Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2018-07-25COC 2018-07-25 Pg. 1 Codes and Ordinances Committee July 25, 2018 Members Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eva Hoffmann, Yvonne Fogarty, Eric Levine, and Pat Leary Bill King – absent Staff: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town 1. Members Comments/Concerns Eva stated that she was concerned about the chain link fence around the horse area along Pine Tree Rd and Mitchell St areas. The ground cover has become overgrown and looks more like a hedgerow which one can’t see through. She also thought the weight of the vegetation might even be making the fence lean in some areas. Her concern is that many of the neighbors enjoy the view through the fence and that is going away. She asked if there was something the town could do. Bruce responded that the fence itself hasn’t changed so there is no law against the weeds or vegetation growing. He said it would not fall under our property maintenance because it is an agricultural use which exempts it. Bruce said he could mention it to Cornell but that is the extent of our involvement or oversight. 2. Town Noise Ordinance Discussion (Town Code Chapter 184) Bill G gave the background on bringing this law back for review for those members not familiar with the issues and complaints. He then asked Paulette to summarize the types of complaints that she has heard. Ithaca Beer neighbors have complained about the outdoor entertainment. Paulette’s neighbors have complained about noise related to a party she had in her backyard. A resident of Eastwood Commons has complained about her neighbor’s air conditioner noise. And there have been a few other types of complaints. Paulette started with the Ithaca Beer outdoor music. They received noise permits the first year that they ran their outdoor concert series, which happened a few times that year. The town didn’t receive any complaints that year. The following year, the decision was made by the former town supervisor that noise permits were not needed for certain events, including the Ithaca Beer events. The year after that, Ithaca Beer asked the Town Board permission to have weekly music events, and that’s when the complaints started coming in. Issues were then noticed with the permit process, slight changes were made to the process itself, and noise permits were again given. But the root problem with Ithaca Beer has been that some neighbors living nearby do not want amplified music. This year Ithaca Beer received a permit for approximately 12 weeks for Wednesday night dinner music from 5-9pm. So far there have been no complaints, but Ithaca Beer changed the style of the music to much lighter and less amplification. COC 2018-07-25 Pg. 2 The second complaint involved a resident in the Eastwood Commons condo community who told her adjacent neighbor that she had to turn her air conditioner off after 9pm because it was loud. The resident used the town noise ordinance to justify the action. This resident was really harassing the neighbor with the AC unit and both were calling the town to see what could be done. Paulette said she then looked at the noise ordinance and found out that air conditioners were actually listed as prohibited in our law during night time hours. Paulette then described the next complaint: she had a small 6-person party at her house up in the woods off of Culver Road. She had her radio on outside on the deck, but people could still talk to each other standing within 10 feet of the speakers. The sheriff was called by a neighbor and the officer pulled in at 8:30pm on a Saturday night. The officer could hear the beat of the radio approximately 10 car lengths from the end of Paulette’s driveway but not at the actual end of the driveway. The officer said the sound did not seem unreasonable nor did the time of night and assumed it was the topography of the gorge and the valley that allowed it to be heard down the road. The next complaint involved a resident starting their Harley motorcycle 6:30a.m., annoying the adjacent neighbor. The neighbor wondered if there was anything that could be done about that. Finally, Paulette explained that her office also gets construction or garbage truck complaints, which are routinely investigated and enforced. Bill G noted that he believes the complaints are related to the subjectivity of what is considered “unreasonable” noise in the noise ordinance. The committee then discussed each of the complaints and potential solutions. Regarding Ithaca Beer, perhaps some kind of canopy or shelter that traps the sound and reflects it back to the stage and away from residential neighborhoods might work. Regarding the air conditioner complaint, Bruce stating that he went to the condo and it does sound loud (like a refrigerator), but that the air conditioning units have been there since the building was built in the 1980’s. He thought it was unfortunate that the design has the unit under the window of another unit. Bruce thought the inclusion in the noise ordinance was intended for “commercial” type air conditioners that could be regulated because there are some ways to do that with commercial systems. Residential units, whether they are whole- house or window, don’t have as many options for muffling sound. Discussion followed and the committee felt that residential air conditioning units should be allowed. The law should be changed to make it clear that residential air conditioning units are not considered unreasonable noise. After that general discussion, Susan Brock noted that, even with the suggested change, the law still contains a section for prohibiting “unreasonable noise,” which is generic and subjective and an air conditioner of any type could still be complained about. COC 2018-07-25 Pg. 3 Susan thought that there might be a way to make the law clear that some noises are not considered unreasonable, perhaps by expressly listing what noises could be considered reasonable, although we would have to figure out how. One committee member suggested using times of day and decibel levels to regulate noise, as some people simply don’t like certain noises or types of music, but that doesn’t mean they are unreasonable and should be restricted. The Committee then talked about applying decibel limits and discussed the history of the law and how the town’s law used to have decibel limits, but later modified the town law to be similar to the city’s law when they moved away from decibels. It was noted that the city has gone back to using decibel levels and actually used a consultant to gather data. Bill G then said that he thought the “reasonable person” standard was hard to enforce, but Susan noted that was actually a legal standard that should stay in law. She had researched that a bit prior to the COC meeting, and the incorporation of a “reasonable person” standard is preferred by the courts. Discussion followed on who determines what a “reasonable person” considers unreasonable noise and whether it’d help to use the Sheriff’s office to enforce the law or letting issues and enforcement fall back to using the NYS laws on the books for disturbing the peace. To wrap the conversation up, Bill asked the COC for some guidance. The committee suggested changing the language related to air conditioning units. The committee also suggested allowing certain musical events without a noise permit under certain parameters. The committee requested more information on decibel levels and how one would set those levels. The COC also asked Susan Brock to research case law and municipal laws to figure out if there is a list of “reasonable noises” or noises which the committee would consider reasonable. Bill G added that the town does continue to grow and that there may be more businesses near residential areas such as Inlet Valley and East Hill Plaza, so these situations may be coming up more frequently. 3. Regulating Outdoor Wood Burning Discussion Bill G explained that the COC had talked about this a few years back after receiving some complaints from Fred Estabrook on Coddington Road. The committee looked at some restrictions, but the offending neighbor moved and the town never moved forward with the restrictions. The previous proposed campfire regulation included a 50’ foot setback from a property line or 100’ foot setback from a structure for any outdoor wood burning. Mr. Estabrook has recently complained about another neighbor, now up the street, that is having regular outdoor campfires that create significant smoke that goes into his house and causes breathing issues for him and his family. COC 2018-07-25 Pg. 4 The Committee looked at an aerial photo of the properties involved in the current complaint. In this particular instance, the previously proposed 50’-100’ setback restrictions would not have an effect, given the size of the yard and location of structures. Eric noted it is not fair to treat everyone that wants to have a campfire the same simply by applying distance limitations because there are proper and improper ways to have a fire. There’s a way to keep the smoke down. He suggested that we draft a wood burning law like the criteria listed in the noise ordinance. He liked the “reasonable” standard used in the noise ordinance better than any distance limitations. Bill G responded that the problem would be the same, subjectivity: who decides if the fire or amount of smoke is “reasonable”? Chris noted that there was an article in the Association of Towns magazine saying that towns may have regulatory rights under NYS law. Paulette responded that that is what we use right now and where we direct people when they complain. There are specific limits on the size of the fires and on what can be burned. The impetus for the NYS law was to stop garbage barrel burning, but it does restrict campfires too. Paulette added that she canvassed the other Clerks and no one has burning restrictions and all defer to NYS DEC regulations. The Committee decided not to pursue this law any further. 4. Stream Setback Law Discussions of Issues Sue Ritter explained some issues that have come up at several recent Planning Board subdivision reviews related to applying the stream setback law to properties containing streams. The problem is there are requirements in the law that require property owners to show stream setbacks on a subdivision plat at the time of application to the board instead of during a building permit. Some subdivision proposals are simply the subdivision of land, where no development is envisioned or proposed. When there is a very large parcel and where the parcels being divided would have no chance of affecting the stream or the setbacks, then it seems arbitrary, expensive, and arduous to require a property owner to hire a surveyor to measure and flag the stream setbacks for the entire length of the stream. Sue provided a specific recent example where a property contained more than 1,000 feet of stream that would have to be surveyed and measured from different points, and a large part of the parcel being subdivided was going to NYS Parks for preservation, not development. But the law requires the setback measurements regardless. Sue added that the concept of requiring the setbacks at time of application emerged during the drafting of the stream setback law. The law originally required the measuring for all types of applications. But Cornell provided comments to the committee at the time of the law drafting and asked if they have to do that type of surveying if a building was over 1,000 feet away from COC 2018-07-25 Pg. 5 a stream. The COC at the time decided that the time to simply adopt a distance at which point a setback would not need to be identified for site plan review, but not for subdivision reviews. Sue would now like to see something similar for subdivisions. The Committee discussed some comments that came up during the Planning Board discussions with the key one being that lots that are subdivided should clearly note the stream setback law somewhere on the plat so future buyers know there may be restrictions. Susan Brock noted issues with drawn boundaries that may not be simple and straight and Sue thought there could be roughly drawn setbacks, but not the need for surveyed dimensions. Sue thought there could easily be verbiage added to make it all clear. Susan Brock had a few other concerns related to the law, so Bill G suggested that they work on language and bring it back for a future meeting discussion. 5. Other Business There will be no August meeting. Next meeting is September 12th at 5:30p.m.