HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-6-16-10 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
June 16, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox.
ABSENT: Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann.
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning;
Sue Ritter, Asst. Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra,
Planner; Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff; Salvatore and Rosalind Grippi; Diane Conneman, Chair of
Conservation Board; Darby Kiley, Planner.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Bill mentioned that the Town Board passed a resolution withdrawing the Director of Code
Enforcement’s authority to issue firework permits and referred the matter to the COC to discuss. The
Town needs to determine who will issue permits, how fees will be addressed and if we can regulate
fireworks using our existing codes. Bruce will initiate this discussion at the July 21, 2010 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 1.5 – Approval of April 21, 2010 and May 15, 2010 minutes:
Approval of the April 21, 2010 minutes: Fred moved and Eric seconded motion to approve the
minutes. All in favor with minor corrections.
Approval of the May 19, 2010 minutes: Eric moved and Fred seconded motion to approve the
minutes. All in favor with minor corrections.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Update on Revisions to the Stream Setback Map:
Sue reviewed the contents of the COC packet and gave a description of the maps that were included.
Sue talked of the new LIDAR data, and ability to calculate drainage areas of Town streams and various
stream site visits. One site visited to verify changes was on Warren Road, the golf course in the
northeast corner of the town. It changed from the original map, where the setbacks were 35’ on one
side and 50’ on the other side. Now with the new calculation it would become all a 35’ setback.
The original map shows it definitely is a 35’ stream versus a 50’ setback stream. This is a very small
stream and Sue felt comfortable with the new calculations. She also described visiting other stream
sites to see if the changes made sense and thus far it has.
Sue pointed out to the Committee, looking at the original stream setback map, up in the northeast area
around Muriel Street, it has roadside ditches, then the stream goes behind the owner’s property and
then you have a roadside ditch again. One way around that would be, to leave the entire stream in and
make a notation on the map saying ‘manmade roadside ditches and culvert sections would not be
regulated’ as opposed to taking them out of the map. She thought the map would look odd with gaps
in the stream due to the ditches and culverts, and would like to propose as an option to make notations
on the map.
Bill asked why make a notation on a map instead of saying something in the law? Sue mentioned the
law does have a definition for streams; manmade ditches are not included. Susan reading from the law
mentioned; stream does not include manmade stormwater conveyances, including roadside ditches.
2
So this may be adequate and wouldn’t have to say it on the map. Question was brought up why even
put it on the map. Bill stated if it’s already in the law, then it’s fine making a notation so people can
look at that instead of having to read through the law.
Sue said she could put the definition of the stream on it or just state the regulated streams according to
this map would not include roadside ditches. Susan asked Sue if she could show culverted streams and
portions of streams that become roadside ditches in a different color on the map, as not regulated. Sue
will look into this.
Revised Map #2 for consideration: Sue would like to make a proposal, that our criteria in the law be
decreased for the 50’ setback and actually start at the 175’ acre drainage area versus the 200’ (example:
stream south of CMC). Sue passed out copies of stream photos of East King Road / Troy Road /
Coddington Road area. Discussion followed of what the setback should be; the 175’ acre idea and a
35’ setback in Zone 1. Sue recommended the 175’ as a cut off.
Bill asked COC members whether changing the criteria from 200’ acres down to 175’ acres sounds
reasonable. Motion to amend the law; Pat motioned and Eric seconded, all in favor of change.
Next step: to put on the Town Board agenda for the July 12, 2010 meeting. Sue mentioned for the
Forest Home residents and Cornell University, she would like to give them a copy of the new draft law
or should I wait till after the Town Board meeting. Bill said okay to send out, it is a public document.
Bill thanked Sue and Susan for all their hard work.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Draft Revised Limited Commercial Historic District
Regulation:
Jon gave a general overview of the Historic District Regulation, what went into the draft law and
sections within the draft law. He indicated that the Planning Committee did some research to see if
there were any other regulations like this around but did not find anything that matched up to the
Planning Committee’s idea. There were many examples of other historic and historic commercial
types of zones. So, the Planning Committee retrofitted a new Zone that seemed to meet the needs of
what the Committee was looking for by taking some of the provisions from the other ordinances. Jon
referenced the places where the Town’s draft Historic District Regulation came from.
Pat asked why we were excluding medical or dental. Jon said (in Section 271.142.2, page 3, (11)), that
this was talked about at the Planning Committee and he forgot to add the word ‘medical’ after
“Business….”; so it should have read “Business, medical, dental, professional, or government office,
but excluding a medical or dental clinic”.
Jon then continued explaining the provisions of the draft regulation, starting with Page 1, Section 270-
142.2; Purpose: Susan mentioned two potentially competing interests; one was to preserve a historic
structure and allow their re-use and the other was to ensure their compatibility with neighboring
residential and other uses. Susan felt that the way it was written, that we may need to talk more about
the second objective - basically this would be a floating zone and could end up anywhere in the Town
where it met the criteria.
Susan felt we need to add language that is similar to what is in our Planned Development Zone
Purposes section. We need to make sure it is clear; this re-zoning is in the Town Board’s discretion.
There should be some type of review to make sure the re-zoning isn’t going to adversely affect
neighboring properties, or is compatible with the neighborhood (i.e. Forest Home Historic District).
The way it is written now, anyone living in one of those houses could come in and say “I want to open
3
up a medical office or a store in my home” and that may or may not be compatible with the neighbors.
(Example: the Grippi’s property is different because it sits across from the Professional Medical
Building).
Bill asked Susan if spelling that out more in the Purpose section would give more guidance to it; make
it an alternate decision when an application is made. Susan said it would show consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, to avoid spot zoning. Susan then talked about the Comprehensive Plan. She did
some research regarding the Planned Development Zone, and, reading from the law under
“Establishment”, Susan suggested we pull language like that and tweak some of it. We could work
with that as a base and further strengthen the law against charges (basically of spot zoning). Bill
thought that was reasonable and suggested getting language from Susan and Jonathan to work on
together. Any other changes could be brought back for approval at the July COC meeting.
The Committee moved on to the next section of the draft; Page 1; Section 270-142.3; Applicability and
Reversion: Susan: Under (2), should it say ‘determined by whom’? The Committee thought it was the
State, and Bruce will look into that. Under (3), where it is written ‘(Final Report for the Intensive
Level Survey, September 2005)’, she suggested adding something like “as it may be revised or updated
from time to time”, so if there are further surveys done, we wouldn’t have to go back in and change the
law.
The next comment was referring to the word ‘sites’. After small discussion, the Committee decided to
delete the word ‘sites’ from Section 270-142.3.
Next line: ‘…… as long as the building or structure for which the historic designation was given
remains on the site in reasonably good condition’. The Committee began a long discussion regarding
the word ‘reasonably’ and whether they want to change it to ‘maintain’. Susan asked the Committee
what was the intent of stating ‘reasonably good condition’ in the law (i.e. a structure can only stay in
the Zone if it looks good, or the architectural / historic integrity is maintained even if it needs a coat of
paint?) The Committee agreed that maintaining historic integrity was the intent.
The discussion led to the example of Sage Hall – the interior was proposed to be gutted, but the
historic exterior was to remain. There was a big fight and lawsuits regarding the project. So, does the
Town want to focus on only the historic integrity of the exterior of structures only? Does the Town
care about interior modifications? The National Register of Historic Places only cares about the
exterior of structures. After much discussion, the COC decided to not say anything about the interior
of structures in the Historic Zone and that the Zone would only apply to the exterior of structures
(similar to what the National and State Registers of Historic Places require).
Next line: ‘If the historic building or structure is demolished, destroyed, or abandoned the property
shall ……’. Susan asked “what percent of destruction means destroyed, 10%, 50%, 100%”?
Committee thought 50% of destruction would be best. Bruce stated that the Residential Code says
“exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred”.
Page 1 and 2; Section 270-142.4; Permitted principal uses: The Committee was okay with this and
Pat’s earlier question (regarding E (11) was covered.
Page 3; Section 270-142.5; Principal uses authorized by special permit only: Fred asked “where did the
4,000 square foot limit come from”? Jon replied “it’s slightly smaller than the Neighborhood
Commercial Zone limit, given the size and scale of most of the buildings you are going to see; there
4
was no special place where it came from”. Jon mentioned other buildings on Trumansburg Road as an
example.
Under (G), Bill asked why both Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals were applicable and Jon
said that’s the same provision we have in other Commercial Zone provision, but it doesn’t have to be
that way. Discussion followed and the Committee decided to delete ‘both’ and delete ‘and Zoning
Board of Appeals’ and change ‘find’ to ‘finds’.
Page 3; Section 270-142.6; Permitted accessory uses and structures: The Committee decided to delete
‘and exceptions’, since there were none listed.
B: ‘Adult day-care facilities serving no more than four clients at any one time’. Fred had a question
on the word “clients”: was client an individual, or a family that gets a bill, even though the husband
and wife are there? Jon mentioned that’s how we defined it in other parts of the Zoning Code. Bill
suggested checking on this wording; does it mean “people”?
Page 4; Section 270-142.7; Minimum area for Limited Historic Commercial Zone: Susan had a
comment regarding this and referred to 270-115 and wording of “Commercial Zones Generally” and
thought this section could come out and be added to Section 270-115. The Committee agreed to move
this Section and add it to Section 270-115. Susan had other comments for this page and Bill suggested
having the comments included in the next draft.
Page 4; Section 270-142.8; Height limitations: Susan mentioned that this sentence was identical to the
first sentence in the General Provision area, but the next one says ‘no structure other than the building
should exceed 30’in height” and wasn’t sure if that was left out . Do we want to limit the height of
structures other than buildings in these zones? Jon said this Zone should be consistent with the others.
So, Susan’s suggestion was to move this section to Section 270-115 “Commercial Zones Generally”
because it sounded like we did want to limit the height of structures other than buildings. The
Committee agreed.
Other question Susan had: “under Section 270-122 “Commercial Zone Generally” Article – Additional
special requirements A through F: (C) buffer requirements don’t apply and (D) screening requirements
do apply but the question is, “what about (A), (B), (E) and (F)”?
“(A) off street loading: how many off street loading spaces are required per 20,000 square feet
of floor area? Do we want that to apply”? (talking about commercial use). Jon mentioned that a
lot of these sites were going to be so small, and Susan added: “do we want to say specifically
(A) doesn’t apply”? Bill thought none of the uses that we were allowing would probably
require any of that. Jon added “that maybe we would want to say something more like the
Planning Board and site plan review should look at that and determine whether it is appropriate
to require, rather saying “you have to do it”. Bill would prefer not to require it to be done.
“(B) access and sidewalks: “access drives shall be paved with blacktop, concrete…”, Susan
thought this would be for the Planning Board to decide. Fred asked, “What’s our intent? Our
intent is to take historic structures, and potentially allow interior modifications so they can have
a commercial use”. Bill added, “As opposed to residential use”. The COC then discussed
driveways to be paved, safe or unsafe driveways, the Town’s Lighting Law.
Susan suggested she would set the provisions out in the next draft, and the Committee would go
through the list and deal with them to see if they would apply or not. Bill suggested to re-address this
at the next meeting in July.
5
Mrs. Grippi had a general comment regarding preserving the whole environment. Fred added, “if you
are allowed commercial use, it raises the standard for providing safe access necessary for residential
use”. The discussion then turned to the Town Sprinkler Law, existing buildings, renovations and
dollar value. Bill suggested checking into this for the next meeting in July.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of Comments Received Regarding Proposed Conservation Zone
Amendments:
Bill reviewed the materials received regarding the proposed Conservation Zone, which included a
letter from Cornell and a memo from Diane Conneman that was sent out by e-mail and copies of that
handed out to the committee.
Bill started with Diane’s memo, and Diane added that she did see the Cornell’s memo and felt the
Conservation Board’s (CB) suggestions would solve Cornell’s issues too.
Diane provided an overview regarding forest management, to permit forest management as a permitted
use and require an application that includes a checklist and a plan developed by a forester. The CB
suggests that a plan remain on file for 5 years, with the option to renew it. A Planning Department
staff person reviewing forest management plans could be trained and then be more confident than a
Planning Board, because the Planning Board might not be knowledgeable of technical issues. The
staff will become familiar with the professional foresters. The CB thinks the regulations could be a
little more flexible for forest management reviews.
Susan stated that the current regulations require that a plan be submitted to the Planning Board. Diane
added that the Planning Board review could be a lengthy process. Jon mentioned that he would not
feel comfortable with having the responsibility to process forest management plans; Planning staff
does not review and approve any other type of plans. He also added that just as the planning staff can
be trained to be familiar with these things, so can the Planning Board members by practice and by
doing it.
Diane said that the number of landowners with property in Conservation Zones is relatively small, and
educating people of the regulations could be the role of the CB.
Bill added that under the revised language if the landowners are going to harvest or cut on more than
half an acre, the landowners would have to apply for a special permit. Diane stated it was the
cumulative half acre that is difficult to determine. Darby mentioned an example where permission was
needed based on the volume of wood cut or the number of trees.
Fred wants to make it simple for the landowner and agrees with the checklist but is not sure about the
area requirement (half acre vs. 1 acre). He would be concerned if the owner cut trees over a larger
area. Diane added that one would be concerned if a landowner clear cut along a stream bank and
caused a lot of erosion.
There was some discussion on what does cutting a half acre mean – would you measure the canopy of
the tree. At the Wiedmaier subdivision, the subdivision approval was violated and he was punished for
that. Landowner education would be needed on how to manage forests properly, what any new
regulations are, what are the responsibilities of owning land in the Conservation Zones.
Jon provided some additional definitions for review, which included a definition for forest
management.
6
Bill asked the Committee members about their thoughts regarding the requirement in the current draft
that ‘harvesting and cutting’ be reviewed by the Planning Board for special permit.
Pat said she would also like to have it go to Planning Board and the staff, and agrees it should not be
based on cumulative acreage. She added forest management may require selective cutting more than a
half acre as long it’s a part of that plan. We may want to ban clear cutting a half acre if it is not part of
the forest management.
Bill asked if the Conservation Board has any role they can play in this rather than the Planning Board.
Diane replied that the CB only has an advisory role. Bill also asked if the goal of the Conservation
Board’s recommendation was to make the process easier for the landowners then what we are currently
asking. Diane responded that the CB wants to encourage people to get professional advice. The DEC
provides stewardship advice free of charge to begin a plan.
Darby referred to the DEC website – there is the information on stewardship plans and the cooperative
forester program, which provides a list of who is part of that program for each region of the state. This
document would be something useful to send out to landowners in the Conservation Zones. Brett
Chedzoy from Cornell Cooperative Extension helped the CB with input and some language.
Jon mentioned if a forest management plan could be better defined, including what it is and what
information is required. That was the issue when the McArdle proposal was reviewed by the Planning
Board and the Planning staff received comments from the forester pertaining to confusion on
requirements. The list of definitions from the Municipal Planning Guide has a good definition of a
forest management plan. The elements of a plan would have to be determined. Susan stated the
requirements were in the law and applicants only need to read that section. The forester for the
McArdle property did not have any specific comments but staff helped him through the process. There
was a discussion of dangerous and diseased trees.
Bill said in addition to looking at possible definitions and looking at it in more detail, the one half acre
needs more thought, by either a new definition or changing the approach.
Diane also had a question regarding the definition of a yard. In short review, the Conservation Board
felt when people read the word ‘yard’, they would think mowed lawn. Changing the term or the open
space definition could influence how people perceive the term yard (i.e. open space meaning treeless
land) to think of it as natural landscape. Darby went on to read from the Natural Resource
Management definition of open space.
Discussion on yards, definitions, mowing, lawn, forest, side yard setback, back yards, setbacks, zoning
definition of yards, yard or open space in a conservation district. Susan added that the yard definition
was not that hard to understand and does not need to be changed.
Bill went back to the Conservation Board memo regarding invasive plants. If invasive plants and
hazardous trees have not been the subject of any prior approval, the landowners should be allowed to
remove these. Bill asked the committee for any thoughts on that. Pat agreed.
Bill mentioned; in the draft law in Section 5, (B)(3), on page 2 at bottom: The paragraph about
invasive plants species, last line, ‘if present on a site, they may be removed by the site owner or
authorized agent’ that would seem to cover that issue.
7
Bill asked if something should be added about hazardous or diseased trees. Fred responded that the
review of the boards and staff should not be needed for trees that could cause harm or destruction.
Susan referred to a conservation easement regarding the wetlands associated with the Ithaca College
Athletic and Events Center and what was listed that could be removed without permission. Susan will
bring list to next meeting and Bill said we may be able to add some of that language to the draft law.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continued Discussion on Affordable Housing Strategies:
Re-scheduled for the July 21, 2010 COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Other Business:
None.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Next meeting date and agenda scheduled:
For July 21, 2010 COC meeting: Revised Limited Commercial Historic District Regulation (Jon);
more on Conservation Zone Amendments (Cornell comments); Discussion on Affordable Housing;
and Discussion on Fireworks (Bruce).
Meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff