Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2014-08-13TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of August 13, 2014 6:30 P.M. - 8:20 P.M. Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine; Pat Leary via FaceTime; Bill King; Fred Wilcox; Eva Hoffmann; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk.. Absent: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning. Minutes 1. Member Comments/Concerns - None 2. Approval of COC Minutes June 25, 2014 - Minor changes, moved by Fred, seconded by Eric. Approved. July 9, 2014 -Minor changes, moved by Eric, seconded by Fred. Approved. 3. Continued Review of New and Improved Draft Sign Law, Redlined Draft Dated September 18, 2013. Discussion of §221-15 - Enforcement Official (updated version) Chris reported that she, Bruce and Susan Brock met a couple weeks before the meeting to discuss this section and any recommended changes to it. The group came up with too many modifications to simply put in a memo, so they created an updated version of the entire section, with recommended changes in red and discussion points for the Committee to consider in gray highlighting. The modifications stopped just before §221-19 Terminology. §221-15. Enforcement Official. Bill G questioned the definition of "Enforcement Official" and wondered if it was the same term that the Town used in all other Town laws. Susan stated that the definition will be changed later on in the review to mean any code enforcement officer. Susan will check in the Zoning Chapter - she indicated that the Committee may want to change the term in the Sign Law to match the Zoning Code. Susan will look at other enforcement sections in the Code and will report back to the Committee at the next meeting. §221-16. Sign Permit. A. The Committee discussed whether a sign that has been approved by the Planning or Zoning Board and is subsequently altered or changed in a minor way should have to come before the Planning or Zoning Board for another review (e.g. color changes, enlarging by a few inches but well within the required size, having a round sign instead of an elliptical one but the same size, etc). Susan used the East Hill Plaza building signs as examples: the background design is exactly the same on every sign (black); the lighting of the letters is exactly the same every time (white). Only the content of the sign, e.g. the name of the business and logo, changes. But a new sign review by the Planning Board is required whenever a new business replaces an old one in the building. The Committee felt that if just the content changed, then a sign shouldn't have to come back in for Board approval. Bruce then used the example of a senior housing complex that recently placed lights on their sign, where such lighting wasn't part of the Board approval of the sign (the lights also do not meet the Town Outdoor Lighting Law requirements). The Committee discussed this and decided that if a sign met the Sign Law requirements and Lighting Law requirements, then it would not need to go back to the Planning or Zoning Board for review. The one exception to this is if the original Planning or Zoning Board approvals specifically stated in their conditions that the signs should not be e.g. oval, lighted, bright green, etc. Susan clarified for the Committee that they are saying that unless a condition is set on the sign, a business would not have to come back to the Planning Board if they changed it in the future, as long as it met the Code. The Committee agreed that that was what they were approving. Chris noted that it will be important for staff and the Board to watch the language created in conditions during the approval process for future signs. Committee decided to leave "A" as recommended by staff. B. Committee agreed to eliminate - no comments. C. Committee agreed with the changes recommended by staff. D. Wordsmithed #3 so the first sentence will now read "Drawings at an appropriate scale that adequately show..." E. The Committee discussed whether signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones should require a sign permit for any sign, whether it met the law or not, because the way the revised law read now, a sign for those zones that met the law requirements did not need a permit at all. Chris stated that staff was advocating for requiring permits regardless so we could adequately track these signs, as signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones were much more likely to be changed than signs that required permits in the Residential and Agricultural Zones. The Committee decided that it did want to require sign permits for all signs in the Commercial and Industrial zones. Chris and Susan will make the appropriate language modifications to the Commercial and Industrial Zone sections of the law in a future draft. G. Committee agreed to delete. H. Committee agreed to the changes recommended by staff. §221-17. Appeals. A. Add "of Appeals" after Zoning Board in first sentence. Committee agreed with all other wording changes in this section (no changes to "B"). 2 §221-18. Penalties for Offenses. A. Change the word at the end from "conformance" to "compliance." Committee ok with other modifications. B. Put back the deleted part ", or who fails to comply with any order or regulation made thereunder." All other changes ok. C. No comments (no changes made). D. Change "proper officials" to "the Town." Susan Brock will look at wording to replace "prevent" in the last sentence. E & F. Lengthy discussion about these and whether it would be better to include language from our Property Maintenance law pertaining to enforcement, knowing that it would add at least 4 pages of steps to the section. The Committee also wondered why the Town would want to pay to bring a sign into compliance. Susan will research and compare this section with enforcement sections in other parts of the Code and will report back at the next meeting. Chris will provide the enforcement section of the Property Maintenance Law for the Committee to review at the next meeting. §221-19. Terminology. Bill mentioned that, due to the late hour, he recommended the Committee review the terminology section thoroughly at the next meeting, but that members could provide staff with their initial comments and suggestions on some items now. Regarding the Zones that are defined in the Sign Law (Agricultural Zone, Residential Zone, Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone), Chris discovered that if the new Sign Law is incorporated into the Zoning Code, then the zone definitions may not be needed or they would at least need to match the zoning descriptions in the Zoning Code. The different zones listed and defined in the Sign Law are also confusing. One Committee member also asked where PDZ's would fit into the Sign Law and definitions. Think about this for next meeting. Awning - Committee requests that staff remove the word "canvas" because there are non - canvas awnings. Banner - definition talks about commercial, institutional and events. What is institutional? Susan added that we allow anyone to have banners so we cannot restrict this because it gets into content. Chris thought that the banner definition had changed since the Town revised the banner section in the law. Chris and Susan will look at this and provide a solution for the next meeting. Canopy versus Marquee - Committee wanted to know the real difference between the two? 3 Neutral color - Chris said that this definition will be removed because the Committee already decided not to require that copy -change signs contain only neutral colors. Owner/Person - Committee says this is confusing - what is the difference? Sign - Committee recommended revising this definition. Question mainly surrounded what is considered "conveying" information. Controversy started with the Jewish eruv and the "conveying" of information and whether the general public understands the information being conveyed. Staff will look into. Flag pole - Eliminate "parcel on record." What does that mean? Sign height - Needs to be clarified further, e.g. from natural grade? 4. Other Business. Bruce asked about the off -premises signs put up by the State DOT and whether we can regulate those. Chris said they are part of the NYS Sign Program and that we can't regulate them. Chris will contact the NYS DOT to find out if our local Sign Law could override NYS law and will report back to the Committee at the next meeting. Bruce also asked about a current issue with the Ellis Hollow Senior Housing complex on East Hill. They have two entrances on the same road, but there is a very large distance between the entrances and people often miss the entrance on one end. Our current Sign Law permits two signs for a business if the business fronts on two different streets - but it does not allow more than one sign in a residential zone and says nothing about if a use has two entrances on one road. Does our new law address this? The Committee seemed to think that this was a good example of the type of issue that should go to Zoning Board because it does not come up that often. The new law will allow a maximum amount of square footage for signs in the aggregate, which will permit more than one sign in a Residential Zone. Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for September 10, 2014 M