Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-01-18-12 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 18, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King. 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. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of December 21, 2011 Meeting Minutes: Approval of the December 21, 2011 minutes with one change made. Eric moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended, all in favor of the changes. Agenda Item No. 3 – Finalize Revised Stream Setback Law (dated 12-19-11) and Discuss Comments Received from Jon Bosak: The COC started with page 2 of Jon Bosak’s comments. Bill noted that the section numbers Jon used referred to the 12/19/11 draft Stream Setback Law, which had since been updated. He noted that numbers had changed from: F(5) to F(4); F(7) to F(6); F(4) to F(3), etc. Bill asked if staff had any comments generally and none were given. The Committee reviewed Sections ‘E’ and ‘F’ of the draft Stream Setback Law, along with page 3 of Jon’s comments, starting with E(7). Section “E” generally talked about prohibited activities in setback Zone 2. E(7) talked about prohibiting permanent hunting shelters and blinds in Zone 2. Jon’s point was that an owner with a huge parcel of land couldn’t legally have a small blind on their property. What if they wanted a large blind with a permanent (concrete) foundation near a stream? Eva wondered if that size of parcel and large streams really existed in the Town and asked if there was a case to which Jon is referring to in the Town. It was mentioned that there were no 1,600 acre parcels in the Town. Bill asked if the Town was being too strict, or if we should allow some things that might be minimal. Bill K. asked how we would decide what the “minimal size” of a blind would be and how it would be regulated. He also felt that if a person needed to build a large or permanent blind on 2,000 acres, they could apply for a variance from the Zoning Board. Bruce felt that most hunters wouldn’t pour a concrete foundation for a blind. The Committee discussed the origin of E(7), which was to allow Cornell to use blinds for educational purposes. After a bit more discussion, the COC decided to leave the law as is. The Committee then moved on to Section “F”, specifically F(4), composting of residential materials. Jon felt that prohibiting composting in Zone 1 was an arbitrary provision, and wondered if it applied to placing plastic compost bins or other containments within the setback. The Committee discussed the intention behind this prohibition and compared the composting provisions in Zone 1 and Zone 2, and how the provisions would be enforced at all. The COC ultimately decided to change wording to: ‘Composting of residential materials unless they are maintained in a sealable container’. 2 The Committee discussed the remainder of Jon Bosak’s comments regarding Sections F(6), F(3), and F (8), but made no further changes to the law. Sue R. followed up on E(10) regarding NYSDOT Guidelines for De-icing. After looking further into the guidelines, Sue and Susan B. determined that they were more related to roads and with lanes of a road and that they really didn’t pertain to parking lots. Sue also checked with the Town of Ithaca Public Works Dept. and found out that the Department figures out what they need themselves. The Department calibrates the trucks to allow a certain amount of salt to come out. The PWD has done this based on their knowledge of conditions of the roads, and parking lots apparently required less salt. Sue was advised that the Town might not want to use the NYSDOT guidelines because they were written by engineers and often resulted in much more salt application than what’s necessary (a parking lot could get more salt than needed). Upon hearing this, the COC decided to go back to the original wording and delete the NYSDOT reference. Sue R. contacted Mina regarding Section “G. Prior nonconforming uses and activities.” Mina indicated that she would like to talk to Shirley Egan (Attorney for Cornell) and then get back to us about the grandfathering issue. Sue will send Mina the latest version of the draft Stream Setback Law. Sue also talked with Mina about allowing flexibility with mitigation if a project intrudes into a setback zone. For example: building a new urbanist type of development, could a developer plant more trees or have a wider setback in one area in exchange for impeding on the setback in another area? The COC discussed this idea and it was decided that the Planning Board could give a recommendation to the Zoning Board regarding flexibility in the standards if there’s mitigation, but Susan Brock thought the Planning Board might also be able to grant some flexibility. Sue thought it would be a good idea if the Planning Board could grant some flexibility and not make applicants go to the Zoning Board too. Susan Brock will look into this further. Agenda Item No. 4 – Discuss Comments Received From the Planning Board & Conservation Board Regarding Conservation Zone Amendments (now the Timber Harvesting Law and Fill Permit Law): The Committee started their review on page 2, Section 6, C, “K” of the Timber Harvest Law, relating to what the Planning Board can require on preliminary and final subdivision plats and site plans. The Planning Board may also require that non-buildable areas, including wetlands and slopes, streams and water courses be shown. The Conservation Board suggested in their comments that ‘may’ should be changed to ‘shall’ (second line of paragraph K). Discussion followed and the COC decided to leave the law as is. Moving on to page 5, Section 6, D, L(5)(a), second sentence: “The replanting shall consist of diverse noninvasive species.” The Conservation Board suggested adding ‘preferably native’ after the word noninvasive. The Planning Board suggested more wording: ‘diverse species that are not included on the “Invasive Plants of Tompkins County New York” listing produced by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, as revised from time to time’. Discussion followed regarding using the word ‘native’ and why the Conservation Board used ‘native’. Bill G. offered to talk with Mike Smith (Planning Dept.) and Diane Conneman (Conservation Board) to find out why the Conservation Board chose to use the term ‘native’. Bill suggested that the COC not go with the Conservation Board’s wording or the Planning Board’s suggested language. Further discussion followed, with the Committee ultimately deciding to change the invasive species definition in Timber Law to be consistent with the Stream Setback Law definitions. The Planning Board had additional comments (PB Resolution No. 2011-100) referring to the Timber Harvest Law, including: (1) Revise the definition of biological corridor to include a reference to waterways (see page 1, Section 1 of the Timber Harvest Law). After a brief discussion, the COC decided to add “waterway or” to the biological corridor definition to read as: “A waterway or substantially undeveloped stretch of land consisting of …” 3 (2) This comment referred to Page 3, Section 6, D, “L” (3). Sue mentioned that she and Susan Brock came up with this language and the COC was ok with the change. (3) Reviewed in an earlier draft. (4) The Planning Board wanted clarification of the language on page 6, Section 6, D, “L”(5)(b) and after a small discussion, the COC decided to make no changes. (5) The Planning Board suggested to delete the word ‘steep’ before “slopes of 25% or greater” on page 6, Section 6, D, “L” (5)(d). A short discussion followed and the COC decided to change the language to “No timber harvesting or logging road construction shall occur on any steep slope equal to or exceeding 25 percent. Slopes of 25 percent or greater shall be determined by using one of the following resources or methods, as appropriate…” (6) The Planning Board suggested revising the first sentence on page 7, Section 6, D, “L” (5)(l) to read “Logging roads and skid trails shall be designed to avoid erosion and stream sedimentation”. The COC agreed with the Planning Board’s suggestion and will make the change. (7) Regarding the comment on the international rule on page 3, Section 6, D, “L”(2)(h), the COC agreed to cite information on the international ¼ -inch log rule. The Planning Board also had comments (PB Resolution No. 2011-095) on the Deposit and Removal of Fill Law, including: (1) The Board suggested that the COC consider an explicit exclusion for compost. After a long discussion, the COC decided not to have an explicit exclusion for compost. (2) The Board suggested that the COC consider the law’s interplay with DEC mining regulations and Town Code requirements regarding mining. Susan Brock handed out copies from the Code Book regarding the mining definition and the mining use allowed in an Ag Zone. Susan Brock also gave a brief overview of what needed to be discussed. The COC decided to discuss the topic of mining at the COC meeting in February. (3) The Board asked the COC to consider removal of the word ‘fill’ from the fill definition, specifically referring to page 1, Section 1, B, of the draft law. A short discussion followed and the COC decided to keep ‘fill’ but add ‘including but not limited to soil,’ after the word fill. Bill asked the Committee if members were ready to send the draft Timber Harvesting Law for recommendation to the Town Board. Eric moved and Pat seconded to send the draft local law to the Town Board. The motion was passed unanimously. The COC then engaged in a short discussion regarding the draft Fill Permit Law in terms of recommending it to the Town Board. Bill moved and Pat seconded to send the draft Fill Permit Law to the Town Board. The motion was passed unanimously. Agenda Item No. 5 – Discuss 2012 COC Meeting Schedule: The Committee approved the 2012 meeting schedule. Agenda Item No. 6 – Discuss COC Work Plan for 2012: Re-schedule for discussion at the February 15th COC meeting. 4 Agenda Item No. 7 – Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 8 - Next meeting date and agenda: The next meeting is scheduled for February 15, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include: - Finish draft Stream Setback Law. - Discussion of the 2012 Work Plan. Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce Administrative Staff