Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-4-21-10 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 21, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel. ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann. OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Sue Ritter, Asst. Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner; Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff; Bruce and Doug Brittain. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of March 17, 2010: No changes made to the minutes. Fred moved and Eric seconded the motion to approve the minutes, all in favor. Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion regarding the 4/15/10 draft version of Stream Setback Law: Sue began with a quick introduction of the new version of the draft stream setback law, based on our comments from the last COC meeting. She suggested that the committee look especially at the yellow highlighted areas of the draft law. Bill pointed out that the definitions have been moved over to the zoning section, Chapter 270. Sue explained that moving the definitions, so we would use the definitions that are in the zoning section itself. Susan further explained that the Stream Setback Law itself will be in the Zoning Chapter. The definitions for zoning are in Section 270-5. If the Stream Setback Law were stand alone we would have kept the definitions within the law. Bill moved on to next highlighted section, on page 6, but this was crossed out, indicating that the committee had already dealt with this. The next highlighted section was on page 8, E: Permissible activities in stream setback zones 1 and 2. Bill skipped to the bottom of page 12 where questions pertaining to the overall structure of Section E. were raised. It was decided to discuss this issue of overall structure first. Sue started by explaining the problem of trying to list every conceivable permissible use. The committee has done a good job of working through all the major prohibited and permissible uses, but there are limitations to listing every conceivable permitted use. The committee could leave the law as it is, with a list of prohibited and permissible uses, or optionally, only list the prohibited uses which would eliminate the problem of the limitations in the permissible uses list. This may be easier and cleaner for a resident or landowner to understand if it is just a list of prohibited uses. What was being proposed is taking the list of permitted uses and swinging them around making them prohibited. Susan further explained that saying you are allowed to do anything in the underlying zoning undercuts the purpose of the Stream Setback law; certain things you could otherwise do, this law states that you can’t do now. Short of listing every use, it is hard to get across the idea that you are still allowed to have a cemetery or run a park, but there are the things that you can’t do. She described the benefits of having just the prohibited uses listed in the law, including the clarity to residents who would no longer 2 have to read the permitted uses, then read the prohibited use but need to understand that this list is not exhaustive but only examples. Distributed at the meeting was a list that Susan created to show how the permissible uses could be turned into prohibited uses. Sue explained that what was being provided was a clean copy and a redline copy of the drafted prohibited language, saying it’s best to have both. The clean copy is easier to read and the redline copy will allow you to see what was taken out and how it’s been changed. Bill asked for general comments on the idea. Kirk asked for clarification on the motivation with regard to the underlying zone, what is allowed there; what are we trying to enumerate in the underlying zone? Such as with cemeteries mentioned earlier, do we want to allow this in Zone 2? Susan stated that they can have a cemetery, but there are specific activities in the zone that would be prohibited. Further discussion regarding the underlying zoning issue and what would be and would not be allowed in the setback zones. Susan felt the proposal to list only the prohibited uses would provide clarification by getting away from listing of permissible uses. Discussion continued regarding the handouts. Bill suggested that the committee take a moment to look through the material, then have a general discussion whether to take this approach or not. Come back in May to go through the actual details of the new revisions. Committee taking time to look through redline and clean copy (E) of handouts. Discussion of double negative; other way cleaner; “prohibited unless”; i.e. de-icing, instead of the double negative, could change to “deicing that would use more then the minimum amount allowed”. Susan agreed with the problems of the double negative. Small discussion followed. Eric liked this approach, Kirk agreed and others also expressed support. Doug Brittain suggested listing Zone 2 prohibitions first, followed by Zone 1 prohibition. Susan thought that would be a good approach to try. Bill brought up the “Transition” provisions. Susan wasn’t sure if we actually want this; this is a policy issue. Susan stated that she put this in to see if the committee wants them or not. This transition provision is similar to what the Town has now in the Code pertaining to the zoning revisions in 2004. Bill said we have two questions regarding transition: 1) do we give the work in progress a break or 2) as proposed do we want to add some time limit, such as shown in green highlight “and in any event within nine months”. Discussion on interplay with SEQR requirements: setting a time limit; the State gives you a year, and if not completed it has to comply to the new code; approvals from Town Board or Planning Board; timeframe – where do you draw the line; setbacks for Holochuck and Carrowmoor; Pat thought to be safe, have no time limit; Bruce Brittain mentioned nine months, need additional time, then take t o ZBA; Bill thought less time since our goal is to protect stream setbacks; variances for any aspect of the setback requirements; and small discussion of allowing one year. Bill asked COC committee if okay with twelve months (1 year) and all agreed. Back to list: to change as suggested and initial draft changes. Susan will take Doug Brittain suggestion about Section 2, Section 1 and will also clean up some awkward phrasing and will email a new version. 3 Bill mentioned one more policy, redline version on page 4; (n) ‘Stream bank stabilization’: Sue spoke with Tompkins County Soil and Water and they do still have staff that will assist property owners with stream restoration work, including stabilization. They work on small projects for homeowners as well as big projects. Sue proposed some wording. Bill asked if this relates to the retaining wall and Sue replied that she was not crazy about including retaining walls. Sue added, this is stream bank stabilization and as it stands now, the landowner is allowed to do stream bank stabilization. The concern is with people on their own trying to stabilize streams. There was a recent incident where a property owner was trying to stabilize a stream bank near a roadside ditch and it created problems for the town. Staff needed to get the property owner to undo what they had done. Sue wants a way of getting landowners to talk to Soil and Water staff or hire an engineer before they undertake the work. The proposed wording is to encourage landowners to get some consultation from a professional, but how could we get landowners to come in to get some kind of an approval. The catch would be to have them come in to get approval for a Simple Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, through our Stormwater Law. Sue had this wording: “Stream bank stabilization may be allowed if such practices are done in consultation with either a professional engineer or staff with Soil and Water District and shall only be undertaken upon approval with Simple Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan approved by the Town of Ithaca”. We could also add in there that any protected stream requires the New York State DEC approval. Bill mentioned that under the new approach we prohibit stream bank stabilization unless they do these things. Discussion on retaining walls; rip rap; stone wall; do we need to mention retaining walls; flood regulations; flood zones; comply with Chapter; etc. Bill asked if there are any thoughts from the committee on the stream bank stabilization new language. Fred thought it was clever requiring a simple SWPPP. It gives the appropriate Town staff the opportunity to talk to the applicant and approve it. Bill suggested adding that language. Small discussion followed on simple SWPPP; fill permit requirements; changing the wording; changing the Stormwater Law but Sue wants a chance to talk to the engineering staff. Bill expressed hope that the committee could wrap up on stream setback in May. Sue reported that she did go out into the field and look at some streams, especially on the west side of the Town. She didn’t really have a definitive answer if we should change the drainage area criteria, and what she would really like to do is look at the new LIDAR data to determine if the drainage areas are still accurate. She did see massive erosion in the creek along Coy Glen Road and took pictures. When we get the new data, Sue also wants to consider the slope along the stream and make sure 25% or greater is still appropriate, or whether we may want to consider 20% or greater. After we have the new data, Sue wants to study this and then come back with a proposal. Fred thanked Susan and Sue; Bruce and Doug Brittain appreciate the openness of this committee. Agenda Item No. 4 – Begin discussion regarding potential revisions to the Town Sign Law: Chris opened with review of the Town Sign Law and found some sections of the law that would need to be reviewed and discussed. Options were to overhaul the entire sign law or choose certain sections to be updated and modified. There are two lists of possible amendments that Chris would like COC to consider – those lists were included in the COC mail out. 4 Chris gathered sign law regulations from other municipalities, and found some sections of the various laws better organized and written than the Town’s and other sections that the Town doesn’t have and may want to consider. Chris referenced them in the second amendment list. Chris also mentioned that one way to approach the revisions was for staff to bring in certain sections of the various laws and have the Committee go through them along with the Town’s law. Alternately, Chris could revise the Town’s law to show how it could be done and how it could be written and then the Committee could choose between the new language and the old language. Staff could red line our sign law, put new sections in, change the wording and then bring a draft law in for review and discussion, or the Committee could go through the law line by line. This would be a large project to review; the Sign Law was last updated in 1996. Bill asked if there were any thoughts. Bruce suggested that Chris make it easy to understand. Kirk said that it was useful to not ignore the Town’s law, but consider whether or not the COC members like the sign situation in the Town (i.e. signs that you don’t like; now would be the time to change that). Chris mentioned that the Committee should definitely consider the sizes and the size restriction we have right now. Discussion followed regarding grocery store window signs and gas station’s signs. Chris read from a recent court case on Signs that “municipalities may not enact sign regulations which prohibit gas station owners or operators from advertising their prices on portable signs”. Eric assumed this was for gas prices. Discussion went on with digital signs (referring to Trumansburg), new technology, and school district signs which may be exempt from the Sign Law restrictions. Pat mentioned the ‘James A. Coon Local Government Technical Series – Municipal Control of Signs’ publication and how helpful it is and anticipates potential problems. After much discussion on temporary signs, problems with sign pollution, political signs versus political speech, not targeting political signs, limiting temporary signs, cleaning up of signs, it was decided that the various issues cannot be solved in one meeting. Regarding limiting political signs, if the Town is going to impose time limits on temporary signs, the limits have to apply to all temporary signs, not just political signs. Eric mentioned the problem isn’t in the enactment of the law; it’s the enforcement that can turn into a problem. Eric also stated that the staff knows the issues that have come up over the years with the sign law, how they’ve been resolved, and the staff might have an idea what would be an efficient way to proceed. Bill suggested staff making a red line suggestion in the current law. Chris stated that she felt comfortable putting together a red line version of our existing sign law that incorporated some other laws and wording and not start from scratch. Bill suggested the COC take the work Chris has done looking at the various laws, and rather than have the Committee go through all the various laws, have staff pull together the sections staff thinks are good improvements and put those into our laws as a starting draft for the Committee to review. Bill also mentioned using Kirk’s suggestion of having a show and tell presentation or a slide show of some pictures. Have one meeting for a presentation showing us different signs around the Town that are affected by our law or affected by changes. Bruce mentioned going back through and seeing what the Zoning Board of Appeals has given variances for in regards to the signs. Chris created a list in 2005 of signs that received ZBA variances. Discussion followed with the suggestion to start noticing the signs and sizes of signs in the Town, improving the clarity of the ordinance, enforcing what we have, more talk about supermarket signs, gas station signage, more talk about regulating the content of signs, and the overall purpose of the sign law. 5 In terms of scheduling, Bill would like to have a visual presentation or slide show and have a general discussion; then get into specifics of the draft. The draft the staff would put together may take a couple of months and in the meantime, we could be doing some prep work in the next couple of months. Agenda Item No. 5 – Begin discussion regarding Affordable Housing (Pat Leary): Pat started with reviewing the Town of Beekman Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinance information that was in the COC packet. Pat covered housing goals, household income in the county, size of units, new housing development, lower price units, Beekman Ordinance, initial sale, calculation, 120% for eligibility for purchase, link what you call affordable, income, resale (not to be temporary), and reading sections from the Town of Beekman Zoning Ordinance. Bill asked for any general thoughts or questions. Bruce asked how the Town would enforce affordable housing, would it be something done at the planning level? We could make someone or the developer pay for it and monitor it. Fred questioned rental units, the owner occupied units quoted as affordable; is there a way to put deed restrictions in there to help insure without the need for code enforcement that the units stay affordable? Lawyers may be looking at that language when it comes up for resale – but rental units are a different issue. Discussion followed on deed restrictions, tracking individual sales, and owner occupied housing. Kirk suggested stating that you will not have clear title to the property unless you file the necessary paperwork with the Town of Ithaca showing that the buyer is qualified. Chris mentioned that the planning staff has not done enough research on affordable housing and Sue thought the non-for-profits here in the Town could take some of that responsibility. Pat thought the Town would rather have most of the control on the unit and in the deed; rather than restricting who can actually buy an affordable property. Susan responded that the Town would not be serving the population in that case. Pat said this would be for middle income and the approach for medium income could be a little different. The idea would be to get more housing supply in the Town that matches the income levels of the permanent residents. In a way, you are letting the market take care of itself by taking care of it on the front end, making sure the initial development of anyone who wants to put houses in the Town has to have at least 10%- or more, the Town could make it higher. We could require more than 10% in that medium range, not talking about low income. As a Town wide Code we may not want to get into the more detail needs testing, who the buyer is and if we get enough housing stock in the Town that is reasonably priced for the average family in the Town or Tompkins County. Then we don’t need to be so exacting who the buyer is and do needs testing, just want to keep the initial housing at a certain level and maybe put a deed restriction on to keep it in the future at that level and forget about who’s buying it. Eric questioned the deed restriction of how much one could officially sell it for. The discussion then turned to rent control, rent control versus sales, city rent control, and rental units turned into condos. Pat said she could look into it more. Bill had a couple of thoughts: 1) Have a not-for-profit like INHS get involved, having a multi-pronged approach, and have research done on the market. 2) Option of what we did with Carrowmoor, came up with our own affordable housing strategy. This would be different from what Beekman was doing, and would also address different strategies and problems in the market. Eric spoke about the INHS land trust, lease of the land and a sale of a house, administration and for developers to give 10% to INHS (if INHS is willing to take it), and it might be best for the Town to 6 find an agency that could take this away from us. Kirk suggested it be folded into a program that another organization can run. Pat added how she liked the multi-prong approach and having INHS involved, but one of the prongs Pat had in mind was to try a market-based approach that had little involvement by the Town or by a third party agency. If we can at least have a base set aside for any development in the Town, have it within 90 to 120%, whatever the income is, to have those initial sales be in that range and have a deed restriction on those without anything else involved, without a lease hold. You would still get the benefits of home ownership for the buyer, just guiding the development in the Town toward more reasonable prices. Unless you have something like that requirement; the natural tendency of all developers will be to build and sell at the highest price the market can bear, that includes bringing in people from New York City, retirees from all over the country wanting to come back; which is what Carrowmoor wants to do. The approach Pat is thinking, make anybody who wants to build, build a certain percentage of homes at the standard affordable rate and then put it in the deed that the price needs to be an affordable rate in the future and then it takes on its own from there. Discussion on legal restrictions, deed restriction, resale, code or bank enforcement, INHS review, transferring of deeds, price ranges, supply side, etc. Bill mentioned Eco-Village and how he will go through their experience at another time. Bill focused the Committee on the next COC meeting: Stream setback in May, in the near future changes to the Conservation Zoning. Chris added that Jonathan said the Conservation Zone Amendments would ready for the May COC meeting, but that Jonathan would not be at the May meeting. So Jonathan suggested giving the COC all the documents to discuss briefly and then at the June meeting have the Committee go into details, discussion and comments with Jonathan. Future work plans: From the Operation Committee regarding fireworks; general discussion on the Sign Law; and staff working on revised red lined draft. For the June COC meeting: Conservation Zone; possible Sign Law power point; and general Affordable Housing discussion (Jonathan). Final thoughts: Pat at next meeting to discuss more on Affordable Housing. Fred felt we need to discuss moderate income housing amongst ourselves, come to an agreement of what is appropriate and then give that direction to the staff to produce whatever documents we need to review. Agenda Item No. 6 – Other Business: No other business was discussed. Next COC agenda for the May 19, 2010 meeting: Continue discussion on Affordable Housing; Stream Setback Law and Conservation Zone. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff