HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-11-16-11
1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 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 6:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: The Committee discussed the Conservation Zone
changes; definition of forester, etc. Sue R. summarized the Planning Board’s comments on the law. Staff
will provide the Planning Board’s comments to COC at the next meeting. Bill G. will ask the Town
Board if they will let the comments go to COC first and then back to Town Board.
Agenda Item No. 2 – 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):
Starting on page 10, Section E: Zone 2 Prohibitions of the Stream Setback Law comments: Committee
discussed the Department of Transportation (DOT) snow and ice removal guidelines provided by Sue R.
Bill G. referred back to the Stream Setback Law, page 9, E. Prohibited activities in zone 2, (10) deicing of
impervious and pervious surfaces: Discussion followed regarding the deicing, guidelines for parking lots,
what is a linear mile and if insurance companies have any guidelines. Sue will check with the Town’s
Public Works Department to see what they use for guidelines and report back to COC at the next meeting.
For E. (10), page 9: Add after the word “minimal” in parenthesis “(not to exceed the amount specified in
X document)”.
Page 10 of Cornell comments, Section E. (5 ), land-disturbing activities: Discussion on landscaping,
stabilization of a hillside/gorge/slope, plastic cover, restoration of a site/slope, reconstruction, stream
bank, etc.
Referring back to page 7 of the Stream Setback Law, E. (5): COC was okay with allowing/adding
“restoration/stabilization” to the list of exceptions below (list continued on page 8).
Page 8; E. (5): Add (d) “Permit emergency stabilization and restoration with conditions” (staff will work
on specific language).
Page 8; E. (8): Installation of utility services and connections: Discussion followed and the Committee
made the following changes:
(8)(b): Utility services and connections: “for one-family and two-family dwellings” that the Code
Enforcement Officer determines will disturb only the minimal area.
2
Change [2] to (c) and change language to: “For uses and structures other than one-family and
two-family dwellings, the installation of utility services and connections is permitted only upon
receipt of a special permit for same from the Planning Board in accordance with the procedures
set forth in this chapter; and”
Add: (8)(d): “Repair or replacement of existing utility services”.
Page 9; E. (12)(a) of the Stream Setback Law and page 11, Section E. (12)(a) of the Cornell comments,
Construction of crossings: Discussion and concern of digging up dirt, digging up vegetation and putting a
pole up and the equipment used. Committee made the following change to (12)(a):
(12)(a) to read: “Crossing of streams through the stream setback by driveways, roadways,
vehicles, pathways, bridges, storm sewers, sewer and/or water lines, and other utility lines, except
for crossings that are built substantially perpendicular to stream flow, are designed to minimize
downstream siltation and negative impacts to the stream and setback zones”.
Delete: “and further provided the Planning Board may limit the number, size, type, placement, and
construction of such crossings where they are proposed as part of a subdivision, site plan or
special permit application”.
COC made no changes to the draft law based on the Cornell comments that stated “overhead lines should
not be subject to the same requirements that ground level lines are and should be expressly carved out
here”.
Page 10; F. (2): The construction, installation or erection of fences and walls: After a short discussion,
COC decided to delete F(2).
Page 11; F. (6): Construction of stormwater ponds and wetland s: Long discussion followed regarding
whether the Town wants to prohibit the enhancement or expansion of streamside wetlands. COC made no
changes - applicants would need to come in for approvals for such actions.
Bill G. moved to I. Variances: Cornell was concerned about an applicant being able to apply for a
variance from the stream setback only if the development would “otherwise” be allowed. Susan B.
mentioned that COC re-wrote the language at an earlier meeting and addressed the issue. Susan also said
“the variance is an area variance unless the use would not otherwise be allowed if it were not located in a
stream setback”.
Bill G. went back to the Cornell comments of H. Transition Provisions (1) and (2), indicating that the
COC addressed this section in a previous draft of the law.
COC discussed Jim Semp’s comments/letter. Bill G. asked Susan if a revision was made to the map.
Susan explained that there was, but it wasn’t a huge change. Mr. Semp has a 35 -foot setback on his
stream. Susan recalculated the drainage area by hand and then re-ran the model with LIDAR, but it still
did not warrant a 50-foot setback. She thought this was going to be a problem with streams that have a lot
of roadside drainage that are receiving fast-moving runoff from the roads. The water is scouring the
streams and exposing shale rock. Public Works is working on an analysis of stormwater and runoff. She
thought that at some point in the future the PWD watershed analysis data could be incorporated into the
stream setback law so that these types of streams have larger setbacks.
3
Bill G. recapped that Mr. Semp calculated that he has close to 175 acres and Susan thought that he was
under 100. Susan explained that they looked at streams with 80 acres of drainage area and the setbacks
end up small because they are not in an area with fast-moving roadside ditch water, which is a different
characteristic. Fred wondered if Susan had worked out the calculations with Mr. Semp and she had not.
Bill G. concluded that it was too complicated at this point to factor it in. Susan agreed unless someone
had an idea of how it could be included. COC decided not to make any changes.
Committee went on to discuss the development previously proposed for the property and how the County
has designed the ditches in the area to drain into the stream. Susan B. suggested that the Town make a
formal request to County Public Works. Susan R. thought that the County was doing the best they could
with limited resources.
Pat asked if there was a way to describe characteristics of streams and have the characteristics as the basis
of the setback. Susan explained that the law is based on set standards; the Town would get into a gray
area if the setbacks are based upon characteristics. She surveyed several streams in the Town with Mike
Smith several years ago and was not comfortable with making judgments on what a setback would be on
a case by case basis. Fred pointed out that the current standards are objective, even though they do not
always produce the desired result.
Bill G. moved on to Jon Bosak’s comments. He asked if there was an easy way to deal with the
“application of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers or other chemicals”. Committee discussed the need to
allow pesticides for safety reasons. COC solution: Reference Tompkins County Invasive Species List and
still allow the various exceptions.
Bill G. noted that the Committee would not be able to address the rest of Mr. Bosak’s comments given the
time; the Committee will review the remaining comments at its next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Next Item on COC Work Plan:
Moved to December 21st meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 5 - Next meeting date and agenda:
Next meeting has been scheduled for December 21, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include:
- Review Draft Stream Setback Law remaining comments
- Review Conservation Zone comments
- Draft meeting schedule for 2012
- Discussion of next item on COC work plan for 2012
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff