HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-10-20-10
1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
October 20, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine.
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code
Enforcement; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Sandy Polce,
Administrative Staff; Shirley Egan, Cornell; Diane Conneman; Doug Brittain.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Wilcox; Kirk Sigel; Eva Hoffmann.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Bill noted that we did not have a quorum for tonight’s meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of September 15, 2010 minutes:
Minor changes were made to the minutes but were not approved, due to not having a quorum.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Review of Limited Historic Commercial Zone (LHC):
- a. Review revised LHC Zone draft:
Page 1; Section 270-142.3; B (1): Committee okay with language.
Page 2; Section 270-142.3; F: Susan mentioned that most of this language came from the Town’s
Zoning Code, ‘Nonconforming Use Article’ from 1991. The language is consistent with the case law
and Susan added one or two criteria to this case law. Susan also mentioned the one year period is short
but felt the applicant can get an extension as needed. Bill agreed; it can be changed if needed, leave it
at one year and the Committee will send the law on to the Town Board. Bill requested Susan clarify
the phrase ‘more complete and effective Zoning’.
Page 4; Section 270-142.5; H (8): Change to: ‘Tailor or dress maker/designer’.
Page 3; Section 270-142.5; (E): Doug Brittain suggested the wording ‘Public, parochial and private
schools, public library, public museum, nursery school, and “comparable use by an” institution of
higher learning’. Bill stated that this wording is used throughout the Code. Committee did not make
change.
- b. Review draft amendments to “Commercial Zones Generally”:
Picking up where the Committee left off at the July 21st meeting with Section 270-122.
Starting with page 3; (E): After a short discussion, the Committee decided to change the wording to
“Supplemental limitations. In the event that any of the uses permitted in any of the Commercial Zones
involve auxiliary, small-scale assembly, repair, processing, fabrication, or cooking, such activity shall
create no objectionable noise, smoke, odor, vibration or disorder beyond the lot lines of said
businesses”.
The three COC members in attendance were in favor of recommending the law to the Town Board.
2
Page 3; Change wording for (C) and (D) covered on page 1; (A) and (B) are okay to leave as is.
Page 4; 270-123; Drive-through operations: Add “in the provisions applicable to the zone” to the last
line; last line should read as: “ ……, does not authorize drive-up or drive-through facilities for that use
without a specific statement in the provision applicable to the zone that such facilities are allowed”.
- c. Review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan:
The Committee reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendments and typo corrections were made. After
a short discussion, Bill said the amendments looked good to pass on to the Town Board. [Eric, Pat and
Bill were in agreement to pass this on to the Town Board].
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continued Discussion of Proposed Conservation Zone Amendments:
Bill noted that the COC packet included a new handout with changes to the Conservation Zone
Amendments, as suggested by the Conservation Board. Diane Conneman updated the Committee
regarding the Conservation Board amendments and explained the changes page by page, noting that
the Conservation Board was trying to accommodate Cornell’s concerns and other points raised at
previous meetings.
Discussion followed and the Committee made the following changes to the Conservation Board
suggested modifications:
Page 2; 270-11- Permitted principal uses, Section “E”: Susan Brock thought that “non-destructive” was
a difficult word to use, and Diane explained the reasoning. After a bit of discussion, the COC decided
to put back in after “non-destructive forest management,” the line, “in conformance with
environmentally sound forestry practices.” The COC also decided to delete “for personal use” at the
end of Section “E”. The COC agreed to the changes, and to have a discussion the next time about the
number of cords that should be harvested (suggestion was 10 cords annually).
Page 3; 270-12- Uses authorized by special permit only, Section I (2): Diane explained the justification
for requiring that plans be filed and approved with the Code Enforcement Officer and for plans to be
valid for 10 years. The Committee discussed potentially moving Section I (1) to another part of the
law (270-11), although no decision was made. Bruce had the same concern that he expressed in
previous discussions, that the Code Enforcement Office would need standards or some sort of criteria
to follow in order to enforce this provision. Diane suggested that the Conservation Board work with
Code staff on developing a checklist for this section that Code staff could follow when enforcing this
part of the law.
Bill asked Shirley Egan for her input and Shirley then distributed a memo to the Committee from
Cornell. Shirley addressed Cornell’s concerns that were listed in the memo, and suggested that the
wording at the end of I (2) “for ongoing maintenance activities” be eliminated (for reasons described in
detail in the memo). After a short discussion, the Committee decided to delete the terms “for ongoing
maintenance activities”.
Shirley expressed other concerns listed in the Cornell memo, particularly regarding the role of the
Conservation Board. Also, in the letter, Cornell suggested setting time limits on the amount of time
the Code Staff has to review and approve any submitted forest management plans. Diane explained the
Conservation Board’s role and the process and timeline that was typically followed by staff and the
other Boards when forwarding projects to the Conservation Board for review and recommendation.
Jon suggested that the Conservation Board review requirement be placed under the Code Enforcement
3
Officer approval section (I-2) and not be a separate section (I-3). The Committee agreed to modify this
and also to add a time limit for Code staff review.
The Committee then went on to discuss the last page of the Cornell letter, including the proposed
definition of “habitat restoration” offered by Todd Bittner. Diane commented that she found a
definition for habitat restoration from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, so she passed around a copy of
her proposed definition. Bill suggested that the Committee postpone delving into a discussion on
definitions until the next meeting.
The Committee will continue their discussion of the Conservation Zone Amendments at the November
COC meeting, when there is a quorum of members present. Bill Goodman and Susan Brock will draft
a revised Conservation Zone Amendment regulation that incorporates the Conservation Board
suggestions, some of the Cornell suggestions, and the Committee’s discussions/decisions on the matter
thus far. The Conservation Board will also look further into the definition of habitat restoration and
report back to the COC at the November meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion of Draft Revised Pyrotechnics (Fireworks) Regulation:
The Committee reviewed the draft local law and Eric suggested on page 2, Section 4 (B), to add “his or
her designee”. So the new first line should read: “The Director of Code Enforcement, his or her
designee, and the Code Enforcement Officers shall administer all other aspects of the permit program”.
The discussion went on to fees, the fee resolution, the wording of ‘bond’ in “E” (last line), if the permit
is denied. The Committee made changes for indoor pyrotechnics by adding ‘20 business days for
indoor pyrotechnics’ to “F”.
Bill was okay with sending the revised draft on to Town Board and asked Susan whether the Town
should do this as a ‘local law’ or as a ‘resolution’. This sparked discussion on whether the regulation
should be in the Code or listed on the Town’s web site. Bill decided to do a ‘resolution’ for the Town
Board meeting in November.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Discussion of Revision to “Garage” and “Accessory Building” Definitions
and References in the Town Zoning Code:
Moved to the November 17th COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Other Business:
None
Agenda Item No. 8 – Next meeting date and agenda scheduled:
For the November 17, 2010 COC meeting:
Continued Discussion on Conservation Zone Amendment Comments (last agenda item)
Continued Discussion on Garages & Accessory Building Definitions
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff