Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-09-19-12 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES September 19, 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 GUESTS: Rick Couture, Ithaca College; Noah Demarest, Architect. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:30pm. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes from August 15th COC Meeting: Fred moved and Eric seconded the motion to approve the minutes with no changes made; all in favor. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continue Discussion of Possible Revisions to Town Code Chapter 225, Sprinkler Law (with guests): Bill G. mentioned two amendments passed at the Town Board meeting on August 13th. The first amendment was in the Sprinkler Law, under Section 225-3 No. 8. The Board exempted storage buildings under 400 square feet in size from the law. The second amendment was pertaining to garages and accessory buildings, Section 225-3; B. The amendment clarified that detached residential garages and accessory buildings did not require sprinkler systems. Bill G. also mentioned that there were comments and requests from the Town’s Agricultural Committee for the Board to consider further exemptions in the Sprinkler Law regarding agricultural buildings and uses. There were also comments from Noah Demarest, local architect, and comments from Ithaca College. Noah’s comments included a request to see some sort of size limit/exemption on every type of use where no one sleeps in the structure, not just storage buildings under 400 square feet in area. Noah noted some strange inconsistencies in the Sprinkler Law, e.g. according to the Law, a home with a daycare establishment in it would not require a sprinkler system, but a museum would require sprinklers. Rick Couture explained how Ithaca College requested to build a one-story 10’x20’ sq. ft. building to use on a temporary basis. The building was designed to be an open classroom for the first year reading initiative. According to Town Law, it required a sprinkler system and a variance was granted; but by the time IC received their approvals, it was too late in the fall semester for the freshmen to use. Rick referred to the letter written by QPK Design in August 2011 regarding new building requirements (Ithaca College asked QPK to research what the NYS requirements were versus the Town requirements). The letter asked the Town to look at the two occupancy groups; the “Utility Group (U)” and the “Storage Group (S)” and to give more consideration in accordance with the NYS law, as it seemed the Town of Ithaca law was much more stringent than the NYS law. Rick also discussed the process of getting a variance and stated how the ‘uses’ and ‘purposes’ for Ithaca College were very different than for the people living in the community. He asked if the Town would look at different types of zoning for educational institutions. The Committee then went on to discuss Mike Smith’s email regarding the Town’s Agricultural Committee’s desire to exempt agricultural buildings from the Sprinkler Law. Bruce Bates used the barn at the Cornell Equine storage facility that burned down and was rebuilt as an example of why that type of 2 building should remain regulated in the law. Bruce said it was an educational building, not an agricultural building, which is why sprinklers were and should be required. Noah said that although the NYS Code does not classify a building as agricultural if the public uses it (shops and restaurants fall under this category), that does not automatically mean sprinklers are automatically required under the NYS Code, because it exempts mercantile establishments less than 12,000 square feet. Farmers with these smaller mercantile uses are likely to receive Town of Ithaca sprinkler variances, so he suggested the Town change its sprinkler law so that such buildings do not require sprinklers. Bruce and COC members discussed the Town’s interpretation of agricultural buildings, their State classification and the NYS Law, the International Building Code interpretations, etc. Noah opined that the Town Sprinkler Law deterred people from starting small businesses. This led to a discussion about the recently-approved EcoVillage Gourd Workshop that Noah represented to the Planning and Zoning Boards. Both Noah and Rick discussed the costs to do design work for sprinkler systems. The design work is needed for sprinkler variances because variance applicants must present sprinkler system cost estimates to the ZBA. After a bit more discussion, Bill G. and Bruce offered to research other municipalities’ sprinkler laws to compare with the Town of Ithaca Law. The Committee expressed a desire to expand the Town of Ithaca Law to make it more lenient, but not as lenient as the NYS Laws. Bill G. and Bruce will report at the next COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 4 – Continue Discussion of Possible Revisions to Town Code Chapter 221, Sign Law (with guests): From the last COC meeting, Bill G. reviewed the discussion of considering amending the Sign Law to permit banners of a specific size, that are a certain number of feet away from a public road or a public right-of-way. Bill G. asked what the Committee thought about the idea, and whether the Committee thought banners should be addressed separately from the overall Sign Law review. Rick Couture was present for the banner discussion and explained Ithaca College’s intent for the banners (marketing and campaigning logo for the College). Rick presented an example of an Ithaca College logo banner for the Committee to view. The banners were approx. 24 sq. ft. in area with white/gold lettering on a dark blue background. He also provided a diagram of the Ithaca College campus where the banners would be placed on light posts throughout the campus. The only banners that would be seen from Danby Road (96B) would be at the entrance to Ithaca College. Rick explained that those banners would say ‘Welcome to Ithaca College’. IC would like to keep the banners up to at least Thanksgiving and then take them down and then put up during the school year. Eva felt that once the visitors were on campus, there was no need for the banners, since the college had already done their marketing and recruitment. Rick mentioned that the college did some research of what draws people to a college campus, and one of the top reasons was the appearance of the campus. He explained that the banners would not have a visual impact on the surrounding area. Fred’s concerns were more related to the impacts off campus. He thought the Committee should focus on that, not the college’s marketing intent for the banners. Sue R. mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan update included a recommendation for the creation and implementation of an Institutional zone. When the Town did create an Institutional zone, the Town could modify the Sign Law again, to clarify that we only want these banners on institutional-use properties. 3 Bruce asked Rick if Ithaca College would seek a variance for any banners that fell within the 250 or 500- foot setback from the public right-of-way or if they’d move the banners outside the setback. Rick replied that the college would probably apply for a variance to permit the banners to hang at the entrance to Ithaca College closest to 96B. Bill G. tried to visualize what a 24 sq. ft. banner would look like from 500 ft. or from 250 ft. and asked if there were any banners in the Town of Ithaca that we could see. Chris mentioned that PRI received approval in 2007 to place banners on utility poles along Trumansburg Road. But those banners were half the size of the ones IC was requesting and they were taken down after a year. Otherwise, there weren’t any other banners in the Town. Chris mentioned that the City of Ithaca had banners up throughout the downtown core. Rick emphasized that 99% of the banners that Ithaca College wanted to put up would never be seen unless you were on campus. Bill G. felt that a 24 sq. ft. banner from 500 ft. away might be small enough to be lost. Looking at the diagram of the campus, Eva was wondering how far apart the light poles were at the main entrance and Rick thought they were roughly 150 ft. apart between light posts. Bill G. thought the 2 or 3 light posts closest to 96B would be within 500 ft. of the public right-of-way (Committee looked at a buffer map provided by staff). Bruce suggested allowing Ithaca College to put up a few banners along the entrance way for one week and plan specific dates for COC members to drive by for a look. Discussion followed of how many banners to put up and where on the campus loop to hang them. The COC finally decided to permit Ithaca College to place up to 7 banners at their main 96B entrance for one week. Bill G. suggested that staff notify ZBA members, Town Board members, and Planning Board members, so they can view the banners on Ithaca College campus. Rick Couture will email Town staff (Chris) when the banners are up. The Committee will re-visit the banners issue, along with the Hopkins Model Sign Ordinance at the next COC meeting on October 17, 2012. Agenda Item No. 5 – Initial Discussion of Town Code Section 270-233, Roofing Permit Requirements (Bruce Bates): Bruce passed out to the Committee a section of Chapter 270-233: “Permit to build” regarding roofing projects. He focused on “B: No permit to build shall be issued except pursuant to written order of the Board of Appeals, where the proposed construction, alteration, or use would be in violation of any provision of this chapter.” Bruce explained that the Codes Department was trying to find a way to issue building permits for people to repair or replace roofs, when it’s a matter of a roof leaking (or other repair), but that Code Section 270-233.B prohibits staff from issuing such a permit. Codes staff has begun to issue permits with what they call “early bird,” where they also tell the applicant to apply for a variance – but then if the variance was denied, the applicant has to take the roof off. Bruce asked the Committee what needs to be done to allow an exemption in this section of Code that would allow a building roof replacement. That is, if there was no other work being done on the structure other than reroofing, what language would allow staff or the applicant to repair the roof of an existing structure without having to apply for a variance? Eric asked about deleting “B,” but that would not work because the section pertains to other issues besides re-roofing’s. Fred wondered why anyone needed a permit to replace a roof and Bruce said it was according to the NYS Code. Susan B. added that this was one of the provisions the Committee changed as a result of the State requirements but asked if “B” was required by the State, or if it was in our own Code before, and was just 4 carried over. Susan B. will check on this. Bill G. suggested that he, Susan B., and Bruce could work on new wording and bring it back to the Committee at a future meeting. Agenda Item No. 6 – Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 7 - Next meeting date and agenda: Next meeting is October 17, 2012 and the agenda will include:  Sign Law - Banners - Discussion of Hopkins Model Sign Ordinance - Review of Town Draft Law – ‘Purpose’ and ‘Prohibited’ Sections  Re-Roofing Permits (270-233.B) Meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce Administrative Staff