HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-9-15-10 1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
September 15, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel.
OTHERS PRESENT: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Jonathan Kanter, Director of
Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff; Minakshi Amundsen, Cornell;
Tom LiVigne, Cornell; Bruce and Doug Brittain.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Jon gave an overview on his meeting with the Museum of the Earth and the Cayuga Medical Center
people regarding the sign/banner question. They are interested in a long term integrated banner system
to use for public awareness. They want to have a sign variance that would allow them to put up and
periodically change window signs on their façade and banner signs along Route 96 (Trumansburg
Road) without having to continue to get variances from the ZBA. Jon said that the COC might want to
consider this along with the amendments to the Sign Law.
Bill mentioned the Sign Law may be on the COC November agenda for discussion.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of August 18, 2010 minutes:
Minor changes (typos) were made to the minutes that were unanimously approved as amended. Fred
moved and Eric seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Discussion of Draft Revised Limited Commercial Historic
District Regulation:
Jon talked about the memo he, Bill and Susan put together regarding permitted uses. Jon, Bill and
Susan liked the idea of the special permit oriented process but had concerns about the permitted uses
differences in limited residential development and developed residential neighborhoods.
In reviewing the list, it was pointed out that ‘arts and crafts gallery/studio’ and ‘photography
store/studio’ was listed twice in two different places. The COC committee agreed to delete (3) and (4)
under “G; Section 270-142.5 – Principal uses authorized by special permit only”.
After a small discussion on (8) “Business, medical, dental, professional…….” under “H”; Section 270-
142.5 regarding “professional” and ‘the interior floor area of 4,000 square feet or less’; the COC
committee agreed to remove “D” and “E” under Section 270-142.2 – Permitted principal uses.
Jon explained to the committee, that his impression of “I”, as ‘only applicable to uses similar to
permitted principal uses, not just special permit uses’. Discussion went on to cover: list of permitted
uses, one and two family residents, parks and home occupation. There is no special provision for
home occupation since it’s covered under the zoning regulations.
2
Bill asked the COC committee if it was okay to move the retail and personal service office to special
permit and will ask Susan Brock to make that change for the draft for next months COC meeting.
Pat said “this was okay, but thought we should change “I” to say ‘substantially similar to any special
permit uses specified above’ so that covers us in case we’ve forgotten something”.
Bill then went on to discuss rezoning of property back to Residential Zoning from Limited Historic
Commercial in the future. Bill said that he, Jon and Susan Brock met and talked about an idea that is
allowed under State Law. Currently for some uses like the ‘adult uses’ provisions, where
municipalities have zoned out that particular use; but giving owners a time period to wrap up business
to recoup any investment made before shutting down.
Bill said on the last page of Jon’s memo, talking about possible solution of a one year amortization
provision; for such an instance we might rezone it back out of Limited Historic Commercial. One
concern was some kind of ‘use’ grandfathered and if we were rezoning it, we wouldn’t want that
‘grandfather use’ to continue on indefinitely.
Fred asked “under what circumstances would the Town Board rezone it back”?
Bill said “under the current draft we are working with, one of the instances might be if the historic
nature of the building is no longer maintained”.
Bill mentioned one thing that was talked about with Susan; we give them a one year period but also
they could apply for a use variance. They could go to the ZBA, apply for a use variance and ask for an
extension on the amortization period if they could show economic hardship.
Small discussion followed on use variance, wording in the amortization provision, having some type of
criteria or procedure and suggesting Susan to draft something up to look at. Kirk thought the
amortization seemed reasonable. Bill asked the committee about the idea of the ability to request an
extension of the amortization period. Fred thought it was a good idea and Eric thought we would have
to come up with some criteria if it’s different than a use variance. Bill suggested getting some wording
from Susan.
Kirk brought up spot zoning issues and Jon remembered providing the suggested amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan Committee. Kirk: “just add something to make it a goal of the Comprehensive
Plan Committee; this sort of thing be promoted”. Bill mentioned there was a two page ‘proposed
amendments to 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan regarding historic resources’ in the August
COC packet. Bill also suggested to discuss this when Susan is back for the October meeting.
Short discussion regarding a drive-thru or not for pharmacies, restaurants, or coffee shops and if we
should change the language for this or leave it to the planning board to make that determination. Bill
stated in addition to the new zoning law, and making some changes to other portions of the zoning law
under commercial zones generally and in there it did say ‘no drive-thru’. Jon read ‘Section 270-123;
Drive-through Operations’ to the Committee.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continued Discussion of Cornell Comments Regarding Proposed
Conservation Zone Amendments (including discussion of Timber Harvesting Laws from three
municipalities):
Bill did a brief review regarding the Cornell comments, the Conservation Board comments and Sue
Ritter talking about the timber harvesting in the Finger Lakes region with copies of laws from
Canandaigua Lake and the Town of Bristol. Bill also mentioned the email from Dia ne Conneman to
request that the COC committee hold off any decisions regarding the Conservation Zone amendments.
3
The Conservation Board was still discussing some of the issues and wants to give more input at the
October meeting.
Discussion on regulating timber harvesting based on amount of wood rather than area, clear cutting,
and having clear criteria for code enforcement to use. Bruce Bates said it’d be hard to enforce. Tom
LiVigne and Minakshi Amundsen from Cornell were present and suggested the Town contact Don
Schaufler or Todd Bittner for advice. The two are Cornell staffed foresters and might know how to
regulate timber harvesting and help with a definition.
Jon suggested that we clearly define in the law what a forest management plan is and require
submission of one for approval by someone at the Town, rather than require site plan approval for a
forest management plan.
Bill asked Tom and Minakshi if someone from Cornell would like to attend the Conservation Board
meeting and it was decided that Sandy or someone from the Town would email Minakshi the
Conservation Board agenda.
The COC committee decided to wait for the comments back from the Conservation Board for any
decisions. This will be on the October agenda.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion on Affordable Housing Strategies, Inclusionary Zoning:
Jon gave an overview of the recent County efforts to provide affordable housing in the area and
directed the Committee’s attention to the Tompkins County Housing Needs Assessment and the
various materials on affordable housing that were distributed a while back.
Bill spoke of EcoVillage and the process for providing affordable housing, along with the pros and
cons of the result.
Pat listed three things to keep in mind when trying to provide affordable housing:
1) Careful on income targeting and address the need for median income housing (90%-110% range).
2) Keep it independent of Federal and State subsidies/programs, and self contain at a local level.
3) Keep it affordable in the long term but allow room for homeowners to build wealth; resale profit
should not be so limited that the homeowner can never get on the market base ladder.
Jon thought, if we are going to require certain percentage of units in whatever developments (most are
10 lots/units), we need to keep affordable housing from being isolated and it be integrated in the
development. Don’t make them look any different than the market rate units. These would be things
to keep in mind or add to the list. We should also think of this for the Comprehensive Plan and think
about the mix or type of housing in a single development and also the size of a house or unit could be
put in an affordable bracket.
The committee had a long discussion on student housing, a study on student rentals, families who are
being gouged out by students, one and two family dwellings for student rentals, building smaller
homes for single families, market value, deed restriction, needing a mix of approaches, means testing,
adding value to the Town, developers building the same type of houses/units and how we should bring
in different developers, construction cost, equity in the land, involvement in a housing fund and
housing trust on the County level and maybe a local level of housing funds, density bonus and the
market place. Having incentives, decrease cost, or a break on water/sewer hookups or without charge,
discussion on Carrowmoor, PDZ, Vine Street, Westview and Holochuck subdivision, new
developments to have a certain percentage of new houses, mobile homes and mobile home parks,
minimum size for houses (600 sq ft), HUD houses, trailers and modular’s, design of temporary houses
4
that have a 5-7 years life cycle, the up keep of these, new requirements and thinking of something that
would apply to everyone Town wide.
Fred wondered if the Town could realistically provide affordable housing given the rising cost of
construction.
The COC wants to move on this and not wait for the Comprehensive Plan update. Bill decided that he
and Pat could work on a model affordable housing ordinance that the COC could then review and
present to the Town Board for consideration.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Discussion and Possible Revision of “Garage” and “Accessory Building”
Definitions and References in the Town Zoning Code (Bruce Bates):
[Note: Mic stopped recording at 8:45pm.]
Bruce and Kirk discussed the location of garages in the Zoning Code (side yard, front yard, rear yard)
and talked a little bit about variances for garages that have been granted by the ZBA in the past.
The COC moved on to discuss whether attached garages were or should be considered part of a house.
The Committee talked about how the existing Zoning Code addresses garages and what Bruce’s
proposed changes to the Zoning Code were.
Bruce addressed some of the issues in the existing Zoning Code and added certain sections to the
proposed Code revisions (i.e. adding the setbacks already required in each Zone to a new “garage”
section). His goal was to clarify the Zoning Code to make it easier and less confusing for the Code
staff to interpret and enforce.
The COC decided that clarifying the language of the Zoning Code in terms of garages and accessory
buildings without changing the intent of the Code was reasonable. The COC supports the
clarifications, but wants the input from Susan Brock at the October COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Possible Continued Discussion of Draft Proposed Pyrotechnics (Fireworks)
Regulation:
Moved to the October 20th COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 8 – Other Business:
None
Agenda Item No. 9 – Next meeting date and agenda scheduled:
For the October 20, 2010 COC meeting:
Continued Discussion on Revised Limited Historic Commercial Zone regulation
Continued Discussion on Conservation Zone Amendment Comments
Continued Discussion on Fireworks
Continued Discussion on Garages & Accessory Building Definitions
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Eric moved and Kirk seconded the motion to adjourned, all in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff