Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin- 6-15-11 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES June 15, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King. MEMBERS ABSENT: Eric Levine. 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 6:35 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes from May 18, 2011 meeting: Approval of the May 18, 2011 minutes: Pat moved and Fred seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended by Susan Brock, all in favor of the changes. Eva abstained, as she was not present at the May meeting. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Discussion of Draft Conservation Zone Amendments: Starting on page 8, item (6), Performance bond: There was a long discussion about this section. Susan Brock noted that the language in this section regarding bonds conflicted with language earlier in the law where a bond was clearly required. So the COC decided to delete the word “need” in this section and to change the wording of the last sentence to: “The sufficiency of such performance bond shall be determined by the Director of Code Enforcement after consultation with the Town Engineer”. Pages 8, 9 and 10, item (7) Procedures for approval and enforcement of a timber harvesting permit: (7a) – The Committee discussed the number of business days for the Conservation Board to review referrals on timber harvesting permit applications. They decided to change the wording in the first sentence so it read: “Upon receipt of a complete timber harvesting permit application …” and also changed the requirement for Conservation Board review from 15 days to 30 days. (7b) – Delete the word “business” in terms of number of days and change the number of days from 30 days to 45 days. (7c) – Susan Brock questioned whether a performance “guarantee” was the same as a “bond,” and noted that she’d make this language consistent/broader after she reviews Town Code Section 270 -217. After a long discussion about for what types of roads the Town can require bonds (public? local? county? state?), the Committee decided to re-word this section to read: “Any permit shall be conditioned upon approval of access point(s) onto any Town roads, issued by the Town Highway Superintendent, and upon compliance, where applicable, with Chapter 230 (Streets and Sidewalks), Article I (Excavation and Construction in Municipal Roadways and Highway Rights-of-Way) of the Town of Ithaca Code”. No changes were made to items (7d), (7e) or (7f). 2 (7g), regarding stop-work orders: Bruce suggested adding a reference to the Public Works Department or Stormwater Management Officer somewhere in this section. So the Committee decided to add: “or the Stormwater Management Officer" after the words “The Code Enforcement Officer” and to change “public” roads to “Town” roads. (7h): No changes, but a discussion on how would the Town pay for a forester. Could the Town create a Timber Harvest fee? Could this be established under the Timber Harvesting Law? The DEC does this service for free right now. The Town would need to see how much a forester expertise costs and then decide to set a fee or not. Someone questioned what foresters would charge for reviewing timber harvesting plans. Sue Ritter or Bruce will research this and report back at the next COC meeting. (7i): The Committee discussed not allowing burning on-site at all, just allowing debris to stay on site and let nature take its course. NYS states that “agricultural” burning is exempt from open burning regulations. There are no Town regulations, only the County has regulations against backyard burning. Is timbering regulated by State Ag and Markets? There was some added discussion about slash versus logging debris. The COC ultimately agreed to move (7i) to the “Standards” section and basically prohibit burning. Page 10, Section 6, Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XXVI (Special Regulations); Section 270-217, “Extraction or deposit of fill and related products” amendments: B: Leave as is. The Committee had a discussion about the appropriate volume of fill (removed or deposited) to be allowed on a parcel in the Conservation Zone, particularly whether 5 cubic yards (approx. a pickup truck load) was too small. Sue Ritter mentioned that she herself uses 3 cubic yards for landscaping. This brought the question whether compost and mulch were considered fill. After a bit more discussion, the Committee determined that yes, compost and mulch should be considered fill. Page 11, Section 6, C (2): The Committee decided to change “special approval” to “special permit” from the “Planning Board” rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals. Page 11, Section 6, D 2: Delete “Board of Appeals” and replace it with “Planning Board”. Page 11, Section 6, E 1: Delete “special approval from the Board of Appeals” and replace with “special permit by the Planning Board” in the first sentence. Page 11, Section 6, E 2: Delete “before issuing a special approval” and replace with “before issuing a special permit, the Planning Board shall make the same findings” in the second sentence. Page 12, Section 6, F/G: Change F to read: “delete Subsection G”. Page 13, Section 8: The COC discussed deleting Section 8, and Susan Brock said she would revise the section. The COC concluded their review of the draft Conservation Zone Amendments. Susan Brock will revise a new draft for the next COC meeting. A copy of the new revised draft will also be sent to the Conservation Board for their review and comments. Agenda Item No. 4 - Continued Discussion of Comments Received Regarding Stream Setback Law (including updated staff responses to Cornell comments): The Committee started at the top of page 5 of the “Staff responses to Cornell comments” sheet, regarding 3 • Utilities: Question 1, should we clarify that the regulations do not pertain to overhead utilities? The Committee decided to wait until they got to Cornell’s comments later in the document. Regarding question 2, the authority of the Planning Board to limit utility crossings, the COC agreed to address this item at a later time. • Grandfathering: Susan Brock explained what Section “G” applied to, and, looking at “E” and “F,” determined that very few of these applied to existing uses or activities. Susan explained some of the different activities and what they applied to and noted that everything else was worded ‘beginning on or after the effective date’. “G” only applied to those things prohibited by “E” and “F”. • Transition: Susan Brock could not advise on this due to a project that Susan’s husband was working on (ERL project) that was undergoing an EIS with the Town. But she did explain where the transition provisions came from. Mina stated that the wording suggested that applicants would have to provide building permit application materials at the time of seeking site plan or other Planning Board approvals and that didn’t make sense. Bill G. stated that the wording sounded like one would have to have their building permit application completed, since H(1) didn’t apply to “buildings and structures for which completed applications for all necessary approvals and authorizations have been submitted” and “approvals and authorizations include building permits, site plan approvals, subdivisions approvals, special approvals and special permits”. A very long discussion followed, with lots of questions regarding what happens to applications that have gone through some of the Planning Board process before the effective date of the Stream Setback Law, if there should be a grace period, etc. Sue Ritter said that staff has been notifying Planning Board applicants about the impending Stream Setback provisions whenever staff reviews applications that involve streams on properties. Sue noted that it didn’t seem fair, though, for applicants who went through the SEQR process, then received preliminary site plan approval, to be required to meet the Stream Setback Law if it became effective between the site plan approval and the applicant’s application for a building permit. The discussion then moved on to what was considered a “complete” application. The Committee supported the idea of allowing applicants who had already completed the SEQR process with the Planning Board to be exempt from following the Stream Setback Law (if the law was enacted after they completed the SEQR process). Bill G. thought that the building permit language in (H) applied to projects, like a house, that would not be going through a Planning Board process. Bill’s concern, though, were the other big projects going for site plan approval. He thought that maybe what the Committee meant was that if the applicant completed the application for the site plan approval, then they wouldn’t need to do site plan approval and building permit. Mina confirmed that that was the issue Cornell was raising in their comments. The Committee then discussed placing an “or” between the site plan approval and building permit requirements, so that it was an either/or situation. Bill G. asked Committee if they understood the proposed change, if that’s what the Committee meant and wanted to mean. The Committee agreed that the intent of creating the either/or situation between site plan approval and building permit sounded reasonable and that they might need to explore ways for the wording to be clearer. • Variances: Susan Brock explained that the Committee added the variance language at Cornell’s request to specify area variance (rather than use variance). The language the Committee put in was meant to address the problem of otherwise blessing ‘all uses’ within a setback even if it was prohibited in that zone. Susan Brock is working on the wording that will basically state something like “a variance to perform a prohibited action or locate a prohibited use or structure within a stream setback is an area variance, unless the use would not otherwise be allowed if it weren’t located within the stream setback”- making it clear that if the use isn’t allowed in the underlying zoning regulation, the Town is not going to 4 say that any variance from a prohibited use in the setback is allowed. Susan clarified for Mina that uses that require special permit are actually allowed uses, that they are not prohibited. Susan Brock suggested that changing the provided language to make it clear in the last line to “uses that are not otherwise allowed” would address Cornell’s issue. Susan Brock will work on the wording to make it clearer. The Committee left off and will start at the top of page 6, “General Development Impacts” at the July 20th COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 6 - Next meeting date and agenda: Next meeting is scheduled for July 20, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include: - Discussion of Conservation Zone Amendments New Draft with Revisions. - Continue Review of Stream Setback Law Comments with Cornell Comments. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff