HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-2-24-10 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
February 24, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel.
ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann, Eric Levine.
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:
Pat mentioned that she attended the Association of Town’s conference in NY and learned that the
Town of Beekman had a proposed new amendment to their Zoning Ordinance (not finalized yet)
requiring a 10% set aside of median income housing for all new subdivision development of 10 lots or
more. Additionally, if developers set aside more than 10%, they get a density bonus. The amendment
includes various criteria, e.g. mixing in the median income units with the rest of the development and
having the materials look the same, etc. She offered to send the ordinance amendment around, once
the COC decided to talk about the topic more seriously. Pat was struck by how similar the Town of
Beekman was to the Town of Ithaca, even how they approached their Comprehensive Plan revisions.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of January 20, 2010:
Susan Brock pointed out some minor punctuation errors and suggested corrections. Pat moved and
Kirk seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of revised Stream Setback Law, including any remaining discussion
of Bruce and Doug Brittain’s comments regarding the previous draft Stream Setback Law:
The Committee reviewed a revised Stream Setback Law that incorporated all of the changes made by
the COC to date. There were two versions sent: a “redlined” (or blue-lined, same thing) version that
had yellow highlighting and bolded sections along with all tracked changes in red (or blue), and a
“clean” version that only contained the yellow highlighting and bolding. The yellow highlighted and
bolded sections illustrated the items that still required discussion by the Committee.
Sue Ritter distributed revised Brittain brothers’ comments based on the updated law. The Brittain
brothers stated that there was no need to finish going through their previous comments that the
Committee discussed at the last COC meeting, as they incorporated any of those remaining comments
into the most recent draft.
Bill suggested that the Committee discuss the yellow highlighted areas of the redlined/bluelined
revised law and see if the Brittain brothers had comments as they went along, and then go back and
address any remaining Brittain brothers comments that weren’t covered. The COC agreed to this
process.
2/12/20 draft, redlined version, first yellow highlighted section (page 2):
The Committee discussed the appropriate location for the new definitions in the Stream Setback Law.
Susan Brock briefly explained that definitions are usually located in Section 270-5 of the Town Code
(Zoning) and suggested that they should go there unless someone really felt strongly otherwise. The
2
Committee agreed to put the definitions in Section 270-5 of the Town Code. Susan Brock will double
check to make sure that there are no wording conflicts between the new definitions and any existing
definitions in the Code.
Page 3, Riparian Area definition: Sue Ritter will propose language for this at the next COC meeting.
Page 3, definition of Stream (Bruce and Doug Brittain comments): Committee discussed the “for
purposes of this section” issue, and decided to look at wording suggestions at the next COC meeting.
Page 6, Setback width adjustments when streamside wetlands exist (steam setback standards #9): Sue
Ritter iterated that there would not really be a case where there would be a 100ft buffer and that the
Town had streams that went through wetlands, particularly all of the DEC regulated wetlands. But
there wouldn’t be a case where a Town buffer would extend beyond a NYS buffer. Doug Brittain
suggested that a buffer could go beyond 100ft if there were a steep slope and Sue stated that one
wouldn’t find a slope with a DEC wetland area, that all of the DEC wetlands she looked at were
located in flat areas, not on slopes. The Town has 4 regulated DEC wetlands and Sue explained the
characteristics of each one. The Committee decided to not add any language here.
Doug and Bruce suggested changing the wording in the same section from “portion” to “width” of a
streamside wetland (second sentence in (a)). Their concern was that the word “portion” would not
apply to the whole wetland, only the part within the stream setback, and that the remaining part outside
of the setback would not be protected. The Committee discussed the suggestion a bit and decided to
eliminate “that portion of”, so the law covered the entire wetland, not just a portion of the wetland.
Page 8, (a) Permissable activities, permitted uses and structures (Doug and Bruce also had comments):
Susan Brock suggested the following wording change – “all lawful activities otherwise permitted by
this Chapter that occur wholly within such structures.” Committee accepted the change.
Page 9, (b) Repair and maintenance of any structure…: The Committee discussed this section at
length, noting the existing Zoning Code provisions to allow non-conforming structures to be re-built
within one year. Susan Brock stated that there were other situations where one would want to replace
a structure, e.g. the conforming structures that could need to be rebuilt. Conforming structures were
not limited by the one year rule. Fred’s concern was that repair and maintenance had its set of impacts,
but that wholesale replacement could have significantly greater impacts. Demolition would also have
impacts that would be greater than repair and maintenance. Regarding the Stream Setback Law, if
something was demolished/replaced within a stream setback zone, then it would be non-conforming
and would need to comply with the non-conforming provisions of the Zoning Code or the property
owner could seek a variance from the ZBA.
Susan Brock gave a scenario where an existing porch had leaky windows and the property owner
wanted to replace the leaky windows – that would not be a repair, it would be a replacement in kind.
The Committee discussed the example, along with other examples of where there wouldn’t be a change
to the footprint of a structure, such as weatherizing a house or changing windows, putting a second
story on the house, etc.
After significant discussion, the COC decided to allow replacements in kind within stream setback
zones as long as there wasn’t a change to the footprint of the structure, but could not decide on the
specific wording for the law or what constituted “in kind.” Bruce Bates noted that “in kind” was also
mentioned in other parts of the law, including the Zoning Code (but was not defined in the Zoning
Code), and that whatever the Committee considered “in kind” should be consistent throughout the law.
3
There was the sense among the members that adding a second story to a home would not be a
replacement in kind, it would be an expansion, even if the foot print of the home didn’t change. Bruce
Bates noted that the Building Code looked at the issue in several different ways and in different parts
of the Code, depending on the level of the construction (is it a repair? an alteration? a modification?).
Finally, the Committee decided to allow property owners to replace something that was already there
(e.g. allowing people to replace their ranch home exactly as it was if it burned down, but not to replace
it with a two story home) but if someone wanted to expand their home in the stream setback zone, then
they’d need to seek a variance. The Committee also decided to mull over the “replacement in kind”
wording suggestion and Susan Brock offered to try to work on the wording for the next meeting.
Page 9, (d) Agricultural activities existing…: Susan Brock added language in this section and the
Committee agreed with the added language. Brittain brothers liked the added wording as well.
Page 9, (e) Land-disturbing activities existing…: The Committee continued their discussion from the
last meeting on whether new gardens should be allowed in Zone 1. Doug and Bruce also had
comments that the Committee discussed. Sue Ritter suggested that it would be a problem if a property
owner had a wooded area within Zone 1 and wanted to cut trees down to put in a garden there. The
Committee talked about various scenarios with new gardens replacing mowed lawn or other plants,
especially in Forest Home where lots were small enough so that most of the yards fell within Zone 1.
Susan Brock reiterated that anything under ½ acre was not subject to the Stream Setback Law, so many
of the Forest Home properties wouldn’t be subject to the law. Kirk noted that the goal was to protect
the native vegetation in Zone 1, so people should not be allowed to create new gardens in Zone 1. The
Committee decided to not allow new gardens in Zone 1 and also agreed to the “one year” provision
added by Susan Brock.
Page 9, (f) Non-motorized recreational activities…: The Committee continued their discussion on what
to do about “blinds” and “hides” for hunting and Doug and Bruce had a comment about golf carts
(they are motorized, so would golf not be considered a non -motorized recreational activity?) Sue
Ritter noted that the golf course near Cornell had a stream that ran through it, and that she thought the
mowed course went up to the stream – there was virtually no buffer. The Brittains concurred.
The Committee moved on to talk about blinds and shelters and decided that temporary blinds were ok,
but not permanent ones. Bruce Bates read the definition of “structure” and determined that blinds and
hunting shelters were considered structures if they were erected or constructed on the ground. Fred
read Cornell’s comments. Bill thought that adding language allowing these structures on a temporary
basis was fine, which lead the Committee to discuss the definition of “temporary.” Bruce Bates stated
that the Building Code defined temporary as less than 180 days within a given year, but that he’d
confirm that and would let Susan Brock know.
The Committee then discussed the differences between blinds, shelters, and hides. They finally
decided to allow temporary blinds but not shelters. Going back to the motorized golf carts situation,
the Committee decided to allow motorized golf carts as part of an existing golf course, along with
motorized wheelchairs and scooters for the mobility-impaired.
Page 10, (j) Installation of utility services…: The Committee talked about modifying this section in
light of the gas drilling water connections. The Committee also talked about noise issues regarding
drilling operations. Susan Brock noted that the Town may be pre -empted by the State and the Town
could not regulate the operation of the wells. The concern was having a truck back right up to a stream
within the setback area to put a hose in for water. Susan also mentioned that this part of the law
4
originally contained a provision allowing one and two-family residences, but the COC eliminated it
because Cornell wanted to be allowed utility connections for educational purposes.
After a bit more discussion about Cornell and Ithaca College’s pipeline projects (past and present), t he
Committee decided to allow by right the residential one and two-family usage and installation of
utilities and require all non-residential uses to seek Planning Board Special Permit approval. Regarding
the Brittain brothers comment, the COC discussed limiting the gas drilling connections and decided
that the Town probably could not do much to limit operations.
Page 10, (l) Maintenance of impervious surfaces…: The Committee discussed three different issues
with the section and decided (a) to delete “if in existence prior to the effective date…,” (b) add after
maintenance “repair, replacement in kind and reconstruction,” and (c) keep sections b and l separate, as
people considered structures and surfaces differently. Fred brought up adding driveway sealing/re-
sealing to the list, as it was the most common residential activity. Bruce and Doug suggested deleting
the words “parking lot.” The Committee then discussed pervious versus impervious surfaces, paving
driveways, paved tennis courts and patios, etc. Finally, the Committee decided to delete “parking lot”
and determined that the remaining would apply to the other uses.
Pat asked the Committee to consider adding the term “pervious” to the first line, after ‘maintenance,’
as she didn’t think the Town wanted to make pervious surfaces more restrictive than impervious
surfaces (referring to gravel parking lots or pervious pavement). The Committee agreed to the change.
Page 10, (m) The maintenance, repair, replacement “in kind”: The Committee discussed “in kind” in
this section and distinguished it from the previous discussion about “in kind,” as the Town would not
really have any authority over the reconstruction of bridges and highwa ys owned by the County or
State. Additionally, bridges and highways wouldn’t necessarily be constructed “in-kind” – they were
often reconstructed wider or adjacent to the original location, etc. Susan Brock noted that the SEQR
Type II list specifically mentioned the terms “replacement in kind of various types of facilities.” Susan
Brock suggested the Town keep “replacement in kind” in this section because the County and State
were not subject to the Town’s Zoning Laws anyway. For people like Cornell and Ithaca College, the
Town would not want them to put in any bridge or road that they wanted, so they would need to meet
the law or seek variances. The Committee agreed to keep the language as is.
The Committee decided to leave off on page 11 of the redlined/bluelined law and on page 5 of the
Brittain’s comments.
Pat mentioned that the law doesn’t allow pre-constructed structures, like dog houses or tool sheds, and
that the Committee should discuss this next time. Does the Town want to allow prefab structures like
dog houses and tool sheds as permitted in the Zones?
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of next item on the final 2010 Work Plan Priorities list:
Bill suggested that perhaps a “little item” could be placed on the COC agenda for next time and asked
the group if they had any ideas. Pat suggested the Committee have a general discussion about median
income housing set asides, admitting that it wasn’t a little item. Chris stated that staff would want to
supply some materials for any large discussion about the big items on the priorities list (affordable
housing, tree preservation, sign law, etc). Staff would need to know in advance what the Committee
wanted to discuss for the next meeting, so staff could provide those materials.
Chris also conveyed a message from Jonathan that he might be ready to bring to the April COC
meeting the comments from the Conservation Board, staff, etc., on the Conservation Zone
5
amendments. Sue Ritter stated that there were staff comments on the amendments that were too
substantive to make changes without COC input.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business:
No other business was discussed.
Fred moved and Kirk seconded a motion to adjourn. Unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 9:00pm
Respectfully Submitted,
C. Balestra, Planner