Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-08-15-12 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES August 15, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Bill King, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann ABSENT: None 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 6:32pm. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Bill G. announced that the Town Board adopted the modifications to the Woodshed/Garage provisions to the Zoning Code at their meeting on August 13th. The Board also adopted the Sprinkler Law amendments, but that involved a larger discussion. Bill indicated that the Committee would get into the Sprinkler Law issues in Agenda item No. 3 (Discussion of the 2012 COC Work Plan). Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes from June 20th COC Meeting: Eric moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended, all in favor of the changes. Agenda Item No. 3 – Discuss Next Item on the 2012 COC Work Plan: Bill G. acknowledged that the Committee received a revised Work Plan in their packets. The Work Plan contained updates to projects as of August 15, 2012. He happily reported that the first three work plan items had been completed. Bill G. then reiterated that the Town Board adopted the Sprinkler Law, as amended, but that the Town Board received comments from the Town’s Agricultural Committee, asking the Board to consider additional exemptions for agricultural uses. The Board also discussed other exemptions and decided to kick the law back to the COC for additional amendment discussions. Bill canvassed the Committee to see if members thought the COC should take up the Sprinkler Law cause or if the Town Board should directly deal with the issues that came up at their meeting. After a short discussion, members decided to re-open the Sprinkler Law item at the Committee level. Bill G. suggested that the Committee invite some of those that will be impacted by the law, e.g. some Town farmers, Ithaca College, those who sent comments and letters about the law. The Committee liked this idea. Sue Ritter asked the COC if they wanted something prepared by staff ahead of time to kick-start the Committee discussion. Bruce suggested that those who had comments on the law should submit language for the COC to consider indicating what they specifically wanted to see exempted or how they wanted the law modified. Bill G. thought it might be helpful to get the opinion of the Ithaca College architect/engineer who sent the letter to the Town concerning the law, stating that their insight might be helpful from a State Building Code point of view (comparing the State requirements with the Town’s more stringent requirements). The Committee ultimately decided to revisit the Sprinkler Law at the September COC meeting. Staff will invite farmers, Ithaca College, and others to the next COC meeting to engage the Committee with a discussion of their concerns. Bill G. transitioned the discussion to the next item the Committee should work on in the Work Plan (besides the Sign Law). Bill G. noted that the Town Board recommended the COC take up the discussion of possibly regulating open fires/camp fires in residential areas. He cited that there had been complaints 2 from neighbors of a Coddington Road residence that outdoor camp fire and wood-burning smoke had consistently filtered into their homes, causing breathing problems for occupants. The Committee decided to expand the outdoor wood boiler item that was already on the Work Plan to include a discussion of open fires/camp fires and wood stoves and also to move the item up on the Work Plan list for discussion at the September COC meeting. Bill G. also added two items to the Work Plan (1) addressing the issue of chickens (noise) in the Town and (2) looking at the Town’s policy on park set-asides in subdivisions (too many unconnected parks in Town). Staff will add these items to the Plan for future discussion. The Committee looked at the rest of the items on the Work Plan and decided to move mining and affordable housing up on the list. The COC will tackle Sign Law in September, along with revisiting the Sprinkler Law. The Committee will also begin working on mining regulations, wood boilers/stoves/camp fires, and affordable housing. Agenda Item No. 4 – Continue Discussion of Possible Revisions to Town Code Chapter 221, Sign Law: Bill G. reminded the Committee that they left off on a general discussion regarding banners for institutions like Ithaca College and PRI at the June COC meeting. The Committee had talked about permitting banners up to 12s.f. in area, as long as they were a certain distance from a public road; and that the issue of constitutionality of permitting 12s.f. banners but only 6s.f. political signs came up. There were also remaining questions about regulating commercial speech and regulating “hate speech”. Bill started off the conversation by discussing the “distance” issue. He asked the Committee if they felt that regulating banners with distance requirements on public streets was a good idea. He cited the Ithaca College (IC) example, explaining that most of the proposed Ithaca College banners would be exempt from regulation, if the Town were to permit banners a certain distance from the public road; and that there would be a drastic reduction in the number of variances IC would need to request from the Zoning Board. Eva asked to be reminded of the reasons why the Committee came up with the idea to have distance requirements for banners and why IC wanted to put banners all over campus, when everyone on campus already knew they were on the IC campus. Chris and Bill G. explained that this type of “branding” was commonly seen on college campuses and also in downtown/main street areas. Eva wanted to hear directly from IC regarding their intentions for the banners they are proposing. So, staff will invite Rick Couture from IC to the September COC meeting (he’ll be there for the Sprinkler Law discussion anyway). Bill G. canvassed the Committee again to find out if members wanted to make a minor change to the Sign Law to accommodate IC (and others) regarding banners or if they wanted to wait and deal with the issue when they delved into the overall Sign Law review. Members seemed to want to look at the draft revised Sign Law in its entirety, and to see how the banner issue related or affected some of the other changes proposed in the draft Law. After another short discussion regarding the existing and proposed processes for obtaining sign approvals, the Committee decided to hear what IC had to say about their intent for banners (at the September meeting) and then make a decision to make or not make the quick fix to the Sign Law. Sue R. transitioned the conversation to a discussion about permitting 12 s.f. banners but 6 s.f. political posters. Chris explained that the political poster size was already in the existing Sign Law, but that the banner provisions were new in the draft law. She came up with the 12 s.f. size for banners from the 2007 approval that PRI received – they were permitted to have 4-12s.f. banners on NYSEG poles along Route 96. Chris explained that the size could be changed to whatever the Committee felt was appropriate. 3 Susan Brock offered that the distinctions between banners and political signs and other types of signs could be eliminated, along with any possible constitutional violations, if the Town simplified their Sign Law to say (for example) that on residential properties, one could have up to X-square feet of signs. Then the property owner would decide which type of signs to use, whether they’d have one big sign or a few smaller ones. Susan explained that a simplified law would also eliminate the list of exemptions that the current law had, that the current list of exemptions was so lengthy that it actually served to undercut the whole purpose of the law. Susan emailed and also provided paper copies of an example simplified sign law (titled “Annotated Sample Sign Ordinance – City of Hopkins”) that she thought adequately regulated signs in an effective, but much simpler way, than the Town’s Sign Law. The simplified law contained section numbers and elements that were specific to Hopkins, but Susan asked the Committee and staff to look beyond the specifics and instead focus on the structure of the law. For example, the law had a much shorter list of exemptions, and also contained provisions permitting a maximum number of square feet for signs with out specifying the type of signage (but setting a max. square footage for any one type of sign). The Committee and Planning staff will look at that simpler law and provide comments about it at the September COC meeting. Moving on, Chris reiterated the position the COC took regarding the Sign Law, before the issue of banners came up. She explained that the COC had decided to review the draft Sign Law with annotations in red from start to finish, rather than go through the “Amendments to the Sign Law” document that picked apart individual sections of the law to review. Given the fact that there was a possibility of looking at a much simpler law, Bill G. proposed that the Committee wait until they heard from staff and IC at the September meeting. Susan Brock mentioned that she had researched the possibility of adding a prohibition on “hate speech” to the Sign Law. Her conclusion was that she did not find a legal way to do it. She stated there was first amendment jurisprudence by the US Supreme Court stating that “fighting words” were not protected speech, but that it didn’t apply to signs. Rather, it applied to actual spoken word – and certain elements would need to be present for the “fighting words” doctrine to apply, including that the personal insult or threat would need to be directed to a specific person who was present when the words were spoken. She explained that putting violent or threatening words on a sign did not fall under the “fighting words” doctrine. Susan cited the City of St. Paul that had an ordinance prohibiting hate speech that made it a misdemeanor to “knowingly display a symbol or message that aroused anger, alarm or resentment on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” The US Supreme Court struck the ordinance down, ruling that it was viewpoint discrimination because the City was criminalizing certain types of hate speech that was directed at certain groups, while allowing hate speech directed at other groups that were not protected under those categories. Susan concluded that she didn’t know how the Town would write a hate speech prohibition without being overly vague. Chris suggested that the Town might add a few sentences to the purpose section of the law that loosely prohibited signs that incited harm or caused a breach in peace. Susan argued that that language would be too vague. Pat suggested some language to add to the purpose section that would expand on the first sentence (promoting the public welfare and safety), which would say “promote a sense of personal and community well-being, free from intimidation, offensive or intrusive signage.” Pat further suggested adding under the prohibited section, “signs that promote unlawful discrimination, or physical or mental harm against any individual or group.” Members of the Committee then went into a long discussion about first amendment rights, with some members believing that Pat’s suggested language would be a constitutional violation. In the end of it all, the Committee thought that the issue might be settled if the Town Board discussed freedom of speech as a policy decision, apart from Zoning. Fred suggested that the Town Board consider a resolution expressing 4 their position that people had the right to speak freely, but not in damaging ways that would be hurtful to others. Pat still wanted to see something in the purpose section of the Sign Law. So Bill G. will present the topic and also Pat’s suggested language at a Town Board study session, and let the Town Board decide if they want to add the language to the Sign Law. Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 6 - Next meeting date and agenda: Next meeting is September 19, 2012 and the agenda will include:  Additional discussion of Sprinkler Law (with guests)  Discussion of banners/Sign Law (with guests)  Beginning discussion of Wood boilers, Mining, or Affordable Housing (Bill G.’s choice) Meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Christine Balestra Planner