Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-03-21-12 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES March 21, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Bill King. 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. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Bill announced that the Town Board made minor changes to the Stream Setback Law at their meeting on March 12th and that the public hearing on the Stream Setback Law was scheduled for the April 9th Town Board meeting. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes from the January 18, 2012 and February 15, 2012 Meetings: Approval of January 18, 2012 meeting minutes: Eric moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended, all in favor of the changes. Approval of February 15, 2012 meeting minutes: Pat moved and Eric seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended, all in favor of the changes. Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Possible Amendments to Chapter 225, Town Sprinkler Law: Bruce went over the “Sprinkler variances since 2007” chart with the Committee to show who and the type of building the sprinkler variances were for. Bruce then referred to the letter from QPK Design to Richard Couture at Ithaca College, regarding a storage building that was recently required to have a sprinkler system. Bruce then reviewed Town Code Chapter 225, Sprinkler Systems (redlined version), with the Committee and suggested these changes: Page 1- “Approved Sprinkler System” should read “A sprinkler system that meets the requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, the standards of the National Fire Protection Association…” Short discussion followed with Bruce giving an example and Bill G. bringing up the question of what type of buildings we want the law to cover. Page 3 - (40): Bruce added “including detached one- and two-family dwellings” after “Any building”. Bruce stated that there are many daycares in individual homes in the Town, and that the Town doesn’t have the authority to go on the property, so adding this would make people aware. Committee agreed to the change. Page 3 - (51) Bruce explained this section. He made the new buildings for INHS at Holly Creek have sprinklers because they are attached. Otherwise, the State would not have required sprinklers because they are townhouses. Discussion followed with the Committee comparing the Town Law to the State Code. Bill asked the Committee if the Town Code should still be more restrictive than the State Code, even if the State Code wouldn’t require sprinklers. The Committee turned their discussion toward the variances that the Town has granted (e.g. Wedemeyer Equestrian Center- sprinkler variance granted for riding arena). Bill mentioned the recommendation in the Ag Plan to review the sprinkler law regarding agricultural buildings and to exempt 2 most agricultural buildings from the sprinkler requirement. Discussion turned to agriculture uses, green houses, how agriculture buildings are classified, barns, and how they compare to commercial buildings Bruce explained to Bill K. the difference between Town Code and the new State Code, noting that, in the State Code, there was no section that grouped buildings that require sprinklers. You would need to go section by section to find what would classify a particular use for a sprinkler. Examples were given from Bruce. Bill posed to the Committee a question regarding buildings requiring a sprinkler system under Town Law and compared the extra work involved with designing a sprinkler system to the extra work from staff to review those sprinkler systems and variances: Is all that extra work really producing any tangible increase in human safety above and beyond what the State is already requiring? Bill K. mentioned that most of the ZBA variances were for unoccupied storage buildings. Pat suggested tweaking the Town’s law to exempt small unoccupied buildings. Discussion followed regarding the list of 51 uses/buildings requiring sprinklers noted in the Town’s Law. Could the list be narrowed down to a list of, say 18 items? To assist the Committee with narrowing down the list, Bruce stated he would make a chart to show what the State requires (including State Classifications) for the May 16th COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of Proposed Revisions to Garages/Accessory Buildings & Definitions in the Zoning Code (Chart Review): Bruce reviewed the COC working copy chart for garage setbacks and the colored property illustration to the Committee. The blue area on the chart showed existing sections with nothing changed; the yellow area questioned: “if we allow 0 ft., than why shouldn’t we allow 5 ft.?” Bruce also reviewed the property line set backs on the chart where the special conditions could allow 0 ft. in the LR, LDR, MDR, and HDR zones. Discussion followed regarding removing the clause in all zones that allow 0 ft. and how this would pertain to shared garages, firewalls between buildings, the required 5ft. setback outlined in the New York State Fire & Building Code. The intent would be to allow adjoining lot owners to have a common garage across their property line while somehow satisfying the State condition. The COC ultimately decided to leave the language in the law with no changes to LR, LDR, MDR, and HDR. Susan B. will revise the local law, incorporating all changes for the May COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business: Mining Regulations in the Town of Ithaca and Woodsheds as Accessory Buildings vs. Exempt from Zoning Code: - Mining: Bill spoke about the new Fill Permit legislation that was passed and noted that the Town may have to make some adjustments to the Town’s mining section to conform to the new requirements of the Fill Permit law. Bill reviewed Susan’s letter to the Committee and clarified what the Town needed to do (restrict mining outright versus writing a new law). A long discussion followed, and Bill suggested to the Committee to think about how we would want to regulate mining. The Committee decided to revisit this issue at the COC meeting in April. - Woodsheds: Bill reminded the Committee that a resident came to the Town Board last fall and was referred to the COC regarding their covered woodshed. The property owner was in a dispute with his neighbor about the location of the covered woodshed. The neighbor complained and Town Code staff discovered that the woodshed was placed illegally in the side yard – but it was only illegal because the wood was placed in a covered structure that could be interpreted as an accessory structure (which would not be permitted in the side yard). Had the person just piled wood and put a tarp over it, the location would not be illegal - although the neighbor dispute would have likely continued. 3 Discussion followed and it was noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted many variances to allow sheds/woodsheds in side yards. Eric referred to the email regarding this woodshed and the resident’s request for the Town to amend the Town Zoning Code to allow covered woodsheds in a side yard, rather than seeking a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The COC decided to officially define “woodsheds” in the Zoning Code and consider exceptions to the Code for other types of sheds, so woodsheds would be allowed in side yards. Bill G. offered to draft a definition to review at the COC meeting in April. The COC also expressed interested in getting opinions from the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the issue, for the COC meeting in April. Agenda Item No. 6 - Next meeting date and agenda: Next meeting has been scheduled for April 18, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include: - Discussion of possible revisions to Town Sign Law. - Continue discussion of Mining Regulations. - Continue discussion on Woodsheds. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce Administrative Staff