HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-06-20-12
1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
June 20, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Bill King.
ABSENT: Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann.
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates,
Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:35pm.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes from April 18th and May 16th COC Meetings:
Approval of April 18, 2012 meeting minutes: Eric moved and Pat seconded th e motion to approve the minutes
as amended, all in favor of the changes.
Approval of May 16, 2012 meeting minutes: Pat moved and Bill seconded the motion to approve the minutes
as amended, all in favor of the changes.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Draft Local Law “Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca
Code to Exempt Certain Buildings From Sprinkler Requirements” (dated 5/25/12):
Bill reviewed the draft local law that would exempt certain buildings from the sprinkler requirements including
storage buildings 400 square feet and under; and detached residential garages and residential accessory
buildings, regardless of size.
With Eric not at the last meeting, his question of ‘residential garages’ and ‘residential accessory buildings’
meant non-commercial - no one living in them and Bruce said that was correct. Bruce then asked if this
exemption would apply to a multiple residence facility where there’s a storage building out back for the
residents in the complex. Bruce thought these facilities should be considered commercial because of the
number of units and residents (and thereby not be exempt), or the exemption should be changed to only be
associated with one-family, two-family dwellings. Under the State Building Code, a residence is considered
commercial once you get above a two-family dwelling. So, a three-family dwelling would be considered a
different occupancy in the State Building Code. Chris asked if the Building Code requirement is stricter, and
Bruce said ‘yes’. Bill K. asked if the storage building would require a sprinkler system, regardless of whether it
was occupied or not. Bruce said it depends on how it’s classified.
Discussion followed whether or not a storage building associated with a multiple residence facility should
follow the State Code or the Town Code. Bruce pointed out that our building permit gives an exemption for
“Agricultural and Residential Districts associated with one or two-family dwellings or multiple family dwelling
townhouses,” which leaves out apartment houses and multiple residence facilities. Chris brought up the
question of why would townhouses be any different than condos or apartments? Bruce mentioned that
townhouses do not have storage sheds out back. Bruce’s concern was that the Sprinkler Law was inconsistent
with State Building Code. Eric suggested that the exemption provision should be clarified so that years down
the line, a person who doesn’t know what our intent is, might say this doesn’t apply to three or more units,
which is commercial.
Chris suggested that the Committee consider the Overlook Apartments or Linderman Creek Apartments: how
many of those actually have accessory buildings? Bruce thought they didn’t have any. Bill G. added for some
2
big apartment complex like that, a utility shed or a storage shed used for lawn equipment or something is an
accessory building.
Bruce suggested putting the definition for ‘residential’ in the Sprinkler Law “as defined by the Residential Code
of New York State,” because all it applies to is one and two-family dwellings and townhouses. It doesn’t apply
to apartment buildings. This would mean that storage buildings associated with apartment buildings would not
be included in the exemption. Bill G. felt that he didn’t want to require sprinklers in garages or accessory
buildings even for apartment complexes - usually the buildings are unheated and having sprinklers in an
unheated building could cause additional expenses and complications. Bill went on to say, in terms of
residential garages or accessory buildings, if there might be some confusion with how State Building Code
classifies it, then perhaps the language should say ‘detached garages and accessory buildings in certain
residential zones (low, medium, high density residential zones)’. Discussion followed regarding State Code
exemption, or leaving the wording it as is.
The COC ultimately decided to clarify section “B” to address multi-family accessory structures with the new
language to read as:
“B. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection A above, detached (residential) garages and
(residential) accessory buildings, including those associated with one-family, two-family, and multi-
family dwellings, regardless of size, are not required to have sprinkler systems”.
Susan B. will work on the specific language and any changes to the law title. Eric moved and Pat seconded to
send the draft local law “Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to Exempt Certain
Buildings from Sprinkler Requirements” to the Town Board for the July 9th meeting to consider setting a public
hearing in August. With no further discussion, the motion was passed unanimously.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Revised Draft 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 (redlined and clean versions, dated 5/25/12):
The Committee reviewed the redlined version starting on Section 4, page 2, Lakefront Residential Zone;
E. (1): The Committee decided to change the language in E. (1) starting at….. “Accessory buildings
(including garages), in the aggregate, may occupy not more than 15% of any required “front, side, or”
rear yard and, if other than a garage, shall be not less than 30 feet from the front property line, nor less
than three feet from any side or rear lot line.”
E. (2): No changes.
Section 5, page 4, Low Density Residential Zones: E. Accessory buildings: No changes.
Bill G. took the Committee back to an earlier question, regarding garages in the low density, high density and
lakefront residential zone. Regarding the sentence “Accessory buildings (including garages), in the aggregate,
may occupy not more than 15% of any required rear yard.” He wondered if it should say “including garages in
the rear yard,” because garages could be in the side yard. Susan B. reminded Bill G. that the Town never had a
lot requirement for just garages- it’s always been for the accessory buildings, including garages. The 15%
restriction Bill G. was referring to came from our existing Zoning Code.
Bill wondered about the interpretation of the language, “…Accessory buildings (including garages), in the
aggregate …” He asked if the 15% included garages that occupied the front and side yards. Susan B.
interpreted it as looking at the accessory buildings in the rear yard and verifying that they do not cover more
than 15% of the rear yard. Bruce agreed that that’s how Code staff would interpret it. Discussion followed, and
the decision was to make no changes to “E. Accessory building”.
3
The discussion then turned to whether or not to include the working chart on garage setbacks into the law.
Susan B. reviewed her version of her own chart with the Committee. She had found it helpful to break it out by
zone than by type of building. She wondered if that would be helpful for everyone to have. After a short
discussion, the COC decided to not include the chart into the law, but use it as an internal reference for staff.
Pat moved and Eric seconded to send the draft 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” to the Town Board for the July 9th meeting to consider setting a public hearing in August. With no
further discussion, the motion was passed unanimously.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continue Discussion of Whether to Consider Woodsheds as Accessory Buildings vs.
Exempting them from the Town Zoning Code: Continuing the discussion from the last COC meeting in
May, Bill handed out to the Committee a draft law allowing woodsheds in side yards with the new language
underlined. Bill researched the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances regarding woodsheds in side yards, but
only found ‘sheds’ from the description setup. Finding a number of storage sheds in side yards, the ZBA did
allow them 2 to 3 feet from the property lines. So, in the new draft law, Bill set the woodsheds not less than
three feet from any side lot line. Bill added that this was what we allow for accessory sheds in a rear yard,
being three feet from either the rear line or the side lot line.
Reviewing the draft local law, discussion followed on how much a cord of wood takes up volume-wise, slope
considerations for the roof, the issue of multiple sheds, and the overall size of a woodshed to permit. The
COC decided to change the definition of “Woodshed” to read “An accessory building used exclusively for the
storage of cord wood, which is less than 100 square feet in floor area, which has at least one side that has no
wall, and, the highest point of which is no more than 10 feet above ground level.” Bill will make the changes.
Eric moved and Pat seconded to incorporate the draft local law “To Allow Woodsheds in Side Yards” into the
Garages Local Law and to send the combined law to the Town Board for the July 9th meeting to consider setting
a public hearing in August. With no further discussion, the motion was passed unanimously.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Continue Discussion of Possible Revisions to Town Code Chapter 221, Sign Law:
Rather than go into the detailed analysis of the Town’s Sign Law at the late hour, Bill G. suggested the
Committee postpone the larger review for the next COC meeting. Instead, Bill reviewed with the Committee a
handout regarding Ithaca College’s specific request for banners on the IC Campus. Sue R. explained the email
she received from Rick Couture and the proposal for the banners and locations on campus. She noted that
Ithaca College had wondered whether to request a variance from the ZBA or wait for the Sign Law to be
updated. Sue had suggested that IC wait for the law update because variance-wise they’d be asking for way too
much and might not get the necessary approvals. They are requesting to have 60+/- banners on light poles all
around the campus. Sue questioned the potential precedent-setting nature of the IC proposal.
The COC discussed the request and also the potential idea to permit banners in residential zones if they are a
certain distance from public roads – as was discussed at the last COC meeting. Chris passed around a few maps
that Planning staff created that showed 250ft and 500ft buffers from the road centers on all the public roads in
the Town. The COC compared the maps with the location map provided by IC and noticed that most of the
proposed banners would be outside the buffers. Only the banners near the entrances would be within the buffer
areas. The question for the Committee is: should we require IC to seek variances for their banners, or could the
Committee work on the banner provision in the Law as a quick fix, then delve into the rest of the law changes.
Bill G. indicated that he thought the Sign Law might take a long time to go through thoroughly but that he was
fine making small changes to the law in the interim to accommodate IC, especially because the Committee
didn’t seem to be concerned with the proposed banners internal to campus that could not be seen from the
4
public roads. Sue asked what the next steps would be, how to accommodate the request in the law. The
Committee discussed the idea of permitting banners in any zone as long as the banner is at least 250 or 500ft (or
some other number established by the Town) from a public road. Susan B. asked if that meant that anyone
would be able to put a banner on their property, even if they lived in a residential subdivision on a private road
more than 500 feet from the public right of way. Chris said that the thought was that at a certain distance from a
public road, no one would see the signage, so why regulate it? In the case of a residential subdivision, only the
residents of the subdivision would see the banner and the banner would have to meet the size limits, which is
proposed for 12 square feet in area.
Sue brought the discussion back to just the concept of the COC moving forward on small changes to the Sign
Law for now. She thought the Committee could get into the details at the next meeting – she just wanted to get
a sense of the Committee on the idea. Bill G. suggested members go around and see what banners are up in the
area, in order to help decide what they want to allow in the proposed exempt banner section.
Susan B. asked about political banners and where they were in the law. Chris explained that they are exempt in
the current law, that they were moved to the temporary section in the draft law, and that the Committee decided
to move then back to exempt at the last meeting. Susan then asked why a political poster was only permitted to
be 6s.f. in area and a banner would be permitted to be 12s.f. in area. Chris said that the size of the political
signs was already established in the current law and that the banner size was just chosen because it reflected a
prior banner size that was permitted by use variance from the ZBA for the original PRI sign proposal. Susan
reminded the Committee that we need to be consistent with our allowance for sign sizes and not discriminate
because of type of speech (political or otherwise). The COC will look at the sizes of signs when they review the
law more closely.
Bill summarized that the COC was looking at permitting banners in any zone as long as they were placed a
certain distance from public road right-of-ways (250ft, 500ft, etc). This would allow anyone to put up a banner
for whatever reason, 500ft from the road and a certain size only. The COC will need to decide whether to limit
the number of banners permitted on each property and will need to pin down the specific size limits and
distance from the road right-of-way. Definitions will also need to be updated to permit political opinions on
banners.
Sue will let IC know that the COC is looking at the issue…she’ll also find out more information regarding IC’s
sign sizes and will report back to the Committee in July.
Agenda Item No. 7 – Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Next meeting date and agenda: Next meeting has been scheduled for July 18, 2012 at
6:30 p.m., but there is a question on whether or not there will be a quorum of members at the meeting. So Chris
will canvass the group to find out who can attend the next meeting. If there is a meeting in July, the agenda will
include:
- Sign Law
- Discussion of next item to tackle from the COC priority list
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce
Administrative Staff