The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMin- 2-16-11 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES February 16, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann. OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Dan Tasman, Assistant Director of Planning; Bill King, Zoning Board member, government student from IHS. MEMBERS ABSENT: Eric Levine. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Fred noted that it was good to be back. Committee went around the room and introduced themselves to Bill King, ZBA member that is considering becoming a member of the COC. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes from the January 19th meeting: Minutes were amended by Susan Brock, and approved as amended - Fred moved and Pat seconded. Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Proposed 2011 COC Work Plan: The Committee discussed each of the elements of the 2011 Work Plan. Regarding Stream Setback Law, the Town has received two sets of comments (Cornell and Jon Bosak/PB) that need to be looked at by the COC before the Law goes to the Town Board for a public hearing. The COC will get back to the Stream Setback Law once they are done with the Garages and Conservation Zone Amendments. Bill G. noted that a number of the items on the list were small/minor items for the COC to consider. Sue Ritter explained that the Planning Board Review Committee expressed an interest in having Planning staff do less work for the Planning Board. So Sue Ritter suggested that the COC might consider revising the Subdivision Regulations to eliminate the small lot line modifications or two-lot subdivisions that the Planning Board currently spends a lot of time on and, rather, deal with the lot line modifications administratively by the Director of Planning. The Committee briefly discussed the Town’s Sprinkler Law and determined that the item could be worked on after the Committee was done with the Garages and Accessory Building definitions. Bill suggested that for the smaller items, staff should come up with draft revisions and bring them to the Committee for discussion. Sue Ritter noted that Planning staff was instructed to use a significant portion of their time writing the updated Comprehensive Plan and would therefore not be available to research or write some of the big Work Plan items on the COC’s list (Tree Preservation, Signs, etc). So, the Committee decided to begin working on affordable housing regulations, with Bill G., Pat, and Eric offering to take the lead on researching affordable housing regulations. They will bring information on affordable housing to the Committee when they have gathered it. Most of the other big items on the Work Plan will wait until after the Comprehensive Plan Update is complete. 2 Agenda Item No. 4 – Continued Discussion of Revisions to Garage and Accessory Building Definitions: The Committee went through the documents provided by Bruce, beginning with the proposed definition of “garage.” On page 1 of the proposed revisions, the Committee decided to use the expanded definition for garage that was provided by Susan Brock. The Committee also decided to keep the words “other than garages” in Article V, Section 270-17 (F), which was originally suggested for removal. The Committee added the word “detached” before garage in (G). The Committee then moved their discussion to provisions for accessory buildings and garages in the Lakefront Residential Zone (LR). Eva and Bill G. brought up the fact that the rear yard in the LR Zone actually faced the lake and that restricting accessory buildings to the rear yard could have visual and environmental impacts on the lake. For these and other reasons unique to the LR Zone, the Committee decided that accessory buildings should be allowed in any yard in the LR Zone and modified section (E) on page 2 to read “may be located in any yard.” In the same section, the Committee decided to keep the words “other than garages” that was suggested for removal; eliminating the sentence “Any accessory building in a corner lot shall not be less than five feet from the rear lot line” (since there are no corner lots in the LR Zone); and eliminating the last sentence in (E) beginning with “where the average natural slope …” Bruce stated that he’d re-write Section (E) and bring it back to the COC for review at the March meeting. On page 3, the Committee agreed on changes to (H), including adding “front or side” to the first sentence after “occupy any…”, and eliminating the lines at the end of the third sentence, beginning with “nor less than three feet from…” The Committee then moved to a general discussion about the heights of garages and accessory buildings in Conservation Zones and finding ways to prohibit the construction of large garages that end up being converted into living quarters. The Committee noticed that the existing Zoning Code allowed different heights for garages and accessory buildings in different zones. Bill G. brought up the question of whether the Town wanted different sizes and heights. To make it easier for the Committee to assess, Bill asked Bruce to put a chart together that listed the heights and limitations for garages and accessory buildings in each of the Zones. The Committee will try to figure out at the next meeting whether garages and accessory buildings should be treated or sized differently, depending on the Zones they are located in. The Committee will continue on page 3 next month. Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion of Draft Revised Conservation Zone Amendments: The Committee continued their discussion of the Conservation Zone Amendments that was last discussed at the January COC meeting. They decided on inserting 5,000 board feet or 10 cords of wood for the board foot-to-cords conversion topic. The Committee continued on page 6 of the redlined version. Susan Brock noted that she looked back at the proposed amendments and saw a potential ambiguity regarding clear cutting. Specifically, the Committee approved the definition of clear cutting that includes removing 75% or more of the trees, etc. on a parcel. In January, the Committee discussed that if a parcel was more than 10 acres, the clear cutting would be limited to 10% of the parcel and if the parcel was 10 acres or less, then clear cutting would be limited to 20% of the parcel. Susan explained that the result of the Committee’s decision was that one could clear cut 75% of the trees in an area of more than one acre, over 10% of the parcel (clarifying that up to 10% of the parcel, you have areas of over one acre where you can remove 75% of the trees). To Susan, that means the only limitation on tree cutting on the other 90% of the parcel was that someone has to cut fewer than 75% of the trees. So, essentially, someone could cut 74% of the trees on 90% of their parcel and it wouldn’t be clear cutting, according to how the definition of clear cutting was written. This 3 would also apply in the Forest Management Plan provisions. Susan asked if that was what the Committee really wanted. The Committee decided that they do not want people cutting up to 75% of the trees on their parcel, for any reason. Bill G. noticed that there wasn’t anything in the language for Forest Management Plans that would restrict the 74% clear cutting from happening, but that that there was a standard for re-planting/re- forestation in the Forest Management Plan provisions. The Committee discussed whether they’d want to have 74% of the trees in an area clear cut and then replanted. The Committee then talked about professional foresters and whether a professional forester would consider something like this a sustainable forestry practice. After a bit more discussion, the Committee decided to try to set more stringent standards for the Forest Management Plan provisions, to restrict the percentage of trees to be taken on a parcel. The Committee struggled with how to enforce this sort of provision, and looked through the some of the other forestry resources for guidelines. Sue Ritter noted that the forester who did the McArdle forest management plan informed Sue that he’d be harvesting timber on Christianne White’s property. Sue will get his name and offered to speak with him and other local foresters to find out if there are any standard practices for cutting a percentage of a parcel and over what period of time, as part of a Sustainable Forest Management Plan. The Committee will continue with page 6 and the discussion on clear cutting next month. Agenda Item No. 6 – Other Business: None Agenda Item No. 7 – Next meeting date and agenda scheduled: For the March 16th COC meeting starting at 6:30pm: - Continue Discussion of Revisions to “Garage” and “Accessory Building” Definitions. - Continue Discussion of Revised Draft Conservation Zone Amendments. Meeting adjourned at 8:35pm. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff