Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-8-18-10Note: staff tasks for the next meeting are noted in italics 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES August 18, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Kirk Sigel. OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Diane Conneman (guest). MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Bill reported that the Planning Board looked at the Stream Setback Law on Tuesday, August 17th, and made a number of comments regarding the Law. The Zoning Board will be looking at the Law at their meeting in September. Bill will recommend to the Town Board that the collected comments from the various Boards should come back to the COC to review first, before sending the comments on to the Town Board. The COC can then incorporate any of the comments and concerns and send the Law on to the Town Board. All COC members agreed with this approach. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of July 21, 2010 minutes: Minor changes were made to the minutes that were unanimously approved as amended. Kirk moved and Eric seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes. Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Draft Revised Limited Commercial Historic District Regulation & Changes to Chapter 270, Article XIII, Commercial Zones Generally : The Committee reviewed the new revised Draft Limited Historic Commercial District regulation that was included in the recent mail out. Bill acknowledged Doug and Bruce Brittain and asked if they had comments on the regulation. The Brittain’s replied that they would express their comments as the review of the draft went along. Comments regarding the “Purpose” Section: None Comments regarding the “Eligibility & Reversion” Section: • Under “A”, Bruce Brittain had a comment about the second criteria and stated that in order for a structure to be eligible for listing, the structure would have to be at least 50 years old , and that this could be broadly applied to a good amount of housing stock in the Town. He wondered how widely the Town wanted the criteria to be applicable. The Committee had a short discussion about this and decided to leave the second criteria in place with no changes. • Under “B”, Pat asked if “B” was dependent on the conditions of “A” being met before “B” could happen. That is, could the Town Board decide on it’s own to re-zone a property if it met the three determinations in “B” but not those in “A”? Susan Brock stated that that was not the intent of the law, but that Pat brought up a really good question, and that the Town should specify in a first finding made in “B” that a property must meet one or more of the criteria in “A.” The Committee agreed to this addition, so Susan Brock will add a finding in “B” (will be a new #1 under “B”). Note: staff tasks for the next meeting are noted in italics 2 • Under “B(2)”, highlighted question: “is this criteria too stringent”? The Committee discussed what situations would be considered incompatible with neighboring streets, and decided, after a short discussion, that the criteria were not too stringent. However, Kirk asked whether all of the uses listed in the LHCZ were considered compatible with neighboring areas. The Brittain brothers had a concern that the allowed uses in the LHCZ could possibly be considered interchangeable – that (for example) one could initially come to the Town Board to get their property re-zoned to LHCZ to open an interior design shop or office, and then later decide to open a restaurant or drug store instead. Those uses are completely different and would generate different impacts to the neighborhood, but all would be allowed if the property was re-zoned LHCZ. The Committee discussed this more and determined that the Town Board would not likely re-zone a property located in the middle of a residential neighborhood to LHCZ. Eric suggested that the Town explore creating a sub-Zone that would apply certain uses, such as retail and more impacting uses. The Town Board could then consider whether the use the property seeking the re-zoning applied to the LHCZ or the sub-Zone. No final decision was made on this, other than the earlier agreement that the criteria were not too stringent. • Under “B(3)”, Pat wondered if this section was too broad, specifically the phrase “seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants.” She felt that the phrase was very subjective. Susan Brock explained that she took the language verbatim from the Zoning Code language that applied to Special Permits/Special Approvals. The language is included in one of the findings that the Planning or Zoning Board needs to make before granting special permits or special approvals. Susan further explained that the language didn’t appear to be a problem in the past and that it was an important consideration for the LHCZ. Kirk noted that it would be fair for a Town Board member to vote against a re-zoning to LHCZ if he/she was convinced that a re-zoning to LHCZ would “seriously inconvenience neighboring habitants” (or if the Town Board member felt that other criteria was not met). The Committee discussed this more and decided to leave the section as is. • The Brittain brothers had concerns about Section “C”, particularly the beginning “Once rezoned, the Limited Historic Commercial Zone designation shall remain in effect as long as the building or structures…remain on the site…” The Brittains wondered if that meant that there was no way to undo the LHCZ designation and asked if there was a way to reverse the zoning. The Committee discussed the Town’s power to re-zone, the potential difficulty of re-zoning a LHCZ property to another zoning designation after it is zoned LHCZ, and the potential impacts of some of the uses allowed in the LHCZ on neighboring properties. Bill indicated that the Town Board would show some discretion with what uses they would all ow in certain areas of the Town. Susan Brock suggested the Town be more careful with what uses are allowed in the LHCZ law, as the uses currently listed might not be appropriate for every area that qualified for the zoning designation. Kirk felt that the Town was trying to find a way to essentially grant use variances at the Town Board level, only without any precision. But once the ‘use variance’ was granted, the property owner could do a variety of things, without applying use variance criteria, and without regard to the potential impacts on the neighborhood. The Committee then explored having the Planning Board apply special permit criteria for certain proposed uses, so the special permit would expire if the use expired, in which case, the LHCZ designation would also expire. The Committee also discussed having a two-step process, whereby the Town Board would re-zone a property LHCZ, then the property owner would go to the Planning Board to seek special permit approval, and then the special permit approval would only be good for the particular use that was proposed. Note: staff tasks for the next meeting are noted in italics 3 Additionally, Pat suggested creating two broad categories for the Town Board to choose from when considering designating a property for LHCZ – one services/office (low impact) category, and the other retail (high impact) category. Pat felt that this might assist the Town Board with deciding how compatible a use is in a particular area. After significant discussion, Bill suggested that, given the potentially large changes to the draft LHCZ law, the Committee wait until they could get input from Jon Kanter and Fred Wilcox. Bill and Susan will discuss the various changes with Jon before the next meeting, and the whole Committee will discuss this section further at the next meeting. Bill also suggested that the Brittain brothers put their comments in writing and submit them to staff to they can distribute them to the COC before the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of Cornell Comments Regarding Proposed Conservation Zone Amendments (and June 25th email from Susan Brock regarding forest management plan requirements): The Committee discussed the April 28th letter from Cornell, starting with the first Cornell comment that the forest management uses and other forest resources uses language are vague. Susan Brock referenced the Planning Department’s additional definitions and amendments that were created in response to the various comments. One of the amendments included a definition of forest management. Bill asked if the Committee wanted to add the definitions on the Planning Department’s list to the law. Diane Conneman commented that the forest management definition was not a very strong one, and that there were no State standards on what constituted a forester, so the Town might want to consider adding stronger language somehow to that definition. Bill noted that section “H” in the local law was the main problem area that needed to be dealt with. Cornell had concerns regarding the proposed change from a 1-acre to a ½ acre harvesting area. Diane stated that this was also an issue the Conservation Board raised, particularly how to measure ½ acre of harvesting if it’s cumulative – that is, how to measure cutting individual trees at various spots on a property. Sue Ritter summarized some information she found from a brief online search of forest management regulations. She found some local laws that used crown canopy and basal areas as a way to regulate tree cutting. Sue referenced the model law from the “Genesee Valley Finger Lakes Planning Council”, along with some municipalities in the Canandaigua Lake area, and stated that those laws appeared to have good municipal timber and forest management language that the Town could follow, particularly in terms of thresholds. These municipalities were very specific on what they wanted, so their regulations contained specific provisions on what loggers could and could not do. Sue noticed that some of the regulations had a permitting process that a Code Enforcement Officer would follow, while other regulations required appearances before a Planning Board or Planning Council. Some of the regulations also contained terminology that distinguished between clear-cutting for development and land managing of forested areas. Diane noted that the laws Sue referenced dealt with large quantities of wood rather than with acreage (25 cords or larger). The Committee discussed the size difference between face cord versus full cord and other quantities of wood for personal use, and determined that the larger quantities were more of a problem that warranted regulation than the smaller quantities. Bill compared the current draft of the Proposed Changes to the Conservation Zone with the other regulations that Sue Ritter described. After more discussion regarding thresholds (regulating acreage versus board-feet versus canopy or basal areas), the Committee appeared to decide to explore regulating timber harvesting/forest management based upon the amount of wood being harvested rather than the land area, and to have the Code Enforcement Office enforce and issue permits for the harvesting, rather than having applicants go to the Planning Board for approval. Bruce was ok with this approach as long as there was evaluating criteria set up for the Code staff to follow. Note: staff tasks for the next meeting are noted in italics 4 The Committee then moved on to a discussion of wetlands, as noted in the draft local law and commented by Cornell. Sue Ritter noticed that our draft local law stated that there shall be no harvesting of timber within 100-feet of any wetland designated by the Town. She stated that National Wetland Inventory wetlands could be as small as ¼ acre and that preserving trees within 100 feet of all wetlands would not actually serve to protect the smaller wetlands (would leave larger areas than necessary). Sue offered that this was something that was problematic that the Committee should consider revising. Susan Brock referred to an email she sent previously in which she stated that the Town’s definition of wetlands between the Town Code and many chapters within the Code were inconsistent. Susan Brock suggested the Committee eventually look at making the definition of wetlands consistent throughout the Town Code and its various Chapters. Bill suggested the Committee end with the Conservation Zone Amendments and pick up the discussion at the September COC meeting. Sue Ritter will email, before the next COC meeting, the model ordinance from the Genesee Valley, the Town of Bristol regulation, and the “Municipal Officials Guide to Forestry” published by the DEC. The model ordinance and Bristol regulation will also be included in the COC’s September meeting packet. Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion and Possible Revision of “Garage” and “Accessory Building” Definitions and References in the Town Zoning Code (Bruce Bates): Moved to the September 15th COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 6 – Discussion of Draft Proposed Pyrotechnics (Fireworks) Regulation (Bruce Bates): Bruce explained how he developed the proposed costs listed in the memo to the COC regarding fireworks. Pat felt the costs seemed really high and didn’t think the Town should single out people who wanted fireworks and then bill them for benefits, when the Town was not doing it for the other fees that are charged. She didn’t want the Town’s regulation to be onerous. Bruce reiterated that the memo didn’t include proposed fees, only the staff costs of permitting fireworks. The COC had a short discussion about the contents of the memo, the costs of fireworks for various events, and staff review and inspection time costs. The Committee moved on to discuss the contents of the proposed draft law: • Under “B”: Susan Brock suggested that this section, and all sections actually, be revised to state the job positions, specifically Director of Code Enforcement and Code Enforcement Officer, rather than the Code Enforcement Department. • Under C(2): Pat questioned the required application submission timeframe of 21 days prior to the event and the section about not refunding the fee if the application is denied. Bruce explained that the Building Department currently has a problem with people submitting applications in at the last minute and expecting permits at the last minute. The 21-day requirement allows the Code staff time to review the applications for completeness and to follow the process. Regarding the non- refundable fees, Bruce explained that it was an assurance to make applicants comply with the regulation. Some members of the COC felt that not refunding fees based on denying an applicant’s applications was very unfair. Bill reminded the COC that the Town Board would ultimately make the decision on the refund issue. Bill suggested the Committee continue discussion on the fireworks regulation at the next COC meeting. Susan Brock will re-format the fireworks regulation and will provide her comments in a new draft at the next meeting. Note: staff tasks for the next meeting are noted in italics 5 Agenda Item No. 7 – Continued Discussion on Affordable Housing Strategies, Including Inclusionary Zoning: Moved to the September 15th COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 8 – Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 9 – Next meeting date and agenda scheduled: For the September 15, 2010 COC meeting: Continued Discussion on Revised Limited Historic Commercial Zone regulation Continued Discussion on Conservation Zone Amendment Comments Continued Discussion on Fireworks Garages & Accessory Building Definitions Discussion Affordable Housing Discussion Meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Christine Balestra, Planner