Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-04-18-12 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 18, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann. ABSENT: Fred Wilcox, 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 6:30pm. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Bill reported that the Stream Setback Law public hearing was held at the April 9th Town Board meeting and that a number of residents commented. The Town Board also received a letter from the Tompkins County Planning Department, requesting that the Town be more restrictive in regards to the smaller streams. Given all of the comments received, the Town Board referred the Stream Setback Law to the next Town Board Study Session for discussion. Agenda Item No. 2 – Discussion of Possible Revisions to Town Sign Law: Bill started reviewing the Sign Law material that was mailed out to the Committee, beginning with the “Possible Amendments to Sign Law – Chapter 221 Town Code – with comments in red.” The majority of the discussion on the Sign Law dealt with banners, which was the first item on the “Possible Amendments” sheet. The Committee started with a discussion on whether to allow banners at all, what the needs for institutions and businesses might be (e.g. Paleontological Research Institution’s (PRI) desire to advertise their cultural exhibits), and where the Town should address banners in the Sign Law if we chose to allow them. Chris referred the Committee to the draft updated Sign Law (with comments in red), which proposes to permit banners on a temporary basis, specifying that only banners that would promote a public event would be permitted, and that the size of the banners would be restricted. She explained that banners were prohibited in the current Sign Law and that the proposed Sign Law would allow an institution, such as PRI, to have a banner that promoted a public event, without needing to seek a use variance from the ZBA. If the number of banners or size of the banners proposed exceeded the number and size permitted, then the applicant would need an area variance from the ZBA, which was easier to obtain than a use variance. This spurred a larger discussion about the legality of permitting banners for one type of commercial use, while restricting others. The Committee bantered about “content-based restrictions” in reference to the permission of banners for cultural or public use. Susan B. thought that permitting banners only for public or cultural exhibits would be a content-based restriction, based on the identity of the speaker. Pat felt there should be a way to allow vertical banner signs that the Committee could agree are attractive, using size restrictions, material restrictions (something not plastic). Susan B. added that she thought we’d have to permit these for everybody in order for the law to be legal, not just institutions like PRI or just for public/cultural events. A general discussion followed regarding what might be considered attractive banners (those that are on the side of banks? Reading Partnership signs?). Chris gave the example of the proposed PRI banners that were going to the Planning Board for a recommendation at the next Planning Board meeting. PRI was seeking approval to put up a series of banners over a period of 5 years along the NYS Rte. 96 frontage and on the internal PRI property. They wanted to be able to change the banners to reflect changing exhibits. 2 Most of the Committee seemed to be fine with the type of banners that PRI would use, but the concern was that if the Town permitted banners for everyone, then some places (like the bank up at East Hill Plaza) might put up signs that were not attractive, or were billowy or flimsy. Eva was also concerned about the PRI banners blocking the views to Cayuga Lake along the Route 96 frontage. Overall, the Committee seemed to lean towards permitting certain types of banners at institutions or not-for- profits (if legal), and only those that were secured on all corners, made of strong material, and of a certain size. The Committee agreed that the Town could permit banners in an “Institutional” zone, if the Town had an Institutional zone (which would include PRI, CMC, the colleges, etc.). Sue indicated that the Comprehensive Plan update contained a recommendation to create an institutional zone, but that the implementation of the Plan was a long way off. So Susan B. offered to search for exceptions in case law that would permit cultural institutions and not-for-profits to have certain speech that would not apply to everyone else. The COC then delved into another proposal for signs in the Town: the proposed CMC “tobacco-free campus” sign campaign that will be going to the Planning and Zoning Boards soon. The proposal includes several different sized signs at many locations on the CMC property (at the entrances, on the building, in the parking lots). Some of the signs would be temporary, while others would be permanent. There was concern about the number of signs and the aesthetics and potential confusion around the use of the color red for signs other than stop signs. Pat transitioned the conversation to the difference between the types of speech and the protection afforded by the First Amendment. Pat asked Susan B. if commercial speech was afforded a lower protection than political speech, for example, and if so, then why couldn’t the Town restrict commercial speech. Susan B. replied by saying that the Town can regulate commercial speech more than political speech, but if we do regulate commercial speech, then we can’t base it on the content of the speech. The Committee then went into a more general discussion about what was considered commercial speech. Chris pointed out that the Town Sign Law was categorized to permit certain signs in the various zones and that signs that were permitted in the Town’s commercial zones would not be permitted in the Town’s residential zones. Susan reiterated that she’d look into the topic further to see what the Town could legally permit and restrict in regards to the various institutions in the Town and the types of events being advertised. The Committee then went into a discussion about a proposal from Ithaca College to place 60 banners on poles within their internal campus. Overall, the Committee thought that signs in Residential zones not seen from a public road might be ok to permit. Susan B. suggested changing the proposed banner provisions that applied to college campuses (221.7.E) to delete specific references to colleges and instead regulate based on “private roads that are a number of feet (500 feet suggested) from a public right of way or Town road.” The Committee agreed to this change. Bill G. re-iterated that one of his goals was to simplify the Sign Law, so that Town staff and Boards did not spend needless hours dealing with issues that weren’t truly “in your face” (regarding signs that wouldn’t be seen from the road). Chris suggested moving sections 221.6.G, related to the 500 foot provision, to the Exempt section of the law, citing that if the signs couldn’t be seen from the public road, then why even require a permit for them. The Committee agreed to move 221.7.E. Bill G. summarized the decisions that Committee made thus far and then introduced a new discussion about banners at public or private ball parks, which were noted in section 221.6.E of the proposed Sign Law. Chris explained to the Committee that the intent of the section was to accommodate the Cal Ripkin summer baseball league that used the Town’s public park every summer and has always wanted to add banners on the fence that promoted the league. The banners would include sponsor advertising. Susan B. reminded everyone that this might be another situation where it might be illegal to single out and permit only one type 3 of commercial use (the baseball league), while denying others. She also quoted the Attorney General’s decision that it was impermissible for municipalities to permit private advertising space on public property, since no benefit accrued to the municipality or to the public. Susan B. said she’d research this one, though, because the Attorney General later decided to permit advertising on city buses. Eva brought up the issue that if we permit banners on public or private park land, then that would include Cornell’s softball diamond near the Reis tennis center and other future town parks that might have ball fields. The Committee went over the various scenarios surrounding permitting banners in public parks, the maintenance of the banners over the baseball season, the possible benefit to the Town if the baseball league shared the proceeds derived from the advertising with the Town, and the ethical issues surrounding permitting a private entity to financially gain from the use of public property. The COC was split over permitting banners in ball fields, with some members not bothered by signage in ball fields and other members very bothered by them. Bruce and Sue suggested that we permit banners during the events only, and require the organizations to remove the banners immediately after the event. The Committee liked this idea, so they decided to keep 221.6.E in the temporary section, to delete the wording about “similar public or private recreational use” and to add a removal clause that requires banners or signs to be removed at the end of each event. Susan B. will also look into whether the Town can allow advertising on public property. The final banner discussion of the evening surrounded the issue around Reading Partnership banners. Chris explained that the Town Code staff had consistently found these very large banners on Town property (West Hill Fire Station, South Hill Fire Station) and also on private property within the Town. The banners are often gone or moved to another location before Code staff can issue any violations - they seem to pop up out of nowhere and only come down when Code staff catches up with the installers and tells them to remove the banners. Chris asked the COC what they wanted to do about the banners because they did not seem to fall into a public/cultural event category or any of the other categories listed in the Sign Law. The Committee discussed whether the Reading Partnership banners could be considered an advocacy or personal opinion sign. This led to a larger discussion about how to regulate advocacy signs, along with signs that might incite violence, intimidation, physical injury to others, etc. Ultimately, the Committee asked staff to research the possibility of adding language in the law that prohibits signs that could incite violence, but regarding the Reading Partnership signs, the Committee toiled over whether the signs would be considered commercial or non-commercial speech, and ultimately tabled the discussion until Susan B. could figure out what type of speech they fell under (the signs could possibly be regulated in the temporary section of the Sign Law). The Committee decided to end the discussion on the Sign Law and to pick up next time by going through the draft Sign Law section by section. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continue Discussion of Mining Regulations in the Town of Ithaca: Chris mentioned that the COC needed to revisit whether the Town wanted to fully restrict mining and revise the Town Law or come up with a new law based on Susan B’s information, research and recommendations. Susan B. added that the law right now talks about the fill permit still, using the old regime with the Zoning Board issuing the special approval. Also, the COC should consider whether to regulate mining activities for those mines where DEC does not have jurisdiction. The Committee decided to revisit mining regulations at the June COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 4 – Continue Discussion of Whether to Consider Woodsheds as Accessory Buildings vs. Exempting them from the Town Zoning Code: Bill asked Chris about the Planning Board’s input on woodsheds at their last meeting. The Planning Board members felt like the woodsheds should be exempt 4 from the law, but that all other types of sheds shouldn’t necessarily be exempt. The Zoning Board of Appeals did not meet in March. Bill G. said he would draft a woodshed definition for the next COC meeting in May. Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 6 - Next meeting date and agenda: Next meeting has been scheduled for May 16, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include: - Town Sign Law - Sprinkler Law - Garages Law - Woodsheds definition. Meeting adjourned at 8:30pm. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce Administrative Staff