HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-12-21-11
1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
December 21, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King.
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement;
Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner.
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 October 19th and November 16th Meeting Minutes:
Approval of October 19, 2011 meeting: Pat moved and Fred seconded the motion to approve the minutes as
amended, all in favor of the changes. Eva abstained.
Approval of November 16, 2011 meeting: Eric moved and Fred seconded the motion to approve the minutes
as amended, all in favor of the changes. Eva abstained.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Discussion of Comments Received Regarding Stream Setback Law:
The Committee reviewed the new draft Stream Setback Law (12/19/11) provided by Susan Brock. The law
contained all of the revisions to date and included a few yellow highlighted areas remaining for discussion.
Based on their discussion of those highlighted sections, the Committee recommended the following changes:
E. Prohibited activities in stream setback zone 2,
Page 8, E(2): Susan Brock suggested revising Chapter 270-223.1 to add: “Except as otherwise specifically
provided by this chapter”. The Committee agreed to the addition.
Page 9, E(5)(d): Discussion regarding adding “emergency” before ‘slope stabilization and restoration’.
Fred’s concern was that if the Town allows ‘emergency’ then we should allow ‘un-emergency’ to prevent the
emergency situation. He iterated that if a trained engineer saw the slope or measured the slope as becoming
unstable, one would hope the Town would allow some sort of restoration activity to go on before the need
for any ‘emergency’ action’. Fred felt we need to allow this type of thing as standard maintenance activity
and not wait for an emergency. Discussion followed and one of the members asked where items (5)(d)(i)
through (iv) came from. Susan B. explained the (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) under (5)(d) came from the stream
bank stabilization criteria, from page 13, F(9). After much discussion, the COC decided to change (d) to
read as: “Emergency slope stabilization” and create a new (e) that said “Non-emergency slope stabilization
and restoration, provided that’” and list (i) through (iv) under (e). The Committee agreed to the additions.
Page 10, E(8)(b): Susan Brock inquired how to address the situation where the Code Enforcement Officer
determines that more than the minimal area will be disturbed. Discussion followed on what generally
happens in this case. Bruce explained that the CEO really can’t tell people what to do, but staff could issue a
stop work order or require the owner to seek a variance from the Zoning Board. Bruce explained the process
of a building permit review and what would determine the need for a variance. The COC ultimately decided
to modify (8)(b) to read as: “Utility services and connections for one-family and two-family dwellings.”
Page 11, E(10): Bill G. wondered how the NYSDOT guidelines quantified or defined what was considered a
‘minimal amount’ of de-icing. A short discussion followed and the Committee decided that Susan B. and
Sue R. would work on clarifying the wording in this section.
2
G. Prior nonconforming uses and activities:
Page 14, Bill G. read Cornell’s comments and asked if anyone had spoken to Cornell about them. Sue R.
hadn’t talked with Cornell, but stated that she would contact Mina to see if Cornell had any ideas on how to
address the comments.
H. Transition provisions:
Page 14 H(1): Susan B. stated that her notes and the minutes weren’t very clear as to what the COC wanted
in this section. Bill G. noted that since the section pertains to the transition provisions, then they would not
seem to apply to an applicant who sought site plan or subdivision approvals from the Planning Board. He
added that the provisions would also not apply to a proposal that did not require a building permit. Susan B.
wondered if the intent of the transition provisions was to exempt those who were pursuing some kind of
approval, other than a building permit, as long as that application was complete before the effective date of
the law. Discussion followed and Susan B. asked what the procedure was if an application needed more
than one approval (e.g. if the applicant needed site plan approval and a variance) - would they submit all
their applications for those items? Fred clarified the overall intent by saying “If the only administrative
action needed is to obtain a building permit, then the building permit has to be issued before the law takes
effect. If the administrative action needed is one of the other four listed, either ZBA or Planning Board
action, then, having submitted a completed application is sufficient to not have to comply with the new
regulation.” The Committee agreed that this was the intent of the transition provisions.
The Committee then moved on to a short discussion about fill permits and decided to add “fill permits” to
H(1).
Running out of time, the Committee decided to review and discuss Jon Bosak’s comments at the January 18,
2012 COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of Comments Received From the Planning Board & Conservation
Board Regarding Conservation Zone Amendments (now the Timber Harvesting Law and Fill Permit
Law): Moved to January 18, 2012 COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion of 2012 COC Meeting Schedule:
Okay for January 18, 2012 meeting - will revisit rest of the 2012 schedule then.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Discussion of COC Work Plan for 2012:
Moved to January 18, 2012 COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Next meeting date and agenda:
Next meeting has been scheduled for January 18, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include:
- Discussion of comments received from the Planning Board & Conservation Board regarding the
Conservation Zone Amendments
- Discussion of Jon Bosak’s comments regarding Stream Setback Law
- Review meeting schedule for 2012
- Discussion of COC work plan for 2012
Meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce
Administrative Staff