Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin- 5-18-11 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 18, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Bill King. MEMBERS ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann. OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Minakshi Amundsen, Cornell University Planner. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes from February 16, 2011 and April 20, 2011 meetings: February 16, 2011 minutes: Eric moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes. April 20, 2011 minutes: Eric moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the amended minutes, all in favor of the changes. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Discussion of Comments Received Regarding Stream Setback Law: Sue reviewed the ‘Comments on draft Stream Setback Law – COC working document’ and read the staff responses (in blue) to the Cornell 12/6/10 Comments, starting with ‘Definitions’. - Definitions: After reading the first paragraph in blue, discussion followed about the different definitions of wetland and the laws. Sue pointed out that the Town needs to be consistent. Cornell’s comments intended to request that the Town have a definition of wetland, whether it be in Zoning, Stormwater Management, or Stream Setback laws. Susan mentioned that the Town needs to decide which laws that define wetland are the ones we want – the Stormwater law has a different definition than the other laws. Bill G. said we will put this on hold for now. Sue read the last paragraph, Cornell suggested putting ‘generally’ back in the law so it covers streams with vegetated, grassy, or rocky bottoms. Discussion of why it was deleted in the first place - had something to do with the Brittain’s, where they thought there were contradictions. So the Town took ‘generally’ out with other wording, in an attempt to simplify. COC decided to add ‘generally’ back in the law. - Mapping: Cornell was okay with Sue’s response for the first part of comment. Sue stated the second part of the comment, regarding ‘Identification of Bankfull Stage’; Appendix K shows how to measure a bankfull stage. Sue also has a four CD set from a forest service in Colorado that’s called ‘A Guide to Identification of Bankfull Stage in the Northeast US’. Mina moved to page 8, Section 5 (a)(3) of comments, second paragraph in blue (regarding bankfull) and asked, “Could the Town provide some indicators on their website or reference indicators on their website for a lay person”? The COC agreed to provide indicators. 2 - D.(6): Regarding the first sentence (in blue); Cornell was okay with the Town not having additional maps. Sentence two of the comment: Mina just had a question regarding road issues (example: Cascadilla Creek, Judd Falls crosses the junction of Pine Tree Road and Dryden Road setback). Does the stream setback apply because there is a road already there? Sue felt if the road/big road was already there, it wouldn’t do anything to the value of the buffer at that point. Discussion followed on how to incorporate odd situations. - D.(11): Previous wording and current concerns for D.(11): Mina thought Cornell was requesting the requirement was to be measured from the minimum stream setback width. The wording seemed confusing to Cornell - it was more of a matter that the text seemed confusing. Mina went on to say it wasn’t clear how the Town was including the adjustments/exceptions for steep slopes or wetlands in D.(11). Discussion followed about COC’s intent with this and the outer edge of Zone 2, based on the adjustments. COC decided to change the wording to “this would also include adjustments for slope and wetlands”. - Guidance on Standards- Section D (14): Basically gives Planning Board some discretion when there is a stream that’s not shown up on the Stream Setback Map. Discussion followed about ‘where environmental conditions warrant’ wording. The COC decided to add Sue’s wording (examples) to the law, so there are some criteria the Planning Board can follow. - Paved Areas: Susan explained that in E (2): the prohibitions seem inconsistent. If one can put in pervious patios/terraces, why not pervious parking areas? COC didn’t want pollution (oil/gas) from cars impacting streams. Patios/terraces wouldn’t have same impact as cars. The law does allow impervious terraces - is that what the COC wants? The COC agreed that impervious terraces should be prohibited [regardless of height], and wording will need to be changed. Committee will start on page 5 with ‘Utilities’ at the next COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 4 - Continued Discussion of Draft Conservation Zone Amendments: Before getting into the discussion of the draft Conservation Zone Amendments, Chris relayed an example of a case that Mike Smith (Planning Dept.) had given regarding where a timber harvest permit/forest management plan would be required. He knows a person who owns 100 acres of wooded land and this person in his family harvests timber on their property every year for their own personal purposes, using timber to heat their home, and to run a very small sugar shack to convert maple sap to syrup. It’s not a commercial business; the maple syrup is used by the family and some given away to friends. Mike asked the person how much wood they used from their property annually for these purposes and they said they use about 20 cords of wood per year; sixteen of which are for the maple sugar shack and 4 cords are for heating their homes. According to our regulations, this family would need a timber harvesting permit and a sustainable forest management plan, because they were removing more than 10 cords of wood in a year. Discussion followed because one of the exemptions was less than 10 cords. Susan mentioned the Town of Gardiner had examples of exemptions and felt some didn’t apply to the Town of Ithaca Town law. For example, one Town of Gardiner exemptions was ‘thinning of a sugar bush’ that we didn’t use. 3 Eric said he wasn’t concerned about the 10 cords because we’re only talking about Conservation Zones and how many sugar shacks would we have in the Conservation Zones in the Town? Sue mentioned Ithaca College wanting to have a sugar shack on their land, but the proposal never went any farther. Discussion continued about tapping of maple trees, the methods used and the potential harm to th e trees, good and bad practices, etc. Bill G. went back to page 4, (i): modify to add ‘any cutting, removal, or harvesting of timber’….. Bill G. asked the Committee if there was any concern about the ‘sugar bush’ - and should it be added as an exemption? Bruce asked “who would be regulating this” and/or “could someone review this”? Discussion followed on what is a ‘sugar bush’ and how many there might be in the Town. Discussion continued about maple sugaring in the Conservation Zones, commercial uses versus agricultural uses and personal uses. The COC Committee decided to leave the law as is. Bill G. went back to the question about percentage of clear-cutting and COC decided on 50%. Moving to page 6, (5)(a): discussion regarding % of clear-cutting; Bill G. had ‘10% for 10 acres or less, 20% if more than 10 acres before it can be clear-cut’; Susan had ‘over 10 acres 10%, 10 acres or less 20% can be clear-cut’. Eric suggested allowing clear-cutting 20% up to the first 10 acres, and above the first 10 acres can only do 10% of remaining acreage. COC decided on Eric’s suggestion – 10 acres or less - 20%, after first 10 acres - 10%. Page 6; (5)(b): Where does the Stream Setback Law fit into this section? Sue wanted to confirm the protected and classified streams, and compare with NYSDEC stream classifications. Sue will check on this for the next COC meeting and may not need to change wording at all. Susan said we should add ‘any applicable regulation, including Stream Setback Law’ wording at the end. Susan also questioned the word “permitted”. Did this mean the DEC allows the use or the use needs a DEC permit? Page 6; (5)(c): Discussion using what we have in the Stream Setback Law to measure steep slope. Susan read from the Stream Setback Law and the COC decided to lift the information from the Town’s Stream Setback Law and use it again for the Timber Harvest Law. Town will include own 25% measurement taken from Town’s Stream Setback Law. COC decided to delete the other yellow highlighted areas at the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7. Page 7; (d): COC decided to leave as is, covered by Town Stream Setback Law. Page 7; (e): COC decided to leave as is. Committee will start on page 8 at the next COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None. 4 Agenda Item No. 6 - Next meeting date and agenda: Next meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include: - Continue Discussion of Revised Draft Conservation Zone Amendments. - Continue Review of Stream Setback Law Comments. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff