Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2015-12-15TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of August 12, 2015 6:30 p.m. — 7:48 p.m. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Yvonne Fogarty, Bill King and Eric Levine; Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk Absent: Eva Hoffmann, Susan Ritter and Susan Brock 1. Member comments/concerns. None 2. Approval of May, June and July 2015 COC Minutes. Minor changes were made to each. May Minutes — moved by Eric, seconded by Yvonne — Unanimous June Minutes — Moved by Eric, seconded by Pat, Yvonne and Bill K. abstained — unanimous. July Minutes — moved by Yvonne, seconded by Pat -- Unanimous 3. Continue discussion of potential revision of regulations pertaining to domestic animals. Bill G. reminded members that Mike Smith had provided materials related to the regulation of chickens for the committee to review. He summarized that the Town Code currently had different regulations on domestic animals, depending on what zone you live in and that there have been a lot of requests to the ZBA to allow chickens. There will be a discussion on the topic at Cornell Cooperative Extension August 18th from 6pm-8pm. Bill G. noted that he was interested in hearing Bill K. and Eric's opinions since they were absent last month for this discussion and the other members had already expressed their opinions. The goal is to get a sense of which way the committee wanted to go with the regulation of chickens and other domestic animals, including whether to create separate laws for each. Then the committee could guide staff on writing and providing a draft of the regulations. Bill K. stated that he has been following the city's and west hill's list sery concerning the topic and that the subject of chickens was hot right now. He thought the major concerns seemed to be centered on noise and odor impacts and thought both of those could be addressed rather easily through proper regulations. He added that the City of Ithaca was also reviewing their regulations and it would be good to be somewhat consistent, if possible. He was generally in favor of allowing chickens with some limits. Bruce stated that he had heard a suggestion to limit the number of houses in a neighborhood that could have chickens, because if every house had chickens then it might be a bit much. Committee members thought that that idea couldn't be fairly regulated 1 through the town, but could be regulated through existing homeowners associations for some neighborhoods. Bill G. reminded the committee that chickens were currently allowed as of right in some of the zones. Bruce confirmed that most ZBA cases regarding chickens were due to insufficient lot size for the zone, not because chickens were prohibited. He noted that parcels located in the Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR) required 2 acres of land in order to maintain chickens, subject to special approval by the ZBA. Discussion followed. Eric mentioned that some parcels were shaped such that they were 2 acres in size but with a narrow lot width and a long lot length. In those cases, depending on the placement of the coop, the chickens could be very close to a neighbor's house. Bill G. stated that he thought it would be better to regulate via the distance from side lot lines as opposed to overall lot size. In some cases in the Low Density Residential Zone (LDR) - where chickens are allowed by right - you could have a very small lot and still be allowed to have them. Eric liked the restrictions that Mike had added in his memo to the committee but didn't notice a recommended restriction on guinea hens, a bird that seemed to cause a recent noise issue on Five Mile Drive. He also agreed with another committee member's comment that barking dogs could be noisier than any back yard fowl, stating that he had a dog that would not stop barking no matter what he did and had to keep the dog inside most of the time as a result. Bill G. affirmed that the town could revise the definition of "domestic animals" to remove the word "chickens" and the phrase "or similar," which would effectively prohibit guinea hens. Discussion followed. Committee members determined that all feathered birds should be taken out of the domestic animals definition and be dealt with separately. Bill G. asked the group if cattle, pigs etc. should be taken out of the definition as well. Yvonne asked "if someone had 2 acres of land and wanted a llama, why would we say no?" Bill K. asked if there had been any issues with the "domestic animals" definition as written in terms of animals other than chickens and Bruce responded that his office had verbal inquiries about geese and turkeys. He had to tell the people that geese and turkeys weren't considered domestic animals per the current definition. Therefore the residents would need a variance to have them. Mike added that some communities split domestic animals into two categories - large and small - and regulate them that way. Bill G. noted that, according to the current code, one could have cattle in the LDR Zone regardless of the size of the lot, but in the MDR Zone, one needed a minimum of 2 acres. This seemed like an inconsistency that should be fixed. He added that cats and dogs were listed under the definition of "household pets" as well as "domestic animals" and wondered why they were listed twice. Bruce responded that they were probably added to the domestic 2 animal definition to address kennels and breeding operations. Mike added that in most zones, domesticated animals were limited by a number e.g. no more than 3 animals permitted outside without a variance from the ZBA. Yvonne asked about the word "fowl" and whether we were going to leave that in the definition and Bill G. responded that one option would be to leave the word in the definition and change how the different zones treated fowl, rather than just allowing them by right and making changes according to parcels. Alternately, the town could just take "fowl" out of the definition, create a new chicken ordinance and not allow any other type of fowl. Bill G. summarized that the town was really looking at two different issues: regulating domestic animals in general and then specifically regulating chickens. He canvassed the committee for their opinions on separating the laws. Most committee members were interested in looking at a separate chicken ordinance, so they decided to ask staff to draft an ordinance based on some of the models Mike provided in the mail out. There were a number of things to think about e.g. limiting the size of a flock, basing the number of birds allowed per zone, per lot size, etc. A lengthy discussion followed on flock size, with some members thinking 6 chickens was appropriate, and others thinking that 6 were too many. Mike noted that 3-4 birds was the average and added that 3-4 chickens could lay up to 3 dozen eggs per week. It was also noted that one had to buy at least 6 live chicks when purchasing chickens to raise. The committee transitioned to a discussion about setbacks for chicken coops, along with odor and cleanliness issues. Looking at the examples that Mike provided, the committee settled on a 20400t side yard setback requirement for chicken coops/houses. Pat expressed concern about cleanliness with large numbers of chickens and asked about the size of the coops, wanting to make sure that the town didn't permit the inhumane type of cages used in factory farming. Yvonne explained that a typical residential or small farm chicken coop consisted of a little house with a rod and a roost inside, where the chickens would go at night and where they'd lay eggs. Then there was usually an outdoor space or pen where the chickens could roam relatively freely outside. Bill G. summarized that the consensus of the committee seemed to be to regulate chickens via requiring that coops can be no closer than 20-feet from a property line, regardless of the zone, and to discuss limits on the number of permitted chickens per lot next time. Staff will prepare a draft for the committee to consider at the next meeting. The definition of "domestic animals" will be revised after the chicken ordinance parameters have been settled. 3 4. Sign law referral to the town board. Bill G. recapped the discussion at the last meeting regarding the Supreme Court decision, stating that the decision did not necessitate changes in our draft law. The Agricultural Committee apparently still had concerns with the draft, which they could bring to the full Town Board when the law is reviewed by them. Bill G. felt that the COC had done as much as it could and that it was time to for the law to go to the Town Board for referral to other boards and committees. Bill G. asked if there were any final comments or concerns. Yvonne asked about murals and Bill G. responded that a separate mural law would be coming to the COC for review next time. With that, Bill G. moved to forward the draft sign law to the Town Board for referral and comments. Eric seconded the motion; it was voted unanimous with Yvonne abstaining because she wasn't involved with the committee until recently. 5. Other business. Bill G. suggested canceling the September meeting; committee agreed. Next meeting agenda: Review draft chicken regulations; continue discussion of revised definition of "domestic animals"; possibly review draft mural regulations Next meeting tentatively scheduled for October 14, 2015 a]