HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-11-17-10
1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
November 17, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann.
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; Diane Conneman.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Wilcox.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of September 15, 2010 minutes and October 20, 2010 meetings:
September 15, 2010 minutes: Eric moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes,
all in favor of the changes. Eva abstained, as she was not present at the September meeting.
October 20, 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 abstained, as she was not present at the October meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Discussion of Proposed Conservation Zone Amendments: Bill
reviewed his meeting with Susan regarding the Town of Gardiner Timber Harvesting Law and the overall
framework. Susan added that the Town could follow some of what the Town of Gardiner did: all timber
harvesting activities, unless exempt, needed a permit issued by a Code Enforcement Officer and the
permit application would require a forest management plan be prepared.
Bill asked Diane if the Conservation Board had a chance to look at the Town of G ardiner Timber
Harvesting Law. Diane noted that they did look at it, but did not have an extensive discussion on it.
Diane did have concerns regarding the word “reasonable”, found on page 3, G. Exemptions, (2)
‘Reasonable site clearing preparatory to construction of a building for which a building permit has been
issued’ and (7) ‘A bona fide commercial landscaping operation’. Diane asked why one would be clearing
or operating a commercial operation in a Conservation Zone.
Eva added how she likes the Town of Gardiner Law. She thought it was very thorough and clear, and
easy to understand.
Diane suggested that someone obtain the list of “qualified professional foresters” that the DEC has.
Diane was skeptical and had heard that people on that list might not actually be qualified. As there is no
true forestry certification or license that one can get, Diane wanted to get the list to see who the DEC
considered qualified.
The COC then discussed the idea of changing the 20 standard cords of wood to 10 standard cords, and
also changing the 2,000 cubic feet or 10,000 board feet that is listed in the exemption section of the Town
of Gardiner Law. Discussion continued on the amount of firewood one would use for personal use, what
2
the board feet equivalent of 10 cords of wood would be. Susan suggested that staff research what 10 cords
of wood converts to in terms of board feet, and to bring that number back to the next COC meeting.
Bill asked Susan to draft a law like the Town of Gardiner Law but change some of its processes and
wording to use for the Town of Ithaca to review. The Committee had some specific questions on portions
of the law. So Susan will bring to the next COC meeting a draft of the Conservation Zone Amendments,
modified to include portions of the Gardiner Law, along with the other modifications suggested by the
Conservation Board, Cornell, and any other changes that the COC previously determined needed to be
made.
The Committee continued their discussion of the exemptions section of the Gardiner Law, focusing on the
part that said ‘Reasonable site clearing preparatory to construction of a building for which a building
permit has been issued’. The Committee wondered about clearing for the development of a single family
home, and what should and should not be exempt in that case. After much discussion on Conservation
Zone restrictions and changing how single family homes could be regulated, the Committee decided to
discuss the matter further at the December meeting.
Bruce said he would call the Town of Gardiner and ask them how their timber law has been doing since
its adoption; particularly how it’s been enforcing the law and if there was anything they would change.
Eva had a comment on the wording of ‘regulatory framework through which limited development can
occur with minimal environmental impact in these areas,’ noted in the 4th line of Article V, Conservation
Zones; 270-10 Purpose; A. Eva hoped the law could say ‘minimal negative environmental impact,’
because that is what we mean, we don’t mind the positive impact on the environment.
Pat asked why we needed to add ‘limited development.’ As long as the development doesn’t have
negative environmental impacts, then why are we qualifying development as limited? Kirk added his
explanation of ‘limited development’. Bill asked if this addition came from the Conservation Board, so as
to not encourage development. The Committee was okay with adding ‘minimal negative environmental
impact’ to 270-10 Purpose; A.
The Committee then discussed the definition of ‘habitat restoration’ that Cornell had asked for (April 24th
letter). Diane Conneman and Todd Bittner each provided a definition. Since the term being used could
not be found, the decision was to not do anything with the ‘habitat restoration’ definition.
The Committee moved on to discuss the definition of wetlands, per the Conservation Zone Local Law
Amendment draft (February 26, 2010), Section 1. Susan had distributed an email to the group back in
March that contained various wetland definitions for the group to consider in the Conservation Zone
amendments. Bill asked the COC if they wanted to keep what was in the draft or change it somehow.
The definition in the draft was more extensive than any of the other definitions provided.
Bill quoted Cornell’s comment on wetlands, which asked what criteria the Town used to
designate/identify wetland areas. Cornell suggested that a wetlands designation needed to be carefully
and professionally done, following set criteria. Jon noted that the Town used the same criteria to
designate wetlands as the Army Corps of Engineers. Susan thought that the Town had the power to
designate wetlands, pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law, and that perhaps the wetland
definition should include more language to clarify that.
Jon noticed that the definition of wetlands in the Stream Setback Law wasn’t entirely consistent with the
definition in the Conservation Zone Amendments. After a bit more discussion on the wetlands definition
3
issue, Bill asked the Committee members what they wanted to do to with the definition in the
Conservation Zone Amendments. He suggested that they leave it as is with the additional reference
recommended by Susan. The Committee agreed with Bill and decided to leave the definition as is, with
the small change, and to revisit the issue when the Committee gets back to the Stream Setback Law.
The Committee then went back to the “Extraction or deposit of fill and related products” on page 3;
Section 6 of the Amendments. The group reviewed Dan Walker’s comments on fill and fill permits, and
also discussed drainage issues, sensitive areas, and adding more language. The Committee agreed to leave
the section as is and bring it back for discussion at the December COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of Revisions to “Garage” and Accessory Building” Definitions and
References in the Town Zoning Code: Susan Brock reviewed her memo, dated October 7, 2010,
“Garage Provisions in Zoning Chapter,” with the Committee. The Committee discussed having garages
without a primary residence on a lot first, attached versus detached garages, how garages are typically
used, requiring a building permit for both the house and garage, barns in the Ag Zone, and the wording of
‘indefinite.’
Bruce had a concern about when a garage ceases to be a garage and instead becomes a storage building
and an owner wants to add another garage. Bill mentioned that the definition talks about a garage being
‘attached.’ Bruce clarified that the definition refers to both attached and detached garages. Eva added
that it can only be an accessory building if it’s freestanding, not if it’s attached.
The Committee determined that they liked the expanded definition of garage that Susan suggested in her
memo. The Committee also decided to keep in the “other than garages” language in the redlined version
of the Code modifications on page 1.
There was a question on whether (G), Garage (page 1 of the redlined version) should say ‘Detached
Garage’ or just leave as is. No decision was made, but a discussion followed regarding the height of the
garages, the square footage requirements for garages, and location of garages on lots. Bill suggested that
the Committee discuss at the next meeting: 1) appropriate heights for garages; 2) appropriate square
footages for garages; and 3) appropriate yard locations for garages.
Chris said that she had some comments regarding the Lakefront Residential Zone and will bring them up
at the next meeting. Bill added to let Cornell know about the next COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business: None
Agenda Item No. 6 – Next meeting date and agenda scheduled:
For the December 15, 2010 COC meeting:
Discussion of Revised Draft Conservation Zone Amendments
Continued Discussion of Revisions to “Garage” and “Accessory Building” Definitions
Eric moved and Chris seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:10pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff