HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-1-20-10 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
January 20, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code
Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Asst. Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce and Doug Brittain.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
None
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of December 16, 2009:
There were mostly minor grammatical errors that needed correction, along with the modification of a
statement on the last page of the minutes. Eric moved, Pat seconded, and the Committee approved the
minutes as amended.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of review and discussion of public comments regarding the
draft Setback Law (Bruce and Doug Brittain’s comments):
The Committee began the discussion with the Brittain brothers’ Stream Setback comments (the red-
lined copies dated October 14, 2009). Sue Ritter read each of the comments and the COC discussed
and deliberated on each item.
In the “Unfortunate Consequences” section, Sue explained that the COC addressed when fencing
could be removed by adding language that would require fencing to stay in place until Codes staff
determined that soil disturbing activities were done. Sue asked for clarification on the Brittain
brothers’ comments and Doug stated that typically one would mark the Zone if one was doing work
outside the Zone, but wondered: would someone be required to mark the Zone if the work was being
done inside the Zone? For example, if flower gardening, do you need to mark the Zone 2 boundary and
keep it marked for the entire gardening season?
Bruce offered a solution to the language in their markups on page 8 of the actual law (item 12), so the
Committee turned their attention to that section of the law. Susan Brock explained the purpose of the
demarcation requirement to the group. She then asked if the COC should clarify item 12 to be
applicable where one is not doing work in the Zone but one is working near the Zone.
The Committee further discussed circumstances when a project went to the Planning and/or Zoning
Boards and how those Boards could require fencing as they deemed necessary to mark off a part of the
Zone. The Committee then discussed modifying the language to give the Boards authority to require
demarcation within a Zone. The group talked about who from the Town would grant a permit to
require demarcation. The final language change to page 8 of the law, item 12, would be worked out by
Susan Brock, but would be along the lines of “the Town Code Enforcement, Public Works staff,
Planning Board, or Zoning Board of Appeals, may require that, prior to any soil-disturbing
activity…(Susan Brock to work out the rest of the wording)” Regarding the other proposed language
changes in item 12, the Committee decided to keep the wording as is and not modify the language per
the Brittain brothers’ suggestions.
2
In the “Effects on Future Activities in the Town” section, Sue summarized the five bulleted points in
the section and stated generally that some of the concerns that the Brittain brothers had were recently
addressed by the COC and that the COC revised the allowable uses in the law. For the first bulleted
item, Sue noted that the COC addressed the maintenance of multi-use trails (along with other items).
The Brittain’s noted that their concern was really regarding development of new trails, new Town-
owned trails or walkways (i.e. pedestrian paths developed as part of the Town’s Transportation Plan).
Susan Brock also made that note and the group discussed the potential of the Town needing to be
subject to their own laws. The COC decided not to change the law to discern new from existing trail
maintenance.
The COC then discussed the potential situation of removal of soil within 100 feet of Cascadilla Creek,
as part of Town/County road improvements or future Cornell projects in that area. Sue Ritter
explained that many of the Cornell projects generally needed site plan approval from the Planning
Board, and if those projects did not meet the requirements of the Stream Setback Law, that the projects
would go to the Zoning Board for variances. The Committee decided that this was ok.
Susan Brock then asked if new gardens were permitted as of right in Zones 1 & 2. The Stream Setback
Law did address existing or on-going activities (i.e. gardens), but did not really mention anything about
new gardens. Sue Ritter read the pertinent section of the law and noted that it appeared that the
establishment of new gardens would not be permitted in Zone 1. She reiterated that the Town didn’t
really want to allow new gardens in Zone 1, but she thought that they would be allowed in Zone 2.
The COC again referred to the law and determined that new gardens would indeed be allowed in Zone
2, but not in Zone 1…which brought up the concern about people living in Forest Home. Many of the
lots in Forest Home are so close to the creek that some of the yards are entirely in Zone 1. Did the
Town want to prohibit all gardening on those lots if they are in Zone 1?
Sue Ritter reiterated that the goal for Zone 1 was to not have new development or encourage new uses
in that Zone. Pat asked if those with most of their yards in Zone 1 could find relief from the law if they
wanted to put in a new garden. Sue responded that they could seek a variance from the ZBA, but she
didn’t think the law would really impact them anyway because most of the people who had yards in
Zone 1 already mowed those yards up to the stream – there weren’t any forested areas that would be
significantly disturbed by new mowing or gardening activities within Zone 1 on those lots. The Town
didn’t really want anyone to take down trees or significant vegetation in riparian areas. But, at the
same time, the Town would probably not even notice if someone put in some flowers in an area that
was already mowed.
Then Fred brought up a situation wherein a new homeowner would decide to till a small area of their
lawn for a vegetable garden (and that area happened to be in Zone 1). This would technically be a
violation of the law, but it was not necessarily the intent of the law to prohibit a small garden in
someone’s yard…and the Town wouldn’t really care, as long as there wasn’t any significant vegetation
loss in the riparian area, and as long as there wasn’t exposed soil right next to the stream. The
Committee discussed this topic further, including the sustainability aspect of allowing individual
property owners to grow their own food on their property, requiring people to come to the Zoning
Board for variances, and specifying a size restriction on gardens in Zone 1. The COC finally decided
to leave the law as is and revisit this issue once the revised law was drafted (with all updates discussed
since July) to see just how many people would really be affected by the restrictions.
Bill reviewed the Stream Setback Law process thus far: the draft law went out to the Town Board,
ZBA, Conservation Board, and Planning Board for comments as well as Cornell and other interested
3
organizations/citizens. The COC received the comments and reviewed most of them. The COC had
responded to the comments, and had made some revisions to the law, based on the comments. Susan
Brock will draft a revised law, which will again be distributed to those who commented on the first
draft.
The Committee went back to the ““Effects on Future Activities in the Town” section of the Brittain
brothers’ comments. All of the remaining points were addressed by the COC in its revision of
allowable uses. Sue Ritter read the third bullet at the top of page 2 of the comments, regarding the flat
rock washout in Forest Home and the subsequent retaining wall reconstruction. The Brittain brothers
question referred to Section F.1.a.5., regarding the reconstruction of existing highways and whether
that section of the law would pertain to the rebuilding of retaining walls. Bruce Brittain referred the
Committee to his red-lined suggestions in the law (in F.1.a.5., page 10), that included additional
suggested wording. The Committee had already added that language along with “and other
infrastructure.”
In the “Other Concerns” section, Sue read the first bullet and the COC discussed the comment
further. The comment was in reference to how the law would deal with a situation where land slopes
away from, rather than towards a stream, and whether the law would or should be enforced in that
case. The Committee determined that this situation would be rare and would not affect many people in
the Town, so anyone who had this problem could seek a variance from the ZBA.
The COC moved on to the second bullet in the section, regarding how the law would deal with a
stream that was routed through a culvert, and Sue Ritter commented that she was and will continue to
fix the Stream Setback map to remove those segments of streams that were culverted. Bruce Brittain
noted that the issue was more than just the map: did the law not apply anymore to a stream that was
underground? Did the Zone stop where the culvert was…or go around? Sue explained that the goal
was to protect the forested and riparian areas that were there now, that the law was the best the Town
could do to meet that goal, and that if a stream was already culverted, then there would be no riparian
area to protect anyway. The Committee decided not to make any changes in this area.
The third bulleted comment/question focused on a situation where a small stream was located
immediately adjacent to a large stream and where part of the land was in Zone 2 of the smaller stream
while also being in Zone 1 of the large stream. How would this be handled? Staff suggested that the
more restrictive measure would apply in the scenario - and the COC agreed.
The fourth bullet, regarding construction of new structures in streams/setback zones, was already
resolved, so the Committee moved on to the fifth bullet, which dealt with drawing water from steams
for drinking water, irrigation, etc. The issue of drawing water from streams was not addressed in the
law. The Committee discussed whether language should be added, specifically focusing on the
infrastructure that must be built in order to draw water, rather than getting into regulating water rights
issues. The main question the Committee grappled with was, if someone needed to install a pipe to
draw water (for whatever reason), should that be an allowed use or should the person seek a variance?
Pat brought up the issue of hydrofracking, so the Committee discussed hydrofracking a bit and the
NYS laws & permits pertaining to the allowance of drawing water for utility purposes. Bruce Bates
explained the irrigation piping process and Bruce Brittain mentioned that the Cornell golf course used
hundreds of gallons of water for their golf course and had a permanent pipe in the ground for irrigation
of the course. Committee members looked in the parts of the Stream Setback Law that dealt with
utilities and determined that irrigation and drawing of water were considered a utility and, further, that
the law allowed the installation of new utilities along with the maintenance, repair, and reconstruction
of existing utilities (public or private). The Committee felt that the drawing of water wasn’t
4
widespread or invasive enough to specifically regulate in the law. The COC didn’t feel like they
needed to do anything to address the issue now, but would revisit it once the revised law was drafted
and distributed.
The sixth bullet (large paragraph) dealt more with the old law and contradictions regarding permitted
development activities, such as fishing and kayaking, but that the revised law addressed the concerns.
So, the Committee moved on to the “Stream Setback Map” comment by the Brittains. Sue Ritter
again reiterated that she needed and intended to fix the map.
In the “Discrepancies Between Verbal Summary and Draft Legislation” section, Sue explained that
the COC addressed the first bullet, regarding mowing in Zone 1, by revising the regulation to include
“ongoing land disturbance activities, including, but not limited to, existing agriculture, landscaping,
gardening, maintenance and mowing of lawns and sports fields…”
The COC also addressed the concern in the second bullet, by modifying the definition of a steam to
include additional language about man-made conveyances such as ditches, rip rap, swales, etc. The
Brittains questioned the word “practice” in the context of stormwater management, suggesting that the
Committee consider the word “facilities” instead (stormwater management facilities versus stormwater
management practices). Sue Ritter and Susan Brock explained that the term “practice” was a term the
DEC used and that it was considered a noun in the definition of “stormwater management practices.”
The final bullet in this section, dealing with non-development activities, was addressed by the recent
revisions.
The COC then moved on to the Brittain brothers’ red-lined version of the law [Chris note: some
people, like me, had a blue-lined version, while others had a red-lined version. Other than color, there
were no differences between the two versions]. The Committee began by looking at the “Purposes
and Objectives” section on page 2. Number 5 was addressed, so there were no changes made. In
number 6, the Committee decided to not add the word “ongoing,” but did change the word “practices”
to “activities.”
The group then discussed the “Definitions” section on page 3, and Doug Brittain pointed out that the
word “commercial” in the definition of agricultural activity might not be needed. Susan Brock stated
that the COC had actually deleted that word in a previous edit to the law. Also, at the end of the page,
Sue Ritter explained that the term “selection” in the definition of “selection tree cutting” was correct.
On page 4 of the definitions section, the Committee agreed to add “horizontal” to the definition of
slope. Finally, the definition of stream was discussed earlier in the meeting and revised.
The COC moved on to the “Applicability” section of the law, specifically D(2), and decided to accept
the suggested “and stream setbacks” wording addition. Section D(3) was already addressed, so the
Committee went on to page 5, “Stream Setback Standards.” Bill stated that this was an area of the
law where the COC made a lot of changes, so the concern noted in 5(a)(2) was addressed. The
Brittains’ then explained their suggestion at the top of page 6, regarding being perpendicular to a point
(law states “perpendicular from the relevant starting points”) and suggested that one could not be
perpendicular to a point, but only to a line. After a bit more discussion, the Committee agreed to the
suggested change, “to the stream bank or steam centerline.” The COC also agreed to the same
wording addition at (6) at the bottom of page 6.
Bill remembered that there was a suggestion made by Cornell regarding the way to describe the
measurement of a slope. Susan Brock stated that Cornell didn’t understand the way the Town wrote
5
the slope measurement/definition and the Town didn’t understand Cornell’s subsequent comments on
it. Sue Ritter checked with Cornell and learned that Cornell really only had suggested some
clarifications in the description for slope. Cornell did not ask the Town to re-write the slope
measurement/definition. Most of their concerns were regarding wetlands.
Bill suggested that the Committee stop on page 7 of the Brittain brothers’ blue/red-lined version of the
law and pick up from there at the February 24th COC meeting. Bill also suggested that staff/Susan
Brock create and provide a new draft of the law for the next meeting, as the revised draft could address
some of the remaining concerns that the Brittain brothers had. Susan Brock felt that the Committee
had worked through enough of the law to warrant the draft of a revised law and said she’d work on a
revised draft for the next meeting.
Bruce Brittain wanted to address a few highlights of the law for the COC to address (at the next
meeting) before the COC moved on to the next agenda item. Specifically, he had a ques tion about
page 11, number 14 regarding use of pesticides to protect native plant species, not just pesticides to
eliminate invasive plant species: would the Town allow spraying for gypsy moths (for example) to
protect native plant species? Also, page 14, letter J, regarding the application of pesticides and
herbicides – same question. Bill noted the questions and said that the Committee would discuss them
at the next meeting.
Doug Brittain wanted clarification on what a “livestock stream crossing” was, and referred to the
bottom of page 10 and the top of page 11. The Committee read the pertinent section of the law and
discussed ways to make livestock ‘move along’ in a stream crossing. Sue Ritter noted that the
Committee had discussed this issue at length in the past and determined that there wasn’t much the
Town could do to force farmers to build bridges over streams or somehow make livestock move
quickly through stream crossings. The COC ultimately supported the Ag & Markets accepted livestock
practice of arranging fencing so that livestock could only move through a particular corridor when
crossing a stream.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of 2010 Work Plan Priorities:
The Committee went through the proposed 2010 Work Plan Priorities list item by item.
Regarding the proposed amendments to the Conservation Zone (item #3), the COC initially decided to
send the newly revised amendments to the Conservation Board and Cornell for review. One
Committee member asked why the COC was sending the amendments to Cornell and it was
determined that this was brought up at the January Town Board meeting. Cornell requested to review
the amendments because they owned land that might be affected by the amendments. Bill wondered,
then, if there were other large landowners to whom the Town should send the amendments and how
that might be facilitated. Sue Ritter stated that the Town sent the draft Stream Setback Law to many
different interested parties, but that she wasn’t sure who the Conservation Zone amendments would
interest. Sue suggested that the amendments be sent to the City of Ithaca, since they had a large
interest in the Six Mile Creek watershed. Chris asked if the amendments should be sent to the
Holochuck landowners, since they owned 70+ acres of land within a Conservation Zone. Fred
suggested that the COC be fair and send the amendments to all affected, not just a few people. Sue
Ritter wondered if the modifications to the law were significant enough to warrant sending it out again
to any of the interested parties. Susan Brock suggested that the Town at least send the amendments to
whomever requested them (Cornell requested them). So the Committee decided to send the
amendments to anyone who asked for them.
6
Moving on to item #5, Sue Ritter talked a little about the justification behind the desire to create a tree
preservation law, explaining to the Committee that there was a larger interest in protecting large un-
fragmented forests and also a smaller issue where particular areas of important trees might be impacted
by a site plan/subdivision proposal. Sue mentioned some ideas from the DEC website regarding what
communities could do to preserve trees and also noted that staff had sought out some guidelines on
how to protect trees during development review site plan/subdivision processes. The issue of forest
management also came up during review of the Conservation Zone regulations. Bruce Brittain noted
that there were some small tracts of old growth forest in the Town and that the Town may want to
consider protecting them. Bill suggested that the tree preservation regulations be moved ahead of the
Sign Law revisions on the high priority list as a minor project after the Conservation Zone language is
done, since it was likely that a tree preservation ordinance would take less time to craft than the Sign
Law.
Bill continued to go through the list and Pat suggested moving the affordable housing regulations item
up to #7 on the high priority list. Bill concurred with Pat. Pat had ideas about ways of getting median
income housing built into the Town, one way being the Community Housing Trust idea and the other
being a required set aside of a certain percentage of affordable units in any new housing subdivision.
Pat asked about the possibility of creating a “Median Income Residential” Zone in the Town Zoning
Code, and staff/Susan Brock indicated that it was not possible for a government to set housing prices
or to Zone such that it regulated people instead of property or limited the type of person/income level
to a particular area of the Town. Pat clarified that she was thinking of having housing available in a
certain range when the housing was sold, so that the prices were a median range when the homes were
sold (including variables that would make the housing cheaper, like lot size, materials, access to
municipal utilities and public transportation, etc). Bruce Bates stated that the Town would need to
change its Zoning to allow more areas of more dense population. Bill and Susan Brock brought up the
incentive zoning concept, which was one tool the Town could consider to provide affordable housing
for its residents. The Committee decided to discuss affordable housing once the updated
Comprehensive Plan was in place, since the new Comprehensive Plan would include “tasks” for the
Town to establish policy or strategies for providing affordable housing- the 1993 Comprehensive Plan
included language about affordable housing, but no real tasks or objectives. Pat suggested the
Committee start thinking about this topic, but overall, the Committee decided to let the Comprehensive
Plan Committee work on affordable housing language/strategies to include in the updated
Comprehensive Plan.
Sue Ritter quickly mentioned that the Town Public Works Department wanted to modify the Town’s
Stormwater Management Law, since the law had been in place for a while and the Public Works staff,
through implementing and enforcing it, had found reason to modify it. She noted that these changes
needed to be made sooner rather than later and asked if there would be a place on the COC priority list
for the COC to consider the modifications. Bruce Bates mentioned that a lot of the little items noted
on the list in the “Other Work Items for Consideration” section were also short, 15 minute discussions
that could fit in along with some of the other big tasks that the COC would be working on. The
Committee decided that it was ok to fit these little projects in amongst the bigger priorities and would
add these agenda items whenever staff provided information for the Committee to discuss them.
Bill moved on to the “Next Priority” part of the list and the Committee talked briefly about each item.
Sue Ritter explained the status of the Wetlands Protection Ordinance, noting that the Conservation
Board did not really have this on their radar screen, but that there was a Tompkins County model
ordinance that the Town could consider. She also stated that the fill permit law update did a lot to
protect wetlands in the Town (no more than 5 cubic yards within 100’ of any wetland or one needed to
seek a variance).
7
Pat asked to go back to discuss the affordable housing subject, noting that Chris, in her memo
regarding the Holochuck Subdivision, suggested the Planning Board consider the set aside of a
percentage of affordable units in the subdivision, but that the Planning Board didn’t feel that it was
within their purview to do so. Pat suggested that this was an example of an easy-to-fix policy issue
that the Town Board or COC could make happen. Bill suggested that they take this matter to the Town
Board to discuss and see if the Town Board wanted to start working on the issue ahead of the
Comprehensive Plan update.
Bill moved on to the Viewshed Protection item and Sue updated the COC on the most recent work on
the subject. She stated that the Planning Committee would be looking at the Scenic Resources
Inventory and that there were a lot of decisions still to be made on the matter, which could eventually
result in regulations that the COC would need to consider.
Fred went back to the affordable units discussion to respond to Pat’s earlier statement. He said that
there were some members of the Planning Board who wanted some allocation of affordable units in the
Holochuck development and that these members were trying to find an environmental impact that they
could mitigate by requiring affordable units (smaller units, smaller footprint, fewer resources used, less
impervious surfaces, etc). Other members of the Board were uncomfortable with this idea. The
Committee then discussed the various project elements that should be considered when making an
environmental determination in an EIS, with Susan Brock and Fred specifically noting that economic
impacts were not considered an environmental impact. Bill suggested that the Committee talk
generally about environmental impact statements at a later time.
Bill quickly went through the remainder of the items on the priority list and moved on to the next
agenda item.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business:
No other business discussed.
Bill motioned to adjourn the meeting and Eric seconded. Meeting adjourned at 9:05pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
C. Balestra, Planner