Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-10.19-11 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES October 19, 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. GUESTS: Minakshi Amundsen, Cornell University Planner. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Fred compared the number of government students that came to the September 21st COC meeting versus the ones that came to the October 18th Planning Board meeting. Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Minutes from September 21, 2011 meeting: Approval of the September 21, 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. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Discussion of Comments Received Regarding Stream Setback Law: Susan Brock explained that the COC minutes from May 20, 2009 were handed to the Committee as a reference to the decision the Committee previously made regarding exempting parcels of .5 acres from the law. She noted that the Committee went back and forth on the decision and that she thought it would be helpful for the Committee to see how and why they got to the current proposed exemption threshold. Bill G. mentioned that this issue was left over from last month’s meeting, when the Committee decided to establish a 15-foot setback for any new construction on parcels smaller than .5 acre. Bill turned the discussion over to Sue Ritter, who explained the maps that the Committee received that specifically highlighted .5-acre parcels and .75-acre parcels. Sue noted that the areas most affected by the .5-acre threshold would be the Northeast and Forest Home areas, but otherwise there wouldn’t be a huge difference between a .5-acre and .75-acre threshold. Sue was concerned, however, about recent situations that have arisen where someone wanted to move a stream out of the way on a less than .5 -acre parcel to accommodate a home. She wondered if these situations could be dealt with by the Town Engineer to determine a proper setback, up to 15-feet, using stormwater management and safety justifications; that it could be a decision based not so much on protecting a stream, but more of an issue of stormwater management. The Town could still maintain some type of exemption for a certain size parcel. Sue suggested that the Committee should get away from the setback for the .5 acre parcel size, because it’s just too small, but still look for the protection of the stream in those cases, as the need is for stormwater versus safety, property, health, etc. Susan B. asked what standards the Town Engineer would apply to make the determination for an appropriate setback. Sue mentioned she did not have a chance to talk to Creig, the Town Engineer, but she thinks they’d want to make sure there was adequate ability for the stream to flow unimpeded, that the stream wasn’t in a flood zone, etc. Bill G. noticed in the May 2009 minutes that there are around 25 undeveloped parcels that would be affected with the .5-acre or less exemption and 35 undeveloped parcels affected with the .75-acre 2 exemption. He pointed out that this would not be a lot of parcels in terms of new construction. Sue added that the concern was really in the Forest Home area because so much of it was located in Zone 1. A long discussion followed regarding hardships that residents in Forest Home would experience due to the exemptions, specific questions regarding the accuracy of the map, clarification on what the .5-acre exemption means, etc. Bill, looking at the map, noted that it seems a bit strange to have one parcel in Forest Home be large enough to require a setback per the law, while a parcel next door might not be large enough to trigger the law and would be exempt. Sue stated that she didn’t think the situation would necessarily come up often, and that the good thing about Forest Home was that the parcels are all built-on, that there aren’t any vacant lots, just proposals for additions to existing homes. Bill summarized Sue’s suggestion to have some sort of mechanism to allow new construction on the smaller lots, subject to the Town Engineer’s or Code Enforcement Officer’s review and approval. Sue asked the Committee what they thought would be the easiest way to address this, suggesting that maybe something be added to the Stormwater Law in addition to or instead of the Stream Setback Law. Susan Brock thought that it would be odd to have everything in the Stream Setback Law (which will be part of the Zoning Code), except the part regarding smaller parcels, which would be in the Stormwater Law – and the Stormwater Law isn’t in the Zoning Code. She suggested that all setbacks should be located in the Stream Setback Law, if the Town can justify the setback under the purposes of the Steam Setback Law. Susan B. suggested adding a section in the law that says “Nothing in the Stream Setback Law applies to these smaller parcels, except the requirement that they have the 15- foot setback” and that if residents find that too onerous, then they can seek a variance from the ZBA. The Committee then moved on to reviewing the October 4, 2010 draft Stream Setback requirements to see where they could make modifications. Beginning on page 7, E. Prohibited activities in stream setback zone 2(1): Bill G. asked the Committee if they wanted to add a new special exemption for just new construction of houses on small lots. He added that the exemption itself was actually back on page 3, C. Applicability, (2) and suggested that the Committee could add a small provision there. Susan B. suggested language something like “except for the requirements of this section” and then refer to that section rather than writing a list of what one can and cannot do. Bill G. canvassed the Committee for their thoughts. Sue summarized the proposed language: “All parcels of .5 acre and less are exempt from this law with the exception that no buildings would be allowed within 15 feet of a stream ”. The Committee agreed to the change. Bill K. had some concerns about what someone could actually do within the 15-foot setback. Sue explained that they could do anything that was listed as prohibited (store compost, plant things, install a water well, apply herbicides, pave). Fred responded to Bill by stating that the issue was to be fair to the people with these smaller lots, who have owned them for a long time, and that by exempting them, we allow them to be buildable. Sue added that the law only exempts .5-acre parcels that exist as of today – someone who subdivides their parcel into .5-acre lots after the law is enacted will not be exempted from the law. Pat wondered how the law would apply to streams that might exist in potentially new neighborhoods, where a developer proposes a subdivision with lots that are less than .5-acres. Sue stated that there were two separate considerations with the law (1) how to deal with the existing .5-acre parcels and (2) how to deal with potential future .5-acre parcels in subdivisions where a stream exists. The latter was the other issue left over from last month’s meeting - regarding flexibility. Sue explained that a new subdivision proposal would require Planning Board approval, and the Board would likely either require a setback from the stream or clustering of the neighborhood to avoid the stream as a condition of approval. Pat was particularly concerned that the law would prevent developments with affordable housing, not that developers would try to circumvent the law. Sue noted that Cornell had comments about providing for flexibility from the law, or for allowing construction in the setback if mitigation is provided. Sue asked 3 Mina if Cornell had any ideas on how to provide flexibility in the law to accommodate mitigations. Mina indicated that counsel had been notified, and she will let Sue know if they have any ideas. Susan B.’s concern was giving the Planning Board too much flexibility makes the issue seem more like a variance, which is a Zoning Board authority, not a Planning Board one. Susan suggested Cornell propose their ideas and why they think their ideas are legal. Bill led the discussion back to the original comment letter from Cornell, page 9, E & F. Prohibited Activities in Stream Setback Zones 1 and 2 (if comparing with the law, “E” is on page 7 of the law): Sue R. noted that the current law was cleaned up so some of Cornell’s items listed on page 9 and following to page 10 were no longer included as prohibited – some are now permitted. Sue clarified for Mina that if an item is not specifically listed on the prohibited list, then it’s permitted; and also if an item is prohibited, then it’ll be prohibited as of the day the law takes effect. Mina then asked about the disposal of snow or ice on parking lots, explaining that Cornell has facilities within the setback zones that are paved and need to be kept clear of snow and ice. Sue explained that there are organizations that pick up snow from parking lots, put it in a truck and dump it elsewhere; and that the intent of the restriction is to prohibit trucks from dumping snow and ice in Zone 1. Mina reiterated that if the intent of the law was to allow snow removal but not snow dumping in Zone 1, then the language does not make that very clear. After a bit more discussion, the Committee decided to clarify the language so that snow removal was allowed but dumping of snow or ice collected from wholly outside the stream setback zone was not allowed. Susan Brock came up with more specific language that the Committee liked, and will make the changes for a future draft. Bill asked staff to provide a chart for the COC that shows new activities that are prohibited, along with existing activities that will be prohibited once the law is enacted. Sue offered to provide the chart for the Committee at the next meeting. Susan B. expressed that, per the most revised draft of the law, deconstruction and demolition of existing structures was permitted. However, the prohibited list includes “land disturbing activities.” Susan understood that it was not the COC’s intent, but nonetheless wondered if land disturbance was part of deconstruction or demolition, and if so, should it be given more consideration and possibly be prohibited. She wondered if the term “land disturbing activities” could encompass anything, particularly since it was not defined in the law. Sue Ritter noted that the COC tried to define the term early on, but got bogged down in all of the possibilities that land disturbing activities could entail (e.g. mowing). Bill asked if the term was defined in the Stormwater Law or anywhere else in the various Town’s Codes. Susan B. discovered that land “development” activities was defined in the Stormwater Law and it included such things as grading and filling, etc, which would also include deconstruction and demolition. The Committee grappled with their intent regarding “land disturbing activities” for quite a while, ultimately deciding that land disturbing activities could mean anything that involved putting shovel in the ground or disturbing vegetation and soil. Upon that agreement, the Committee decided to permit demolition and deconstruction as exceptions to the prohibited activities in stream setback Zone 2 and added a new E (5) “(c)” stating “demolition of structures/buildings.” Mina asked about maintenance and repair of existing structures, noting that one could be reconstructing something in an effort to maintain it, and that maintenance could involve the use of machinery, such as scaffolding. Cornell could not find where this was addressed in the law. Sue read the law to mean that maintenance was allowed and replacement was allowed as long as it was no bigger than the footprint of what was already there. After a lot more discussion about what would constitute a tool or machine associated with maintenance and how future staff would interpret the law, the Committee decided to clarify maintenance and repair by adding a line at the end of E (1) that states that “this prohibition does not apply to maintenance and repair of buildings and other structures.” 4 The Committee moved on to the bulleted list of Cornell’s comments on the top of page 10. Sue explained that a lot of the items on the list were allowed, and that Cornell could seek a variance for the few circumstances that were not allowed. Mina suggested adding restoration and renovation of existing functional structures and facilities to the maintenance and repair section, so the Committee discussed whether renovation should be under the category of maintenance. The Committee decided that renovation was not considered maintenance, especially in cases where renovations included additions that increased the footprint of the structure. So they added “renovation” to the section in E (3) that also lists replacement as a prohibited activity. Moving on to Cornell’s comments on E. Zone 2 prohibitions, Sue summarized that the comments were directed towards parking lots, e.g. re-striping, paving, repairs, etc. Sue R. considered those activities as allowed and addressed with the new language addition to E (1) (noted in the first paragraph above). The Committee agreed. Regarding the de-icing of parking lots, Sue suggested additional wording be added to (10). She will look at NYS DOT guidelines to get ideas on the proper language to add and report back to the Committee at the next meeting. Running out of time, the Committee quickly addressed the comment about Section E (6) (b), regarding the statement “for the mobility impaired.” Cornell thought the statement should apply to the user of the motorized vehicle, not just the type of vehicle. Pat clarified that the statement really meant the Medicare - approved “scooters for the mobility impaired,” that the statement was not a typo. After a short discussion, the Committee decided to leave the statement as is. The COC left off on page 10 of the Cornell comments, section E (5), and will continue there at the next meeting. The Committee will also review Jon Bosak’s and Jim Semp’s comments next time. Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business: Bill mentioned that a member of the public came to the Town Board meeting two days prior to the COC meeting and requested to change the Town’s Zoning Code so that wood sheds could be allowed in a side yard (they are currently only allowed in a rear yard). Sue distributed pictures of the proposed (existing in violation) wood shed that was nicely constructed with a roof. The resident suggested that he could comply with the Town’s Code by moving the wood pile to the back yard and placing an ugly tarp over it, but that he thought the constructed wood shed with roof was more aesthetically appealing. The resident also felt that the wood shed should not be considered a building and should be allowed to be in the side yard. The Town Board referred the matter to the COC to discuss. Bill canvassed the Committee to see if members wanted to put the item on a future agenda. After a short discussion, the Committee decided that they’d support allowing wood sheds in the side yard, but needed to prioritize the item before it gets placed on a future agenda. Agenda Item No. 5 - Next meeting date and agenda: Next meeting has been scheduled for November 16, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include: - Continued Discussion of Comments Received Regarding Stream Setback Law (picking up on page 10 of the Cornell comments and discussion of chart provided by staff) - Discussion of Next Item on COC Work Plan. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff