Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-7-21-10 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES July 21, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann. OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner; Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff; Salvatore and Rosalind Grippi. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None Agenda Item No. 1.5 – Approval of June 16, 2010 minutes: Minor changes were made to the minutes that were unanimously approved as amended. Eric moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes. Eva and Kirk abstained, as they were not present at the June meeting. Agenda Item No. 2 – Discussion of Draft Revised Limited Commercial Historic District Regulation & Changes to Chapter 270, Article XIII, Commercial Zones Generally: The Committee started with the Revised Limited Historic Commercial Zone regulation, and went line by line through the revised regulation. Bill asked the Committee for any opening remarks regarding the changes. Jon made the comment that Susan took the notes from the June 16th meeting and revised the regulation accordingly. Susan also included in the revision some additional questions for the Committee to answer or discuss. Page 1: Limited Historic Commercial Zones, Section 270-142.2, Purpose: The Committee discussed how the term ‘cultural’ fit in to the context of the Purpose Section, or whether ‘cultural resources’ even needed to be mentioned. Jonathan noted that he checked the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and that the Plan really only mentioned historic resources, not cultural resources. After a short discussion, the Committee decided to delete the reference to ‘cultural resources’. Susan was concerned with spot zoning, given the proposed small size of the Limited Historic Commercial Zone – lots as small as a quarter of an acre. So she asked the Committee to consider increasing the acreage for the Limited Historic Commercial Zone. The Zone would be considered a “floating zone”, a zone where there was an underlying zoning designation and property owners who met certain criteria could come in and apply for their property to be changed to the new Zone. This floating zone could be applied anywhere in the Town. She listed the criteria that the legal system has looked at to defend against charges of spot zoning (law must be consistent with Comp Plan and show that rezoning was not being accomplished as a benefit for individual owners rather than overall community benefit). Some of the cases Susan researched showed that the courts supported regulations with larger zone areas. 2 Jon noted that the 1993 Comprehensive Plan included other documents that the Town produced and suggested that we could add a specific reference to the Town’s Historic Resources Survey as one of the criteria for designating a site. Jon also suggested adding a reference to the Historic Resources Survey in the Purpose Section of the law. The Committee discussed who prepared the survey, whether the Town Board approved the survey or asked for the survey to be prepared. Jon suggested that the Town amend the Comprehensive Plan to more formally incorporate the Historic Resources Survey. Bill suggested bringing the Survey to the Town Board for approval. The Committee continued discussion of the proposed ¼ acre Limited Historic Commercial Zone size along with spot zoning issues. Eva made a comment regarding the Town of Ithaca not having many historic properties, and suggested that the Town protect whatever is left, regardless of lot size. Jon agreed and said that that would be a good statement to put in the Comprehensive Plan as an amended statement. The Committee decided to strengthen the purposes behind the Limited Historic Commercial Zone regulation by amending the Comprehensive Plan and having the Town Board endorse the Historic Resources Survey, but not necessarily changing a lot in the language in the Purpose Section. Bill went on to say that Jon and Susan could work on this. Page 1: Section 270-142.3: Applicability and Reversion: Bill noted that the big change in this section was having the Town Board make determinations and findings under certain criteria to bol ster the strength of the action. The Committee discussed the Town of Brookhaven’s criteria, various floating zone court cases, and other regulations that address/minimize impacts to neighboring properties. Susan stated that the courts liked to see safeguards for neighboring properties, and so she added the language in part “B” to support the regulation. Susan expressed that she needed to refine and re-word some of the language in this section. C. (page 2): Clarify ‘abandoned’ – not used or occupied: The Committee discussed the clarification of the term “abandoned” in this section, if it means abandoned use of a property or abandoned maintenance of a structure on the property. The group also talked about whether or not a property owner should lose their Limited Historic Commercial Zone designation if the use of their property reverted back to a residential use (or whatever the property was used for before the designation was made). One Committee member suggested that the Zone be tied to the historic nature of the structure on the property, not the use of the property. Another member reminded the group that the Town was not going to randomly Zone areas for Limited Historic Commercial; that property owners needed to ask for the designation, provided that they met the criteria of the Zone. Specifically regarding the intent behind the term “abandoned”, Fred thought the Committee’s intent was abandonment of the use, when the use of the structure stopped being something other than a residential use. Bruce thought the reference was regarding the maintenance of the structure, not the use of the structure, such that if the structure was abandoned, dilapidated or not maintained, then it would lose the Limited Historic Commercial Zone designation. The Committee went over the various dictionary definitions and interpretations of “abandoned”, along with the purpose of the Zone, which is to preserve the historic integrity of the structures on the property. After much discussion, the group decided to delete “abandoned for more than one year”. There was also some discussion about the demolition or destruction of structures, including when the 3 Town Board should make a determination on whether the property should remain in the Limited Historic Commercial Zone. Susan will re-arrange this section and make the appropriate changes to it. Page 2 and Page 3: Section 270-142.4: Permitted principal uses: The only change in this section was to add/clarify “medical, dental” to (11). Page 3: Section 270-142.5: Principal uses authorized by special permit only: Very small change in (G). Page 4: Section 270-142.6: Permitted accessory uses and structures: Bill mentioned that this was the section where the General Commercial Zone questions came up. Eva didn’t see anything in the regulation about the nature of accessory buildings or references to the historic accessory buildings that exist. Eva wondered if this meant that one could have a new accessory building next to a historic building, and if so, is that what the Town wanted? Fred responded ‘yes’ and explained to Eva that the COC decided to allow this because it would facilitate the operation of a business, if the business needed a small outbuilding for storage –as long as the new accessory structure was not attached to the historic building. Jon noted that Section B, on page 5 of the law, dealt with building conversion and alterations, and included language that requires new accessory structures be compatible with the historic nature of the existing buildings. The Committee may need to work on that wording, but the intent was in the law. Moving ahead to Page 5: Section B: Bill asked if anyone had ideas for wording in this section. Regarding the last sentence highlighted in yellow, “COC to determine whether this applies to both external and internal elements”, Bill assumed the Town would mostly be interested in the external elements. Eva thought it depended on the building; some buildings’ internal architectural features are just as important as their external features. She suggested an expert on historical buildings should evaluate the historic and architectural importance of interior elements. Bruce mentioned that it was the New York State Office, Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation that makes the State Register of Historic Places designations. But how the building is maintained on the interior is usually up to another organization, such as a historical board. It’s that other organization that makes the determination on what can be done to a historic structure. The Town lacks that because we don’t have a historic board that would set the requirements. Eric was not in favor of regulating the interior of historic structures because it would not facilitate the business purpose. Eric stated that he thought Eva was referring to landmark preservation. In landmark preservation, it’s the exterior of the buildings which are landmarked, but businesses are allowed to completely gut the inside of a historic structure for the business use. After a bit more discussion, the Committee decided that they were going to focus on the regulation of the exterior elements of historic properties, and to not explicitly state the preservation of interior elements. Bruce did some research into the State Building Code (Existing Build ing Code of NYS 2007) and looked up historical buildings and found that the Building Code addresses the issue the COC was grappling with regarding conversions, alterations, etc. According to the Building Code, in order to alter, change, etc., a historical structure, one needed to submit to the Building Department a report by an architect or engineer that included: “A historical building undergoing alteration or change of occupancy shall be investigated and evaluated. If it is intended that the building meets the requirements of this chapter (“Altering 4 Existing Structures”), then a written report shall be prepared and filed with the Code Enforcement Official by a registered design professional when such report is necessary in the opinion of the Code Enforcement Official. Such report shall be in accordance with Chapter 1 and shall identify: 1. Each required safety feature that is in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. 2. Which compliance with the provisions of this chapter that would damage the contributing historical character of contributing historic features”. Bruce went on to say that the Building Code didn’t distinguish between the interior or exterior of a historic structure – the requirements could apply to both. The Committee maintained their decision to not explicitly address the interior preservation of historic structures. Last item on page 5 highlighted in yellow: recommendation as to whether exceptions to the Town’s sprinkler law should be made for historic properties rezoned under this article: The Committee discussed the Town’s Sprinkler Law, and whether it applies to historic structures. Bruce explained that the State Sprinkler Law has specific provisions as to when sprinklers are required, but the Town Law requires sprinklers for various types of new building construction if the “work exceeds 50% of the replacement cost of the building”. However, the Town Law doesn’t necessarily address old, historic buildings. Kirk wondered if there was any discussion regarding repealing or revising the Town’s Sprinkler Law in general. The Zoning Board has had many awkward encounters with people requesting variances from the Town’s Sprinkler Law, when the State Law, which is very strict itself, doe s not require sprinklers. Zoning Board members do not feel qualified to rule on the safety element of sprinklers and yet they are required to consider variances from the Town’s Sprinkler Law. Bill acknowledged Kirk’s question, but the Committee decided to deal with the overall Sprinkler Law another time. Back to the Limited Historic Commercial Zone regulation, the Committee decided to leave the law “as is” and give no exceptions to the Town’s Sprinkler Law for historic structures. The Committee determined that there would not likely be too many properties within the Limited Historic Commercial Zone, so the Zoning Board would probably not be overwhelmed with sprinkler variance requests. Bottom of page 4 (C), regarding dimensions for side yards in Limited Historic Commercial Zone: Susan Brock acknowledged that the comment in yellow was included because it was general language found in all the Commercial Zones in the Code. She asked the Committee if they wanted to put that same language in the Limited Historic Commercial Zone law to be consistent with the existing Code language. The Committee agreed to this. The Committee then went through the “Changes to Article XIII: Commercial Zones Generally” revisions that were included in their packets. The group began discussing the minimum area for commercial zones and the topic of making the minimum Limited Historic Commercial Zone area larger than the ¼ acre suggestion. Jonathan suggested making the minimum requirement 1/3 acre, as it would result in a little over 15,000 square feet in area and would then include all properties within the Medium Density Residential Zone as well as all properties within the Low Density Residential Zone. Kirk suggested we make the number 15,000 square feet, rather than 1/3 acre. Regardless, making it 1/3 acre or 15,000 square feet would exclude properties within the High Density Residential Zone (9,000 s.f. lots). The Committee agreed to change 270-115 (C) to “15,000 square feet”. 270-118. Building Area: The Committee had no comments – the additional text was just re-organized from the other law and placed here. 5 270-122: Additional special requirements, C. Buffer areas and screening: The Committee discussed the concept and intent of buffers, and whether earth berms should be included among the list of buffering/screening choices. Eva felt that earth berms should not be allowed in the Limited Historic Commercial Zone, as they didn’t seem to her as an appropriate way to screen historic structures; earth berms could be quite large and could screen out the historic structure itself. The group decided that earth berms were one of many options for the Planning Board to consider during site plan review of the Limited Historic Commercial Zone proposals and decided not to eliminate earth berms in this section. The COC also accepted the modifications in paragraph C. 270-122: Additional special requirements, D. Additional screening: The Committee accepted the technical correction made by Susan in this section. Pages 2 and 3: Susan explained that these were other provisions that currently existed in the ‘Commercial Zones Generally’ article and that, at the last meeting, the COC stated they’d go through these provisions and see if they wanted to leave them applicable to all commercial zones or if they wanted to modify the provisions in some way to accommodate the Limited Historic Commercial Zone. The Committee decided to leave these existing provisions applicable to the Limited Historic Commercial Zone, with the additional modification to 270-120 (A) – minimum lot area – to change to 15,000 square feet. Susan will also revise the language in the other Limited Historic Commercial Zone sections to state that width and depths shall be allowed in the underlying Zone, although the minimum allowable site size for the Limited Historic Commercial Zone would remain 15,000 square feet regardless of the underlying Zone site size requirement. Susan and Jonathan will provide a completed revised draft Limited Historic Commercial Zone regulation for the next meeting, which will then hopefully be ready to send on to the Town Board. Susan and Jonathan will also provide revised Comprehensive Plan language to go along with the regulation. Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Cornell Comments Regarding Proposed Conservation Zone Amendments (and June 25th email from Susan Brock regarding forest management plan requirements): Moved to the August 18, 2010 COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 4 – Continued Discussion on Affordable Housing Strategies, Including Inclusionary Zoning: Moved to the August 18, 2010 COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion of the Town’s Regulation and Permitting for Fireworks (update by Bruce Bates): Bruce requested input from the COC on which direction to go regarding the regulation of fireworks in the Town of Ithaca. Bruce stated that the Town needs to determine 3 things: (1) who, in the Town, will have the authority to issue fireworks permits, (2) what the fee schedule will be, and (3) if the Town can, what additional local restrictions does the Town want to place on fireworks (i.e. limit the length of a fireworks display, or limit the area of the Town allowed for fireworks displayed). Committee members wanted to see what other municipalities have done, and Bruce stated that the Town was leading the way on this law; that there were no other municipal examples to follow. Susan Brock stated that the Town Board, as the governing body, would be the entity to determine who has the 6 authority to issue permits. Susan also stated that the NYS Penal Law would not allow the Town to regulate the display of fireworks. Bruce explained some of the limits set forth in the State Code for fireworks. The group talked about who would be chosen to issue and enforce a fireworks regulation, whether it be an independent contractor, someone from Codes staff, someone from the Fire Department, etc. The Town Board will need to decide who would issue these permits. The Committee suggested the Town deal with the fireworks issue as simply as possible: authorize Town Code staff to issue permits, figure out a fee schedule based on a percentage of the amount of staff time it takes for inspections/problems or possibly the cost of the fireworks, don’t get into a lot of restrictions, and see how it goes for the first year. Agenda Item No. 6 – Other Business: Bruce forwarded a minor typo correction for a section of Town Code that deals with illegal trash dumping. The Committee discussed it and determined that eliminating the “or” in the last sentence before the word “human” in Article II, Section 214-2, made sense. Susan Brock suggested someone from the Town Clerk’s Office call General Code to fix both the online and paper versions of that specific page of the Code. Agenda Item No. 7 – Next meeting date and agenda scheduled: For the August 18, 2010 COC meeting: Revised Limited Historic Commercial Zone regulation Conservation Zone Amendment Comments Affordable Housing Discussion Continue Discussion on Fireworks & Garages Motion to adjourn: Fred Seconded: Kirk Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff