Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin- 3-16-11 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES March 16, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, 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. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 – Continued Discussion of Revisions to “Garage” and “Accessory Building” Definitions and References in the Town Zoning Code: Bruce provided the Committee with a modified updated ‘dimensional requirements’ chart (a chart of our current zoning). The chart shows the various heights and dimensional requirements highlighted in yellow for garages and accessory buildings in all the zones in the Town. Bill made note of the different heights for the ‘accessory buildings’ in the different zones. Bruce added that they were about the same for a regular building. Discussion followed. Eva commented on the 20’ height for the Lakefront Residential Zone, since the other Zones limited the height of accessory buildings to 15’, but understood why the height in the Agricultural Zone was 38’/36’. Bruce replied that the 15’ height refers to buildings other than agricultural. Discussion continued on garages being 1-story in three of the residential zones (Lakefront, Medium and High) but not in Low Density Residential, due to side yard setback requirements. The COC agreed to limit the height of detached garages in the LR Zone to 15 feet. Moving to page 3: (H) Garages (b): Discussion of what the height should be and the number of stories should be. Currently the Town allows up to 15’. Does the Town want to make it more restricted than it is currently (going back and forth between definitions)? Bruce mentioned that the 12’ height is the current language that was used. After a discussion of slopes, someone asked whether we even need (b). The Committee decided to leave (b) as is. Discussion then followed regarding the amount of feet allowed from any side or rear lot line when in the rear yard in the Low Density and High Density Residential Zones. Eva made the suggestion of changing it to five feet in all the zones and the Committee agreed. Page 4: Low Density Residential Zone (F) Garages: Change: ‘three feet from any side or rear lot line in the rear yard’ to read as ‘five feet from any side or rear lot line in the rear yard’. Also, delete : ‘Any garage on a corner lot shall not be less than five feet from the rear lot line’. The Committee had a long discussion on whether or not to delete, leave in or change the phrase ‘and not exceeding 12 feet in height’ in the Medium and High Density Residential Zones. The Committee decided to delete: ‘and not exceeding 12 feet in height’ in the Low, Medium and High Density Residential Zones under Garages (b). 2 Page 6: High Density Residential Zone (F) Garages: Change: ‘nor less than 3 feet from any side or rear lot line when in the rear yard’ to read as ‘nor less than 5 feet from any side or rear lot line when in the rear yard’. The Committee finished their review of the proposed modifications to the Garages and Accessory Buildings regulation. Bruce agreed to re-write the draft law, including the modifications requested by the Committee, and will provide the Committee with a clean copy at the COC meeting in April. Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Draft Revised Conservation Zone Amendments: The Committee continued their discussion of the redlined version, page 6, regarding the clear cutting issue (that 90% of land that would allow 74% cutting of trees). Sue Ritter reported that she contacted three different types of foresters and that each one had the same answer: it really depended on the overall goals for a forested property. If clear cutting an area was a goal in order to encourage the growth of different trees or for habitat, then it should be allowed. The foresters noted that one rarely sees 50% of a forest cut and it would be drastic if one did see that happen. This is something that would be detailed in a Forest Management Plan for a property. The foresters also noted that people who hire foresters and put together Forest Management Plans generally care about their property and don’t want to cut trees simply for the sake of cutting trees. Sue Ritter had no numbers to offer the Committee, but encouraged the Committee to trust the forester in the Management Plan. Discussion followed regarding trusting foresters, property owners, asking for a certified forester, selling timber, etc. Bill mentioned that the current proposed law stated that no clear cutting was permitted unless there was a reforestation plan. Bill was worried about cutting 74% of the trees on a forested property, which is not considered clear cutting according to the proposed definition of clear cutting. The COC may need to change the percentage in the definition of clear cutting to something lower. The Committee agreed that the Town didn’t want to allow the cutting of 74% of tree cover in the Conservation Zone. Eva brought up an idea of setting up goals of what the Town wants to see in the Conservation Zones. Sue suggested that the proposed regulation could state something like “the Forest Management Plan goals must conform to the purpose and objective of the Conservation Zone”. Pat suggested setting up some broad outlines that would give us some protection. Bill mentioned the Town of Gardiner’s timber harvesting plan and creating the requirements for a permit, etc. The Committee had a long discussion regarding clear cutting, including goals and objectives of the proposed regulation, criteria to meet when clear cutting, prohibiting clear cutting altogether, the various reasons for clear cutting, and imposing penalties for violations. Bill asked the Committee if they wanted to decrease the percentage in the definition of clear cutting to prevent people from cutting 74% of the trees on their land. We could leave it written as is and hope people won’t cut down 74% of the trees. Fred suggested that the Town could simplify this by saying what Sue suggested earlier, that the Forest Management Plan must be consistent with the goals of the Town Conservation Zoning. The COC will continue their discussion of clear cutting on page 6 of the draft redlined Conservation Zone Amendment regulation at the COC meeting in April. Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business: Sue Ritter requested that the COC add ‘wood boilers’ to the 2011 COC Work Plan. 3 Agenda Item No. 5 – Next meeting date and agenda scheduled: For April 20, 2011 COC meeting at 6:30pm: - Review of minutes from February and March COC meetings. - Continue Discussion of Revised Draft Conservation Zone Amendments (clear cutting). - Review Stream Setback Law Comments by Cornell, Planning Board member Jon Bosak, and resident Jim Semp. - Quick review of revised clean copy of “Garage” and Accessory Buildings” Definitions, etc. Fred moved and Bill seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:35pm. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff