the suggested revisions
(superimposed on the letter dated Jan. 26, 2004 from Ag & Markets).
Herb asked about remarks in the Commentary that indicate that certain sections were amended to
address Ag & Markets concerns. John responded that several revisions were built into the new
Zoning Ordinance when adopted in December 2003 as indicated in the Commentary.
Kirk asked whether it is the intent of the proposed amendments to allow agricultural buildings to be
of unlimited height. John indicated that that is already the way the Agricultural Zone is set up, and
the draft amendment would add this same provision to the Low Density Residential Zone (LDR).
Kirk added that this proposal could result in some very tall buildings. John suggested that this
proposal could be modified to apply within the LDR Zone only to agricultural operations if situated
within a County Agricultural District. The Committee agreed with this suggested modification.
Lenore asked whether there is a restriction on the number of hogs allowed on a farm. John
responded that there is no limit on the number of hogs, but that the Zoning prohibits hog farms.
Herb noted that the proposed amendments do not address the size limit on roadside farm stands, and
that the Agriculture Committee had indicated concern in a resolution, which they adopted at their last
meeting, about this limitation. Jonathan mentioned that the Town Board discussed this issue, and
had suggested that the Codes and Ordinances Committee could refer the question of size limitations
regarding roadside stands to the Agriculture Committee for their recommendation. Kirk suggested
that information could be collected to determine the size of existing farm stands in the Town to see
how realistic the 500 square foot limitation is. Herb suggested that there might be a way to
determine the size on a case-by-case basis. John mentioned that a farmer could request an area
variance from the Zoning Board under the current size limit, and the criteria for granting area
variances are not very stringent. Kirk suggested that the size of a farm stand could be related to the
size of the farm on which it is located. Herb said that he likes the idea of referring this question to
the Agriculture Committee for their recommendation. John stated that the size restriction was aimed
at controlling large-scale retail operations, such as the Eddydale Market on Elmira Road, which
became a large commercial operation with large tractor-trailers going in and out of the site. Carolyn
suggested that small roadside stands under 500 square feet could be allowed by right, while larger
stands could be permitted by special permit. John indicated that this would be possible, but repeated
that the area variance criteria are not that stringent. Herb mentioned that the farm community does
not understand the legal issues involved, and that discussing these matters with the Agriculture
Committee has helped clarify some of the issues. The Committee agreed to refer the issue of size of
roadside stands to the Agriculture Committee for their recommendation. Jonathan indicated that he
and Mike Smith would be attending the Agriculture Committee meeting on Monday, September 20 th,
and that he could bring the draft zoning amendments and a transmittal memo to the Committee.
Herb asked whether Ag & Markets will be satisfied with our proposed amendments. John responded
probably not entirely because they are strong on some of their points with which Town
representatives did not agree. John added that there are a number of court cases dealing with the
question of municipal regulation of agricultural operations, but that some of the issues raised by Ag
& Markets have not been addressed in case law. John referred in particular to the points raised in the
Ag & Markets letter regarding site plan approval and special permits. John indicated that the Town
of Ithaca procedures for site plan approval and special permits is fair, not overly lengthy, and does
not place a burden on an applicant to pursue those approvals. John noted that some of the parcels in
4
County Agricultural Districts are no longer even used for farming, and should have been removed
from the Districts. Sue mentioned that the County Legislature recently approved a new Agricultural
District Map for the eastern side of the Town of Ithaca.
The consensus of the Committee was to revise the proposed amendment regarding building height in
the LDR Zone to apply only to farm operations within a County Agricultural District, and to proceed
with the other draft amendments as proposed by John, and to refer these to the Agriculture
Committee for their review and recommendations, which should be reported back to COC and then
on to the Town Board.
Agenda Item No. 5- Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 20, 2004. Tentative agenda
items will include consideration of draft amendments to the “telecommunications facility”
regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, continuation of consideration of the proposed draft of the
Stream Buffer Ordinance, and possible continuation of consideration of proposed Zoning
amendments regarding certain agricultural uses and regulations (if comments from the Agriculture
Committee are ready).
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 20, 2004
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Fred Wilcox, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney; Andy Frost, Director of
Building and Zoning; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of September 15, 2004 Meeting:
Moved by Herb Engman, and seconded by Cathy Valentino, the Committee unanimously approved
the Minutes of the September 15, 2004 meeting as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3– Continuation of Consideration of Proposed Zoning Amendments
Regarding the Regulation of Telecommunications Facilities:
Susan Brock (Susan) referred to the draft local law she had prepared containing proposed
amendments to the telecommunications facilities regulations based on discussions at previous
Committee meetings, and suggested that once the Committee is satisfied with the draft, it could be
forwarded to Bolton Point and Cornell University for comments and suggestions. Comments and
suggestions were made on the following sections of the draft local law:
Page 2, Section 4(O)(1)(d): Herb suggested that the dimension limit be changed from 300 square
inches to 400 square inches as has been recommended by Kirk Sigel at an earlier meeting. The
Committee agreed to this change.
Page 2, Section 4(O)(1)(e): Susan mentioned Eva Hoffmann’s concern regarding the possible bulk or
thickness of cables that might be added to existing towers/structures, and indicated that she had
inserted a blank in the text because she did not know how to gauge the visual impact of this issue.
The Committee suggested leaving it blank for now and thinking about it further.
Page 2, Section 4(O)(1)(i): Susan asked whether the Committee wanted to keep this section requiring
that no new driveway or parking area be added for facilities undergoing the streamlined review
process. The Committee agreed to leave as drafted for now.
Page 3, Section 4(O)(2): Cathy Valentino asked why no height variance would be required for
antennas that meet all of the streamlined requirements. Jonathan responded that the Committee had
suggested this as a way to further streamline the process for truly low-impact antennas. The
Committee concurred. In the same section, Susan indicated that she wasn’t sure about the exemption
for accessory buildings. Andy Frost indicated that the exemption usually applies to small buildings
with no electricity (section 270-233 pertaining to accessory buildings in residential and agricultural
zones). Andy added that the Town has been issuing permits for these and believes that we should
continue to regulate them. The Committee agreed. Susan added that she was confused by several
2
sections in the Code dealing with building permits and that she would like to get together with Andy
to go over these.
Page 4, Section 4(O)(4)(f): Cathy asked why there is a provision requiring barbed wire at the top of a
fence. Susan responded that she wasn’t sure, but that it probably was intended to prevent intruders
from getting into the site of a telecommunications facility. Susan suggested that the Committee
could delete the provision regarding barbed wire, and any request to install barbed wire could be
evaluated by the Planning Board. The Committee agreed.
Page 4, Section 4(O)(4)(g): Susan asked the Committee for input regarding the dimension that should
be required for motion-activated security lighting. The Committee agreed on 20 feet from the
structure.
Page 5, Section 4(O)(6)(b): Susan asked about fines or imprisonment for violations as provided for in
Town Law, and whether the Committee wants some other remedy. Jonathan asked Andy whether
certificates of occupancy are ever pulled if continuing violations occur. Andy said it is possible, but
difficult and time consuming. The Committee agreed to leave it as is – that the same procedures for
penalties should apply to this as in other parts of the Zoning Code.
Susan summarized the next steps: (1) she would get together with Andy to discuss building permit
sections, (2) Susan will make the revisions agreed to, and (3) the Town will send the revised draft to
Bolton Point and Cornell University for comments. Susan added that this could then come back to
the Committee after seeing what comments are received.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Report/Update on Proposed Stream Buffer Ordinance:
Susan Ritter (Sue) reported that she and Lenore Durkee have had follow -up discussions regarding the
Committee’s comments about the proposed stream buffer ordinance, and have prepared a revised
draft ordinance with modifications highlighted in red. Sue reported that the “purpose” section
(Section 1.0) has been beefed up with more specific statements about the intent of the ordinance,
such as to minimize flooding. Cathy indicated that the revised purpose section looks good. Susan
noted that the brochure that had been distributed to Committee members early in the process contains
some good language that might be helpful to add to the purpose section, and that she had highlighted
some suggested additions, such as the importance of native plants (page 3 of the brochure) and the
role of riparian buffers (page 5 of brochure). Sue said that she would check this and possibly add
language where appropriate. Lenore added that the expanded language in the purpose section would
hopefully reassure homeowners that the Town is sensitive to their property rights.
In Section 3.0 Definitions, Sue mentioned that the definition of “exotic invasive species” was revised
to refer to the listing of “Invasive Plants of Tompkins County, NY”. Susan suggested adding the
reference to that list being prepared by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council.
The Committee agreed.
In Section 4.0 Applicability, Sue reported that wording has been added to clarify that the ordinance is
not meant to apply to small parcels (under one acre). Jonathan suggested changing the heading of
Section 4.1 from “grandfather provisions” to “exclusions” to better reflect the intent. The Committee
agreed. Herb added that he still is not happy with excluding existing agricultural operations from the
buffer provisions, and suggested that this be referred to the Agriculture Committee for a
recommendation. Herb also indicated that he is concerned with the wording “existing agricultural
operations” and that the proposed exclusion sounds like it is exempting them forever. Herb
3
suggested changing the word “operations” to “uses”. The Committee agreed. Jonathan asked
whether the Committee wants to send the draft to the Agriculture Committee soon to get their input.
Herb said that he could report the progress on the draft ordinance to the Agriculture Committee at an
upcoming meeting and say that COC is interested in the Agriculture Committee’s reaction to the
applicability of the stream buffer ordinance to agricultural operations. Carolyn indicated concern
with showing the Agriculture Committee the proposed wording of the agricultural exclusion, and
Herb agreed, suggesting that Section 4.1.1 be deleted for now, and then see what the Agriculture
Committee’s recommendation is. The Committee agreed.
In Section 5.1, Sue reported that the former provision in which buffers … “may be required for
streams having drainage areas less than 50 acres …” has been deleted because of its discretionary
nature and the burden it would place on the Planning Board. Sue added that the new site plan
approval criteria in the Zoning Code include provisions that are similar to the proposed buffer
provisions, making it easier to delete the “less than 50 acres” wording, but that the new criteria have
not yet been added to the Subdivision Regulations – it is recommended that the Subdivision
Regulations be amended soon to address this.
In Section 5.4, Sue explained that there are two options for dealing with steep slopes in the buffer
zone as follows: Option #1 changes the previous 15 % to 25 % slopes that would not be counted in
the buffer calculation, and would extend the buffer area up to a maximum of 25 additional feet;
Option #2 would require that “where the average slope of the land in the buffer exceeds 15 %, an
additional 1 foot per 1 % of slope shall be added to the buffer width, up to a maximum distance of 25
feet”. Andy asked how the slope would be measured, and indicated concern with implementation of
this provision. Sue indicated that site plans and subdivision plats usually require topography to be
shown on the plans, and slope can be measured from those, but added that building permits usually
do not require the submission of topo maps. Cathy suggested that the Committee should think about
this some more. Andy asked what is the problem that this provision is trying to prevent. Sue
responded that steep slopes do not provide a buffer or filtering function, and tend to worsen soil
erosion and stream bank instability. Sue suggested that she could contact other communities to see
how they handle the steep slope issue in stream protection regulations. Fred, Cathy and Carolyn
indicated that they prefer Option #2 dealing with average slope, if we can find a good way to
measure it.
Sue highlighted Sections 6.0 and 7.0 in which permissible and prohibited activities in the buffer zone
have been revised. The Committee was in agreement with these changes.
Sue referred to Section 8.0 regarding non-conforming uses or structures. Jonathan pointed out that
this section would apply different standards from the non -conforming use and structure provisions in
the Zoning Code, and asked whether this would cause confusion. Susan suggested that wording
could be added indicating that …“notwithstanding the provisions of Article XXV of the Town of
Ithaca Code (Zoning), these special regulations apply to stream buffer areas.” The Committee
agreed. Sue referred to Section 8.2, which indicates that non -conforming structures that are damaged
or destroyed may be repaired or restored within three years from the date of damage/destruction, and
suggested that the timeframe should be changed to one year to be consistent with the other non -
conforming use regulations in the Town of Ithaca Code. Jonathan asked whether this means that the
restoration or repair has to be completed within one year or initiated within one year. Susan referred
to Section 270-211 of the Town Code, which states that the restoration must be completed within one
year of the damage, but that a request can be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals to extend that
time limit, applying the area variance criteria for making a determination. The Committee agreed
with this approach.
4
In reference to Section 9.0 Enforcement, Susan indicated that it is not clear in New York State law
whether fines can simply be collected without going to court. Fred suggested that the penalty section
should be consistent with other penalty sections in the Town Code. Susan indicated that she would
review this section and probably would recommend that it be consistent with the other Code sections
regarding enforcement and penalties.
In reference to Section 10 Variances, Jonathan indicated that he is concerned with changing the New
York State provisions regarding variance criteria (for use and area variances) found in Town Law.
Andy suggested changing this section to allow modifications in the buffer provisions by special
permit through the Planning Board rather than by variance. Jonathan suggested that Section 10.0
could be eliminated, and variances would just follow the usual process and criteria established in the
Zoning Code. Susan said that she would research the Town Law provisions to determine whether we
can use different variance criteria from those in State law.
Lenore suggested that there could be a descriptive brochure to supplement the buffer regulations to
explain the rationale for these regulations. Jonathan added that the environmental review for the
proposed law could include a description of the reasons for the buffer regulations and what their
impacts would be. This would establish a permanent record in conjunction with the adoption of the
law. The Committee liked both suggestions.
Agenda Item No. 5- Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 6- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 17, 2004. Tentative agenda
items will include consideration of Agriculture Committee recommendations regarding proposed
Zoning amendments regarding agricultural and related activities (if comments from the Agriculture
Committee are ready), consideration of Conservation Board recommendations regarding the draft
revised Environmental Review Law, and continuation of consideration of the proposed draft of the
Stream Buffer Ordinance.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2004
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel,
Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney; Andy Frost, Director of
Building and Zoning; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Jonathan Kanter reported that Susan Brock (Susan) had completed a draft of the revised
telecommunications law, and that the draft had been sent to representatives at Cornell University and
Bolton Point for review and comment.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of September 15, 2004 Meeting:
Moved by Herb Engman, and seconded by Cathy Valentino, the Committee approved the Minutes of
the October 20, 2004 meeting as submitted, with Kirk Sigel and Eva Hoffmann abstaining.
Agenda Item No. 3– Consideration of Agriculture Committee Recommendations Regarding
Proposed Zoning Amendments Regarding Agricultural and Related Activities:
Jonathan referred to the excerpt from the Agriculture Committee notes from their October 26, 2004
meeting regarding their review and comments concerning the proposed zoning amendments relating
to agricultural uses. Herb suggested that with respect to the comment that commercial horse
operations should be allowed by right, not by special permit, that there will probably be very few
additional horse operations set up in the Town, making this somewhat of a moot point.
There was a discussion regarding the Agriculture Committee comment about farm operations on non -
contiguous parcels. Jonathan indicated that qualifying farm uses would be allowed on non -
contiguous parcels if they meet the definition and requirements in the Agriculture or LDR Zones.
Kirk emphasized that it would be the individual use that would be evaluated to determine if it is a
permitted farm activity. Herb suggested that he sees nothing in the zoning that would prohibit the
storage on one parcel of crops grown or equipment used on another farm parcel, as long as both are
in zones where farm use is permitted. Susan asked whether this would also be true for a parcel under
the three-acre threshold required in the definition of “farm” in Section 270-5 of the Town Code.
Kirk said that this could be a problem with certain situations in which farm (and other) equipment
has been stored on property that has no other farm use. If for instance, this situation occurred in a
residential area, would this be okay? The general feeling of the Committee was, “no’. Susan added
that she did not think that such a situation would be permitted under the zoning as a single use.
Jonathan read from section of the Agriculture Zone (e.g., 270-26 and 270-29), indicating that the
zoning language appears to allow individual farm uses even on parcels where no other farming
activity is present (e.g., Section 270-29 Permitted Accessory Buildings and Use – “A. Any farm-
related structure not otherwise expressly referred to or limited by any provision in this chapter”).
2
The Committee agreed to ask John Barney for his opinion on this subject, and to invite him to attend
a subsequent meeting of COC to get his input.
Agenda Item No. 4 – : Consideration of Conservation Board Recommendations Regarding
Draft Revised Environmental Review Law:
Sue Ritter (Sue) reported that the Conservation Board has reviewed the May 28, 2004 draft of the
revised Environmental Review Law, and focused on the definition of “designated freshwater
wetland” on the Type I list, and that their recommendation is summarized in the memo to the
Committee dated November 10, 2004. Lenore indicated that the Conservation Board felt that it
would be appropriate to use the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and
National Wetland Inventory (NWI – from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) designations for the
Town’s Type I list because these are the larger, more significant wetlands. Lenore added that the
recommendation excludes those wetlands on the NWI that are man -made or unnatural wetlands. Sue
referred to a map prepared by staff showing DEC designated wetlands and several categories of NWI
wetlands. Sue indicated that the NWI map was created by the Fish and Wildlife Service, using aerial
photos, and that they do not include very small wetland areas. Sue then went over the NWI
classifications, including several that refer to man-made or substantially modified wetlands or ponds,
which the Conservation Board is recommending not be included on the Type I list.
Herb asked what criteria did the NWI use for including wetlands. Sue responded that she could not
cite the specific criteria, but that it used a combination of aerial photos and ground checking to
determine those that should be included. Herb asked how would we handle wetlands that might be
added in the future, but are not currently designated on the DEC or NWI maps. Sue mentioned that
the Conservation Board is considering a wetland ordinance that would provide local regulation over
wetlands, and that the Environmental Review Law only addresses wetlands as Type I actions – this
does not give wetlands specific protection in itself. Jonathan added that actions included on the Type
I list simply mean that a Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) has to be completed, and that
there is a stronger likelihood that Type I actions may have a significant impact on the environment.
Jonathan added that the Planning Board looks very closely at many Unlisted actions as well, if they
look like they may affect a sensitive natural area. Herb liked the idea of a Town wetland ordinance.
Jonathan suggested the possibility of adding language in the law saying something like … “or
wetlands subsequently identified by the Town of Ithaca subject to Town regulation.” Herb asked
whether the Town could require wetland mitigation if a wetland is proposed to be disturbed. Sue
indicated that the Conservation Board has looked at some sample ordinances, and wetlands can be
regulated through a local permit process. Sue added that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
previously regulated all wetlands over one acre in size, but a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling
required the ACOE to change their permit process so that they no longer regulate wetlands that are
not associated with navigable waters (i.e., isolated wetlands). Herb said that the Conservation Board
recommendation regarding the Type I list is a good start, and that he supports the Conservation
Board pursuing a local wetland regulation.
Sue summarized the Committee’s discussion by saying that it sounds like the Committee agrees with
the Conservation Board recommendation regarding wetlands, including the exclusions, so that the
wetland item on the Type I list would be revised according to the language suggested in the
Conservation Board memo (11/10/04). Sue summarized the exclusions from wetlands on the NWI
map to include those that are diked, impounded, or excavated. There was also a suggestion to delete
the term “freshwater” from “freshwater wetland” because the definition would specify which
wetlands are included on the Type I list. Sue added that the Conservation Board discussed the other
items on the Type I list that had been flagged by COC, including the revised thresholds for mining
3
and vehicle trips generated, and that the Conservation Board has no objections to the language
proposed.
Susan suggested that a final, revised draft of the Environmental Review Law be sent to COC for
approval before sending it on to the Town Board for consideration, since COC hadn’t seen the
version that went to the Conservation Board. Jonathan indicated that he would prepare a revised,
red-lined version for the Committee’s review for the December meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Report/Update on Proposed Stream Buffer Ordinance:
Lenore reported that she and Sue had met with Susan Brock to go over some of the legal issues and
wording in the proposed stream buffer law, and concluded that it should be in the same standard
format as other Town laws. Susan mentioned that they talked about the issue of variances, and that
her understanding is that the Town cannot set its own criteria for variances, and that if the Committee
decides to keep the variance structure for non-complying structures or uses, the Town should simply
follow the variance criteria spelled out in State statutes. Susan also raised a question about whether a
restricted structure is placed in a stream buffer, is it a use or area variance. Kirk responded that it
probably would be an area variance because it is similar to a setback variance – i.e., the stream buffer
is a designated area where certain structures and uses are restricted. Andy asked how the Zoning
Board of Appeals would look at environmental impacts if area variances came in for structures in the
buffer, since area variances are not subject to SEQR review. Jonathan indicated that the area
variance criteria in State law include some of the same issues to review and evaluate as would be
done in SEQR. Susan added that one of these criteria includes “environmental and physical
conditions of the surrounding area”. Sue suggested that the Conservation Board law could also be
amended requiring that actions involving stream buffers be referred to the Conservation Board for
review and comment. Cathy and other Committee members liked this idea.
Susan indicated that the sub-group had also talked about enforcement and penalties. Susan added
that the Town could seek court injunctions to stop work or activities that are in violation of Town
law. Susan asked whether the current Town Code includes injunction procedures. Andy responded
that he has never had to use this approach. Susan asked about civil penalties. Andy suggested that
he would need to ask John Barney, and that in his experience, he has had to go to court to seek fines
for violations.
Susan asked whether the stream buffer law should be included as a section in the Zoning chapter, or
as a stand-alone chapter in the Code. Kirk indicated that the stream buffer provisions seem like a
zoning and setback issue, and that it should at least be included as a handout that would accompany
the zoning sections. Susan said that she would think about this, and report back to the Committee
with a recommendation. Susan added that it might be possible to have a revised draft stream buffer
law ready for distribution before and discussion at the January Committee meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6- Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, December 15, 2004. Tentative agenda
items will include continuation of consideration of Agriculture Committee recommendations
regarding proposed Zoning amendments regarding agricultural and related activities (if
recommendations regarding farm stands from the Agriculture Committee are ready and if John
Barney is available to attend the meeting), final review of the revised draft Environmental Review
4
Law, review of the revised draft of the telecommunications law, and discussion of 2005 work plan
priorities (if time permits).
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 15, 2004
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Kirk Sigel, Fred Wilcox, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of November 17, 2004 Meeting:
Moved by Kirk Sigel, and seconded by Herb Engman, the Committee unanimously approved the
Minutes of the November 17, 2004 meeting as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Consideration of Revised Draft of Environmental Review Law:
Jonathan referred to the revised draft of the Environmental Review Law (Dec. 7, 2004) and
accompanying materials, including his memo of Dec. 7, 2004 outlining the changes in that draft.
Jonathan explained that Sue Ritter had recommended additional modifications in the definition of
“wetland” after the November 17th Committee meeting, further excluding the “Riverine” and
“Lacustrine” classifications on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map. Herb asked whether
impounded wetlands include beaver altered areas. Lenore indicated that the NWI classifications
include a “b” modifier reflecting beaver modified areas, so that this is covered separately.
Susan Brock suggested adding the word “freshwater” back into the definition of “wetland” to make it
consistent with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) definition. The
Committee agreed. Susan then raised a question regarding Section V (3) on page 4 in which she felt
that the wording …“providing that the expansion and the existing facilities, when combined, meet or
exceed any threshold contained in Section V and 6 NYCRR 617.4” is unclear. Jonathan suggested
that the wording was probably intended to address cumulative additions, but agreed that the wording
is awkward. Susan added that the wording is not consistent with the SEQR regulations (6 NYCRR
Part 617), which includes the same thresholds as in the Town’s law, but not the additional wording in
question. The Committee agreed to delete the wording in quotes above because it is awkward and
possibly conflicts with SEQR.
Susan mentioned that she found several technical errors and has marked them in her copy, which she
proposed going over with Jonathan to finalize. The Committee approved the Dec. 7 th, 2004 revised
draft law with the above modifications. Jonathan indicated that he would forward the electronic
version to Susan to re-format into a proposed local law to be Code compatible that could be
transmitted to the Town Board for consideration of adoption.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Consideration of Revised Draft Local Law Amending Regulations
Regarding Telecommunications Facilities:
Susan indicated that she was pleased that the comments from Cornell University regarding the
proposed amendments to the telecommunications law were not too substantial. Susan then referred
2
to the email from Paul Tunison representing comments on the law revisions from Bolton Point.
Susan indicated that Bolton Point had a question regarding Section O(1)(d), which states that …“the
largest face for each antenna and piece of equipment will be less than or equal to four hundred square
inches,” and asked for clarification as to whether an enclosure for electronic equipment mounted on
the side of a structure would qualify as equipment. Jonathan mentioned that the Cornell letter
referred to the same question, and that he thought that the intention of that provision was to include
any item on the actual antenna, not separate equipment – almost all equipment cabinets would be
well in excess of 400 square inches per face. The Committee agreed that the above wording should
be clarified by deleting the reference to …“and piece of equipment.” Susan indicated that the Bolton
Point memo said that a thickness of a wire or cable of one -inch would work for them. Kirk asked
whether Bolton Point understood that this refers to a cumulative thickness of wires not to exceed one
inch. Susan said that she would check with Paul Tunison to confirm this and that she would report
back to the Committee.
In reference to the letter from Cornell, Susan indicated that Cornell is concerned with the
requirement for a building permit for exterior telecommunications facilities that would not otherwise
need a building permit. Susan mentioned that she had heard from Stephanie Sechler, Assistant
University Counsel, that Cornell adds between 30 and 50 new telecommunications installations each
year (e.g., relating to their key card access systems), and that our definition of telecommunications
facility is so broad that it would appear to include all of these kinds of systems, which would place a
significant burden on Cornell if they had to obtain permits for each of them. Susan suggested that
this is a policy question, and that it might be appropriate to invite a Cornell representative to the next
Committee meeting to get a better idea of what these installations involve. Kirk suggested that
specific kinds of installations, such as key card access systems, could be excluded from the
telecommunications requirements. Susan mentioned that if the Town does exclude such systems, we
would lose the requirements for safety certification, removal of equipment no longer in use, etc.
Jonathan supported inviting Cornell to a future meeting because the Committee might agree after
hearing more about these installations that some of them would not be a concern for any regulation,
and the Committee might be comfortable with excluding them. Susan added that the regulations
apply to residential areas, not just to Cornell.
Susan referred to an apparent conflict in the draft regulations pointed out in the Cornell letter
between the 10-foot height of antennas allowed without site plan approval and the three foot height
of rooftop equipment, and that Cornell suggests clarifying the definition of “equipment”. Kirk
indicated that he sees Cornell’s point, but that we do not want equipment cabinets sticking up 10 feet
above rooflines without some control over them. Susan agreed that the intent was to retain site plan
review for equipment over three feet high even if a special permit is not required for the installation.
Jonathan suggested that we should clarify this to Cornell.
Kirk asked whether you have to be a public utility to install a telecommunications facility under the
expedited review process. Susan responded that the reference to public utilities was deleted from the
proposed amendments. Kirk asked whether the public utility requirement is still applicable to towers
and other telecommunications facilities that do not qualify for the streamlined review process. Susan
responded affirmatively.
Susan referred to Cornell’s point in their letter that the inspection provisions for interior
telecommunications facilities are too restrictive and not necessary. The Committee agreed with
Cornell on this point – that it seems reasonable for the inspection requirement to only apply to
exterior facilities. Susan added that Cornell also suggested that the biannual inspection and reporting
3
requirements in Section O(6)(b) have a clear start date. Susan suggested checking with Andy Frost
to find out how other inspections are timed.
Susan mentioned that other revisions in the Nov. 8, 2004 draft law were based on her understanding
of the Committee’s discussions at previous meetings. It was agreed that Susan would invite
Stephanie Sechler and other appropriate Cornell technical representative(s) to the next Committee
meeting, and that Jonathan would check with Andy Frost to see if he could attend the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Approval of 2005 Meeting Schedule:
Jonathan referred to the Proposed 2005 Meeting Schedule that had been distributed, and indicated
that the only questionable date is April 20, 2005, which is during the spring school break. Jonathan
added that otherwise, the proposed schedule would continue meetings on the third Wednesday of
each month at 7:30 p.m. Herb asked whether it might be possible to start meetings earlier.
Jonathan mentioned that as the staff liason to the Committee, he is usually at the office preparing for
the meeting until late in the day, and that the 7:30 p.m. starting time allows him to get home to have
dinner before the meeting. Fred suggested that the meeting schedule be approved as shown on the
Proposed 2005 Meeting Schedule, including the April 20th date, and that meeting could be re-
scheduled or cancelled if the Committee so chose. Moved by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kirk Sigel,
the Proposed 2005 Meeting Schedule was unanimously approved as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Discussion Regarding Work Plan Priorities for 2005:
Jonathan referred to the listing of “Work Plan Priorities for 2004 (Annotated for Discussion at
December 15, 2004 Meeting)” which had been distributed to the Committee. Carolyn mentioned the
Low Density/Transition Zone, and suggested that the Committee should discuss this further to see
what the current thinking is. Carolyn reminded the Committee that both she and Mary Russell had
been interested in this when the revised Zoning project was being worked on. Kirk indicated that he
was not convinced that such a zone was necessary when the Committee previously discussed this.
Herb mentioned that he had spoken with Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent, about drainage
issues, and that there appear to be some important issues that need to be addressed as part of the
storm water management program that is underway. Jonathan described the requirements under the
Phase II Storm Water Management regulations that have been implemented by the NYS Dept. of
Environmental Conservation, and that the Town of Ithaca has committed under that program to adopt
a storm water management ordinance in the next year or two. Meanwhile, the Highway,
Engineering, and Planning Departments are working with the Public Works Committee and an inter -
municipal coalition to work on the storm water management program.
Herb indicated that walkways are an important issue that should be addressed by the Town, and that
Forest Home is currently considering walkway enhancements as part of their Traffic Calming Study.
Jonathan added that the Transportation Committee is addressing the need for walkways and
sidewalks as part of the Transportation Plan, and that the Town is still waiting to see the Forest Home
Traffic Calming Study.
Carolyn indicated the Open Burning Law might be an important item to pursue. Jonathan added that
the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (EMC) is working on a county -wide
proposed open burning law, and that the Committee might want to wait to see what happens with
that. Herb confirmed that the EMC is recommending that the County Legislature adopt such a law.
4
Susan thought that the State regulates open burning. Herb indicated that he is not sure what the State
regulations involve, but that County or local regulations might be able to have better enforcement.
Carolyn indicated that revisions of the noise ordinance might be considered as a high priority, but
that Cathy has said that she is involved in a working group with representatives from the City and
Ithaca College, and that the Committee might want to wait and see what kind of recommendations
that group comes up with.
Herb said that he would like to see the subject of affordable housing regulations moved up to a high
priority because of the increasing needs for affordable housing.
Jonathan mentioned that he had inadvertently omitted the proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone
from the annotated list of priorities, and that it should be considered as a high priority. Sue Ritter is
putting together a report summarizing the results of the Conservation Board’s work on this zone, and
that it could be brought to the Committee for consideration as soon as it is ready.
Herb supported the need to complete work on the proposed stream buffer law, and added that other
municipalities are now working on similar legislation.
The Committee agreed to continue discussion regarding work plan priorities at a future meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, January 19, 2005. Tentative agenda
items will include continuation of review of the revised draft of the telecommunications law (inviting
a representative from Cornell to discuss specifics of their facilities), continuation of discussion
regarding the draft stream buffer law, and continuation of discussion of 2005 work plan priorities.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 19, 2005
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost, Director of Building & Zoning;
Susan Brock, Attorney. Guests from Cornell University: Stephanie Sechler, Dave Vernon.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Herb mentioned that he would like to report on the recent meeting of the Agriculture Committee,
where they discussed the stream buffer law and size of roadside stands, and indicated that he would
bring these up at the appropriate times during the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of December 1, 2004 Meeting:
Moved by Herb Engman, and seconded by Carolyn Grigorov, the Committee unanimously approved
the Minutes of the December 15, 2004 meeting as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Consideration of Revised Draft Local Law Amending Regulations
Regarding Telecommunications Facilities:
Susan introduced Stephanie Sechler and Dave Vernon from Cornell University, who were invited to
attend the meeting to discuss Cornell’s concerns with the proposed amendments to the
telecommunications law, especially as they would apply to the many small antennas that Cornell
installs. Dave Vernon summarized the main issues that Cornell had indicated – the broad coverage
of the proposed regulations which would appear to require permits for the many small installations
that are constantly being placed and shifted from one location to another.
Dave gave a detailed description of the new technology Cornell is now applying to many areas on
campus referred to as “Wi-Fi” (Wireless Fidelity), which provides wireless access to the Internet.
These are small antennas or fixtures that anyone can buy in K-Mart or any similar store. Dave
showed some typical samples of these that he had brought with him. Dave indicated that typical
sizes range from as small as 3” by 3” to a small box 9” by 9” in size. A search on the Internet also
showed some examples of antennas up to 23” tall and weighing about 5 pounds. Dave indicated that
these types of installations are attached to the exterior of buildings, and many of them are necessary
to provide sufficient coverage around the campus. These are consumer products that are not
regulated or licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) if they use under 4 watts of
power. Dave added that this technology has grown significantly, and estimates that between 600 and
700 of these have been installed by Cornell this past year, and it could increase to 1,000 in the
upcoming year.
Kirk pointed out that the current telecommunications law draft would not appear to regulate Wi -Fi
devices inside of buildings. Dave responded that many are installed on the outside of buildings or
other outdoor locations because the idea is to provide access to the Internet from many locations on
campus, and that the devices do not transmit well through walls of buildings. Eva asked if the only
2
devices needed for the Wi-Fi system are the small boxes that Dave illustrated. Dave replied yes, and
that other communication facilities have been installed separately for longer -range transmissions,
such as optical fiber through underground cable or overhead utility wires. Carolyn asked whether
Cornell had any other concerns with the proposed telecommunications law amendments. Kirk
followed up by summarizing that these Wi-Fi devices would appear to fall under our proposed permit
regulations and that it sounds like Cornell would prefer not to have to go through a permit process for
these simple, small devices. Stephanie added that it is her interpretation that the proposed
amendments would require permits for these Wi -Fi devices even under the streamlined procedures.
Andy indicated that a “structure” is anything erected above or under ground, and that building
permits are required for any building or structure, except for specific exclusions that are listed in the
Code. Andy added that the inspections that are required for structural integrity of
telecommunications facilities appear to have been intended for large towers, not small antennas or
devices like Wi-Fi, and there are no telecommunications towers currently in the Town. [As an aside,
Andy felt that the Town should consider amending how we define and regulate structures in general.]
Stephanie said that her original suggestion was that the relevant sections in the telecommunications
law could be revised to say that if the installation of the device does not require a building permit
under the Code section regarding building permits, then it would not need a building permit under the
telecommunications section either, and that the same thresholds/exemptions used in the building
permit section could apply as well. Dave pointed out a potential conflict in the definition of
telecommunications facility – that larger dish antenna receivers would not be subject to regulation,
but small two-way devices would be subject to regulation. Dave added that because of the evolving
technology of Internet and computer network devices and systems, the distinctions between these and
other telecommunications facilities may become clearer in the near future.
Susan indicated that the Committee needs to decide whether devices such as Wi -Fi’s should be
covered by the telecommunications law. Eva asked whether there could be cumulative effects of
many of these devices being installed on campus. Stephanie indicated that the FCC regulations say
that local governments cannot regulate telecommunications facilities based on health effects of
electromagnetic radiation. Eva asked about the potential for interference related to Wi -Fi devices –
does their proliferation cause interference problems for other scientific equipment? Dave responded
that this is a concern that Cornell has looked at, and they take this into consideration in locating new
devices.
Kirk asked whether Cornell has any restrictions over who can access the Internet using these devices.
Dave responded that users are supposed to have a valid user ID access code, but that they also do not
want to be overly restrictive to visitors on campus accessing the system.
Susan suggested that the definition of “telecommunications facility” could be modified to exclude
Wi-Fi and similar devices from regulation. Dave thought that this approach would work and would
be consistent with the FCC definitions. Dave added that he thinks that the FCC defines the
maximum size of unregulated devices, but he wasn’t sure what this is. Susan asked the Committee
whether such a revision should also exclude key -less entry devices? Dave said yes, and that Cornell
also has many of these. Jonathan thought that amending the definition of telecommunication facility
sounded like the easiest approach to exclude the aforementioned devices from regulation. Stephanie
described the “OTARD Rule” (the FCC’s Over-the-Air-Reception Devices Rule), which prohibits
local governments from impairing a person’s ability to install or use an antenna covered by the rule,
which applies to certain types of antennas under one meter in diameter. Carolyn asked Susan if she
could draft proposed wording for the kind of exemption that the Committee has discussed, and
review it with the Committee. Susan indicated that she might rather cover the exemptions in Section
O of the draft amendment rather than in the definition, and limit the size of exempted devices. [Kirk
3
felt that the Committee should consider regulating one -way devices such as satellite dish antennas
over a certain size. Jonathan mentioned that the Zoning Ordinance used to have provisions for
regulating dish antennas, but deleted those provisions when the technology developed to the point
where those antennas typically are under two feet in diameter, and that these probably are not
covered under the FCC definition of telecommunications facilities.] Susan agreed to draft possible
language for the exemptions and bring it back to the Committee. The Committee agreed that such
exemptions should apply to the Wi-Fi and key-less entry system devices described above. Carolyn
thanked Stephanie and Dave for taking the time to discuss this issue with the Committee.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Report on Stream Setback Law:
Herb reported on the Agriculture Committee’s discussion regarding the proposed stream setback law,
and indicated that Craig Schutt from the County Soil & Water Conservation District also attended
that meeting and gave a presentation on stream protection. Herb added that Craig had recommended
a 35-foot stream buffer, and indicated that the only remaining farm in the Town with a major animal
operation is run by Jamie Baker, and that this farm is under the State nutrient management program.
Herb added that most farmers fence off streams that run through their properties to keep animals out,
and that farmers indicate that they do not graze animals on headlands of streams, and typically leave
wooded buffers around streams, so that the proposed stream setback provision does not appear to be
a significant issue for most farmers. Herb suggested that the Committee apply a 35 -foot buffer from
streams where animals are kept (or possibly for all agricultural lands), and does not see a need to
exempt agricultural lands from the stream setback law. Sue responded that the current draft of the
law exempts existing agricultural uses from the setback provisions, but would require new
agricultural operations to comply with the setback. Sue reminded the Committee of the issue of
consistency of local regulations with NYS Ag. & Markets Law, which says that local laws cannot
unreasonably restrict agricultural operations. Sue felt that the law could restrict the use of pesticides
and fertilizers and activities such as plowing within a certain distance of streams. Herb indicated that
farmers like a simple approach, such as setting a specific 35-foot setback rather than varying the size
of the setback based on size of the watershed. Sue referred to the stream and watershed map that she
had prepared, and indicated that most farms in the Town would be covered by the 35 -foot setback
category based on estimated sizes of watersheds in the agricultural areas, and added that the only area
covered by a larger watershed is the Coy Glen area.
Sue reported that she had found a stream protection ordinance from Summit, Ohio, that looked good,
and she spoke with the staff there responsible for implementing the ordinance. Sue indicated that
based on that ordinance, she and Lenore are considering recommending additional revisions to our
draft law. Sue also mentioned that Susan Brock suggested re-formatting the law and possibly
incorporating it into the Zoning Code – this would eliminate some of the special stream law sections
regarding enforcement and variances – those in the current Zoning Code would control. Sue added
that if variances from the stream setback provisions are considered as area variances, then the
application form for variances could be modified to include specific reference to these. Andy raised
the issue of whether the SEQR process would apply to stream setback variances because most area
variances are considered to be Type II actions under SEQR, not requiring any environmental
determination. Susan responded that there are portions of the area variance criteria that the Zoning
Board of Appeals would have to evaluate, which include effects on the environment, even if they are
considered Type II actions under SEQR. Sue added that the variance application form could include
relevant questions regarding environmental issues.
Sue mentioned that one of the things she talked about with the staff from Summit, Ohio, is naming of
the law - they call their law a “riparian setback” law and discovered that there is less negative
4
reaction to the term “setback” than “buffer”. Some Committee members thought that people might
not understand the term “riparian” in the title, but liked the idea of using the term “setback” instead
of “buffer”.
Sue reported that the Summit law includes an additional setback width if slopes greater than 15
percent are present, but that Summit has more detailed slope data than we currently have available
here. Sue indicated that the U.S.G.S. topographic data that we have available may not be detailed
enough for site-specific slope evaluation, but that she would do some more research to see if there
are other ways that we could use to address the issue of steep slopes within stream setback areas.
There was a short additional discussion regarding how slope analysis is done and how average slope
can be calculated.
Agenda Item No. 5- Other Business:
Herb reported on the January meeting of the Agriculture Committee regarding their discussion of
roadside stands. Herb mentioned that many farmers buy produce from outside the area to sell to
supplement what they produce on their own property, and used the Eddydale market as an example.
Herb added that some farmers say they need a large area to store the products they intend to sell
because the products can be large and bulky. Herb indicated that the Agriculture Committee would
prefer having no size limit on roadside stands, but if there has to be a limit, they recommend
something much larger than 500 square feet, such as 3,000 square feet. Herb stressed that farmers
believe that roadside stands can be an important way to keep local farms viable as businesses.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the Eddydale market and its size and impacts on nearby
areas. Several Committee members felt that the Eddydale market is not a particular problem where it
is now, but if a similar operation were to be permitted in some other more residential areas, there
could be negative impacts of large trucks going in and out, noise, etc.
Jonathan suggested that the Committee could look at some other size threshold, such as 1,500 square
feet permitted by right in the Agricultural Zone, and anything larger permitted by special approval,
adding that special approval assumes that it will be permitted if it meets the criteria listed in the
Zoning Ordinance. The Committee will consider this with additional agricultural use amendments at
a future meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, February 16, 2005. Tentative agenda
items will include continuation of review of the revised draft of the telecommunications law,
continuation of discussion regarding the draft stream buffer law, and continuation of discussion of
2005 work plan priorities.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost, Director of Building & Zoning;
Susan Brock, Attorney; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; (Calie’s granddaughter, guest).
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of January 19, 2005 Meeting:
Moved by Lenore Durkee, and seconded by Herb Engman, the Committee unanimously approved the
Minutes of the January 19, 2005 meeting as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Proposed Transition Provision to be Added to Draft Revised
Environmental Quality Review Law:
Susan Brock (Susan) reported that in reviewing the revised draft of the Environmental Quality
Review law, she thought about the need to add a transition provision to clarify how applications
would be handled as the new law goes into effect. Susan described the draft provision that had been
distributed to the Committee in Jonathan Kanter’s memo (Feb. 9, 2005), indicating that any new
application submitted after the effective date of the new law would have to follow the new
provisions, while complete applications submitted prior to the adoption of the new law would follow
the old provisions, as long as the application is diligently prosecuted to conclusion of the SEQRA
process. Susan suggested that a further modification be added referring to Town actions also being
covered by this transition provision. Jonathan mentioned that he had spoken to Susan about this, and
didn’t see any problems in conjunction with Town actions pending before the Town Board – most of
these are simple local laws processed as unlisted actions with Short Environmental Assessment
Forms. Susan read her suggested language modification to include the reference to Town actions.
Susan also indicated that she thought about specifying a timeframe for completing the SEQRA
review, or just leaving the original proposed wording of “within a reasonable period of time.” The
consensus of the Committee was that this would not be an issue, and decided that a timeframe was
not necessary and that it was better to leave the original wording. Carolyn asked the Committee
whether the proposed transition provision was acceptable with the modification regarding Town
actions. The Committee unanimously supported the inclusion of the transition provision as modified.
Jonathan indicated that if Susan could provide the revised draft law, it would be forwarded to the
Town Board for consideration.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Update Regarding Revised Draft Local Law Amending Regulations
Regarding Telecommunications Facilities:
Susan indicated that she had realized that the FCC’s “OTARD” rule (Over -the-Air Reception
Devices) does not apply to the Cornell facilities discussed by the Committee at the January meeting
because those regulations pertain to commercial providers (e.g., satellite t.v. antennas, wireless
communications facilities, etc., and that in an email correspondence, Stephanie Sechler from Cornell
2
agreed. So the Town cannot exempt Cornell’s keyless entry system and wireless Internet network by
simply stating that anything that falls under the OTARD rule is exempt from the Town’s permit
requirements. Susan added that she had looked at the definition of “telecommunications facility to
see if there was a way to exempt certain kinds of facilities by modifying the definition, and found
that it appears that examples in the definition imply that the Town did not intend to regulate facilities
that do not require an FCC license. Susan suggested that the Committee might want to speak with an
expert in the telecommunications field, but that it might be possible to specifically exempt out
equipment that does not require an FCC license. Susan warned, however, that the OTARD rule does
allow local governments to regulate small devices in historic districts or for public safety purposes.
Kirk suggested going with the FCC language regarding size of facilities on which to base
exemptions. This might allow the Town to regulate large satellite dish antennas over a certain size.
Susan indicated that the FCC size threshold would exempt facilities up to one meter in diameter.
Susan asked about the 10 foot high whip antenna that the Committee had previously agreed to
exempt from the regulations, or the 400 square inch diameter size that is in the current draft. She
suggested that we could the one-meter in diameter threshold from the FCC regulations. Kirk agreed
that it might be good to include both formulas as thresholds for our exemption. Susan further
explained that the telecommunications law revisions under discussion would not cover satellite dish
t.v. antennas because they are not two-way facilities – they are receivers of signals. Susan indicated
that unless the Committee recommends otherwise, any facility that otherwise triggers the building
permit requirements in the Town Code would still require a building permit. The Committee was
comfortable with this.
Susan mentioned that someone might challenge the Town on why we are basing our regulation on
whether the facility is licensed or not licensed. Susan added that the answer could be that there is a
presumption of safety if FCC licensing is not required, and that likewise, there is a presumption that
there are possible safety issues to resolve or the need for some kind of monitoring if FCC licensing is
required. Susan concluded that in addition to there being less of an issue regarding electromagnetic
radiation, the smaller facilities (under the FCC thresholds) tend to be lighter and smaller with less
potential hazards relating to public safety.
Susan said that she would check with Cornell and Bolton Point to see if the FCC size thresholds
would work for their facilities if we used these as the basis for the Town’s exemption from permit
requirements, and added that she would look at possible language exempting these facilities in the
definition of “telecommunications facility”. Jonathan indicated that we could send our proposed
revised law to the Association of Towns if the Committee is interested in getting their feedback.
Fred mentioned that David Dubow at John Barney’s office used to work in the telecommunications
field, and might be able to provide the Committee with his observations. Susan agreed to contact
Cornell and Bolton Point and send revised language to the Committee for the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Report/Update on Stream Setback Law:
Sue Ritter reported that she had found out about a stream ordinance in a Pennsylvania community
that deals with the slope issue, and she spoke with staff there to see how it works. Sue indicated that
they use the Soil Survey maps, which are based on U.S.G.S. contours to determine slopes greater
than 25%. Sue added that the Tompkins County Soil maps also include U.S.G.S. contours, so she
prepared a sample map with the streams overlaid to see where steep slopes would be located, and
found that it seemed like a good tool.
3
Kirk asked whether the Soil Survey slope information would be detailed enough for site -specific
slope determination. Sue responded that the official in Pennsylvania said that it has worked well for
them (they have had the regulation for four years), it does not involve an average slope calculation,
and it simply identifies areas where slopes may be a problem. Subdivision applications would have
more detailed contours required; individual property owners could have a more detailed topo map
done for their site if they wanted to demonstrate that what they wanted to do on their property would
not have an adverse effect on the adjacent stream. Kirk asked how the process for determining slope
category would work. Sue responded that there would be a map available in Town Hall, and the
owner would come in to the office, and staff would explain what the slope category on the map
means. Lenore added that enlargements of map areas could be put on the Town’s website, and
residents could see how their property would be affected. Sue mentioned that if we use 25% as the
steep slope threshold, there would not be many stream corridors affected. Sue added that some
communities use the following approach: if the Zone 1 setback area contains slopes 25% or greater,
then additional setback would have to be added to Zone 1 (i.e., more restrictive), but where this is the
case, Zone 2 area can be applied to the extra area required in Zone 1.
Andy asked whether the Committee might be concerned with someone re -grading a steep slope area
to get around the additional setback requirement. The Committee felt that this probably would not be
a big issue. Sue indicated that the Coy Glen area is one of the only streams with a large enough
watershed area to require a 100 foot setback, and that most of the smaller tributaries would only
require the 35 foot setback. Sue said that based on the feedback of the Committee, she and Lenore
could draft language to incorporate the steep slope issue. The Committee agreed that this would be a
good addition.
Sue referred to the section on applicability of the law, indicating that exclusions would cover parcels
with existing uses and parcels under one acre in size. Herb mentioned that at the last meeting, he had
indicated that farmers on the Agriculture Committee might not be opposed to the stream setback
restrictions, and suggested that certain problem uses on farms, such as use of pesticides or herbicides,
be prohibited within the stream setback. Susan added that it is difficult to make someone remove an
existing structure if it does not conform to the setback requirement, unless the law includes an
amortization provision. Kirk said that it makes sense to at least stop existing non -conforming uses in
setback areas from expanding. Sue mentioned that the non -conforming use provisions in the Zoning
Code allow existing non-conforming uses and structures to continue. Jonathan reminded the
Committee that we should be aware of the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law provisions that protect
the rights of farmers. Kirk asked whether fertilizing of lawns by regular homeowners would be
allowed in the stream setback area. Sue suggested that this would be covered if we include a blanket
prohibition of use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in the setback, which would also apply to
farmers. Herb reiterated that the farmers on the Agriculture Committee did not seem to be opposed
to the proposed setback provisions. Jonathan added that an individual farmer could challenge the
provision. Susan agreed that this is something that we should be aware of. Lenore indicated that she
does not want to exclude farms from the setback requirement. Susan read from the Agriculture &
Markets website, citing an opinion that municipal regulations requiring buffers on farms in general
are not consistent with the State law. The Town might be able to argue that there are special local
conditions, such as steep slopes and the water quality of Cayuga Lake, that would be able to justify
the stream setback provision applying to farms. Sue and Lenore agreed to see if they could come up
with language that would address this issue. Carolyn indicated that education is an important aspect
of stream protection, and that the Town should work with the farm community to promote the need
for stream protection measures.
4
Sue indicated that the current proposal is to exclude lots under one acre from the setback provisions,
but that this should apply to existing parcels (as of the date of the adoption of the law). The
Committee agreed with this idea.
Fred asked about the timing for this law. Sue suggested that after the proposed law is re -drafted and
reviewed by the Committee, it could be forwarded to the Agriculture Committee and Conservation
Board for review and comments, as well as to other groups, such as the Water Resources Council.
Sue added that we are probably looking at this Fall for adoption of the law. Carolyn asked what is
the next step. Sue suggested sending the revised draft to the Committee for discussion at the March
meeting with revised maps. The Committee concurred.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Work Plan Priorities for 2005:
Jonathan described the revised draft of Work Plan Priorities for 2005 that had been distributed to the
Committee, and indicated that it was based on the discussion at a previous meeting. Carolyn asked
how far away from completing work staff is on the Coy Glen Conservation Zone proposal. Sue
responded that she is hoping to have a report on the Conservation Board’s recommendation ready in
April or May. Jonathan referred to the zoning amendments regarding agricultural uses, and
suggested that the Committee put this on the March meeting agenda if John Barney is able to attend
for a follow-up discussion. Herb indicated that sidewalks and walkways are an important item listed,
especially with the County’s planned projects on Hanshaw and Coddington Roads. A short
discussion regarding sidewalks/walkways followed. Carolyn asked about the status of an Outdoor
Lighting Ordinance. Jonathan indicated that the Planning staff had prepared a draft a while ago, and
it could be ready to send to the Committee soon if the Committee so desired. Carolyn mentioned that
she felt that revision of the Noise Ordinance would be important to start soon. Jonathan added that
Cathy Valentino is also interested in this. Andy mentioned that Cathy is afraid that the City’s
recently amended noise ordinance might result in shifting of problems with parties, noise, etc. over to
the Town. Jonathan indicated that he would like to start working on revising the Subdivision
Regulations soon. Fred added that this would be important to make sure that the regulations are
consistent with the new Zoning Ordinance and also to address other updates. Sue mentioned the
work on storm water management that is ongoing, and that we are expecting to receive a model
storm water management ordinance from the Water Resources Council soon. Herb asked if the
County Housing Needs Study referred to in #6 on the list will help the Town initiate work on
affordable housing. Jonathan responded that he had talked with Ed Marx about this, and told Ed that
it would be helpful if the study focuses on specific housing needs in different areas of the County on
a localized basis, and in our case, addressing housing needs in the Town of Ithaca to the extent
possible. The Committee concurred with the list as submitted, with the addition of completion of
several of the current work items, including the Environmental Quality Review Law and the
Telecommunications Law amendments.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 8- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, March 16, 2005. Tentative agenda
items will include review of revised draft of the telecommunications law, review of revised draft
stream setback law, and continuation of discussion regarding proposed zoning amendments for
certain agricultural activities (if ready). It was also agreed that the draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
would be distributed to Committee members in the next packet for future consideration, but not
placed on the March agenda.
5
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 16, 2005
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Cathy Valentino, Herb Engman, Fred Wilcox, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Susan Brock
(Susan), Attorney; Sue Ritter (Sue), Assistant Director of Planning.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of February 16, 2005 Meeting:
Susan Brock noted a correction on page 3 in the last paragraph, indicating that it should say: “Susan
read from the Agriculture & Markets website” (not “Law”), and that the opinion cited indicated that
“municipal regulations requiring buffers on farms in general are not consistent with State law”
(instead of referring to “agricultural buffers”). Moved by Lenore Durkee, and seconded by Herb
Engman, the Committee unanimously approved the Minutes of the February 16, 2005 meeting as
corrected above.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Possible Zoning Amendments
Regarding Certain Agricultural Activities:
Jonathan Kanter gave an overview of where the Committee left off with the discussion regarding
possible zoning amendments regarding agricultural uses, based on comments received from the NYS
Department of Agriculture & Markets (Ag & Markets), and indicated that the two main outstanding
items to be addressed include the issue regarding agricultural uses on non-contiguous parcels if they
are less than three acres in size, and the maximum permitted size of roadside stands.
John Barney indicated that the issue of whether agricultural use is permitted on a parcel that is not
contiguous to a larger farm parcel depends on what zone the parcel is located in – if located in an
Agricultural Zone, then it does not matter what size the parcel is because of the wording in Section
270-26 of the Zoning Code (“any lawful farm purpose …”). John went on to explain that in a Low
Density Residential Zone, a farm use would not be permitted on a non-contiguous parcel less than
three acres because of the wording in Section 270-54 (“nursery or farm”), which then goes under the
definition of “farm” in Section 270-5 (“farm – any parcel of land containing at least three acres
which is used in the raising of agricultural products …”). John added that this is really a policy
decision, and that language could be drafted to make the wording of permitted farm uses consistent in
both the Ag and LDR zones. Jonathan suggested considering the broader approach in both zones if
the parcel in question is located within a County Agricultural District, so that the Town’s approach
would be consistent with that of NYS & Markets, but to leave it the way it is currently worded in the
Zoning Code if the parcel is not in a County Ag District. Herb mentioned that the current method for
updating County Ag Districts allows additions and deletions every year. The Committee concurred
with Jonathan’s suggestion, and asked John Barney to revise the wording in the proposed amendment
accordingly.
2
Herb reiterated that the Agriculture Committee had commented that the current size restriction of
roadside stands (500 square feet) is too restrictive, and that they would prefer that there be no size
limit, but if there has to be one, they feel that 3,000 square feet would be more realistic. John
indicated that the size limit is a policy decision, and that the Committee could recommend different
size limits in the Agriculture Zone vs. the LDR or Conservation Zone. John added that an area
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would not necessarily be difficult to obtain because the
criteria for area variances is not as stringent as those for use variances. Herb responded that the
Agriculture Committee feels that variances and special permits place a burden on farmers. Fred
Wilcox suggested increasing the maximum permitted size of roadside stands in the Agriculture Zone
to 3,000 square feet, and keeping the 500 square foot limit in LDR and Conservation Zones. Fred
noted that 3,000 square feet equates to a structure with dimensions of 60 feet by 50 feet. Herb
mentioned that the sale of farm produce at roadside stands can be an important source of income to
some farmers, and that the Town should be as supportive of this aspect as possible. Herb added that
some farm produce requires a large amount of space for storage or display. The Committee agreed
with Fred’s suggestion as described above and requested John to draft language accordingly.
Herb mentioned that he does not understand the Agriculture Committee comment regarding Section
270-214, “non-conforming use in MDR”. Jonathan explained that farms are not permitted in the
MDR Zone in the current Zoning Code, and the proposed local law drafted by John Barney included
a proposed amendment indicating that existing, non-conforming farms in the MDR Zone would only
have to meet the criteria for special approval to expand or alter the existing farm use, rather than the
more stringent use variance criteria that was incorporated into the non -conforming use provisions of
the Zoning Code, in which unnecessary hardship must be demonstrated. Jonathan added that the
proposed amendment would make it easier for a farmer in the MDR Zone to continue farming.
John said that he would draft the requested changes into the proposed local law. Jonathan suggested
that the revised law be sent to the Agriculture for further comment. Cathy mentioned that she has
been invited to attend the next meeting of the Agriculture Committee, and that she could bring the
revised draft law to that meeting if it is ready.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Revised Draft Local Law Amending Regulations Regarding
Telecommunications Facilities:
John mentioned that he had taken a quick look at the revised telecommunications law, and noticed
that the format of the lettering of sub-sections in the definition (Section 270-5) does not make sense,
and that the “A” and “B” labeling should probably be removed – this was most likely a format gliche
that was created by the General Code Publishers when the Zoning went into Code format. Susan
indicated that this could be revised in the draft local law.
Susan indicated that the revised draft law included a revised definition of “telecommunications
facility” exempting (4) devices covered by the FCC’s OTARD Rule and (5) antennas that are not
licensed by FCC and are one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement or (for whip
antennas) are one meter or less in length and no more than three inches thick. Susan noted that these
exemptions would not help Bolton Point, but would exempt many of the small devices being
installed by Cornell. Susan added that the Bolton Point antennas would fall under the new
streamlined approval procedures, and that Paul Tunison had stated that he was okay with this. Cathy
asked how an applicant would get approval under the streamlined process. Susan responded that an
applicant would need to fill out a permit application form in the Building Department, and that it
would only need site plan approval if the proposal involved certain equipment or an accessory
structure such as an equipment cabinet.
3
Susan indicated that other changes in the draft revised local law are minor, based on past discussion
with the Committee, such as on page 3 – adding the threshold of one inch cumulative thickness of
wires or cables, and on page 6 – using Cornell’s suggestion to exempt antennas and equipment
located wholly inside a building from the inspection requirements. Susan added that Paul Tunison
had no problem with the one-inch cumulative thickness. Susan agreed to revise the local law by
deleting the “A” and “B” headings in the definition section. The Committee concurred that the draft
local law as revised at this meeting should be sent to the Town Board for consideration of scheduling
a public hearing for enactment of the local law. Susan agreed to send Jonathan a final revised draft
of the local law.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Review of Revised Draft Stream Setback Law:
Sue Ritter reported that she, Lenore and Susan had worked on the format of the stream setback law,
and incorporated into the revised draft many of the items discussed at recent Committee meetings.
Susan mentioned that she was unsure where to insert the proposed law into the Town Code – the
preferred approach would be to place it in the Zoning Chapter (270), but the section numbering
system does not leave any room for adding sections. Susan added that one possibility would be to
add the stream law as a section under Special Regulations in Chapter 270 after 270 -219, and number
it 270-219a. She will check with General Code Publishers on format.
The Committee reviewed and discussed the draft law. Herb had several suggested revisions in the
draft. On page 3, in definition of “development activity”, Herb recommended changing “man -made”
to “human-made” – the Committee agreed. On page 3, in definition of “existing land use”, Herb felt
that the term “ongoing” is unclear – perhaps it should read “current use”. Susan indicated that the
concern might be with the abandonment of an ongoing use, and suggested that there could be a
separate section dealing with what happens if an existing use is discontinued, or this may be covered
already in the Zoning section regarding non-conforming uses. On page 8, Herb referred to the term
“in excess of prescribed industry standards”, and asked what standards this refers to. Herb suggested
instead saying “in excess of standards for integrated pest management”, and suggested checking with
Mary Woodsen or Carrie Koplinka-Loehr at Cornell to see if they have a manual on integrated pest
management practices.
On page 3, in the definition of “slope”, Fred suggested changing “defined as percent” to “expressed
as a percent”. The Committee agreed. On page 3, in definition of “exotic invasive species”, Sue
reported that she had found the official list prepared by the Tompkins County Environmental
Management Council (EMC). The Committee felt that it would be better to include the reference to
the official list of invasive species, but not to include the list in the Town Code, and suggested that
the list could be handed out to applicants/homeowners. Sue added that the Findings section on pages
1 and 2 does not include anything about why invasive species are harmful, and suggested adding
some language on that. Susan said that she would review the language.
On page 5, Section H regarding setback width adjustments for steep slopes, Sue mentioned that at the
last Committee meeting, Susan had expressed a concern with where the slope is measured and how it
would affect the setback area – the main question is should the setback area only go as far as the total
width of Zones 1 and 2, or should it keep going as far as the slope is >25 percent. Sue drew a
diagram to illustrate this issue, and indicated that there are ordinances in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania that use a set buffer distance of 75 feet where there are steep slopes. The Committee
agreed on an approach in which a steep slope would extend the Zone 1 restrictions into Zone 2, but in
no event greater than the Zone 2 setback area.
4
On page 6, in Section K, Carolyn wondered why all fencing “shall be removed when a development
project is completed”. Jonathan thought that this fencing provision was intended to delineate where
the setback zone is located so that the Town could monitor construction activities. Jonathan
suggested adding “staking or other material” as possibilities for delineating the setback area, and
suggested changing “shall be removed” to “may be removed. The Committee agreed.
On page 7, in Section 219-A-8 Prohibited Activities, Lenore asked how “waste” is defined in the law.
Lenore thought that it should refer to yard waste. Susan suggested looking at the City of Ithaca code
definition of yard waste, and that perhaps examples could be added to the section. Susan agreed to
look at possible wording.
Carolyn asked Fred how many development projects that go before the Planning Board would be
affected by the Stream Setback Law. Fred said that he could not think of any offhand. Jonathan
indicated that the Planning Board has already been requiring stream setbacks as part of the SEQR
process, and that the Linderman Creek and Holly Creek projects both included no -disturb stream
setback areas to be delineated on the subdivision and site plan maps and in the resolution conditions.
Sue asked for the Committee’s opinion on the graphics that had been provided. Herb thought that
they were very helpful. Sue wondered if the graphics should be included in the Code text, or in an
Appendix, or just made available as handouts to applicants. Sue added that General Code Publishers
indicated that they can handle graphics in the published Code. Fred asked if there are any
inconsistencies between the graphics and the law text. Susan indicated that the term “annual
vegetation” is shown in Graphic 1, but is not used in the text of the law – these should be consistent.
Sue suggested that as a next step, she would provide the revised draft law to the Conservation Board
for another review, and then bring it back to the Committee with all of the suggested revisions
incorporated. The Committee agreed.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
Jonathan indicated that he would not be able to attend the next scheduled meeting date of April 20th.
Lenore also indicated that she would be away that date. Other Committee members said that they
would be available. Jonathan suggested that the Committee meet on the regular date, and that Mike
Smith could attend to discuss the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, and Sue would be available to
continue discussions on the Stream Setback Law. The Committee agreed to schedule the next
meeting for Wednesday, April 20, 2005. Tentative agenda items will include continuation of review
of revised draft stream setback law, and begin discussion regarding proposed draft Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 20, 2005
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Eva Hoffmann, Fred
Wilcox.
OTHERS: Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney; Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Sue
Ritter (Sue), Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 – Member Comments/Concerns:
Carolyn, Cathy, and Andy brought up the issue of an Open Burning Law for the Town and
whether it something the COC should pursue. Andy passed around pictures and discussed a
grass fire on Hackberry Lane that occurred over the weekend. The Town does not have an open
burning law, Tompkins County addresses burning in the sanitary code, and the NYS Department
of Conservation does have some burn regulations. This particular fire was legally started, but
spread from the initial location to a couple acres. Andy is concerned that when he receives
phone calls questioning burning by residents, especially in developed areas, he has no law to
refer to. Andy typically responds to the calls by saying that it is Town Policy not to allow open
burning, and hopes to confirm this method and response with the Town Board at the May
meeting. Planning staff will check into the status of the County adopting an Open Burning Law.
Cathy will explore the process for declaring an immediate ban on burning during dry times in the
Town by Cathy.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of March 16, 2005 Meeting:
Susan noted a correction on the bottom of page 2 in the last sentence, inserting “certain
equipment or” after the word involved. Moved by Cathy and seconded by Herb, the Committee
unanimously approved the minutes of the March 16, 2005 meeting as corrected above.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Revised Draft Stream Setback Law:
Sue reported that the Conservation Board started to review the Stream Setback Law draft and the
version the Committee currently has was updated with COC modifications shown in red, and
suggested modifications from the Conservation Board shown in blue. Sue led the Committee
through the changes that were highlighted in the text. On page 2, it was suggested that the letter
“I” of the Findings be moved to the Purpose and Objectives section and combined with letter
“A” or have it stand along. Susan said she would help work on this. The Committee agreed with
the changes shown on page 3, but wanted to see how the term “erosion” was used in the law to
see if the definition should be expanded. Susan suggested several wording changes in the last
paragraph on page 5, and the Committee agreed. Letter “I” on page 6 had similar wording
change, using the term stream setback, and remove the word “Zones”.
On the bottom of page 7, the Committee felt that the Conservation Board suggestion was too
broad and would create enforcement problems with the term “detrimental effect”. The
Committee agreed to remove the additional wording and go back to the original language. Andy
questioned on page 8, if the requirements for the septic tank or septic fields in this law conflicted
with the Tompkins County Health Department requirements. Sue will look in to the Health
Department requirements. Also on page 8, at the top under number 3, the Committee removed
the word “collectible” relating to yard wastes, and expanded “discarded bulk items” to
“discarded appliances and other bulk items”. Andy questioned number 10 on page 8, and how he
would enforce the concentration and frequency used for these items. The Committee understood
the enforcement issue, but felt it could be helpful to include the language for residents that will
follow the regulations.
Next Steps. The Conservation Board (CB) will continue to discuss the law at their May meeting
(May 5th), and the law will also be sent to the Town’s Agriculture Committee for comments at
their May meeting (May 16th). The COC will review any comments from the CB and the
Agriculture Committee at the June meeting and discuss any necessary changes. It is anticipated
that the draft law could be informally reviewed by the Town Board and the Planning Board in
July before asking the Water Resources Council for comments. It is likely that the law would be
released for public comment in the fall in conjunction with a public meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance:
Mike and the Committee discussed the draft outdoor lighting ordinance. Comments were
provided on some sections of the ordinance, while other sections will be discussed next time.
Carolyn noted that some lights currently bothersome to people would be grandfathered, and may
not be impacted by this ordinance (see item C. Section 3.1 for those grandfathered luminaries
that could be subject to modification). Susan asked why lights associated with billboard
advertising signs were grandfathered for 10 years. She referred to billboard amortization, which
is usually significantly less than 10 years. Mike noted that this clause applied to advertising
signs and not to billboards.
Susan suggested adding language in the Statement of Need and Purpose to address the need for
dark skies to protect the ability of the Cornell University observatory, and Ithaca College
observatory, to view the night skies. Many communities have enacted ordinances largely due to
concerns for nearby observatories.
Susan indicated that the lighting regulations are not likely to be an “ordinance”, but instead
probably a “law”. It will be included in the Code, and some language will need to be modified to
be consistent with the Code.
Mike summarized the intent of the lighting regulations, as outlined in the “Statement of Need
and Purpose”, to reduce glare and save energy.
Eva asked about the definition of “initial lumen”, and suggested that this rating can change over
time as the light becomes dimmer. Mike responded that the ordinance as drafted would control
glare by regulating the type of lamp fixtures themselves, rather than the amount of lumens the
lamp produces. Using this approach the Town Code Enforcement Officers will not need to go
out at night to measure the amount of lumens generated, but instead will be able to determine
compliance with the law by examining the light fixture itself.
Susan suggested that technical definitions should be written to be user-friendlier; with terms
more common to the general public. Graphics would also be helpful. Mike said he intended to
include graphics and understood the difficulty with the technical definitions. However, because
of the need for the Town to use and reference manufacturer’s “cut sheets”, that utilize technical
terms to describe light fixtures, it is necessary to maintain the technical jargon.
Section 2.3, item F. “Spotlight/Floodlight” - Susan stated this does not belong under
“Exceptions” and should be move to its own section. Also change “should” to “shall” in
“Spotlight and floodlights should…”. The committee discussed the issue of how the 45 degrees
from the horizontal works, and how this would apply to a hillside. Mike provided an illustration
and showed the difference between a light fixture aimed at more than 45 degrees from the
horizontal, and less than 45 degrees from the horizontal plane. The horizontal plane is a straight
line measured out from the light fixture, creating a 90-degree angle between the horizontal and
the light pole. It is not affected by placement on a hillside. Aiming the fixture at less than 45
degrees from the horizontal plane would result in the bulb being aimed up higher toward the sky,
creating more glare and light spillage. Mike said he would create graphics to help illustrate this.
Following questions concerning the shielding requirements in Section 2.2, Mike explained that
shielding was not necessary for the last 3 lamp types (Incandescent 160 watts or less; Any light
source 50 watt or less; Glass tubes filled with neon, argon, krypton) as these are not typically
lights that create as much glare. These are lights such as porch lights for residential use. The
lights in the list that require shielding are generally those more commonly used in commercial
areas. A question was raised as to whether the 160-watt maximum seemed too high. Mike
stated that this was to cover the typical 150-watt light bulbs.
Change the word “compliment” to “complement” in the first paragraph, second to last sentence
in the Statement of Need and Purpose section.
Mike explained that in Section 2.2, the term Partially/Fully “Shielded” was intentionally used
rather than “Cut off”, because cutoff technically refers to the amount of lumens that are emitted
at certain points. Again, this ordinance is not designed to regulate the amount of light produced
(lumens) but to regulate the light fixture itself, so we need to use word “shielded” rather than
cutoff when characterizing the requirements for the light fixtures.
Item (b) in Section 2.5 Recreational Facilities was discussed. Members discussed the issue of
allowing an activity to go beyond 11:00pm. This provision should only be needed occasionally
for a particular site. Susan thought the last sentence “circumstances prevented concluding before
11:00pm” was a duplicate statement. The issue of whether a variance was needed under this
section, was discussed in combination with Section 2.8 Temporary Outdoor Lighting. The
committee then focused on the pros and cons of requiring a variance versus a permitting process
for just Section 2.8. Cathy suggested that the permitting process would be a better approach
since the event would require a permit anyway. The applicant could apply for the light permit at
the same time.
The committee agreed to require a permit instead of a variance for a one time special event.
Mike asked for committee input on item (a) Section 2.5. The committee recommended keeping
the pole height requirement consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, and to require a variance for
any poles higher than 30 feet.
Item C, Section 3.1 should include pedestrians (“cause disability glare to motorists or
cyclists...”). Mike will check whether the term should be “disability glare” or “disabling glare”.
Susan suggested that the “(90) days of notification” be spelled out to better explain the
notification process. Fred noted that Section 6.1 (B) called for an abatement within 30 days of
notification and questioned the timing consistency. The committee discussed 30 days versus 90
days, and agreed to use 30 days in both sections.
Susan suggested removing the last sentence in Section 2.8, which states that if the Director fails
to render a decision in two weeks then the request is denied. She thought this was too arbitrary.
Following a discussion of Item C (Penalties) in Section 6.1, involving issues of criminal
violations vs. civil proceedings, consistency with Town Law, and questions of fines, Susan
offered to review Penal Law to see what options are there and to re-write Section 6.1. Andy
stated that most violations end up in Town Court, and cautioned the committee that this about
changing light bulbs and not murder.
Next Step: Since Susan and others have additional comments to discuss, the committee
recommended that Mike not draft a revised ordinance for the May meeting. Instead, for the
May meeting the committee would like to have a list of changes agreed to at this meeting, and to
have Mike provide visuals that could be incorporated into the ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business: None
Agenda Item No. 6 – Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting is scheduled for May 18, 2005 to continue the discussion of the Outdoor
Lighting Ordinance and possibly consider the Coy Glen Conservation Zone and the Agriculture
Committee Comments on zoning amendments regarding agricultural uses, if they are ready.
Carolyn indicated that she would not be at the next meeting, and has asked Herb to chair that
meeting.
Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by:
Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning
and
Mike Smith, Environmental Planner
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 20, 2005
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Eva Hoffmann, Fred
Wilcox.
OTHERS: Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney; Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Sue
Ritter (Sue), Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 – Member Comments/Concerns:
Carolyn, Cathy, and Andy brought up the issue of an Open Burning Law for the Town and
whether it something the COC should pursue. Andy passed around pictures and discussed a
grass fire on Hackberry Lane that occurred over the weekend. The Town does not have an open
burning law, Tompkins County addresses burning in the sanitary code, and the NYS Department
of Conservation does have some burn regulations. This particular fire was legally started, but
spread from the initial location to a couple acres. Andy is concerned that when he receives
phone calls questioning burning by residents, especially in developed areas, he has no law to
refer to. Andy typically responds to the calls by saying that it is Town Policy not to allow open
burning, and hopes to confirm this method and response with the Town Board at the May
meeting. Planning staff will check into the status of the County adopting an Open Burning Law.
Cathy will explore the process for declaring an immediate ban on burning during dry times in the
Town by Cathy.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of March 16, 2005 Meeting:
Susan noted a correction on the bottom of page 2 in the last sentence, inserting “certain
equipment or” after the word involved. Moved by Cathy and seconded by Herb, the Committee
unanimously approved the minutes of the March 16, 2005 meeting as corrected above.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Revised Draft Stream Setback Law:
Sue reported that the Conservation Board started to review the Stream Setback Law draft and the
version the Committee currently has was updated with COC modifications shown in red, and
suggested modifications from the Conservation Board shown in blue. Sue led the Committee
through the changes that were highlighted in the text. On page 2, it was suggested that the letter
“I” of the Findings be moved to the Purpose and Objectives section and combined with letter
“A” or have it stand along. Susan said she would help work on this. The Committee agreed with
the changes shown on page 3, but wanted to see how the term “erosion” was used in the law to
see if the definition should be expanded. Susan suggested several wording changes in the last
paragraph on page 5, and the Committee agreed. Letter “I” on page 6 had similar wording
change, using the term stream setback, and remove the word “Zones”.
On the bottom of page 7, the Committee felt that the Conservation Board suggestion was too
broad and would create enforcement problems with the term “detrimental effect”. The
Committee agreed to remove the additional wording and go back to the original language. Andy
questioned on page 8, if the requirements for the septic tank or septic fields in this law conflicted
with the Tompkins County Health Department requirements. Sue will look in to the Health
Department requirements. Also on page 8, at the top under number 3, the Committee removed
the word “collectible” relating to yard wastes, and expanded “discarded bulk items” to
“discarded appliances and other bulk items”. Andy questioned number 10 on page 8, and how he
would enforce the concentration and frequency used for these items. The Committee understood
the enforcement issue, but felt it could be helpful to include the language for residents that will
follow the regulations.
Next Steps. The Conservation Board (CB) will continue to discuss the law at their May meeting
(May 5th), and the law will also be sent to the Town’s Agriculture Committee for comments at
their May meeting (May 16th). The COC will review any comments from the CB and the
Agriculture Committee at the June meeting and discuss any necessary changes. It is anticipated
that the draft law could be informally reviewed by the Town Board and the Planning Board in
July before asking the Water Resources Council for comments. It is likely that the law would be
released for public comment in the fall in conjunction with a public meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance:
Mike and the Committee discussed the draft outdoor lighting ordinance. Comments were
provided on some sections of the ordinance, while other sections will be discussed next time.
Carolyn noted that some lights currently bothersome to people would be grandfathered, and may
not be impacted by this ordinance (see item C. Section 3.1 for those grandfathered luminaries
that could be subject to modification). Susan asked why lights associated with billboard
advertising signs were grandfathered for 10 years. She referred to billboard amortization, which
is usually significantly less than 10 years. Mike noted that this clause applied to advertising
signs and not to billboards.
Susan suggested adding language in the Statement of Need and Purpose to address the need for
dark skies to protect the ability of the Cornell University observatory, and Ithaca College
observatory, to view the night skies. Many communities have enacted ordinances largely due to
concerns for nearby observatories.
Susan indicated that the lighting regulations are not likely to be an “ordinance”, but instead
probably a “law”. It will be included in the Code, and some language will need to be modified to
be consistent with the Code.
Mike summarized the intent of the lighting regulations, as outlined in the “Statement of Need
and Purpose”, to reduce glare and save energy.
Eva asked about the definition of “initial lumen”, and suggested that this rating can change over
time as the light becomes dimmer. Mike responded that the ordinance as drafted would control
glare by regulating the type of lamp fixtures themselves, rather than the amount of lumens the
lamp produces. Using this approach the Town Code Enforcement Officers will not need to go
out at night to measure the amount of lumens generated, but instead will be able to determine
compliance with the law by examining the light fixture itself.
Susan suggested that technical definitions should be written to be user-friendlier; with terms
more common to the general public. Graphics would also be helpful. Mike said he intended to
include graphics and understood the difficulty with the technical definitions. However, because
of the need for the Town to use and reference manufacturer’s “cut sheets”, that utilize technical
terms to describe light fixtures, it is necessary to maintain the technical jargon.
Section 2.3, item F. “Spotlight/Floodlight” - Susan stated this does not belong under
“Exceptions” and should be move to its own section. Also change “should” to “shall” in
“Spotlight and floodlights should…”. The committee discussed the issue of how the 45 degrees
from the horizontal works, and how this would apply to a hillside. Mike provided an illustration
and showed the difference between a light fixture aimed at more than 45 degrees from the
horizontal, and less than 45 degrees from the horizontal plane. The horizontal plane is a straight
line measured out from the light fixture, creating a 90-degree angle between the horizontal and
the light pole. It is not affected by placement on a hillside. Aiming the fixture at less than 45
degrees from the horizontal plane would result in the bulb being aimed up higher toward the sky,
creating more glare and light spillage. Mike said he would create graphics to help illustrate this.
Following questions concerning the shielding requirements in Section 2.2, Mike explained that
shielding was not necessary for the last 3 lamp types (Incandescent 160 watts or less; Any light
source 50 watt or less; Glass tubes filled with neon, argon, krypton) as these are not typically
lights that create as much glare. These are lights such as porch lights for residential use. The
lights in the list that require shielding are generally those more commonly used in commercial
areas. A question was raised as to whether the 160-watt maximum seemed too high. Mike
stated that this was to cover the typical 150-watt light bulbs.
Change the word “compliment” to “complement” in the first paragraph, second to last sentence
in the Statement of Need and Purpose section.
Mike explained that in Section 2.2, the term Partially/Fully “Shielded” was intentionally used
rather than “Cut off”, because cutoff technically refers to the amount of lumens that are emitted
at certain points. Again, this ordinance is not designed to regulate the amount of light produced
(lumens) but to regulate the light fixture itself, so we need to use word “shielded” rather than
cutoff when characterizing the requirements for the light fixtures.
Item (b) in Section 2.5 Recreational Facilities was discussed. Members discussed the issue of
allowing an activity to go beyond 11:00pm. This provision should only be needed occasionally
for a particular site. Susan thought the last sentence “circumstances prevented concluding before
11:00pm” was a duplicate statement. The issue of whether a variance was needed under this
section, was discussed in combination with Section 2.8 Temporary Outdoor Lighting. The
committee then focused on the pros and cons of requiring a variance versus a permitting process
for just Section 2.8. Cathy suggested that the permitting process would be a better approach
since the event would require a permit anyway. The applicant could apply for the light permit at
the same time.
The committee agreed to require a permit instead of a variance for a one time special event.
Mike asked for committee input on item (a) Section 2.5. The committee recommended keeping
the pole height requirement consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, and to require a variance for
any poles higher than 30 feet.
Item C, Section 3.1 should include pedestrians (“cause disability glare to motorists or
cyclists...”). Mike will check whether the term should be “disability glare” or “disabling glare”.
Susan suggested that the “(90) days of notification” be spelled out to better explain the
notification process. Fred noted that Section 6.1 (B) called for an abatement within 30 days of
notification and questioned the timing consistency. The committee discussed 30 days versus 90
days, and agreed to use 30 days in both sections.
Susan suggested removing the last sentence in Section 2.8, which states that if the Director fails
to render a decision in two weeks then the request is denied. She thought this was too arbitrary.
Following a discussion of Item C (Penalties) in Section 6.1, involving issues of criminal
violations vs. civil proceedings, consistency with Town Law, and questions of fines, Susan
offered to review Penal Law to see what options are there and to re-write Section 6.1. Andy
stated that most violations end up in Town Court, and cautioned the committee that this about
changing light bulbs and not murder.
Next Step: Since Susan and others have additional comments to discuss, the committee
recommended that Mike not draft a revised ordinance for the May meeting. Instead, for the
May meeting the committee would like to have a list of changes agreed to at this meeting, and to
have Mike provide visuals that could be incorporated into the ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business: None
Agenda Item No. 6 – Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting is scheduled for May 18, 2005 to continue the discussion of the Outdoor
Lighting Ordinance and possibly consider the Coy Glen Conservation Zone and the Agriculture
Committee Comments on zoning amendments regarding agricultural uses, if they are ready.
Carolyn indicated that she would not be at the next meeting, and has asked Herb to chair that
meeting.
Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by:
Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning
and
Mike Smith, Environmental Planner
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
MAY 18, 2005
PRESENT: Cathy Valentino, Herb Engman, Fred Wilcox, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney; Sue Ritter (Sue),
Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner.
Herb Engman reported that Chair Carolyn Grigorov was not able to attend the meeting, and that
Carolyn had asked Herb to chair tonight’s meeting. Herb called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Cathy Valentino asked if there had been any follow-up on the open burning issue since the last
meeting. Jonathan mentioned that there was an article in the Ithaca Journal about the County’s
proposed regulations. Susan indicated that the County Environmental Management Council (EMC)
would be meeting about this on May 19, 2005. Herb said that he would follow up with the EMC and
report back to the Committee at a future meeting.
Herb reported on the recent meeting of the Agriculture Committee and indicated that the Committee
had no major objections to either the proposed agricultural zoning amendments or the draft stream
setback law. Most farmers appear to already be following the basic concepts of the stream setback
law. Herb added that the Agriculture Committee is researching the idea of a total tax exemption for
qualifying farms, and that preliminary indications are that the reduction of property tax revenues in
the Town of Ithaca would only be about 0.5 percent.
Sue reported that she had noticed that the Six Mile Creek Winery had cleared about two acres of
wooded land for their vineyard operation within the Conservation Zone area, resulting in bare,
exposed soil. It appears that there are no Town or State regulations that would control this type of
activity, especially because the property is within a County Agricultural District. The Committee
had a brief discussion regarding the possible need to look into a tree preservation law of some kind.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of April 20, 2005 Meeting:
Moved by Cathy Valentino, and seconded by Herb Engman, the Committee unanimously approved
the Minutes of the April 20, 2005 meeting as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance:
Herb indicated that the Committee has received information and graphics from Mike regarding the
draft Outdoor Lighting Law. Mike described the materials and asked the Committee to review the
draft section by section and indicate comments, revisions, etc.
Statement of Need and Purpose: Lenore suggested adding a statement about the effect of light
pollution on wildlife (e.g., breeding habits).
2
Section 1.1 – Definitions: Mike indicated that the definitions of “fully shielded lights” and “partially
shielded lights” are illustrated in the first two graphics in the handout. Lenore had some editorial
suggestions on the definitions, but otherwise the Committee had no suggestions.
Section 2.1 – Regulations: Mike indicated that the regulations apply to public and private outdoor
lighting, and would include fixtures like street lights. Susan suggested that cross -references be added
in this section to coordinate with relevant sections of the Town Code.
Section 2.2 – Control of Glare: Mike described Table 1 listing the shielding requirements for
different types of lights, and indicated that Low Pressure Sodium lights need partial shielding, while
High Pressure Sodium lights need full shielding. Lenore asked about Mercury Vapor lights. Mike
pointed out that mercury fixtures and lamps are prohibited in Section 2.7. Lenore said that the main
problem with Mercury Vapor is disposal because of the hazards of mercury. Susan asked what
standards would the Director of Building and Zoning use in approving “other sources”. Mike said
that he could do some research on this – this item is intended to cover new technology as it develops.
Fred suggested that this item could be changed to indicate that other light sources shall be fully
shielded unless otherwise approved by the Director of Building and Zoning. The Committee liked
this approach.
Section 2.3 – Exceptions to Control of Glare: Susan suggested that the term “exceptions” be changed
to “exemptions”. Susan referred to the third and fourth graphics dealing with “spotlight/floodlights”
and suggested that labeling be added to clarify what the good and bad aspects of the graphics are.
Mike responded that they were intended to show good and bad examples of these types of lights, but
that he could look at ways to make the illustrations clearer. Lenore referred to “holiday decorations”
and indicated that some ordinances place firm limits on them (e.g., time limits so that they are not left
up after the holiday). Other Committee members felt that such an approach would be a bad idea.
Lenore indicated that lighting of flags and fountains could also be a problem. Mike said that he
would find some examples from other ordinances and report back to the Committee. Susan
suggested that the law could require that if flags are to be lit, they have to be lighted from the top of
the pole. Similar questions were raised regarding swimming pool lights and strobe lights.
Section 2.4 – Outdoor Advertising Signs: Mike referred to Graphic #5 and indicated that only top -
mounted lighting fixtures would be allowed (instead of ground lighting) and that internal lighting
would be allowed (in sub-section B). In sub-section C, Susan suggested changing the compliance
time limit from ten years to one year. The Committee agreed.
Section 2.5 – Recreational Facilities: Susan mentioned that there are terms in this section that might
need further definition, such as “up-light” and “sharp cutoff”.
Section 2.6 – Lighting Under Roof Overhangs and Canopies: Mike referred to Graphic #6,
illustrating the requirement that “light fixtures mounted under roof overhangs and canopies shall be
recessed or flush with the bottom surface of the canopy and/or be shielded by the fixture or the edge
of the canopy so that light is restrained to no more than 85 degrees from vertical”. Susan asked
whether a compliance time should be added for canopies (i.e., should they be amortized over some
period of time). Jonathan suggested that existing gas station canopies should be required to comply
with the new regulations within some period of time because of the potential for brightness and glare.
Mike indicated that Article 3 covers non-conforming lights that direct light toward streets or cause
disability glare to motorists or cyclists. It was suggested that the same amortization period (one year)
be used for canopies as for advertising signs (i.e., Section 2.6 should include the same revision as
Section 2.4).
3
Section 2.7 – Prohibitions: Susan suggested that this section be revised to prohibit all searchlights.
The Committee agreed.
Section 2.8 – Temporary Outdoor Lighting: Susan suggested eliminating the first sentence in this
section.
Section 3.1 – Effective Date and Grandfathering of Nonconforming Luminaires: Mike suggested
adding “pedestrians” to “motorists or cyclists” in sub -section C. The Committee agreed. Lenore
asked about controlling lighting on utility structures such as a sub -station. Susan indicated that she
would do some research to see if we can regulate lights on utility structures.
Section 4.1 – New Construction: Mike indicated that this section specifies submission requirements
for site plan and subdivision applications, and that Andy Frost had reviewed this section and had no
comments. Mike referred to the recent Ithaca College applications for student apartment renovations,
in which cut sheets for lighting included a notation indicating that the selected lights are compliant
with the Dark Sky guidelines. Susan suggested some minor editorial changes in sub -sections A and
B.
Section 5.1 – Notification Requirements: Susan indicated that sub-section B should be revised to say
“within 30 days of the ‘effective date’ of this ordinance”. Mike suggested that the Committee
consider adding a requirement for the Town to notify non-compliant uses that will have to come into
compliance with the new lighting requirements.
Section 6.1 – Violations, Legal Actions, and Penalties: Susan distributed the penalty section from the
Town Sign Law, and asked whether we should use the same rules for the lighting law. The
Committee agreed that using the same rules would be better for consistency purposes.
This completed the Committee’s preliminary review of the draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The
Committee asked to see a red-lined revised version of the law.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Consideration of Conservation Board Recommendation Regarding
Proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone:
Sue reported that the Conservation Board has been working on a recommendation for a new Coy
Glen Conservation Zone, and gave background on the work done so far. Sue showed the Committee
a map of the proposed Conservation Zone area that has been discussed by the Conservation Board.
Much of this recommendation is based on the County Environmental Management Council’s Unique
Natural Areas (UNA) report. Sue read excerpts from the UNA description indicating that the Coy
Glen area contains some of the most significant natural habitat in the Town, rare plant species, along
with its unique geological features and scenic resources. The area also serves as an important
biological corridor, as documented in the Conservation Board’s report from several years ago.
Sue added a discussion of the history of the Town’s previous planning efforts regarding Coy Glen,
including an earlier proposal by the Town Board to establish an active public park in the Coy Glen
area. Cathy indicated that she had just gotten involved in Town government at that time, and the
neighborhood around Coy Glen was strongly opposed to an active park in this important natural area.
Sue added that the Town Board later designated a portion of the Coy Glen gorge as a “critical
environmental area,” pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) a number of
years ago, in recognition of Coy Glen’s significance.
4
Sue showed some of the features on the map of the proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone, including
topography, ownership, and land uses and zoning of surrounding properties. Sue mentioned that
among the uses on nearby parcels are logging, gravel mines, and active farmland. There is also a
small UNA referred to as “Hackberry Woods,” which is adjacent to the Coy Glen UNA. There is
also the “Culver Creek Ravine and Woods” UNA, which includes a significant stand of mature
woods.
Sue indicated that the Conservation Board’s current proposal includes most of the land in the
designated UNA’s, and excludes some private land outside of the UNA, such as a portion of a parcel
owned by John Babcock on Culver Road. Sue explained that the rationale for excluding this portion
of the Babcock parcel was that Mr. Babcock had donated a large portion of his land to Cornell
University to be added to its natural area preserve in the Coy Glen area, and that when the Town was
involved in this discussion, it was felt that the remaining portion of Mr. Babcock’s land could be
developed without major impacts to the Coy Glen natural area. The Conservation Board identified
the proposed boundary of the Conservation Zone by looking at topography, drainage patterns,
existing wooded areas, and current and potential land use, among other things.
Herb observed that a potential problem with deleting the Babcock parcel from the Conservation Zone
would be fragmentation of the natural area. As an example, Herb mentioned that the biological
corridor for wildlife might be interrupted if the Babcock land is developed at the level permitted
under the current zoning. Sue added that development on the Babcock land could also result in the
introduction of invasive plants that could adversely impact the natural habitats in the Coy Glen area.
Sue mentioned that Mr. Babcock does not want to develop the property, but wants his heirs to have
and use the land as they chose. Herb suggested the idea of adding a connection of the two separate
pieces of the proposed Conservation Zone, so that there would be a continuous corridor linking the
separate UNA’s. Sue added that the Conservation Board recommended a 30 foot wide buffer strip at
the edge of the property lines along the Coy Glen side of the Conservation Zone. Jonathan indicated
that he would prefer using the property boundary itself as the boundary of the Conservation Zone
because it is much easier to map, identify and justify, and that the Conservation Zone does not
prohibit development, it just reduces the density, so the intended 30 foot buffer would not really be a
buffer. Jonathan added that he would recommend either adding all of the Babcock parcel in the
Conservation Zone, and include a good rationale for doing so, or not add any of the Babcock parcel –
it would be desirable to avoid split-zoned parcels, and that it might be difficult to rationalize
including only a portion of the property. Herb indicated that his preference would be to include all of
the Babcock property in the Conservation Zone to create a contiguous protected area. The
Committee agreed, and asked that this issue be studied further before making a decision.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Update on Agriculture Committee Comments Regarding Proposed
Zoning Amendments Regarding Agricultural Uses:
Jonathan reported that he had not heard back from Debbie Teeter regarding the Agriculture
Committee’s comments on the proposed zoning amendments that had been sent to that Committee,
and that he would check with Debbie on the status. Jonathan added that if there are no further
comments, the draft local law could be sent on to the Town Board for consideration. The Committee
agreed.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
5
Agenda Item No. 7- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The Committee scheduled the next meeting for Wednesday, June 15, 2005. Tentative agenda items
will include a report on Conservation Board comments on the revised draft stream setback law,
continuation of discussion regarding the proposed draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, and follow-up
discussion regarding the proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 15, 2005
PRESENT: Cathy Valentino, Herb Engman, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney; Sue Ritter (Sue),
Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner.
Herb Engman agreed to Chair the meeting since Carolyn Grigorov was not able to attend the
meeting. Herb called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of May 18, 2005 Meeting:
The Committee approved the Minutes of the May 18, 2005 meeting by consensus, as submitted.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Consideration of Agriculture Committee Comments on Proposed Zoning
Amendments Regarding Agricultural Uses:
Jonathan reported that he had received and distributed the Minutes from the Agriculture Committee
meetings of March 31st and May 16th, 2005, in which that committee commented on the proposed
zoning amendments relating to agricultural activities in certain zones. Herb mentioned that the
Agriculture Committee agreed for the most part on the proposed amendments. Jonathan added that
they appear to be happy with the increased permitted size of roadside stands.
Jonathan asked whether the Committee was ready to send the proposed amendments on to the Town
Board for consideration. The consensus of the Committee was that the amendments should be
forwarded to the Town Board, and that the Committee’s work on these amendments was completed.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Report on Conservation Board and Agriculture Committee Comments
Regarding Draft Stream Setback Law:
Sue reported that the Agriculture Committee had no additional comments or concerns of significance
regarding the draft stream setback law, and then distributed a summary of Conservation Board
comments. The following summarizes the Committee’s discussion regarding the Conservation
Board’s comments (these are all documented in the handouts that were provided to the Committee):
Section 219-A-2 Findings: The Committee agreed on some grammatical changes.
Section 219-A-6 Stream Setback Standards: The Committee agreed to a clarification regarding how
the GIS program measures drainage areas. Sue mentioned that a reference may need to be included
in the law to the final map of streams and drainage areas. Sue then showed a sample illustration of
how the setback width adjustments for steep slopes of 25% or greater would work. The Committee
thought that this is helpful.
Section 219-A-8 Prohibited Activities: Susan indicated that some activities are regulated by NYS
Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and that some of the suggested details in this section of
2
the Town law might conflict with those. Jonathan and Susan both suggested that wording could be
added indicating that the Town’s regulations would apply except where in direct conflict with NYS
DEC regulations. This would involve activities such as mining, dredging, etc. The Committee liked
this approach.
General Suggestions: The Committee agreed to Sue’s suggestions regarding inclusion of graphics in
either the text of the law or an appendix and to modify the building permit application to include
information concerning streams on the property and other relevant information.
Herb summarized by asking that a clean, revised draft law be prepared and brought back to the
Committee to decide if it is ready to refer to the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Water
Resources Council and other interested groups.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continuation of Review of Draft Outdoor Lighting Law:
Mike described the revisions to the Outdoor Lighting Law that had been distributed, and asked the
Committee’s opinion on whether illustrations should be included in the text or appendix. Kirk
suggested that inclusion in the text would be better if possible. Mike said that he would check out
the Code format requirements and let the Committee know.
The following are highlights of the suggested revisions to the Outdoor Lighting Law.
Flag pole illumination: Mike indicated that he had looked at examples of how different communities
regulate the illumination of flag poles. Susan indicated that the Town should be careful that the law
does not treat one entity differently from another because the courts do not uphold laws where this is
the case. Mike added that the current draft would allow lighting of a flag from above.
Fountain lighting: Mike reported that several communities in Pennsylvania have regulations for the
types of fixtures that can be used for architectural lighting. Eva asked whether anyone had looked at
the Ithaca College fountain. No one had. The discussion then focused on architectural lighting in
general. Eva indicated that building lighting is sometimes used for security purposes. Mike added
that some buildings are lighted for decorative purposes, and suggested that architectural lighting
could be controlled with the regulations already included in the draft regarding shielding. There was
also discussion regarding the required lighting for bank ATM’s. Most Committee members did not
feel that fountain lighting is a problem, but agreed that members should look at the Ithaca College
fountain at night, and to defer this discussion until the next meeting.
Impact on plants and animals: Jonathan suggested that there should be documentation about the
impact of lighting on animals and plants if that is to be included in the law (in the Statement of Need
and Purpose). Mike indicated that he had seen some references in the Dark Sky website regarding
the impacts of lighting on breeding habits of some animals. Herb suggested contacting the Lab of
Ornithology to see what information they have. Jonathan said that he had never heard any
information about the impact of lighting on plants. The Committee agreed that documentation would
be a good idea.
Using lumens as a measure of glare: Kirk suggested using lumens rather than watts as a measure of
glare in Table 1 Shielding Requirements. Mike indicated that wattage was chosen as the preferred
measure because it is easy to check on site. Kirk felt that lumens would be a better indicator of glare
and that conversions from wattage to lumens should be readily available from most manufacturers.
Mike agreed to do some additional research on this subject and report back to the Committee.
3
Susan asked how spotlights fit into the proposed regulations. Mike responded that they would be
covered by both the Table 1 shielding requirements and the new Section 2.7 requirements for
spotlights and floodlights.
Mike went through the additional revisions through Article 3. The Committee generally concurred.
Herb asked that the Committee continue review of Articles 4 through 7 at the next meeting. The
Committee agreed.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The Committee decided to cancel the July 20, 2005 meeting because of vacation schedules, and
agreed that the next meeting would be scheduled for Wednesday, August 17, 2005. Tentative agenda
items will include continuation of review of the proposed draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, follow -
up discussion and report regarding the proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone, and continuation of
review of a revised draft Stream Setback Law.
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
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 17, 2005
PRESENT: Chair Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Eva Hoffmann, Fred
Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney; Sue Ritter (Sue), Assistant Director of Planning;
Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Will Burbank.
Chair Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 – Member Comments/Concerns:
Fred mentioned he saw Big Al’s (Manley’s Mighty Mart) advertising now being open 24 hrs.
He thought the Zoning Board of Appeals limited the hours of operation, and is following up with
Andy Frost.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of June 15, 2005 Meeting:
Minutes were moved by Herb and seconded by Fred, the Committee unanimously approved the
minutes of June 15, 2005.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance:
The Committee continued their review of the Lighting Ordinance beginning with Article 4.
A couple of grammatical/spelling errors were pointed out in Article 6.
Susan suggested that the term “Enforcement Official”, used in Article 6, be defined in Article 1
(Definitions), and that the language be copied from the Sign Law. She explained that the Sign
Law uses a generic description, which provides more flexibility and eliminates potential
problems associated with specifying one person, such as the Building/Zoning Officer, and
needing to change this title later.
A member asked who would decide the dollar amount of the fine described in Section 6.1 (B),
which is defined as being not more than $100 for each violation. Susan said that the judge
would decide the fine.
The committee agreed to modify language in Article 6.1 (E) to read “….the Enforcement Official
shall cause removal, repair, or conformance….” .
Mike reminded the committee that they agreed earlier to move Article 2.3 (C) to the end of the
ordinance now as Article 7.1.
Susan said that there should be a Variances section added to the end of the ordinance. She
recommended that this be modeled after the variance section in the Sign Law. Kirk asked if the
Use Variance criteria would work in this case. Susan said no; that a use variance is not
appropriate for these cases and would be closer to an area variance, but that criteria can be built
into the ordinance to address some of the issues raised in a Use Variance request. She will work
with Mike to draft this language, and will email this to COC members for their review.
Members discussed whether the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals should have
approval powers for these variance requests. It was decided that if the issue of lighting is part of
a subdivision/site plan review, then the Planning Board would have approval powers as part of
those plans, but all other requests for variances would go to the ZBA.
Lenore suggested that “plants” be omitted from the fourth sentence in the Statement of Need and
Purpose section. She did not know of any examples of where plants would be impacted by glare
or excess light.
The second sentence in Section 6.1 (F.) should be corrected to read: “Payment shall be made in
no more than five days….”, rather than in not less than 5 days.
Mike will prepare a “clean” version of the Law and provide this to the Committee for the
September meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Report on Updated, Revised Draft of Stream Setback Law:
Eva questioned why there was such a small difference in the stream setback widths described in
Section 219-A-6, G (with few environmental constraints) and H (1) (with steep slopes of 25% or
greater). Sue and Lenore explained why it was drafted this way (one reason is limited
topographic information). Kirk suggested a method to expand the zones by up to 50% if there
are slopes 25% or greater. The Committee discussed modifying the language and expanding the
zones. Herb suggested only expanding Zone 1, and the Committee agreed. Zone 1 could be
doubled if there are slopes of 25% or more present (25% slopes are excluded from Zone
measurement up to doubling the Zone). Sue will use the same basic language as is used for the
wetlands (Section 219-A-6 (I)) and make this change. No changes to Zone 2 proposed.
Susan suggested changes to (H) (3) of Section 219-A-6. Kirk drew a picture to show an example
of how a perpendicular line may not cross the steep slopes, and therefore not require a large
setback. Committee agreed to change #3 to only “Slope is to be measured along lines
perpendicular to the stream channel”. No further changes required.
The Committee discussed the section on nonconforming structures (219-A-9) and the ability to
expand a structure if already in zone, but can’t expand a structure into a zone (the more of the
structure that is existing in the zone, the bigger the expansion could be). The Committee decided
to eliminate this entire section and nonconforming structures would not have any special
allowances beyond what exists in Zoning Ordinance.
Susan mentioned changing the definition for “Existing Land Use” to “Existing Development
Activity”. The Committee eventually agreed to the change.
Sue wanted to make the law consistent in referring to “Stream Bank” as two words. The
Committee agreed.
Susan wanted to make sure the Committee understood that in Section 219-A-6, (J) there may be
activities that don’t require a permit or approval through the Town, and we may not see a
delineation. The law would still need to be followed though, and the Committee understood this.
“Fill and Excavation Permits” was added to the list of Town permits in the first sentence.
Section 219-A-7 (2) The Committee agreed on wording changes.
Sue and Susan discussed the need for a modification to letters G & I in the Findings section.
There is a need to explain in the findings why invasive plants are a problem and tie it back to the
stream setback and not just general environmental reasons. Sue read an example of a way to
combine G and I together to achieve this, the Committee agreed to the change.
Kirk asked if there are multiple perpendicular lines from a stream to the point on a structure,
which one is to be used to calculate the required distance (one line may go through steep slopes,
while another may miss the slopes and only require a smaller zone). Susan did not think this was
a problem, and the steeper slope line would be used.
All the above modifications will be incorporated into the Law, and return to committee at the
next meeting. An article about this law will be drafted to include in the Town’s fall newsletter,
once the idea is discussed with the Town Board.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Report and Discussion Regarding Possible Conservation Zone for the
Indian Creek Gorge and Lake Slopes Unique Natural Area:
Using the maps provided, Sue explained why this Conservation Zone is important (UNA, steep
slopes, multiple streams, erodible soils, etc.) and why it has been brought to the COC as a higher
priority right now (recent sale of property(s) and potential development). The Conservation
Board has been discussing this Zone and working on where the boundary would be located.
Lenore mentioned that along with the boundary including the steep slopes, but the area also acts
as a wildlife corridor and want to include areas beyond the UNA boundary. Will asked about the
possibility of using a moratorium to hold off development until the Conservation Zone can be
adopted and thought we should be ready to do the moratorium quickly if needed. The
Committee questioned when zoning can be changed in relation to when a development
application is received, and Susan stated that the zoning can be changed at any point, and the
development would have to conform to the new zoning. The Committee is very interested in
pursuing the Conservation Zone and working closely with the Conservation Board so this
Conservation Zone can be accomplished quickly. This discussion will continue at the next
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Report Regarding Proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone:
Committee did not have time for this agenda item, will discuss it at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Other Business: None
Agenda Item No. 8 – Next Meeting Date and Agenda:
The next meeting is scheduled for September 21, 2005 to continue the discussion of the Outdoor
Lighting Law, Stream Setback Law, and the proposed Conservation Zoning for the Indian Creek
Gorge and Lake Slopes Unique Natural Area and Coy Glen.
Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Submitted by:
Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning
and
Mike Smith, Environmental Planner
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 21, 2005
PRESENT: Carolyn Grigorov, Cathy Valentino, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Andy Frost, Director of Building & Zoning;
Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney; Sue Ritter (Sue), Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith,
Environmental Planner; Diane Conneman, Conservation Board; James Hamilton, Conservation
Board.
Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Andy Frost reported to the Committee that he will be retiring from his position with the Town soon.
He indicated that he hopes that the Committee realizes that the laws they come up with have to be
enforced and that requires staff time and resources. Andy also urged the Committee not to fix codes
that are not broken, and to draft regulations on an objective, scientific basis. The Committee thanked
Andy for his many years of service with the Town.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of August 17, 2005 Meeting:
Sue Ritter indicated that Eva Hoffman, who was not able to attend the meeting, sent an email with
comments regarding her recollection of portions of the August 17th meeting. The Committee felt that
the draft Minutes accurately portrayed what was discussed at that meeting. Lenore Durkee pointed
out a typo on page 3, paragraph 3 of the draft Minutes changing the word “on” to “one”. The
Committee approved the Minutes of the August 17, 2005 meeting by consensus, with the correction
noted above.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion Regarding Proposed Lake Slopes Conservation Zone:
Carolyn indicated that Herb Engman sent an email message stating that he agreed with the proposed
Conservation Zone. Sue reported that the Conservation Board had passed a resolution
recommending the implementation of the Lake Slopes Conservation Zone, and had prepared a map
with a proposed boundary for that zone. Lenore mentioned that the proposed boundary is based on
several factors, including the wildlife corridor in that area, steep slopes and erodible soils, the need to
retain open space on the Hospital property, the designated Unique Natural Area (UNA), mature
woods, and the need to include buffers around the many streams and creeks in the area. Lenore
suggested that the Town should approach the Hospital to discuss the proposed zone. Jonathan added
that the Hospital may have plans for developing additional areas on their property, and that the Town
should discuss the zone with Hospital officials and see how it relates to their future use of the
property.
Cathy asked what the next step would be for the creation of the zone. Calie indicated that if the
Committee agrees, it could send a recommendation to the Town Board. Calie asked how many
landowners would be affected by the proposed zone. Sue responded that there are three large parcels
and several smaller ones. Fred Wilcox stated that the Hospital would be impacted by the zone,
leaving little area left for development. Sue indicated that the boundary could use some “tweaking”,
2
citing an example of a creek shown on the map that is not really a full creek. Jonathan suggested
checking the creek extensions of the zone in the field and that this probably would not take long
because there are relatively few areas to check. Carolyn agreed. Kirk asked how much land the
Hospital owns. Sue showed the area on the map, indicating that it is quite a large area. Jonathan
mentioned that hospitals are not permitted uses in the Conservation Zone. The consensus of the
Committee was to revise the boundary of the proposed zone around the Hospital property to
accommodate reasonable growth of the Hospital. Sue added that we should discuss this with the
Hospital administration. Fred suggested going in to talk to the Hospital with the current boundary
proposal. Kirk suggested revising the boundary a little based on the edge of the steep slopes.
Carolyn indicated that we need a list of property owners affected by the proposed zone.
Sue indicated that staff has looked at the proposed boundary, and found that certain areas could be
difficult to identify and implement. Jonathan suggested using property boundaries where possible,
such as on the Indian Creek Road parcel. The Committee agreed. Sue suggested using the back
property line of the Hospital, then follow the old growth line, then along the rear of the Candlewyck
Apartment site and back lots on Hillcrest. Sue drew a modified line on the map to reflect the revised
boundary discussed. James indicated that the Conservation Board had difficulty identifying where a
boundary should go. Carolyn supported the use of property boundaries where possible. Sue asked
the Committee whether the zone should extend all the way to the City line, even though the UNA
does not extend all the way there. The Committee agreed that it should extend to the City line.
Sue indicated that she would prepare a digitized map with the revised boundary. Lenore said that the
Conservation Board should be okay with the revised boundary. Jonathan suggested that if we talk
with the Hospital, we should also give other property owners the same opportunity. Carolyn
suggested holding a public information meeting and invite all affected and adjacent landowners.
Jonathan suggested that we should prepare a written report summarizing the rationale, benefits and
impacts of the proposed zone. Cathy and Carolyn indicated that they would report the status of the
zone to the Town Board. Cathy hoped that the public information meeting could be scheduled soon,
and that the proposal could then be sent to the Town Board for consideration. If necessary, the Board
could set a special meeting to hold a public hearing on the Conservation Zone proposal.
Susan stated that all necessary procedural steps would need to be followed, including the
environmental review, General Municipal Law (GML) referral, and referral to the Planning Board.
Jonathan suggested that when the Town Board sets the public hearing date, it could also refer the
zoning proposal to the Planning Board for a recommendation and send the GML referral to the
County. Jonathan added that we would need a simple draft local law implementing the re -zoning
from Susan. Sue indicated that she would report the modifications to the Conservation Board at their
next meeting. The Committee concurred with the revised boundary and the suggested schedule.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Final Review of Draft Outdoor Lighting Law:
Carolyn indicated that Mike Smith had distributed a revised draft Outdoor Lighting Law for the
Committee’s review. Mike described the revisions to the Outdoor Lighting Law that had been
distributed. Mike indicated that graphics have been incorporated into the Code text and that this will
need additional re-formatting. The Committee reviewed the revisions as follows:
Page 1: Mike indicated that not much was revised. Two graphics were added to the definitions.
Page 3: The definition of “lumen” was revised.
3
Page 4: Table 1 was revised, and Section B. uses 800 lumens as a threshold for shielding. Mike
distributed a rating/conversion table comparing watts and lumens of selected lamp types. Mike
indicated that a 50 watt incandescent light is equivalent to approximately 800 lumens. Mike asked
the Committee if the suggested threshold of 800 lumens is okay. The Committee agreed.
Carolyn mentioned that Herb indicated in his email that the Lighting Law looks good, and that the
new graphics are helpful.
Mike reported that he went to look at the Ithaca College fountain lights, and that they did not seem to
create any glare and did not appear objectionable, so he recommends that fountain lights be exempt
from the shielding requirements of the lighting law.
Kirk asked to go back to Table 1, and indicated that there appears to be a conflict between the
provision that exempts incandescent lights of 160 watts or less from shielding and the provision in
Section B that exempts any lamp of 800 lumens or less from the shielding requirements. Kirk
pointed out that the ratings table shows that a 150 watt incandescent light is equivalent to 2850
lumens. The Committee agreed to simplify Table 1 by indicating that low pressure sodium lamps
shall be partially shielded, there is a general exemption from shielding for all types of lamps of 1000
lumens or less (equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent bulb), and that all other types shall be fully
shielded, and to reformat this section into text.
The Committee agreed to eliminate the reference to “advertising” in Section XXX -8 (Outdoor
Advertising Signs).
Page 5: Susan suggested adding a reference to the requirements of the Code Chapter regarding signs.
Susan asked whether the one year amortization period is long enough in the Compliance Limit
section, adding that if more time is needed, an application can be made to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. The Committee agreed to leave the compliance period at one year.
A brief discussion regarding the lights and canopy at Big Al’s followed. Mike mentioned that two
other gas station canopies will have to be retrofitted to comply with the new lighting law. Mike
added that a retrofit of sheet metal around canopy lights can fix the problem of glare.
Page 6: Mike indicated that he added a graphic illustrating unacceptable glare from spotlights. The
Committee indicated that these are okay.
Page 9: Mike indicated that the Appeals and Variances section is new. Susan added that these came
from the Property Maintenance Code, and seemed comprehensive and relevant. Susan asked whether
the Planning Board should have the authority to grant variances for lighting during site plan review.
The Committee said no, it should be dome by the Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA). The Planning
Board can provide a recommendation to the ZBA on the variances.
Page 12: Susan asked what should the effective date of the Lighting Law be. Fred suggested that the
effective date could be six months after adoption, then there would actually be an eighteen month
compliance period. Carolyn and Cathy opposed this suggestion, and indicated that the effective date
should be upon filing with the State, as any other law is.
4
Susan distributed a memo she prepared, dated September 21, 2005, with suggested cross -referencing
with other sections of the Code where lighting is addressed. The Committee agreed that such cross -
referencing would be appropriate.
Carolyn asked the Committee if this completed the review of the draft Lighting Law. The
Committee agreed that it did. Mike indicated that the upcoming Fall Newsletter would include an
article announcing the draft Lighting Law. Jonathan asked whether there should be an education and
outreach effort about the draft law, and perhaps hold a public information meeting. The Committee
agreed. The Committee agreed to send the draft Lighting Law to the Town Board for consideration,
and begin plans for a public information meeting. The Town Board could send the draft to the
Planning Board for a recommendation. Then it would go back to the Town Board for a public
hearing. The Committee agreed with this process.
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, October 19, 2005. Tentative agenda items
will include update on proposed Lake Slopes Conservation Zone, update on draft Stream Setback
Law, and report regarding the proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 16, 2005
PRESENT: Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk
Sigel.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney; Sue Ritter (Sue),
Assistant Director of Planning.
Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of October 19, 2005 Meeting:
Jonathan Kanter indicated that the draft Minutes of the October 19th meeting are not available yet.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Proposed Indian Creek Gorge and
Lake Slopes Conservation Zone:
Sue described the report that she prepared, entitled “Indian Creek Gorge & Lake Slopes Unique
Natural Area” (11/7/05), documenting the need for the proposed Conservation Zone. Jonathan
indicated that it would be desirable to set up a public information meeting after Thanksgiving and
before Christmas. Fred asked whether the proposed zone had been referred to the Planning Board
yet. Jonathan responded that it had not, that the Town Board had discussed the proposed zone briefly
at their November 14th meeting, were in favor of setting up an informal public meeting first, and then
refer the proposal to the Planning Board for a recommendation and public hearing. Sue mentioned
that she would prepare a summary flyer to inform the public about the proposal, and notify affected
landowners. Carolyn suggested that the Cayuga Medical Center is an important property partially
affected by the Conservation Zone, and we should make sure that the proposal does not prevent them
from doing what they need to do. Sue indicated that the public meeting would be informal, like an
open house, and that we would also offer to meet individually with property owners if they prefer.
Herb said this sounds good, and we should move ahead with the proposal. Jonathan asked Susan
whether she could prepare a draft local law for the Town Board to enact the rezoning. Fred thought
that the overall timeframe for enactment of the rezoning would be about three months. The
Committee agreed to move ahead with the public meeting and the proposed Conservation Zone.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Proposed Coy Glen Conservation
Zone:
Sue reported that she had worked on revising the boundary of the proposed Coy Glen Conservation
Zone, based on the Committee’s discussions at recent meetings, and had prepared a new aerial photo
and map of the proposal. There was discussion regarding whether the Hanavan property to the north
of the proposed Conservation Zone off of Mecklenburg Road should be included in the zone. Sue
indicated that the Hanavans are setting up a fruit farm and brandy production facility, had previously
expressed interest in being zoned Agricultural, and also want to protect the stream on their property.
There was also discussion about other parcels in the area, including the YMCA property on
Mecklenburg Road.
2
Sue referred to the revised map of the proposed Conservation Zone, and indicated that the main
revisions included connecting properties on both sides of Culver Road into the zone. Kirk suggested
extending the zone onto the Hanavan property and adjacent parcel (Botsford) to protect the
designated Unique Natural Area (UNA), which includes the creek. Herb asked whether the stream is
a steep gorge in that area. Sue responded that she did not know. Herb asked whether farming is
restricted in Conservation Zones. Jonathan said no, farming is permitted. Herb agreed with Kirk’s
suggestion to add the Hanavan and Botsford properties into the proposed zone.
There was discussion about how to provide a legal description of the proposed zone. Sue suggested
that a metes and bounds legal description might be appropriate. Jonathan indicated that the local law
for the original Six Mile Creek Conservation Zone included a map attachment that showed the
boundary of the zone, and that there was no written description or survey information, and that it was
incorporated onto the Zoning Map. Some Committee members suggested following property
boundaries as much as possible to make it easier to describe the zone boundaries. Sue thought that
the Town’s GIS mapping programs included a tool for describing lengths and directions of map lines,
and agreed to check that with the Engineering Department.
Sue reported that a field trip is planned for November 18th to look at the character of some of the
lower area of Coy Glen. Jonathan suggested that another site visit could be set up to look at the
Hanavan and Botsford properties at some point.
The Committee agreed that it would be best to follow property lines as much as possible to define the
zone boundary, and in other cases, to see if the GIS mapping program could help. Jonathan asked
about the five properties on Bostwick Road that are split by the boundary of the proposed
Conservation Zone. Susan suggested keeping the zone boundary along the topo line at the top of the
slope, and measuring the distance from the road r -o-w line and using a metes and bounds approach to
describe the location of that part of the boundary.
Sue indicated that after the site visit, she would begin preparing a staff report to describe the need for
the Conservation Zone, the significant resources that need to be protected, and the area included. Sue
thought that this report would not be ready until early 2006. Sue suggested holding a formal public
meeting in the spring of 2006. It was agreed to pursue the Conservation Zone on this basis, and to
report back to the Committee perhaps at the January meeting with an update on the boundaries.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion Regarding Work Plan Priorities for 2006:
Carolyn initiated the discussion regarding possible work plan priorities for 2006, and referred to the
“Approved Work Plan Priorities for 2005”. Jonathan reported that Mike Smith had given a
PowerPoint presentation on the proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance at the November 14 th Town
Board meeting. Jonathan added that many of the “Highest Priority” items listed had been completed
(zoning amendments regarding agricultural uses, telecommunications law, environmental review
law), and that others in the “Highest Priority” list were well underway (Coy Glen Conservation Zone,
stream setback law). Cathy suggested that a tree preservation law should be listed as a high priority.
Herb added that wetlands protection is also important. Sue mentioned that the Conservation Board
had discussed wetlands regulations and discovered that most places that have wetlands regulations
have a permit system, which requires trained staff to review proposals and issue permits. Herb
suggested that Sue call Dick Booth, who used to work at DEC to see if he has any thoughts on this.
Susan asked if there are any upstate communities that have wetlands regulations. Sue said that she
would find out. Jonathan added that many downstate communities have them.
3
Herb mentioned that the County has now adopted an open burning law. Carolyn asked about
amending the noise ordinance. Cathy indicated that she has been meeting with a group of City and
Ithaca College officials to discuss neighborhood issues, including noise, and that she obtained a copy
of the City’s noise ordinance. Cathy agreed to follow up on this and report back to the Committee on
that group’s progress.
Susan mentioned that CAFO’s (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) are regulated by federal
and state agencies, which in many cases would supersede any local regulations. Jonathan reported
that some preliminary research has been initiated regarding affordable housing, and that the County
Planning Department is in the process of preparing a housing needs study, that would be helpful in
the Town’s efforts at pursuing options. Fred mentioned that the County is holding a forum on the
Housing Needs Study on December 15th from 5 to 7 p.m. at a location to be announced [editor’s note:
the location is at the County Library on Green Street].
Herb indicated that the County is also working on a viewshed study and that may have important
recommendations for the Town to consider. Sue added that the Conservation Board is also working
on a viewshed study for the Town. Eva suggested the possibility of adding viewshed protection
regulations on the priority list for future consideration.
Jonathan reported that he had spoken with Joel Gagnon, Town Board member in Danby, who is
interested in submitting special legislation to the State Legislature to allow the Town of Danby to
assess an additional 0.5% to the real estate transfer tax to use for open space preservation. Joel was
interested in seeing whether other towns would be interested in joining such a proposal to the State.
The Committee agreed to have further discussions regarding future work plan priorities.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Approval of 2006 Meeting Schedule:
Moved by Fred Wilcox and seconded by Cathy Valentino, the Proposed 2006 Meeting Schedule was
approved unanimously as submitted. The Committee will continue meeting on the third Wednesday
of each month beginning at 7:30 p.m., unless otherwise noted on the schedule.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 8- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 21, 2005.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2005
PRESENT: Herb Engman, Lenore Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney; Sue Ritter (Sue),
Assistant Director of Planning.
Herb Engman agreed to chair the meeting, and called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of September 21, 2005 Meeting:
As there was not a quorum present, approval of the September 21, 2005 meeting was deferred to a
future meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion Regarding Proposed Indian Creek Gorge and Lake Slopes
Conservation Zone:
Sue updated the Committee on the work that she had done on the new boundary and parcel map for
the proposed Indian Creek Gorge & Lake Slopes Conservation Zone. Sue reported that boundaries
had been adjusted to follow parcel boundaries more closely so that property owners would know
what parts of their properties would be affected, and so that the Town could monitor and enforce the
zone regulations more readily. Sue pointed on the map to an area on the south end of the proposed
zone (owned by Berggren) adjacent to the City that had been added to the proposed zone because of
its very steep slopes and limited access. Sue mentioned that she had discussed the proposed
boundary modifications with the Conservation Board, and they were okay with the changes.
Sue referred to a list of affected properties that she had prepared. Some of the parcels along
Taughannock Boulevard (Route 89) are split by the road, and the uphill portions of some of those
would be in the Conservation Zone. Herb suggested that this would help provide a buffer to the
future Black Diamond Trail. Sue indicated that it is not likely that the lakefront property owners
would be too concerned about the proposal because they mostly have houses on the lakeside of Route
89. Sue added that there are four large properties between Routes 89 and 96 that would be affected
by the proposed zone (McArdle, Edward – Trust, Tompkins Community Hospital, Holochuck Homes
LLC, and Berggren).
Herb asked whether a future road connection between Routes 89 and 96 would be precluded by the
proposed zone. Jonathan explained the history of the Route 96 realignment and Octopus
reconfiguration completed by New York State, indicating that a connector road through the area of
the proposed zone was not included in the State project, and it is not a likely addition now because of
the very steep slopes and other environmental constraints which would make such a road extremely
difficult, and that no plans for such a road are included in the Town of Ithaca’s draft Transportation
Plan. Jonathan added that such a road would not necessarily be precluded by the Conservation Zone.
2
Sue asked the Committee what the next steps should be. Herb suggested that it would be helpful to
have a short report prepared describing the proposed zone, and then to notify affected property
owners about the proposal. Sue mentioned that she is in the process of preparing such a report.
Susan observed that most of the land owned by the Medical Center that is shown in the proposed
Conservation Zone is very steep, and should not be too much of a concern to the Medical Center.
Sue described the format of a public information meeting that is being planned regarding the
proposed zone. Susan suggested that it be held in the early evening, and that we could offer to meet
individually with owners who could not make it to the public meeting. Herb suggested inviting
people like Andy Zepp of the Land Trust and Sue Polvourde of the NYS Parks Department to attend
the public meeting. Sue indicated that she was planning on sending notices directly to affected
landowners. The Committee agreed that an informal, open house format would work well for this
meeting, and that notices should go to the press as well.
Susan asked when the proposal should go to the Town Board. Jonathan suggested sending the draft
report to the Board when it is ready. Herb suggested that it could be discussed briefly at the
November 14th Town Board meeting if the report is ready. Herb added that then the public meeting
could be scheduled for early December after Thanksgiving. The Committee agreed.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Update Regarding Stream Setback Law:
Sue referred to the revised draft of the Stream Setback Law (9/8/05), and described the revisions
from the previous draft. Sue indicated that the most significant change was on page 5 (Sec. 219 -A-6-
H) regarding setback width adjustments for steep slopes (refer to draft for red -line tracking of
revisions). Herb and Lenore said that they agree with the changes. Sue asked whether the wording is
understandable. Herb said yes. Herb agreed with the approach, which includes the protection of
erodible soils.
Sue went through other minor word changes. The Committee concurred with the changes and agreed
to move ahead with the revised draft of the Stream Setback Law. Sue suggested that the next steps
should include sending the draft to the Town Board and Planning Board for an overview and to get
early feedback, and then sending the draft to other groups, such as the Water Resources Council and
Storm Water Group to ask for comments. Sue suggested the possibility of a public information
meeting around February 2006. Sue added that the stream map still needs some final work, and that
perhaps the Committee would want to see it before the package goes out to other groups.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Report Regarding Proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone:
Sue provided an update on the Coy Glen Conservation Zone. At the last discussion, the Committee
thought that the entire Babcock property on Culver Road should be included in the Conservation
Zone, and that this could be included on a revised map. Sue indicated that only a few developed
properties are currently included in the proposed zone. Susan suggested adding the fruit farm off of
Mecklenburg Road (Hanavan) and adjacent parcels into the proposed zone, and to try to follow
parcel boundaries to make identification of the zone easier. There was brief discussion about lots
along Bostwick Road. Sue agreed to look at the size of the lots to determine whether they have any
remaining development potential. Sue indicated that she would come back to a future Committee
meeting with a revised boundary map. Jonathan asked whether a site visit could be set up prior to the
next discussion. The Committee agreed.
3
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 16, 2005. Tentative agenda
items will include update on proposed Lake Slopes Conservation Zone, update regarding the
proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone, and preliminary discussion regarding the 2006 work plan
priorities.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 21, 2005
PRESENT: Carolyn Grigorov, Herb Engman, Cathy Valentino, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel, Lenore
Durkee.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney.
Carolyn Grigorov called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
The Committee expressed their appreciation for the many years of outstanding service by Carolyn
Grigorov on the Committee.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of September 21, October 19, and November 16,
2005 Meetings:
Moved by Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Cathy Valentino, the Minutes of the September 21,
October 19 and November 16, 2005 meetings were all approved unanimously, with one correction in
the September 21, 2005 Minutes, page 4, first paragraph, adding the words “in one of the listed
sections” at the end of the second sentence.
Agenda Item No. 3 –Report Regarding Cancelled Public Meeting on the Proposed Indian
Creek Gorge and Lake Slopes Conservation Zone:
Jonathan Kanter reported that the public meeting on the proposed Indian Creek Gorge and Lake
Slopes Conservation Zone that had been scheduled for December 15 th was cancelled due to bad
weather. Jonathan added that Sue Ritter had spoken with several of the affected landowners, and
individual meetings with some will be set up to discuss the proposed zone. A public meeting will be
re-scheduled for sometime around the end of January.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion Regarding Planning Board Resolution Requesting that the
Codes and Ordinances Committee Review the Dimensional Requirements of Docks in the
Zoning Code:
Jonathan referred to the Planning Board resolution (PB Resolution No. 2005 -118) recommending
that the Codes and Ordinances Committee review the new regulations in the Lakefront Residential
Zone pertaining to docks. Jonathan indicated that the Planning Board has had a recent submission
for a proposed dock on the west shore of Cayuga Lake, and expects another application to be
submitted soon on the east shore. Based on these applications, the Planning Board is asking the
Committee to review these regulations for the purpose of reconsidering what the size of docks
specified in the Zoning Code should be.
Eva Hoffmann suggested that the dock regulations are new and should be given a chance, and that
the main reason for enacting the new regulations was to protect the character of the shoreline. Eva
also pointed to the guideline in the regulations that floating docks should be used where possible.
Eva added that the Town does not allow people to encroach on their front or side yards, so why
2
should the Town allow docks to encroach on the lake any more than what is allowed. Eva felt that
the new regulations are fine, and should be left as they are.
Carolyn listed a number of things that the Committee should find out in order to review the dock
regulations, including an inventory of existing docks (sizes, locations, type of construction, etc.),
State regulations regarding the use of the waters of Cayuga Lake, the environmental impacts of
docks, a better idea of what other communities have done regarding the regulation of docks and other
shoreline structures, current technology of docks, the potential of using floating docks in Cayuga
lake, characteristics of the lake edge, and needs of different types and sizes of boats (e.g., water depth
needed).
Kirk asked whether site plan approval is required for all docks. Jonathan responded yes, and they
also require a special permit. Jonathan added that both the current and pending applications for
docks will also need several variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), including width
and overall square footage, while the Planning Board has the authority to modify the maximum dock
length requirement (30 feet) if needed to provide sufficient water depth for boats. Kirk thought that
the Planning Board might be given the discretion to also modify the square footage without going to
the ZBA up to a certain limit.
Jonathan referred to the Corps of Engineers permit process for docks and other shoreline structures.
Carolyn asked whether boatlifts are included in the regulations. Jonathan said yes, but it is not clear
that they count toward the dimensional maximums of the dock. Several Committee members agreed
that some of the larger boatlifts could have a larger visual impact on the shoreline than dock lengths
or widths. Kirk suggested that there could be a maximum height limit above water level specified for
boatlifts, but to do this, there would have to be a standard water level to measure from.
Kirk said that he is not convinced that floating docks would be better than fixed docks with pilings.
Herb noted that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code states that “docks and wharves shall be of floating
construction whenever feasible. Jonathan indicated that he understands that floating docks generally
are not practical on Cayuga and Seneca Lakes because of the roughness of the water that can be
caused by high winds. Jonathan suggested that the Committee might want to ask a local dock
builder, such as Ron Knewstub (who is representing the applicants on the current and pending
applications) to attend a future meeting to provide technical information about dock technology and
building aspects. The Committee closed this discussion and concurred that the review of the dock
regulations should be added to the list of work plan priorities.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Work Plan Priorities for 2006:
Herb indicated that he would like to see work on a wetlands protection law move up in priority on the
“Proposed Work Plan Priorities for 2006”. Lenore mentioned that the Conservation Board had
discussed this issue in conjunction with the proposed stream setback law, and had decided that
wetlands regulations would be too difficult to combine with that law. Cathy added that the Tompkins
County Water Resources Council may be discussing wetlands regulations in the near future.
Several Committee members again stressed the need for tree preservation regulations. Eva
mentioned the need to account for thinning of trees and vegetation to open up or protect scenic
views. Kirk asked how clear-cutting could be defined and quantified if the Town decided to regulate
that. Herb indicated that some landowners clear trees to manage the forest, and then plant new trees.
Herb added that the Committee could invite Mike DeMunn, who is the forester for the Finger Lakes
Land Trust, to provide information to the Committee.
3
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7- Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 18, 2006.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning