Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-5-19-10 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 19, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, 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 Brittain. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Bruce had comment regarding garages in the back yard; the code definition for garages and the need for further discussion and language to clarify this. Bill decided to put this under “Other Business” for further discussion. Bill reported on the Planning Committee which is reviewing the draft law ‘Limited Commercial Historical District’ for the zoning code. The Planning Committee has completed its review of the draft law and it is expected to come to the COC for review, possibly in June. Agenda Item No. 2 – Discussion regarding revised “Prohibited Activities” section of the Stream Setback Law (two versions to discuss and choose from): Sue updated committee on the LIDAR data, which she recently received from the County. She explained that the data is hard to work given its large size. She hopes to work on creating a revised Stream Setback Map using the updated DEM/LIDAR data and try to have something for the committee in June. Bill explained that the committee needs to decide on an approach for the prohibited activities and the permitted activities (Section E. of the draft Law) in the stream setback zones. Susan had prepared and provided to the committee two versions for the committee to consider. Members expressed support for version 2 which listed prohibited uses in Zone 2 followed by prohibited uses in Zone 1. The committee started the review with Page 1 of Version 2: Section E. Prohibited activities in stream setback zone 2: Page 1: (1)(d); last sentence: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following agricultural activities are permitted regardless of when they begin or if they cease for more than a year and thereafter begin again: Bruce Brittain asked: “Is there an easier way to phrase this last sentence or could sentence stop after ‘regardless of when they begin:’? After short discussion regarding time aspect and why time periods at all; the committee decided to leave as is. Page 2: (e)[2]: Construction of Stormwater ponds and wetlands: (yellow highlighted comment) Bill referred to the email that was included in the packet and said Sue thought this was fine here. Committee was okay to leave it here. Page 3: (i)[1]: Installation of water wells and connections; and: 2 Bill compared this section of version 2 with that in version 1, and asked if the ‘and connections’ had been left out of version 1 for some reason. Susan explained why the difference was there and Bill said it made sense. Page 3: (j)[1]: Selection tree cutting that maintains the protective function of the setback area: Bruce Brittain: “Up to now, it was called setback zone or riparian area, should we have consistent wording setback area. Should it be setback zone or riparian area”? Susan mentioned we could change ‘area’ to ‘zone’. Bill agreed, so we should make it consistent with how we said it elsewhere in the law. Page 3: (j)[5]: Development of a narrow permeable (non-paved) footpath within the stream setback: Bruce Brittain: Concern using the word “a” in the sentence. Could wording be plural, using “narrow permeable (non-paved) footpaths within the stream setback”? Committee decided to leave as is after discussion. Page 4: (m)[1]: Crossings of streams through the stream setback ………: Bruce Brittain: “Do we need the word ‘exclusively’”? After discussion, Committee decided on these changes: delete ‘designed exclusively for pedestrians or cyclists’ and add ‘roadways’. Page 5: (q): Mining or removal of soil, sand and gravel, and quarrying of raw materials………….: Bruce Brittain questioned the wording of ‘parcel’. Bruce Bates mentioned that DEC would define the area where it could be done. Committee agreed to leave as is. Page 5: F. Prohibited activities in stream setback zone 1: Committee okay with this. Page 6: G. Prior nonconforming uses and activities: Committee okay with this. Page 6: H. Transition provisions: Committee okay with this. The committee completed the review of Section E. of the law, which concludes the review of the draft Stream Setback Zone. Sue stated that for the June COC meeting she will try to have a revised map. She would prefer to wait until the map was updated before sending the law out for comments. Bill felt the language is set and discussed referring the law to other Boards. Fred would like to see it go to Town Board first and let the Board deal with the public information sessions for referring it to the Planning Board and Zoning Board. Discussion of the revised versions, maps, language, Town Board and other Boards, sending it out to all involved at the same time; Sue urged that the committee wait until June for a report on the updated map. Bill suggested an update in June from Sue and then send it on to the Town Board. As the committee is done with the language, the Town Board can decide how long they want to look at the language before sending it out to the other Boards. Agenda Item No. 3 – Powerpoint slideshow of examples of Signs found in the Ithaca area: Chris provided the committee with a PowerPoint presentation of ‘Signs In Ithaca’. During the presentation, Pat asked if “There are some limitations on political signs that we can impose?”. What 3 does our law say about the political signs”? Pat went on to mention regulations, adverse effect, and size. Fred said “do not limit any political signs”. Bill suggested that for the next time the committee could look at our current law regarding political signs and see what other municipalities have done. Kirk asked “does COC want to regulate or limit cigarette advertisement and signs”? “Do we have any authority”? Small discussion followed regarding cigarette signs and the federal/state regulations. Chris: to draft red line version of the sign law for either the June or July COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business: Garages in the backyard regarding: do we need to have draft changes on our current definition. Discussion on feet in the rear yard; limit height; Susan reading from code; accessory buildings, sheds, should a garage be classified as a accessory building or have them separate, 3’ off the lot line; accessory building can total up to 600 sq ft; privacy in back yard; smaller lots; and new developments. Bruce and Susan will draft language for the June meeting. Next COC agenda for the June 16, 2010 meeting: Limited Commercial Historic District (Jon); Conservation Zone amendments with Conservation Board and Cornell comments (Jon); Affordable Housing (Jon) and an update on the Stream Setback Law map. Meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff