Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-05-16-12 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 16, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King. ABSENT: Eric Levine. OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:30pm. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Bill mentioned the Town Board passed the Stream Setback Law at their last meeting in May. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes from March 21st and April 18th COC Meetings: Approval of March 21, 2012 meeting minutes: Fred moved and Bill K. seconded the motion to approve the minutes with no changes, all in favor. Eva abstained, was not present at this meeting. Approval of April 18, 2012 meeting minutes: Changes were made to the April 18th minutes; but two items in the minutes were unclear. Bill G. will review tape for clarity and moved the approval of April’s minutes to the next COC meeting in June. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continue Discussion of Possible Amendments to Town Code Chapter 225, Sprinkler Law: Bill reviewed the chart “List of Buildings Required by Town Law/Occupancy Code Per State Code” handed out at the meeting for Committee discussion. Bill mentioned that the ‘Fire Area = square feet’ and that the ‘Exit (ft) = travel distance to the exit’ and examples were given. The State Law says if the fire area is greater than 12,000 sq. ft. or the occupancy of a hundred (100) or more, you would need a sprinkler system. Without a sprinkler system, you would have to have the travel distance of 200 feet to an exit. Susan B. asked a question regarding the distance of feet to an exit, and Bruce explained that the 200 feet is the required allowance without a sprinkler system. If you have a sprinkler system, you can expand the distance (the exit can be further away if there is a sprinkler system). Using the chart, Bill pointed out that #31 – Nightclubs and #33 – Restaurants were both an A-2 (assembly 2) category and they both had 5,000 sq. ft. for the fire area, so the State has made a distinction between that type of an assembly building (most of the other assembly buildings are 12,000 sq. ft.). Bill will meet with Bruce for more details on that part and the residential part of the State Building Code (hotels, motels, multiple dwellings, etc.). Regarding buildings under the type A (assembly) category under the State Building Code, Bill asked the Committee how much stricter and which uses/buildings did we want to be stricter with than the State requires? Bruce added that we are currently stricter on all of them, since we require sprinklers regardless of size. Bruce suggested making an amendment to the Town’s Sprinkler Law so that storage buildings are exempt, but recommended setting restrictions to size, use, material stored inside, proximity to other buildings, etc. Discussion followed on fire protection and cost, size of the storage building, considering garages as a storage building, commercial storage buildings (self-storage units), types of projects that have received sprinkler 2 variances, the problem with sprinklers in art galleries and computer rooms and what can be used as an alternate fire suppression source, etc. Bill mentioned a letter received from Ithaca College requesting an exemption for storage sheds/buildings on their campus. The Committee discussed what size storage buildings should be exempted and then referred back to the chart. Bill’s main concern is not with the larger institutions like Ithaca College and Cornell that can afford sprinkler systems, but with the smaller buildings like a church, a small museum (Underground Railroad Museum at Hayts Corner / Hayts Chapel), applicants that want to do something small and not a huge institution that has the money to put in a sprinkler system. Since the State has minimum thresholds that need to be met before sprinkler systems are required, Bill wondered why the Town would make owners go through the extra expense to add a sprinkler system. Discussion then turned to homeowner insurance coverage for damages due to fire, Insurance Service Organization (ISO) ratings for sprinkler systems, hidden cost savings, fire service, maintenance costs for sprinkler systems, the cost of human safety, etc. Bill asked if the Committee would like to set parameters for deciding what size storage buildings to exempt, or if the Committee wanted to follow the State Code and let that section of the Sprinkler Law track the State Code. Pat thought the 12,000 sq. ft. was too large an area. She would like to keep the sprinkler requirement for commercial self-storage units (not knowing what is stored in the unit) for safety/fire reasons. The freestanding sheds would be more reasonable to exempt. Bill asked Bruce if the list of exemptions showed how big those buildings were and Bruce reviewed the list with group. Discussion followed, and Fred mentioned how he would like to see the self-storage buildings zoned out of the Town of Ithaca by requiring sprinklers. More discussion followed on self-storage buildings. Ultimately, the COC decided to exempt storage buildings up to and including 400 square feet in size. Bruce brought up the subject of detached garages associated with residential use and suggested clarifying the language in the law for detached garages to also be exempt. Discussion followed and the COC decided to also exempt attached residential garages and residential accessory buildings from the Sprinkler Law. Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Updated Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to Revise the Definition of Garage and to Revise Yard, Area, Location and Height Requirements Related to Garages (dated 5/8/12): Bill thanked Susan B. for putting in the time revising the draft that the Committee had in front of them. He then moved on to the two main questions that were highlighted on page 3 and page 4. Bill reviewed the revised law regarding changes in the definitions, taking garages out of the category of accessory buildings, and then reviewed the rest of the Zones. Eva asked about ‘carports’ and Bruce mentioned there is no definition on ‘carports’ but Bill explained they are treated like ‘garages’ for zoning purposes. Eva also had questions on garages built like a barn, two-story high and Bruce mentioned there is a height requirement in most zones. Discussion followed. Starting on Page 3; “Should we specify front yard setback?” highlighted in yellow - Bill mentioned that we’ve allowed garages to be in any yard, so they can be in the front yard next to the road and that this was an exception in the Lakefront Residential Zone because of the special nature of the front and the rear yards with the lakefront. Bill asked if we should specify a front yard setback from the road. Bruce said that currently under Lakefront Residential, the front yard has to be at least thirty feet to the house. Susan then mentioned if you looked at accessory buildings, they are only allowed in rear yard and since we are changing to ‘any yard’, we need to change the rules. Allowing only three feet from side or rear lot lines, we are not following the yard setbacks. Discussion followed mentioning Taughannock Blvd. with the garages at the road and the houses down the hill. Chris asked whether we want to have accessory buildings, not garages, three feet, five feet, however many feet from the front yard. It was also mentioned a lot of them are already pre-existing and that there would not be much room for change. 3 Bill K. asked what the required setback for garages from the road were and Susan B. said it’s thirty feet from the front property line, but on the west side where the slope exceeds a certain amount, it can be up to five feet but not less than five feet from the street line. Bill K. asked if that could be the same for accessory buildings. Bruce felt you should have at least ten to fifteen feet; that way you can park your car off the road. Bill asked if the State has a requirement of how close you can build to the right-of-way; no requirement was given. Bill noted that this is just for accessory buildings and not garages. Discussion: garages are five feet, so you wouldn’t want an accessory building closer than a garage. Susan added: five feet is only if you have a slope; otherwise it’s thirty feet. Susan asked Bill if you want the same as for garages and Bill agreed. Discussion followed. Bill felt that accessory buildings, like garages, should have the same front yard setbacks as garages (which would be thirty feet) and, if there is a slope, permit them to have a setback of five feet. So, the answer to the question “Should we specify front yard setback?” is yes: make the setback the same as garages. Page 4; highlighted section regarding adding the following language: “Any accessory building, other than a garage, on a corner lot shall be not less than five feet from the rear lot line” - Discussion followed and the decision was to add language to be consistent with the existing Code and the other sections. The COC then discussed whether they want to see that working chart on garage setbacks from the March meeting placed into the law. Bill suggested to the Committee to read the revised law and compare it to the chart and decide whether a chart is necessary or not. Committee will decide at the next COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 5 – Continue Discussion of Whether to Consider Woodsheds as Accessory Buildings vs. Exempting them from the Town Zoning Code: Bill reviewed discussion from the March COC meeting on woodsheds and whether to exempt woodsheds from regulations or not. The Planning Board was fine with having the woodsheds in the side yards but not in the front yard. Chris added that the Planning Board was okay with exempting woodsheds, but not all types of sheds. Bruce mentioned that the Zoning Board of Appeals didn’t want to address it or change it – if someone wanted a woodshed in the side yard then they can apply for a variance. Eva had a concern about the definition of a woodshed (“a covered accessory building used primarily for the storage of cord wood, which has at least one side that has no wall and which is less than 10 feet in height and less than 100 square feet in floor area”). Eva went on to say it is a big problem for her to allow wood sheds in side yards and front yards, because if people see this for primarily the storage of wood, then they might think of storing something else there and that it will be alright. Bruce agreed with her concern. Eva did not think it was a good idea to have the wood shed enclosed by three walls. Bruce said that some wood sheds are done in the lean-to style. Chris added that other types are open. Eva said that the lean-to style does not allow for air flow. Bruce explained that it depends upon how seasoned the wood is when it is put in the shed. He said that he has a stack of wood the size of the Aurora Conference Room that is outside of the woods. When fall arrives, he splits the wood and puts it in the shed. Bruce thought that it was a personal preference. Susan Brock clarified that the language does not state that there needs to be three walls enclosed. Eva expressed concern over having fresh cut wood dried in the side yard. She thought that it could easily be done in the back yard. She went onto say that a wood shed close to a house should not be big enough to season wood in. Bruce asked that the height limitation be clarified. Would it be 10 feet to the highest point of the building or to the eaves? He said that he would have to climb on something in order to stack or take wood off pile. Bill said that he thought it should be from the highest point of the building. Bruce said that the language does not specify what pitch or grade that it needs. Susan Brock asked if there was already a definition of height. She was not sure why Bruce was questioning it more than any other part of the code that lists height. 4 Bruce went on to explain the difficulties he could encounter if the definition of height wasn’t more defined. He used the example of a 10’x10’x10’ building with a flat roof. Eva asked if covered accessory buildings were required to have a foundation. Bruce explained that the zoning code only regulates the building by its location. Residential accessory buildings less than 144 square feet are not regulated. Bill noted that other accessory buildings are not regulated with regard to what pitch is required, etc. Bruce suggested that the Code specify that wood sheds have to have a sloped roof with a height no greater than 10 feet. He also wanted to see some language that stated that the location of the wood shed had to be in correlation with its use. He did not think it was appropriate to have the wood shed located at the property line of the side yard. Bill stated that wood sheds would still need to abide by side yard setbacks even if they were permitted in the side yard. Susan Brock suggested that wood sheds be given the same setback requirements as a detached garage. Bruce agreed. Pat reminded the Committee that the intent was to encourage residents to use sheds instead of tarps. She was concerned that the regulations would become so arduous that residents give up and use a tarp. Pat wondered why Bruce was insistent upon having the same setback requirement as a garage when the shed was not nearly the same size. Bruce responded that it was so the wood shed was not impacting upon the neighbor as much as the garage. Pat did not think there would be the same impact as a garage because it is a much smaller building. She favored a smaller setback and Bruce said he understood, but did not support it. Bruce felt that the larger setback would create peaceful neighbors. Pat said that the Committee was not trying to legislate peaceful neighbors; she wanted to create reasonable legislation for the residents. Pat did not want to encourage wood sitting on the ground with tarps. She thought it unreasonable to require the same setback as a garage when a wood shed is much smaller. Bill decided he would research the Zoning Board of Appeals variances given for wood sheds and see what the ZBA recommended for setbacks. He would then put a number in as a setback in a draft local law for the next meeting. Bruce asked if the number of wood sheds on a property would be limited. He would like to see only one wood shed permitted in the side yard. The second wood shed could be located in the rear yard. Fred asked if one 10’x10’ structure was sufficient for personal use. Bruce said that it would depend upon how much wood someone burned. Bill suggested that the law specify a maximum area of coverage rather than specify a maximum number of structures. Fred thought that it was a good idea not to limit the number of structures, but to limit the total area to 100 square feet. Eva suggested that one wood shed be allowed and a second wood shed could be allowed by ZBA variance. Bruce stated that residents can always go to the ZBA for a variance. Susan Brock noted that the draft law stated “a covered accessory building”, but the definition of building includes a structure having a roof supported by walls. She did not think that it was necessary to have the word “covered” because the definition of building specifies there has to be a roof. Bill said that he would draft a local law with the input received by the Committee for the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 6 – Continue Discussion of Possible Revisions to Town Code Chapter 221, Sign Law: Re-scheduled for discussion at the June 20th COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 7 – Other Business: None. 5 Agenda Item No. 8 - Next meeting date and agenda: Next meeting has been scheduled for June 20, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include: - Sprinkler Law - Garages Law - Woodsheds definition - Town Sign Law Meeting adjourned at 8:40 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce Administrative Staff