HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2014-02-12Codes and Ordinances Committee
Minutes — February 12, 2014
Members Present: Bill Goodman, Town Board, Chair; Pat Leary and Eric Levine, Town Board; Fred
Wilcox, Planning Board; Eva Hoffmann, Conservation Board; Bill King, ZBA
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 began at 6:30pm with the following agenda and discussion:
1. Member Comments/Concerns
Bill G noted that two issues are coming up; regulating rentals (discussion will begin with Planning
Committee) and clarifying the difference between Certificates of Compliance and Certificates of
Occupancy.
2. Consideration of Minutes from January 8th COC meeting
Susan B had two minor changes. Motion made by Pat to approve the minutes with those changes,
seconded by Eva. Unanimous
3. Discussion of Revised Draft 2014 COC Work Plan
Potentially adding the topic of Certificate of Compliance/Occupancy
Bruce gave an overview of the issue. Right now the Town issues Certificates of Occupancy which
are tied to a specific building permit. The term "Certificate of Occupancy" is tied to NYS Law and
appears throughout the Town Code. NYS updated their Building Code and now refers to
"Certificate of Compliance or Occupancy", so the Town needs to change our Code. Bill G. thought
that this was an administrative type action and did not need to go through the COC; Committee
members agreed. The item will not be added to the 2014 COC Work Plan.
Consider revising Town Code, Section 270-219.1, pertaining to rooftop solar arrays, to
eliminate site plan modification requirement
Sue R gave an overview of this issue. Solarize Tompkins has received a grant and there is a big
effort underway to install solar panels throughout Tompkins County. The Town Code requires any
property that went through the Site Plan approval process to come in for a modification — which
would be an unnecessary hardship and barrier to the solar energy efforts. The current monetary
threshold triggering having to go through the process is $20K. Review and revision of the Site Plan
process is on the COC Work Plan, but Sue requested that the COC address this issue before that.
The Committee looked at Town Code Section 270-219.1 regarding solar panels and discussed
removing subsection C. This would only apply to rooftop solar arrays that would trigger site plan
review. After reviewing the subsection, it was determined that there was a bit more to it than
simply removing "C," so staff will submit a revised section at the next meeting.
Other items on the Work Plan
Bill G noted that there was a topic on the Work Plan about basements and the Committee wasn't
sure what that was. Bruce responded that the Town changed the definition of a basement to try
and avoid builders and developers from renting out basements, but that they have found a way
around it. According to the Code, a basement that is the full floor area of the main level of a
house cannot be turned into an apartment, but a secondary unit that is no larger than 50% of the
total building area can be created. So, developers have been building larger houses to be able to
fit a secondary unit in the basement that is large enough to rent. The secondary unit, although
located in the basement, is no longer considered a basement by our definition. The Committee
moved this topic up one spot on the Work Plan.
Review of Increases in Nonconforming Structures was also moved up one spot since it was a
request from the ZBA. This came from a request for an interpretation regarding turning an existing
porch into habitable space in a legally non -conforming structure.
4. Continued Review of New and Improved Draft Sign Law, Redlined Draft Dated September
18, 2013 (left off on page 9, sign illumination - remaining discussion needed for window
signs with luminous tubing in all zones)
Windows with luminous tubing
Bill G brought everyone up to speed, noting that the Committee was looking at window signs. At
the last meeting there was a tie on whether to prohibit exposed luminous tubing window signs
and we needed Eric and Bill K's input to break the tie.
Lengthy discussion followed with Bruce reiterating that there are regulations through the NYS
Building and Fire Codes regarding how much area of a window can be covered to allow for
required percentages of light and sight distances to see gas pumps and things like that. It basically
comes down to aesthetics. Bruce noted that enforcement is difficult and there is no penalty for
violations. The Committee seemed to be in favor of a penalty to help with enforcement but Bruce
also noted that even if there is a penalty, the process is very time consuming and a property owner
can put an illegal sign up, be cited, take it down and put it back up a week later and the process
has to start again.
Bill G was fine with allowing the exposed tubing signs in a Commercial or Industrial zone but not
Residential. Fred did not think we should be regulating window signs in business -type zones at all
and wanted the provision taken out. Sue R noted that open and closed tubing signs are nice and
informative when you drive up. Eva wanted to regulate them.
The Committee decided to regulate window signs with exposed luminous tubing in Commercial
and Industrial Zones, but prohibit them in Residential and Agricultural Zones.
Sign Illumination
The draft Sign Law basically refers readers to the Town's Outdoor Lighting Law. Susan B. suggested
that staff go through the Lighting Law to see what has been addressed in the Sign Law so far to
determine whether anything needed to be added to the sign illumination section. The Committee
asked staff to create a comparison chart that showed the differences between the two laws.
§221-13 Sign Maintenance and Removal; nonconforming signs
Chris stated that she didn't change this section from the existing law. Bill G. stated that the next
few sections had little or no changes to them. He asked that Committee members go through
them and bring any concerns to the next meeting.
2
§221-13.A-F. Temporary Sign Maintenance and Removal
These paragraphs cover the amount of time allowed for removal of a sign after its use is over
and/or the time to bring a sign into compliance. Lengthy discussion followed that focused on how
one would determine when the useful life was up, whether the base or pole of a large sign should
also be removed, and whether to make it a requirement for the owner of the property or of the
business to remove it.
Regarding A and B, the Committee wanted to see consistency between the sections regarding who
would be held responsible for removal of signage. Staff will work on the wording for this. The
Committee changed the time frame for removal in B from "six months" to "30 days," and inserted
"7 days" for the removal of temporary signs in C.
The Committee wanted to make sure that the removal requirements applied to both temporary
and permanent signs. Staff should add another paragraph that is similar to C that pertains to
permanent signs. Bruce suggested that some language be taken from the property maintenance
law and added to C. Staff will work on the revised wording.
For unsafe signs (D), the Committee asked that the removal wording be consistent with A and that
number 3 be modified to read "If the sign is not removed within three days of notification..."
For the nonconforming clause (F), the Committee wanted most of the deleted redlined language
back in, so the new number 1 will start out "Existing nonstructural signs, such as portable signs,
banners, or similar signs..." Also, in number 4, change "six months" to "30 days" and Susan B. will
reword "terminate the use."
§221-14 Design Review
Chris noted that the existing design review section consisted of one sentence and the revised draft
was expanded to be more descriptive. She indicated that she crafted some of the wording and
that some came from other sign laws that she reviewed.
There was a very lengthy discussion on which entity should be the Sign Review Board, considering
that the Planning Board reviewed signs as part of the site plan and subdivision processes and the
Zoning Board reviewed signs that required variances. The Committee felt that it seemed to be a
duplication of efforts, but that maybe the Planning Board might want to see all signs for aesthetic
reasons. Chris explained that right now, if a sign did not need a variance, then it didn't need to
appear before any Board, only a sign permit was required.
The Committee asked staff to re -write Sign Review Board section so that it did not name any
particular Board the Sign Review Board, but instead contained the same criteria that either Board
would review in their normal process. For example, if a variance is needed, then the sign would
only go to the ZBA and the ZBA would review the criteria. If a sign is connected to site plan or
subdivision approval, then the Planning Board would review the criteria.
3
The Committee also discussed adding language that allowed Planning Staff to make a
recommendation to the Zoning Board regarding sign variances. Staff will bring revised language to
the next meeting.
The Committee will pick up where they left off in the Design Review section at the next meeting.
5. Other Business
Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for March 12, 2014
Potential agenda items: Continued Review of Draft Revised Sign Law
Revised Solar Provisions Language
Meeting was adjourned upon motion and a second at 8:25 p.m.
Il