HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2015-10-14TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
Meeting of October 14, 2015
6:30 p.m. - 8:05 p.m.
Minutes
Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Yvonne Fogarty, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King and Eric
Levine; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Chris Balestra,
Planner; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette
Terwilliger, Town Clerk.
Guests: Sara Davis
1. Member comments/concerns. Bill G. opened the meeting and asked the guest to
address the committee. Ms. Sara Davis spoke, saying that she is a resident of the town and had
met with Mike and Chris because she is interested in having chickens and was surprised that the
town did not allow them in certain places and she wanted to hear what the concerns were. She
added that she is happy that this topic is under discussion and hopes the committee will allow
chickens in the town. Bill G. thanked her for taking the time to come in.
Bill G. reported that the draft sign law would be discussed at the October 191h Town Board
meeting and would then be referred to other committees and boards for review and comment.
2. Approval of August 12, 2015 COC Minutes. Minor changes were made. Moved by Eric,
seconded by Yvonne - unanimous, with Eva abstaining.
3. Discussion of Draft Regulations Pertaining to Chickens (memo by Mike Smith, dated
October 5, 2015). Bill G. gave an overview, noting that the committee had talked twice about
this topic and asked staff to come back with some ideas on numbers of chickens allowed and size
of lot needed. Mike prepared a memo that accompanied the COC mail out, suggesting that we
add "keeping of chickens" as a permitted use along with a list of criteria.
Bill G. asked why the suggested language said "if the principal use is a single or two-family
residence..." then x number of chickens would be permitted by right in the Conservation,
Agricultural and Low Density Residential Zones? Mike responded that there are multiple zones
that allow farms and he wanted to be clear that chickens would always be allowed on farms as of
right. Susan B. added that the language is template language that appears throughout the Code.
After a short discussion on the definition of a "farm," the committee turned their attention to
regulating chickens via lot size or setbacks from property lines and decided to revisit talking
about flock size later. The committee felt it was more important to require hen houses and
possibly even enclosures to be a certain distance from neighboring lot lines than to regulate the
number of chickens or locations of structures based on the overall size of the lot. The committee
leaned toward a 20-foot minimum setback for hen houses and enclosures in all zones. Chris
offered to provide the committee with a chart that contains the existing zones and setback
regulations for accessory buildings so the group could get an idea of how the code addressed
current accessory structures.
1
The concept of confining chickens on a property spurred a lengthy discussion of whether to
require enclosures and/or whether the law should define the term "enclosure." The committee
went back and forth on this topic, with some members wanting to require some sort of enclosure
and others wanting to allow free -roaming chickens. The committee asked staff to research how
other municipalities address chicken enclosures and report back at the next meeting.
Getting back to flock size, the committee ultimately decided to allow up to 6 chickens in
residential zones (MDR, LDR, and LR only) and up to 12 chickens in agricultural and
conservation zones. The committee also decided to incorporate these numbers into the list of
requirements in the proposed new "Section 270-219.6 Chickens," rather than being addressed in
each zone separately.
Looking specifically at the language in Mike Smith's October 51h memo, the committee decided to
change the wording that would be found within each zone to:
• "...the keeping of chickens, subject to the limitations on chickens set forth in Section 270-
219.6."
Looking specifically at the list of limitations in Section 270-219.6 (second page of Mike Smith's
October 5, 2015 memo), the committee decided to:
• Accept "A" as drafted.
• Change "B" to read: "There shall be no outdoor slaughtering or processing of chickens."
• Explore re -wording "C" to read something like: "Henhouses and enclosures shall be
located in the rear yard and shall meet all applicable setback requirements for accessory
buildings of the zone in which they are located, but shall be no less than 20 feet from a
property line."
• Accept "D" as drafted.
• Change "E" to read: "Chicken feed must be stored in rodent proof metal containers."
• Regarding "F," staff will look at how other municipalities regulate enclosures or how they
deal with free -roaming chickens and will report back to the committee at the next
meeting.
• Regarding "G," the committee asked staff to look at how other municipal laws worded the
statement about the use of chickens for personal vs. commercial use.
• Add a new "H" to the list that lists the number of chickens allowed in each of the zones.
The committee will re -visit the setback idea in (C), the enclosure concept and definition in (F),
and the personal/commercial use of chickens in (G) at the next COC meeting.
4. Initial Discussion of Possible Regulations Pertaining to Bee -keeping. Mike reported
that bee -keeping seemed to be very similar to chickens in terms of regulations and that he knew
that there was some interest in bee -keeping in the town. A short discussion followed, with the
committee deciding to not regulate bee -keeping at this time.
5. Other Business.
Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for November 4, 2015.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY BILL GOODMAN!
2