Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2014-01-08Codes and Ordinances Committee Minutes —January 8, 2014 Members Present: Bill Goodman, Town Board, Chair; Pat Leary, Town Board; Fred Wilcox, Planning Board; Eva Hoffmann, Conservation Board. Absent: Eric Levine and Bill King Staff Members: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk Meeting called to order at 6:38pm. 1. Member Comments/Concerns — None 2. Consideration of Minutes from December 18`h CDC meeting Approval of minutes as submitted moved by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann; unanimous. 3. Discussion of Draft 2014 COC Work Plan Bill G began the discussion by stating that he would like to push through and finish the sign law followed by the outdoor wood burning/boiler regulations. He noted that since the Committee has decided on most of the substantive changes in the wood burning regulations, the next step would be for Sue and Susan to tighten everything up and determine where in the Code the regulations would be. The Committee would then do a final review. There was some discussion on where in the Code the law would go and whether the campfire regulations could be combined with it. Susan and Sue will look into both those questions, but it seems likely the laws will have to be separate. The Draft 2014 Work Plan was reviewed with the following changes discussed and made: Change the term "affordable housing" to affordable/median income housing to make clear that this is not about subsidized housing or low income housing, but rather housing that is affordable to median income residents. Bill G asked if there were other topics not listed before the group started to prioritize the Work Plan. Sue noted that Creig Hebdon requested that the Town's sewer regulations be revised and that could be added to the Work Plan. He is reviewing them and working with Susan, but there are multiple chapters and sections throughout the Code that reference old City and/or Bolton Point regulations and outdated requirements and practices. The Committee thought this review was better suited for the Public Works Committee and decided to put it at the end of the Work Plan and find out if it should go to PWC. Sue talked about the cluster regulations and noted that the Committee did a simple fix to those regulations on an immediate need, but the density numbers and open space definitions still needed to be addressed. 1 Eva asked about the tree preservation law and stated that the Conservation Board would like that moved up on the Work Plan list. Chris gave an overview on the intent of the law and Sue stated the staff time involved would be significant but she could look at possibly assigning an intern to research. The Committee decided to move the topic up on the Plan list to 2014 Priorities and Projects in Process. Chris talked about the need to review and update the Town's site plan modification regulations because, as they stand, almost anything will trigger an appearance in front of the Planning Board, which requires a lot of staff time, delays to the applicants and so forth. For example, if CIVIC wanted to change a window design on plans that were previously approved by the Planning Board, they have to apply for a modification and appear before the Board again because the cost of the modification would likely exceed the $20,000 threshold in the current law. Planning staff feels this is a priority and the option is to either tweak what we have as far as obvious thresholds or look into revamping the whole section of the law. The Committee decided to put this topic in the "projects to be considered next" section. Bruce and Sue noted that the Subdivision regulations really needed to be updated because there are requirements in there that are obsolete. Discussion followed on whether to wait for a possible unified development code associated with the Town's rezoning efforts, per the updated Draft Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Bruce added that the obsolete provisions should be deleted because they are not enforceable because in some cases, the best practices have changed. Susan suggested the section be reviewed and all obsolete provisions be removed at this point, so when we look to update the regulations we have a clean slate to start with. The Committee decided to add an item to the Work Plan titled "Removal of Obsolete Provisions in Subdivision Regulations." Susan requested that the review of the Telecommunications Law and the Stormwater Prevention Law that are on the list under "additional work items" be moved up on the list because they are currently in conflict with other laws. New York State rules and regulations have changed in both areas, so Susan stressed the need to update our Code to reflect those new rules. In some cases, the Town does not have the right to regulate some things that we state we do have the right to in our laws. The Committee decided to move these two items up to the "projects to be considered next" section. Sue brought up a couple things in "additional work plan items" that have been dragged along for years and recommended that the Committee decide whether to take them off the list. The items are: a. Wetland ordinance — in order to do this, the Town would be required to have a permitting system and part of that system would have to have a professional determine if a project would be allowed to happen on a site in question by determining what the quality of the wetland is, how much of it should be protected, how it could be mitigated, etc. This process is similar to what the State has to do because both the State and any municipality have to be careful about the "takings" ruling. Sue went on to explain the history and reasoning behind the item being on the list, noting that years ago municipalities were all interested in having an ordinance because wetlands not connected to a stream or not of a certain size were not protected by the state. At 2 this point, there is a gap in the protection afforded by the State. The State had indicated they were going to address this but they haven't and it is unlikely they will in the foreseeable future. Discussion followed and Sue noted that we do have our stream setback regulations, which offer a lot of protection now but there are some smaller wetlands out there, albeit only a very few, that are unprotected; especially on South Hill. The Committee decided to leave the topic on the list for now. b. Sue discussed the second long running topic, which is the need for an amendment to the MDR zone to allow for a farm or nursery. She explained that the Town does have a section which allows existing farms or nurseries to continue and expand their operations. She noted that Dianne Conneman generated the request 4 years or so ago but she was not sure what problem prompted the request or what problem it was supposed to address. Discussion followed and Bill suggested we wait until the new zoning is done because it may take care of whatever the issue was. c. The next item was the idea of a rental registry. The Town has spent a lot of time on this in the past and there are a lot of problems with attempting to do this. Bruce said most callers asking for a registry are looking at it from a safety issue angle. They are looking for some assurance that the rental is legal and up to Code; that the landlord is good. They also wonder why a landlord is allowed to rent a property in a certain way, etc. The Committee discussed how people were renting their houses out weekly and daily or for special weekends, etc. which is not prohibited under our Code. Some people use their houses essentially as unlicensed bed and breakfasts, however Bruce noted that we don't hear a lot of complaints about these, except for one owner on the lake who did not like their neighbors doing it. Susan noted that staff had sent a questionnaire out while researching the dock regulations and nobody was against being able to rent their lake houses. Bruce noted that, by far, the biggest complaint his office hears about is in relation to occupancy issues - too many people living at a house that is zoned for 1 family or 2 family. We know we have 6-8 students living in 4 bedroom, single family homes, but it is almost impossible to investigate and enforce. Discussion followed and the Committee decided that this was a Town Board policy decision and to take this item off the COC Work Plan. Chris will update the Work Plan and provide it at the next meeting for input from the absent members of the group. 4. Continued Review of New and Improved Draft Sign Law, Redlined Draft Dated September 18, 2013 (left off on page 9, with remaining discussion needed for Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts — materials attached) Main discussion: Freestanding signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones - considering smaller square footage and heights. The discussion began with Chris passing around examples of multi -tenant signs in what is called an "architecturally harmonious" style, where the shape and color(s) of the sign are very similar or match the building. Chris also passed around an example where the sign had different sizes and/or colors of the tenants' names. She also had examples of monument style signs which sit on the ground, similar to a headstone. A lengthy discussion followed with the Committee discussing which style is more readable and whether they are aesthetically pleasing. The trade-off between readability and looks was debated. Current multi -tenant places such as South Hill Business Campus (SHBC), Cayuga Medical Center (CIVIC) and Rogan's Corner were discussed and debated. For example, SHBC has a free-standing sign with South Hill Business Campus written out on it but the tenants' names are on another sign that is further inside the property and more directional in nature. Bill steered the Committee toward looking at the size being proposed rather than the content or style and discussed having different size requirements associated with the different speed limits of a road. Both height and overall size were discussed. There was some concern about a 10' height being too low because you are generally looking at or for a sign from the seat of a vehicle and you want to be able to see it far enough out not to hinder traffic and take into consideration blind spots associated with a vehicle when one is looking for or at a sign. The Committee discussed potential developments such as College Crossings on King Rd and the new multi -tenant sign proposed for the old Resnick's Mattress site on Route 13. Different members preferred different styles and conformity of color, so the Committee tabled the discussion on sign designs to when they would be discussing the design requirements section of the law. Returning their attention to basing freestanding sign sizes in Commercial and Industrial zones on speed limit of the road, the Committee reviewed what Saratoga Springs requires and discussed their height and area limitations. After reviewing the other examples supplied to them in their packets, the Committee decided on the following: For road speed limits 35 mph and under: Multi -tenant signs = no higher than 10 feet tall and no larger than 50 square feet in area Single -tenant signs = no higher than 10 feet tall and no larger than 32 square feet in area For road speed limits over 35 mph: Multi -tenant signs = no higher than 16 feet tall and no larger than 50 square feet in area Single tenant signs = no higher than 16 feet tall and no larger than 32 square feet in area I] Secondary discussion: Window Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones - considering not regulating them at all. The Committee discussed whether or not to regulate window signs and, along with that, illuminated tubing signs (e.g. "Open" signs or beer signs) Bruce explained that the amount of material you can put on a window, such as posters, is regulated by building and fire codes. You have to allow a certain amount of light into the building and in other instances, such as gas stations, employees must be able to see the pumps and that sort of thing. So there is an avenue for regulating the amount of signs in windows now. The aesthetics of cluttered windows and more details on the current regulations were discussed. The discussion turned to lighted signs such as "Open" or "Coors Light" neon beer signs. The Committee seemed split on whether or not to allow the lighted signs and deferred that topic to the next meeting, when the absent members of the Committee were present. They did decide to explicitly state in the Sign Law that window signs would be permitted provided that they follow state building and fire codes and any other applicable codes. It was noted that the Town does not receive complaints about window signs and that we can always change the law if they become a problem in the future. Susan noted that the Residential and Agricultural Zone sections of the Sign Law did not mention window signs. Susan recommended that we go back and insert the same language as we are doing with the Commercial and Industrial Zone section. The Committee discussed the different types of window signs a residence would typically put up such as political or events. S. Other Business Next meeting date scheduled for February 12, 2014 Potential agenda items: - Sign Law (conferring with absent Committee members regarding window signs with luminous tubing in all zones, moving on to the next sections of the draft Law). -Updated Work Plan (review of changes made from January meeting) -Possible updated Mining Provisions -Possible updated Campfire Provisions Meeting adjourned at 8:35pm.