Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin- 7-20-11 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES July 20, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann. MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill King. OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Brittain. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes from June 15, 2011 meeting: Approval of the June 15, 2011 minutes: Pat moved and Eva seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended, all in favor of the changes. Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Comments Received Regarding Revised Local Law: Garage and Accessory Building Definitions and References in the Town Zoning Code: Bill started the discussion by asking if there were any comments from the Planning Board’s July 19th meeting. Chris had two comments from the meeting: 1) Why limit the distance from the front property line? The Planning Board didn’t understand the intent behind limiting the length from the front property line and 2) the Planning Board also noticed that no rear yard distance requirements for all garages were set. Why? Susan Brock stated that the rear requirements are set for one-story garages but not for others. Bill moved to Bruce Brittain’s memo regarding the example: not greater than 50 feet from the front property line, could make a garage be closer to the road than a house might be. Bruce Brittain asked if the intent was to have the garage meet the same general regulations that a house does ‘front yard depth shall not be less than 25 feet or need it be greater than 50 feet’. If you drop that ‘need it be’, it suddenly becomes more restrictive. Pat’s main concern is having a minimum setback but not set a maximum setback. Regarding Bruce Brittain’s remark, Bruce Bates mentioned the intent was making it the same as any other structure. If you wanted a garage in the front yard, you still have to set your house behind that further or equal to (Bruce gave an example). Bill assumed this didn’t apply in the Conservation Zone but it is in the draft law, Section 2, B,“G” - Detached Garage: ‘no less than 50 feet nor greater than 75 feet from the front property line, nor less than 50 feet from any side or rear line’. Bill asked “is deleting the 75 feet what we want”? Susan B. said that would be the simplest and should be ‘no less than 50 feet from the front property line’. Bill said just continuing with “nor less than 50 feet from any side or rear line”. Eva mentioned from a previous discussion that by allowing garages or carports (treating them both the same) in the front yards, we are allowing people to put less driveway surface in their yards than if they have to bring them back further to line up with the house or even further back in to the rear yard. Eva thought it was a good idea to allow garages and carports in the front yard but it should be possible to bring 2 them back at least to line up with the house. Susan mentioned that this would allow it. Bill also mentioned it would still have to be 50 feet from the front property line but could still do it if they wanted it closer to the road than the house. In the Conservation Zone, Bill mentioned detached garages but in the other zones, it talks about garages whether they are attached or detached. Not sure why that’s different. Eva wasn’t sure why we would treat them differently. Bruce Bates explained and Bill referred to the draft law, page 1, Section 2, Chapter 270, Article V (Conservation Zones). Discussion followed regarding attached and detached garages; if it’s an attached garage it’s going to meet the requirements of the house, it wouldn’t be separated. Changes were made to: Section 2, Conservation Zones, “G”: delete ‘nor greater than 75 feet’. Section 4, Lakefront Residential Zones, “H”: delete ‘nor greater than 60 feet’. Section 5, Low Density Residential Zones, “F”: delete ‘nor greater than 60 feet’. Section 6, Medium Density Residential Zones, “F”: delete ‘nor greater than 50 feet’. Section 7, High Density Residential Zones, “F”: delete ‘nor greater than 50 feet’. There was a small discussion and clarification regarding the Lakefront Residential Zones. The question on the rear lot seemed to have some discretion between one-story and garages that might be more than one-story. On page 3, “F” paragraph (1), sentence starting with ‘In the rear yard, a one-story garage, either attached to the principal building or separate therefrom, may be no less than five feet from any side or rear lot line’. Discussion on minimum lot size in the Conservation Zone being 7 acres, garage attached to the house, may want to be more explicit. Number of lots based on parcel divided by 7; if doing a subdivision, cluster them on 2 acre lots and leave most of the parcel open (if subdividing). More discussion on lot size, housing development, cluster, agriculture zone 1-2 acre, reducing number of houses built, house setback requirements. If it’s a detached garage in the Conservation Zone, other zones were saying attached garage may not be less xx amount of feet from the front property line. Are we questioning the 50 feet from the rear line, or why aren’t we talking about attached garages, like in the other zones? Need to make it consistent with all the other zones and add that in the Conservation Zone. Bruce Brittain said “it would make sense to use the same language in paragraph (3), “F”, page 3, steep slopes, which you would have in the Conservation Zone. Can you put your garage right at the street line? Could we use roughly the same language in the Conservation Zone?” Bruce Bates mentioned that if the garage was attached to a house, it would have to meet the setback requirements within a house. But with a garage in the back yard, you could maximize your yard by putting it over to the side. According to the Conservation Zone, accessory buildings shall not be less than 50 feet from any side or rear lot line. In this case, we are treating it as an accessory building and saying the garage can’t be any closer. If it’s attached, it’s going to be part of the house, but if it’s not attached, then where can it be? In this case, it would make the language the same as an accessory building. Does this make sense? Susan said “In Conservation Zones, accessory buildings can actually be closer to the rear lot line than a house can, whereas in all of our other zones, we are setting it up so the garages and the houses had the same setbacks. We might want to treat detached garages differently because we would want to have the 3 greater setback if it’s part of the house. Maybe we should spell out the rules in every other zone we talk about, if it’s an attached garage”. Bruce Bates added “An attached garage must meet the requirement setbacks of the house”. Susan said we might spell out 200 foot rear yard and 50 foot side yard requirements in front yard 50 feet. Fred said to make it a garage, not an accessory structure but give it the same setbacks, so the language is consistent across all zones; or more consistent. Bill agreed that it made sense, and to add to the Conservation Zone section more detailed language, as in the other sections (paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (slopes) in other zones) on page 3. In the language, attached garages may occupy any yard, should be no less than 50 feet from the front property line, no less than 50 feet from any side line and no less than 200 feet from any rear line. Bill then referred to paragraph (1) in the Low, Medium and High Density Residential Zones- the first sentence of one-story garage and the second sentence regarding rear yard. Bill then mentioned the one Planning Board comment about no rear yard setbacks for all garages. Susan said there are rear yard setbacks in this zone and Chris mentioned not for two-story garages. Susan said that will be added and went on to say we’re not talking about one and two-story garages, we’re going to have the rules for detached and rules for attached and both of those will include the rear setback requirements in the Conservation Zone. On page 3, “F”, (1): Discussion of paragraph and then discussion turned to explanation of the difference of one-story and two-story garages and accessory buildings, height requirement, space, living space over a garage, criteria’s of a second dwelling unit over a garage. A small discussion followed regarding the height of an accessory building in Section 3, Lakefront Residential Zone. Then there was a long discussion on the definition of a one-story garage, setting up a general rule to say that garages, whether attached or detached, have to meet the rear lot setbacks, defining what they are for each zone. Do we want to make the setback even greater in the rear – not for the one-story garages but in the language above in each section where it’s defined what the requirements are? Do we want to put in a rear yard setback? So, in (1) change to: ‘In one of the side yards, a one-story garage either attached to the principal building or separate there from, may be no less than 15 feet from any side line which is not a street line. In the rear yard, a one-story detached garage, may be no less than five feet from any side or rear lot line’. Continue with the ZBA comments at the next COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of Revised Draft Amendments to the Conservation Zone (including comments from the Conservation Board): On the next COC agenda, meeting scheduled for August 24, 2011. Agenda Item No. 5 – Time Permitting – Continued Discussion of Comments Received Regarding Stream Setback Law: On the next COC agenda, meeting scheduled for August 24, 2011. Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 7 - Next meeting date and agenda: Note: next meeting has been re-scheduled for August 24, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include: - Continuation of the Zoning Board of Appeals Garage Comments. - Continuation of the Revised Draft Amendments to the Conservation Zone. 4 Meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff