Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2019-04-10COC April 10, 2019 Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of April 10, 2019 – 5:30 P.M. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Yvonne Fogarty, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King; Bruce Bates, Codes; Susan Ritter and Chris Balestra, Planning; Susan Brock, Counsel; Paulette Rosa, Clerk 1. Member Comments/Concerns—None 2. Approval of Minutes from March 13, 2019 COC meeting Motion made by Eric, seconded by Pat, unanimous. 3. Continued Discussion on Town Noise Ordinance (Town Code Chapter 184) The Committee ended last month’s discussion with having no garbage or recycling pick-ups allowed during nighttime hours, which means a start of 7:00 a.m. at the earliest. Discussion followed. Chris noted that she hadn’t had a chance to contact the local garbage collection companies to find out if the proposed change in the noise law for garbage collection vehicles would cause undue hardship on local companies. Paulette added that the start time for collection on Casella’s website was 6 a.m.; Bruce stated that the Village of Cayuga Heights does their own garbage pickup and garbage must be out by 7:30 a.m. Yvonne mentioned that recycling seems to start very early, before 6 a.m. Bill G stated that recycling is handled by a contract with Casella through Tompkins County. Bill G said his thought was to finalize collection times tonight and then bring it to the Town Board for discussion and setting of a public hearing. Chris offered to contact local companies before the matter went before the Town Board. Bill G asked the committee if they wanted to leave the proposal at 7:00 a.m. for now, not differentiating between types of garbage or recycling trucks and apply the law across all zones. The committee agreed. Chris and Sue asked how the committee would like staff to communicate with the local haulers. Pat suggested we start with phone calls to get their thoughts and go from there. Chris will do this and will report to the Town Board. The committee then moved on to Section 184-12 Permit Procedure and addressed the redlined area in E, page 184:16. Bill G began by saying that this section was about the Town Board weighing the criteria for granting a noise permit. Susan offered that she hadn’t had a chance to look at other municipal laws to see what they use for findings, but the question before the town is: what criteria does the Board feel they should be applyin g in order to make a determination to grant or deny a noise permit? We want residents to be able to have peace and quiet, but we also want to allow places like Ithaca Beer Company to have music sometimes, which may be unreasonable under the current law. COC April 10, 2019 Pg. 2 Bill G recapped the discussion at the Town Board meeting, related specifically to Ithaca Beer noise permits. There was a long discussion by the Board on whether to put conditions on the permits. Last year, the Board approved half of the requested Ithaca Beer permits for the season. The Board wanted Ithaca Beer to try to implement some noise mitigations that the Board would then evaluate mid-year for effectiveness before granting more permits for the remaining season. This year there was a long discussion because the town didn’t receive any noise complaints about Ithaca Beer, but we did get a few emails and one of the neighbors asked for a mid-way review again. The Board ultimately decided to grant Ithaca Beer the permits again, with another mid-year review of the noise mitigations. The committee discussed the differences between a business that regularly violates the law with frequent events versus a private party or special event that occurs only occasionally. Eva explained that when the permit request happens regularly, the event becomes something else besides a special gathering and she isn’t sure the wording in the law makes that clear. She wondered if we could regulate the frequency of the events. Susan said yes and noted that the City of Ithaca had a variance process instead of a permit process for regular events, and that the permit findings for regular events was different than the findings for one-time events. Discussion followed, with the committee testing different criteria examples to see if they’d fit the various functions and events that might happen. The committee concluded that the enforcement of the noise ordinance was most often complaint driven; and they did not want to focus on the types of noises that have not generated complaints. The question of content neutrality came up, particularly with trying to figure out which findings would apply to which type of event. The committee batted around the idea of allowing a set number of permits per event or by zone in which the event was held. Ultimately, the committee decided to wait until the Inlet Valley Overlay Zone zoning is enacted and then possibly add separate noise rules. Bill G took brought the committee to a vote on the matter. Pat thought the basic law, as revised, was good. The rest of the committee agreed. Bill G then asked about adding the ability to revoke a permit and Susan said the law would need criteria to determine that. More discussion followed. Bill G will investigate this idea and see if there is any need to add criteria related to revoking a permit. Chris asked for a summary of the changes in the law. Susan said she would look at other municipalities and see if there are criteria and will send out what she finds. The Town Board can look at the criteria and decide. The committee moved to the last page of the law, related to penalties and fines. Yvonne questioned the fines, feeling that $500 and $1000 fines and the possibility of imprisonment was excessive. Susan clarified that the fee would be “up to” $500 and that the judge would make the actual decision. She stated that this was standard language throughout our Code where penalties were in effect. The committee had differing opinions on what to do about the fine/imprisonment section. Susan said the language related to the time for imprisonment (up to 15 days) was what the NYS Penal Law included for violations, so the town language was consistent with Penal Law. Bill G took a vote as to whether to keep the language as is, to remove the sections on imprisonment and/or imprisonment for the first offense, to change the number of days for imprisonment, or to reduce the fines. Most of the committee agreed to leave the law as written. Yvonne remained strongly opposed to the provisions. COC April 10, 2019 Pg. 3 The next step with the Noise Law is to take it to the Town Board for review and setting a public hearing. 4. Other Business. Added item – Proposal from the Code Enforcement Department to amend the “Special Properties” sections in the Low, Medium, and High Density Residential Zones of the Town Code. Bill G gave an overview of the topic, stating that Marty Moseley prepared a memo indicating that Codes staff discovered a problem with the language in the Code regarding required setbacks for buildings near property lines. In reviewing the North Campus project, Codes staff noticed that the proposed buildings did not have any ph ysical separation from the property line between the town and city. Even though Cornell owns the property on both sides of the municipal lines, they are separate parcels and the Town Code requires setbacks from parcel lines. Additionally, Codes staff noticed that there was nothing in the Town Code that permitted multiple principal buildings on a single lot. The proposed language change would allow “special properties,” such as Cornell University or other institutions, to have buildings that cross the municipal property lines without the required setbacks. The language will also allow Cornell and other institutions to have multiple buildings on one lot. Susan had a suggestion to make the language a bit clearer, since the Special Properties section talks about institutions on at least six acres. She suggested the modification say “shall only apply along the exterior public streets and along boundaries with adjacent properties where lot ownership is not identical.” Discussion followed about what this would actually mean: if a single owner owns two adjacent lots, does the town really care how close the buildings are? Eva asked about examples of who the provision would apply to and staff answered PRI, CMC, Public Works Facilities, etc. Eva asked how this would affect properties, other than those that are listed. Would a private resident with two adjacent lots be able to have multiple buildings on one lot, with no setbacks between the property lines? Bruce answered no - they would need a variance – the proposed change would not give them leeway to do it. Susan agreed. The Committee agreed to the proposed new language, with Susan’s suggestion. The “Special Properties” section will now read: “In the case of publicly owned properties and properties of universities, colleges, cemeteries, or other private institutions located in Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density Residential Zones, which comprise at least six acres in area and are traversed by interior roads or driveways, the front, side, and rear yard requirements set forth above shall apply only along the exterior public street frontages and along boundaries with adjacent properties where lot ownership is not identical. Notwithstanding the provisions in § 270-226, publicly owned properties and properties of universities, colleges, cemeteries, or other private institutions located in Low Density, Medium Density and High Density Residential Zones may have more than one principal building on a lot.” Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.