Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin- 9-21-11 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES September 21, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King. MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Wilcox. OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner. GUESTS: Katie Stoner, Town of Ithaca Sustainability Planner; Cliff Babson, NY Energy Smart Communities Coordinator; 3 Ithaca High School government students. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Comment from Bill G. regarding the Stream Setback Law, discussion may be cut short so that Katie Stoner will have extra time for her presentation. Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes from August 24, 2011 meeting: Approval of the August 24, 2011 minutes with some changes made. Eric moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended, all in favor of the changes. Eva abstained, was not at the August 24, 2011 meeting. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Discussion of Comments Received Regarding Stream Setback Law: Sue reported that Mina Amundsen [Cornell University Planner] was not able to attend this meeting and that Sue had met earlier in the week with Mina to review the Cornell comments in preparation of the COC meeting. Sue had discussed with Mina the staff recommendations she would be making to the COC, offered to report any additional comments from Mina, and would then also report to Mina the results from the meeting. Sue starting with General Development Impacts, page 6, first paragraph: Cornell would like to see more flexibility in situations where there is more compact development, doing infill and where you can’t meet certain setbacks. Sue described to the Committee of reading about situations with new compact development – how there has been reported tension/conflict in trying to create these new traditional neighborhood type developments in light of stormwater regulations (since stormwater facilities take up so much land) and stream buffers requirements. Sue felt that if we can preserve land by having more compact/dense developments then maybe we don’t have as wide a buffer as we wanted, but enough to still protect streams; may be that is a proper trade-off. Sue added that she spoke with Susan Brock regarding other ordinances/laws and how they incorporate flexibility. Sue said she didn’t see how these would apply to the Town because we have set this up to provide relief through a variance process with the Zoning Board, and would want to keep it this way. So the question is, is there a way to give the Planning Board some ability to have some flexibility. Sue went on to talk about the excerpt from College Township, Pennsylvania riparian buffer overlay zone pertaining to buffer averaging, buffers, mitigations, water quality, flexibility, and comments that were made under the General Development Impacts. 2 The comment in blue on page 7 regarding the ‘creative mitigation solution’: Susan Brock suggested that we ask Cornell what ordinances they recommend or what solutions their team can come up with. In the same paragraph where: ‘the Committee could explore beefing up the variance section to include procedures in the case of site/subdivision approval whereby the applicant submits a proposal for a mitigation strategy to the Planning Board and the Board then reviews and submit a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals’. The question Sue asked the Committee: “how would you feel about flexibility and do you think this should be the Zoning Board giving the variance or what do you think about exploring this issue further”? Bill K. thought procedure makes sense at the Zoning Board of Appeals as a variance. Discussion followed and Sue mentioned we could explore a little bit more this idea of providing initial flexibility through the Planning Board (like parking regulations in which the Planning Board can reduce the required amount by 20%), with a mitigation plan. Or, leave it to the Zoning Board, but perhaps give the Planning Board the ability to review and provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board on a mitigation plan. This may be our only legal way to give the Planning Board more authority. Bill G. likes the idea of asking Cornell do some of the leg work for us; but it also sounds like a good idea, perhaps come up with some language once we see what Cornell sends us. Committee agreed. Page 7, C. Applicability, regarding exempting parcels smaller than 0.5 acres: Sue read her comment in blue ink (from previous handout) to the Committee that stated that the committee may want to revisit this issue in light of an issue concerning a recent building permit application. Sue had talked to Kristin Taylor before she left (her position with the Town) who had worked closely with the Pennsylvania Ave. (Ron Ronsvalle) property who wanted to build a house over a stream. Rather than build around it or work with it; he wanted to fill the stream so he could build a house. His parcel is smaller than what would be triggered by any of our laws. Discussion followed by what the decision was on this property. Bill G. asked if this stream was on our map and Sue thought it was and discussion followed regarding setbacks, streams, Forest Home area, fill, Town Engineers wanting a minimum 15 feet between the stream and house and what decisions the Town Engineer can make/decide or address. Eva added: “The idea of flexibility would fit here too, in the sense if you determine on a small parcel where a person couldn’t fit a house easily without going too close to a stream. If it’s more important to the community to protect the stream; one could be flexible enough with the regulations to allow a person to build the house closer to the side lot line or the road lot line to make up for that, if that would be of less importance to the community than protecting the stream. Who would decide that is another matter”. Pat thought it was a good idea and Bruce asked how we would write it into the law. Eva thought “It would also depend on the adjoining parcels and how close existing houses are perhaps to the water and how particularly sensitive the stream side land is at that point (like a curve and could be washed out)”. The committee thinks it’s reasonable to have some regulation for the less than 0.5 acre lots if the circumstances warranted. Discussion followed regarding Town Engineer authority, possibly requiring a 15 foot maximum setback, and possibly granting flexibility from other lot line setbacks (would need to go to the ZBA) and maybe requiring setback protection for small parcels that contain streams identified on the Stream Setback Law map. Bill G. summarized, saying that if a parcel is smaller than .5 acre, then the original setbacks don’t apply, but a property owner would have a 15 feet setback for any new construction; what would that do to all the small parcels around Forest Home? The Committee wanted to consider this further and asked Sue to provide the map of the 0.5 acre lot sizes with stream setbacks shown for the next meeting. 3 Page 8, Stream Setback Standards: Section (5)(a)[3]: COC Committee addressed this section at a previous meeting, no changes made. Section (9)(c): The committee addressed this section at a previous meeting, no changes made. Section (10)(a): The committee okay with this section, no changes made. Page 9, Section 8 (b): Sue reported that she asked Mina to give us an idea for what the guidance table might be. Sue couldn’t come up with any ideas and so Mina said she would communicate with CU staff involved with the comments to see if they could get some ideas to her. Page 9, Section (11): Sue stated that the intent of the law was to create an uninterrupted zone of vegetation, so, once it’s bisected by a road, it does not make sense to continue to require a setback on the other side (roads on the official Town map). The COC was okay with this. Page 9, Section (13): The committee addressed this section at a previous meeting, no changes made. Page 9, Section (14): The committee addressed this section at a previous meeting where Sue had provided examples, no changes made. Page 9, E & F. Prohibited Activities in Stream Setback Zones 1 and 2: General Comments: The committee added effective dates to a lot of the prohibitions at an earlier meeting. Bill G. said to leave off here and will pick up at the next COC meeting in October. Agenda Item No. 4 – Presentation on Model Green Building Ordinances by Town of Ithaca Sustainability Planner, Katie Stoner: Katie asked Cliff Babson (New York Energy Smart Communities Coordinator for Cornell Cooperative Extension) to sit in on this meeting to help answer any questions on the more technical side of things. He has experience in the field and knows the State landscape. Katie gave a review on the green building ordinances and spoke of the HERS (Home Energy Rating System) index. Cliff went on to explain the HERS index as a score of your home. A home with a HERS index of 100 is equivalent to a home built to Code. Every score below 100 is equivalent to 1 percentage of greater efficiency. For example, a home with a HERS index of 70 is 30% more energy efficient than a home built to code. The HERS index is the basis of Energy Star, and all Energy Star homes must achieve a specific HERS index in order to be certified as “Energy Star.” Right now, the HERS index is based on the 2006 Energy Code and is ‘84’ for the Energy Star. The Energy Code comes out every two or three years and Energy Star’s intent is to be 20% better; where the HERS index doesn’t change. He spoke of Long Island and went on to say the HERS index of ‘70’ is what they are mandating now. In other words, homes built on Long Island must be 30% more efficient than typical homes built to code. Cliff explained that the score measures the energy efficiency of the home. Bill G. asked what the name of the organization that developed the HERS index was and Cliff said it was the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET). Katie then showed a visual illustration of it – ‘100’ is basically a home built to code and every point below it, is a percentage. Katie spoke of an article Cliff shared with her of Brookhaven, NY where the town is requiring a HERS index of ‘70’. Which means; any new home built in Brookhaven has to be 30% more efficient than the 2006 code. Katie had a few articles to share with the Committee including an actual law for Babylon, NY. Katie also suggested to the Committee to start looking at or initiate a new proposal to explore the idea of requiring a HERS index; something that would get us above code but without the costly burden of the Energy Star certification. Discussion followed regarding the Babylon law, the Energy Star law; if we mandate Energy Star then we wouldn’t be eligible for programs through NYSERDA. 4 Susan B. asked a question that was inaudible about HERS and Cliff did say the HERS index of ‘70’ is 20% better than the 2009 Code (2006 Code used as a benchmark) and then spoke of the 2012 Code and the software. More discussion followed regarding the difference between HERS index and Energy Star ratings. The COC decided to consider the exploration of Green Building Codes for the Town in the future. Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 6 - Next meeting date and agenda: Next meeting has been scheduled for October 19, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include: - Continuation of Comments regarding the Stream Setback Law. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff