HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-3-17-10 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
March 17, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann.
ABSENT: Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Sue Ritter, Asst. Director of Planning;
Chris Balestra, Planner; Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff; 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 February 24, 2010:
No changes made to the minutes. Fred moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the minutes, all
in favor.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of review of revised Stream Setback Law (left off on page 11),
and continuation of review of Bruce and Doug Brittain’s revised comments (left off on page 5):
Before reviewing the revised Stream Setback Law, Bill started the meeting with the email handed out
from Susan Brock regarding ‘replacement of structures in the stream setback zones 1 and 2 (Section F
(1))’. COC was okay with Susan’s proposed language but Eric suggested using “or smaller” in the
paragraph. So, paragraph (c) to read as: ‘Replacement of any structure allowed by this subsection F,
provided that the new structure’s footprint is in the same location and has the same or smaller
dimensions as the replaced structure’s footprint, and further provided there is no increase in any of the
portion(s) of the structure located within the setback zone’.
Discussion if this applies within the setback zone or applies to the entire structure. Pat was concerned
with structures within the zone, if outside the zone we shouldn’t care. Fred thought that outside the
zone it should be further restricted and Bill agreed but they were mostly concerned about not having
any expansion within the zone. No need to change wording. It was decided by Bill to make a new “c”
and bump everything else down. COC was okay with this.
Back to the February 12th draft review, page 11, Section F:
Bill: The old (u) will now become (v). Comment in yellow under (v) in the draft review and on the
Brittain brother’s comments on page 6 in blue: “Normal use of residential property”: This was a
suggestion and not in our draft. Bill asked if we have everything listed that we might want to allow,
the catch all activities, etc. Susan thought we had all the lawful activities; indoor activities were fine
and regarding the outdoor activities, right now we have non-motorized recreational activities and
similar non-motorized outdoor activities that would not harm the riparian area are covered now. Doug
Brittain mentioned that some of the motorized activities, some of the roads and bridges are within the
zone. Susan and Sue thought, what if we modified (a), “structures existing as of the effective date of
this section”; talking about structures which can include a road, and if worded as all activities that
would occur wholly “within or on” such structures.
Discussion on bridges, applying for a site plan on a new road, setbacks, allowing repair of new
buildings; allowing replacement of a building that has burned, and driving on existing roads that
happened to be in a setback zone.
2
Susan said, under section (L), page 10, in the old draft, we have “maintenance of pervious and
impervious surfaces”; we could say “maintenance and use”.
Bill suggested that the beginning could say “the following structures and uses are allowed:...”.
Susan said that would be cleaner.
Fred mentioned that he would add “lawful” activity or something equivalent. Susan said we could do
it under “F”(1). Susan will think about how to do it. It is going to be another sentence.
Next on page 11, “DEC’s Part 665 regulations……….” Sue brought the DEC regulation list and read
to the members “Part 665: Local Government Implementation of Fresh Water Wetlands Act”. Within
this law, they have provided a list of exemptions that would be allowed in fresh water wetlands. The
Committee has talked about all of these things, many were recommended by Cornell, so nothing new
here that we haven’t seen or talked about. Bill recommended no changes with DEC.
Sue went on to say, one thing we still need to talk about (last item on page 11) is “establishing scenic,
historic, wildlife and scientific preserves”. Page 7 of the Brittain brothers comments regarding the
‘establishing scenic, historic, wildlife preserves’ was okay.
Discussion followed about adding golf courses and parks to permitted uses. Related discussion
included: catch all structures, using a separate paragraph for ‘golf courses and parks existing as date of
this section’, land given for a park, ball field setbacks, rules to the law, no structures within the
setback, parks consider use in other zoning sections, Saponi Meadows which has a regulated stream,
and permitted uses in Zone 1 and 2.
The COC was okay with allowing existing golf courses and okay with existing parks, but new parks
are subject to the setbacks required in Zones 1 and 2. Susan said we may not need to list the parks
because the uses are already listed in the Zoning Code. Decision made not to change and no need to
list parks and golf courses.
Eva mentioned passive recreational uses as compared to active recreational uses in parks. Passive
recreational uses would be okay. This was discussed at the last COC meeting, Section “F” (f), page 9.
Next item, page 12 of the draft: Town Code 270-204 allows nonconforming uses of land to continue
unless abandoned for more than 1 year. Should the COC state this section does not apply, because
some existing activities will no longer be allowed? With agriculture we are allowing a field to lay
fallow for 5 years. There was some discussion on non-conforming use, grandfathering clause and uses.
COC agreed that statement should be made but make it in “g” – prohibited activities; Bill suggested we
need to think about this.
Next item, page 12 of the draft, (2) Stream Setback Zone 2 (c): ‘Grazing of livestock where livestock
are otherwise allowed’. Bill thought grazing of livestock is fine with accordance with the conservation
plan, Sue suggested take out “otherwise” and Eva suggested could you add “livestock are allowed by
zoning”. COC decided to add comma after ‘livestock’ and after ‘allowed’; add ‘by this chapter’ and
delete ‘otherwise’.
Page 13; Prohibited Activities, (7): ‘Development of new parking lots or other impervious surfaces’.
Susan mentioned this was similar to another parallel set of provisions discussed earlier and last time
the COC said no; keep it separate because people think of parking lots are different from structures. To
be consistent, keep provisions separate.
Pat asked if a parking lot would be the same as a parking space for one car, not necessary impervious
gravel; just to make some space almost extending a driveway to make space for one car. Is that still
3
considered a parking lot, especially in Zone 2? Discussion on pervious and impervious parking lots,
do we want to prohibit? What about parking spaces? COC decided is to delete “other” and add
“parking spaces” after parking lots.
Page 13; (9): ‘Dumping or disposal of snow or ice collected from roadways or parking lots’.
Question was raised regarding Pat’s earlier suggestion to include pervious and impervious
maintenance, like plowing; Bill stated it was in Section F (1) (l). This (9) only applies to things aren’t
specifically permitted. COC was okay with this; no changes.
Next is to have Sue take us through the Brittain brothers comments that haven’t been dealt with
starting with page 1:
C, Definitions; Stream: “C” is okay – just cleaning it up.
E, Stream setback standards; (9) (a): Okay.
Page 2, E, Stream setback standards; (9) (b): Susan thought setback buffers; it would be clearer to
Code Enforcer to leave it in. COC agreed to leave this in.
Page 2, (12): ‘Planning Board shall require the delineation and identification of any stream setback
zones on all subdivision plats and site plans……..’
Sue explained deed restriction are the best way to make sure that future owners know there is a setback
zone, especially subdivisions and things might change. Discussion included periodic revision in the
stream setback map. Having it in the deed is the safest for future owners to know there was a required
setback on it. After a long discussion, including if a deed restriction can be changed, whether it be
transfer of parcels, natural causes, or new owners; it should be left up to the attorney. Decision was to
keep the requirement in the law.
Page 2, (13): ‘The Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Public Works staff, or Code
Enforcement staff may require, prior to any soil-disturbing activity that could reasonable be expected
to affect……..’: Discussion followed with the wording and decision was to keep in, no changes.
Page 2, (14): Okay, need to clean up typing spaces.
Page 3, F. (1) (a) and (b): Okay with these highlighted in yellow.
Page 4, F. (1) (e), (f), and (j): Okay with these highlighted in yellow.
Page 4, F. (1) (i): ‘Dredging to maintain dam safety’: Discussion of the wording of dredging, safety,
operational, ponds, and wording in “g” (8) on page 13 in the draft law. Susan thought we should have
the DEC permitted activities in “F”. COC was okay with decision to move “g” (8) to “F”; and change
wording to, “Dredging to maintain dam safety and operational effectiveness”.
Page 5, (1): Okay with Committee but the Brittain brothers wanted it clear that ‘pervious’ cannot be
changed to ‘impervious’; small discussion followed.
Page 5, (n), [1]: Committee okay with this. For new roads or bridges; would need a variance from the
Zoning Board, or a special permit from the Planning Board.
Page 6, [2]: Committee okay with this.
4
Page 6, (o); ‘Stream bank stabilization’: Would this include retaining walls? Bill thought no. Sue
went on with discussion of whether stream bank stabilization includes retaining walls; do you think
retaining walls needs to be addressed? Brittain brothers mentioned the Wildflower Garden having a
retaining wall for stabilizing the creek. Bill mentioned using retaining walls to keep your lawn from
eroding away. Sue suggested that the stream bank stabilization that’s been approved by Soil and
Water Conservation District helps people with certain types of projects. Soil and Water is generally
available to give people some advice. After much discussion; Sue will come back with suggestions at
the next meeting.
Page 6, (t), ‘Outlets from stormwater management practices are permitted’….: Shouldn’t basement
footing drains be allowed here? Small discussion on this and committee agreed to add basement
footing drains.
Page 6, last item, “Assuming the addition to the above list of “Normal use of residential property”:
Committee okay with this.
Page 7: Committee okay with first three items.
Bottom of page 7 on to page 8, G. Prohibited activities in streams and stream setback zones:
(1) ‘Construction of new buildings or structures’….: Pat said “this is where we talked last time about
permitting pre-constructed structures like dog houses, garden sheds and could allow that in both zones
or allow in just Zone 2. Wording I was thinking of - allowing pre-fabricating structures such as tool
sheds, dog houses, swings and gazebos; as long as they are not constructed on site in Zone 2”. Fred
had problem with “shed”, as it could have some type of toxins stored in it. Discussion followed this,
roof of shed is impervious, people can apply for variances. Committee agreed to add “or installation”
to wording. Also change wording to page 13, (1) of the draft local law.
Sue then went to page 3 of the draft local law ‘Riparian Area’ definition, saying there is no clean
definition for riparian and they are all complex. Should we add a little bit about this ‘transitional zone’
between aquatic and terrestrial or leave alone? COC agreed to leave this alone.
Finished; with the Stream Setback Law and the Brittain brother’s comments.
Bill asked committee members if other comments that we haven’t addressed yet, and seeing none,
thanked everyone for their hard work.
Next step: fix up two sections, clean draft for the next meeting, send out a clean draft to Cornell
University, Tompkins County and to the people who have commented that is, the language of the law
and there is still an issue of the map itself.
Sue has a couple of things to do that was prompted by Jim Semp who lives on the corner of Troy Road
and King Road. He said in a comment that his stream should have a wider setback than 35’, should be
50’. Adjacent to this house is an undeveloped lot that is likely going to be developed and had earlier
been proposed for townhouses. Sue visited the site and agreed that the size and characteristics of the
stream warranted a 50’ setback.
Two things Sue wants to do: 1) Check the drainage area; we have 10’ contours and it is hard to
accurately hand draw the drainage area. We are getting LIDAR data, it’s going to provide 2’ contours
and should be more accurate. Using this data, Sue can do a better job of determining the drainage area.
In addition, Sue might be able to re-run this model we used to get this map and could determine from
the computer what the drainage area is and may do it for more streams within the Town, especially the
5
urban areas or the entire thing. So, she needs to look at that stream and see what the drainage area is
and may do it by hand or by the computer.
2) Look at streams that have 100 acre drainage area, 150 and 200 and get a better idea whether our
thresholds are accurate. Sue will go on a site visit to a number of streams that she has identified as
having different acre drainage areas and will report back to COC. Would COC welcome this
information?
Bill recommended wrapping up the word changes in April and in May address the map issues.
Committee was okay with waiting for this information. Sue discussed more on the map, the law, and
the changes.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of next item on the Final Work Plan Priorities list (possible
discussion of Code amendments suggested by Bruce Bates):
Committee agreed to the changes in Bruce Bates handout. Eric moved to adopt the changes and Fred
seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business:
No other business was discussed.
Next COC agenda for April 21, 2010; will look at the introduction to the sign law and introduction to
the affordable housing regulations. Not ready to discuss the Conservation Zone language.
Fred moved and Pat seconded a motion to adjourn, all in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff