Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2018-10-102018-10-10 COC Pg. 1 Codes & Ordinances Committee Meeting of October 10, 2018 – 5:30 P.M. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary (via FaceTime), Eva Hoffmann, Bill King and Yvonne Fogarty Absent: Eric Levine Staff support: Marty Mosely, Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; and David O’Shea, Civil Engineer Member Comments/Concerns – None. Approval of Minutes from July 25, 2018 COC meeting. Corrections were made; motion made by Yvonne, seconded by Eva, unanimous. Continued Discussion on Town Noise Ordinance (Town Code Chapter 184). Susan reported on her research that indicated that noise laws are subject to the same restrictions as signs under constitutional scrutiny. Essentially, if the law is content-based, e.g. prohibiting noise from parades but exempting civic parades, you are then under strict scrutiny where you must show a compelling government interest in exempting one type of parade noise while prohibiting all other parade noises. Susan explained that a noise ordinance may impose time, place and manner restrictions, e.g., in X zone, sound can be a maximum of Y decibels between this hour and that hour. If imposing such restrictions, then the person measuring the sound must be very clear about the location and distance from which they are measuring. Susan went on to note that the less the law distinguishes between types of sounds, the better. She cautioned that the law should not favor preferred types of sounds and not others. Music is considered an expressive activity that is protected under the First Amendment. Susan has found a lot of cases in and around large cities where there were violations for loud music, but generators and other noise-producing things were not held to that same level of scrutiny. The courts found this favoring one type of noise over others. Also, if a law has a decibel limit, then it really must be equally enforced for every noise. If the town adds a decibel limit to the noise law, and the crowd of people at Ithaca Beer Company (for example) is simply talking over the decibel limit and this is not enforced, but the music is too loud and that is enforced, then that is problematic. 2018-10-10 COC Pg. 2 Susan said she would email the City of Ithaca case that illustrates some of these points. The committee discussed a number of different types of sounds that we currently regulate such as construction trucks, garbage pick-up etc. The committee was interested in making minor changes to address the issues that we have been seeing, such as eliminating the air conditioner language in the law, rather than revamping the law in its entirety. Paulette noted that we just got a complaint about the weekly fireworks at the Six Mile Creek Winery, which do not need permits under NYS law. Discussion followed and changing the noise ordinance to be enforceable via decibel measurements would be a major overhaul - the committee did not want to go that route. Marty noted that Lansing had a decibel standard and it did not work well for municipal enforcement or law enforcement. Bill asked everyone to look at the law and come back next time with suggestions on how to fix the law to accommodate the complaints we’ve received. Continued Discussion on Stream Setback Law (Town Code §270-219.5) Sue summarized the need for changes to the Stream Setback Law to clarify that the delineation of the setback on site plans and subdivision plats can be an approximation rather than a precise delineation (i.e. metes/bounds). She explained that an approximate identification is much more realistic given the variable nature of stream channels. The proposed language would be coupled with new requirements that require proposed development activities within 100 feet of the outer edge of Zone 2 to provide evidence that the proposed activity is outside the stream setback, or if not, a variance would be sought. Sue also suggested that final subdivision plats and site plans, involving a regulated stream, contain a note stating that the property is subject to the Stream Setback provisions and that restrictions apply, so everyone is notified going forward. Based on the redlined handout provided by staff, dated 9/19/18, the committee discussed several wording options to achieve the desired goal. Discussion focused on how the wording within the stream setback zones should read to make it clear while still effecting the change we want. Discussion included eliminating the term “zone”, decreasing the required setback from 150-feet to 100-feet, and clarifying the term “approximate.” The committee eventually agreed to make the changes that were originally suggested by staff in the provided redlined handout. Bill moved to send the changes to the Town Board for approval, seconded by Yvonne, unanimous. Sue added that in the near future she would like to try to create a table to contain all of the law’s requirements so that it is easier to read and user friendly. 2018-10-10 COC Pg. 3 Other Business. Bill reported that the South Hill resident who complained about his neighbor’s wood burning smoke a while ago was talking about his next door neighbor, not the house down the road. Bill will ask Paulette to get more details to see if the original wood burning limitations envisioned by the COC would apply. Then he will decide if he wants the committee to pursue moving the issue forward. Eva reported that the chain link fence along the horse pasture on Pine Tree Road has been straightened and vegetation trimmed back a bit. It made her think that if a chain link fence is approved by the town and is a see-through style, then allowing it to become overgrown with vegetation would make it a different fence than what was approved. She remembered neighbors coming in and saying that they wanted the see-through fence so they could see the horses grazing and beyond. If vegetation is permitted to obstruct the view, then it could be considered a violation of the approval. Marty indicated that a person could put plantings inside a fence line, separate from the fence and the town would have no control of the maintenance or location of those plantings. Susan surmised that if a project went through site plan approval, then it would be up to the Planning Board to put a condition in the approval to preserve the view. Meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.