Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2015-12-09TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of December 9, 2015 - 6:30 P.M. 6:30 p.m. - 8:39 p.m. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine, Pat Leary, Bill King, Yvonne Fogarty and Eva Hoffmann. Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Guests: Laura Johnson Kelly, Christine Fournier, John Lewis and Jane -Marie Law 1. Member comments/concerns Bill G. noted that the committee had received on their desks an additional email from Ms. Johnson -Kelly and a memo from Mike Smith and that, due to the additional interest, he has decided to bring the draft chicken law back for discussion. He allowed the guests to speak first: Laura Johnson -Kelly thanked the committee for the chance to speak and stated that the email today contained her key points regarding the proposed regulation; and the major one is that she is in agreement that chickens should stay on their own property, with restrictions in urban areas such as Deer Run, where you wouldn't want a bunch of chickens on a postage stamp sized yard. But, she added, she lives in an area of the town that is very rural. Her family owns 28 acres, 3 of which are in the town of Danby and 25 are in the town of Ithaca. Limiting that type of area to only 6 hens is too restrictive on a common way of life in rural areas. The homesteading movement is very strong in Ithaca and the town should be promoting that and allowing the kinds of land uses that have traditionally been allowed on private property and not be over -restricting in areas such as hers. Ms. Johnson -Kelly added that the town should reconsider the prohibition on roosters because roosters allow for a natural increase to a flock. Otherwise, one would have to buy them from Agway and support some big business instead of promoting local farms and property owners. She encouraged the committee to read through the materials she submitted and noted that the town's definition of a farm is a "property over 3 acres;" so she suggested no restrictions on property over 3 acres with intermediate regulations for people owning 1-3 acres to allow for flocks but not hundreds of birds. John Lewis stated that he lives on W. King Rd and that he just learned of this regulation recently. He was surprised that there hadn't been more notification of such a big change to regulations. He stated that he had a very bad tick problem on his property and that two people that had rented his house had gotten Lyme disease. He and his wife had also noticed numerous ticks and received many bites; but since they had gotten chickens they noticed a significant decrease in the number of ticks. As a result, he and his family are now able to enjoy their property. Mr. Lewis went on to say that one of the really nice things about Ithaca and why it is his favorite place in the many places he has lived and visited, is the fact that Ithaca is very 1 green and supportive of sustainability and the local foods that are here. It seemed like we should be moving toward producing more of our own food rather than moving away from it; and he was surprised that the town would consider moving away from local food production. He added that his property is 4 acres in size and the roosters don't bother him. He also noted that dogs are more annoying with their barking than a rooster is. Christine Fournier stated that she was the immediate neighbor of Claire Forest to the south and that her family recently moved here after living in a number of places. They have been trying to move to Ithaca since 2008 and they didn't finally choose Ithaca by happenstance but carefully researched the area and the codes and talked to people and made sure that all of their plans for homesteading would be possible on the property they eventually bought. Her family moved in and before they unpacked their boxes, they started their chicken flock. She stated that she feels strongly about this and her husband calls it his religion; they believe in raising their own food to be sure of where it is coming from and what is in it. She went on to say that she went to all of the neighbors and talked about their plans because the house hadn't been used in this way before and she didn't want to catch the neighbors off guard. So she reached out to all their neighbors first. Since moving and setting up their homestead, her family has only had issues with the one immediate adjacent neighbor, although everything she has done is allowed under code. The other neighbors have been supportive and happy. Regarding guineas, Ms. Fournier grew up on a property in Virginia that was infested with ticks and then her neighbors got guineas and the ticks disappeared in a year. Lyme disease is one of her biggest concerns. She went on to say that they have 10 guinea hens on their Ithaca property and they were covered in ticks last year and this year it is rare to see one. Guineas are like guard dogs, they let us know when a hawk or predator is in the area and we follow all the rules and keep them in our own yard. She noted that Mr. Bates had been out to the property and found no violations. She does not think there is a lot of claim to the contention that guinea hens make continual noise. They get upset, like a dog, but it goes down. She added that they used to have ducks, and they are much noisier than guineas. Ms. Fournier then talked about eggs, explaining that many people raise chickens for their eggs. She had six chickens in Virginia on 1/11th of an acre property and got 3-4 eggs a day and for a family of 4, which is less than one egg a day. She added that she didn't know if it was the committee's intention to reduce the ability for people to feed themselves, but that is what this is doing. Bill G. asked how many chickens Ms. Fournier had now and she responded that they have 8 turkeys, 10 guineas and about 30+ chickens. She added that if you are raising chickens for meat, you only raise them for about 8-12 weeks before you slaughter them and you do this on a rotating basis. She said she has a lot of neighbors a lot closer than the one opposed to everything and they have no issues. She also addressed the slaughtering component saying that requiring it to be done inside is inhumane because then you have to catch and move the birds and that increases their stress level rather than slaughtering them quick and easy on the spot. She encouraged the committee to go back through and look at the draft and talk to people who are raising these flocks of both chickens and guineas, feeling confident that the town will discover that the issue doesn't rise to the level of needing these types of regulations. 2 Bill G. thanked the speakers and moved back to the agenda, stating that he received a notice from the City Planning Department that they are looking at revising their taxi cab law. He knew Pat was interested in that, so he wanted to share that information with her and will go from there. Bill G. also commented that he received an email from Jane -Marie Law who recently received a ZBA special approval and a variance to have chickens, and that she was happy to speak to the committee and answer any questions. 2. Approval of November 4.2015 COC minutes. Some minor changes were made. Approval of the minutes as corrected was moved by Eric and seconded by Yvonne; unanimous with one abstention - Eva 3. Additional discussion of draft regulations of chickens in the Town of Ithaca, per email from Laura Johnson Kelly. dated November 6, 2015. Bill G. stated that, given the additional comments received from the public, he would like to hear how the committee felt about making some changes to the proposed chicken law. He said it made sense to look at the size of the lot for regulating in the LDR Zone, that the MDR Zone currently requires special approval by the ZBA for chickens. There is a way to look at areas in a zone differently and treat smaller lots different than larger lots. Eric said that setback requirements would be important, since many lots are configured differently, e.g., one could have large acreage but very narrow lots, creating a situation where the chickens are in an area that is close to the adjacent neighbor. He added that the committee is hearing from people who seem very responsible in their raising of chickens, but the town has to consider that perhaps some people are not quite as considerate and responsible and those setback requirements would be important. Yvonne thought it would be interesting to consider allowing roosters, guinea hens and even peacocks on larger properties. Bill G. asked if there were any restrictions on peacocks and Bruce responded that they would currently fall into the "domestic animal" definition. Yvonne stated that the revised law submitted by Ms. Johnson -Kelly mentioned peacocks. Ms. Johnson -Kelly stated that that was in response to Ms. Teeter who is on the Ag Committee and she had suggested in an email to ban guinea hens and peacocks and that is why she suggested that they should be allowed but only on the larger properties. Yvonne thought that was reasonable. Pat liked Ms. Teeter's observation that a lot of the town is solidly suburban in nature and we have to consider people in those areas too, but she thought some of the suggestions were very sensible. Eva said she liked the idea of using the size of the property to determine how many birds one could have, but added that she agreed with Eric in that it is not only the size but the configuration of the property that should be taken into consideration. She went on to say 3 that in the examples that we have heard, people have been very careful and checked out with their neighbors what is going to be a problem and although she is sorry about the one neighbor who has a problem, she thought it is important to avoid problems and that is why it's important to look at what is around a property and not just lot size. Bill G. responded that we could look at greater setbacks and different setbacks for larger sizes of flocks than what we set for the MDR Zone, where a smaller flock is allowed, and different setbacks based upon the adjoining uses such as the solar law; larger setbacks in residential areas than non-residential areas. Eva agreed, saying that if there are empty houses or lots next to a proposed array, one can't assume they will stay empty or undeveloped and the same holds true for chickens. Bill G. responded that in the solar law, the setback is determined by what the neighboring lot is zoned for, not necessarily whether there is a house there or not because there could be a house there at some point. Bill G. thought we could look at setbacks not only from the property line, but also from a house, so that if the neighbor's house was close to the lot line, it would have a different setback. Bill K. stated that he was generally in favor of more freedom with bigger lots and asked if it would be feasible to require a permit and approval from neighbors for larger flocks. Bill G. responded that he would be worried about the legality of that idea. He added that people could always seek a variance for more than what we put in the law and at that point the neighbors would be notified and could comment. He also stated that when we draft laws the idea is to do it so fewer variances are needed, so people don't have to go through that kind of process. Bill G. reiterated that the current law requires special approval from the ZBA if you want chickens in the MDR zone and if you have less than 2 acres; and that they are allowed in LDR with no limits on them. Bruce added that complaints have come in and that prompted the ZBA to ask the COC to look at revisions. Yvonne had questions about Ms. Johnson -Kelly's draft law; noting that Ws 5, 6 and 7 were worth looking at because we have talked about the sale of eggs before and she was not sure why we said people couldn't sell eggs. Bill G. responded that one reason was so we didn't have a lot of coolers out by the road with signs; and another reason was that it might encourage people to have more chickens to sell more eggs and would turn the process into a commercial enterprise. Some discussion followed, with some committee members agreeing that the sale of eggs might be ok but no decision was made. Pat asked if baby chicks would count toward the total number allowed. Ms. Johnson -Kelly responded that you never know how many are going to hatch or how many are going to be roosters or how many are going to survive. It really is a risky thing with a lot of variables, so baby chicks should not be counted in the total allowed. Ms. Law commented that she has been doing a lot of research on the history of chicken - keeping, noting that the practice started during wartime where the rural areas were expected to have roosters and hatch chicks. Her opinion was that hatching chicks was the most sustainable thing to do. Regarding roosters, she stated that she lives in the MDR zone and thought that roosters should not be allowed in the MDR zone. She also did not believe guinea hens were appropriate in the MDR zone but she didn't see any reason they shouldn't be allowed in LDR zone and similar since they are the best tick defense we have. Bill G. asked if anyone knew the status of the City's changes and Ms. Johnson -Kelly responded that Monica Roth from Cooperative Extension told her that they are doing a pilot program with people applying to be in the program and have a few hens and/or roosters and see what happens but she didn't think that had happened yet. Bill G. thanked the commenters and suggested to the committee that he'd get together with planning staff and make some modifications to the law, based on the size of lots and setbacks. He'll come back in January with a revised draft. He asked the committee to look at the comments provided and think about the idea of the sale of eggs. 4. Discussion of draft Solar Energy Law, dated December 3, 2015. Bill G. turned the committee's attention to the draft supplied in the packet and welcomed the representatives from Renovus, Mellissa Kemp and Stephano Breda. Sue started the conversation by stating that she took notes from the last COC meeting and put them in "law" format so we could see what a draft solar law would look like. She also looked at several other municipalities and used some language from them. She noted that there are questions and comments for the committee to review that are italicized and she needs answers on those to know which direction to go. Sue explained that there are basically two divisions for solar; rooftop and building mounted, and ground mounted and within the ground mounted there are three categories. The first category is small for residential systems at 0-10kwh which has the smallest set back and some basic standards. The second is the medium, 10-50kwh size, which would require site plan approval and has some stricter setbacks. She added that the TREE solar array is at the top of the medium category if anyone wanted an idea of the size. The third is the large scale and would require site plan approval and would also have a number of design standards and things that would need to be addressed. Bill G. suggested that the committee start by looking at the questions so the committee could give Sue guidance. The first question Sue had was whether a "Purpose Statement" was needed. She thought it might just take up space. Susan Brock responded that it doesn't have to be in there for any legal reason but she thought it was helpful for Codes and the ZBA to have to help them interpret the intent of the law as well as if an issue ever went to court. Bill K. noted the term "solar energy systems," which is used throughout the draft and suggested that it say "solar photovoltaic systems." He explained that solar energy systems included solar heating systems, which are very different because they have water flowing through them instead of electricity. Sue asked if solar heating systems would have panels and Bill K. responded they would, but there would be whole set of different concerns than those related to solar photovoltaic systems. Bill G. thought the committee should think about that and come back to it. Bill K. suggested leaving solar hot water out of this law for 5 the sake of moving the law ahead and just state solar photovoltaic (pv) throughout. Discussion followed and staff will look at ways to somehow incorporate solar energy systems into the solar law. Bill G. asked if a table was going to be in the "General Requirements" section and Sue responded that there is a holding place for where we would mention it, similar to others we have done for stream setback law and accessory buildings. Sue responded that she might add a setback table also. Bruce asked about the "qualified" installer and whether it should be detailed what is meant by that because there is nothing in the Code to define "qualified". Sue responded that that is the question: do we need it? Susan responded that our Code does have a rather lengthy definition in the solar chapter from 2006 and that she likes having the other information in this section unless the new NYS Building Code was going to make something in here obsolete soon. After a short discussion, it was determined that the section should refer more generally to "an electrical inspection" and not single out the connection(s). Bruce suggested "prior to operation, the installation must receive a certificate of compliance." Bill K. then pointed out that the verbiage stating the "utility company must inspect the installation" saying that they have the right to do it, but they never do and have no interest in doing it and we can't insist that they do it. The utility company approves applications but doesn't inspect them; they use the Town's inspections. Bill G. said staff could make changes to that. Question on whether to allow building permits to be issued on illegally non -conforming properties such as a deck that was constructed within a setback that wasn't permitted and the applicant would usually have to go to the ZBA for a variance prior to any building permit being issued and Sue wanted installation to be able to happen. Bill G. stated that it sounded like a larger discussion needed to happen and to put that one to the side. Question on whether terminology restricting the use of the arrays to an "accessory use only" on the same property; the scenario would be a larger property with a lot of sun putting up an array for their shaded neighbor's house. Bill G. thought it would be fine to remove that restriction and allow it as of right and the owners can figure out the legalities etc. Question on design standards and landscaping; Bill G. thought the backside of arrays are the uglier side and Eva was afraid of viewsheds being ruined with an array or landscaping intending to screen it or a fence to protect it. Some discussion followed and Sue pointed out this particular question was under the smaller sized arrays and the fencing can be addressed under the larger scale arrays. Question regarding notifying the fire department and Bruce said it isn't needed. r4i The committee left off on page 3 and will continue reviewing at the next COC meeting. Staff may have a revised draft of the law in local law formatting for the committee to consider as well. 5. Other Business. Consideration and approval of 2016 COC Meeting Schedule. The committee reviewed the draft 2016 COC meeting schedule and approved it without any changes. The final approved schedule is attached to these minutes. Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for January 13, 2016. Agenda items: Continued review of the draft Solar Law (possible update) and updated draft Chickens Law 7