HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2014-09-10TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
Meeting of September 10, 2014
6:32 P.M. -8:40 P.M.
Minutes
Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine; Pat Leary via FaceTime; Bill King; Fred Wilcox; Eva
Hoffmann; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris
Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk.
Absent: None.
1. Member Comments/Concerns
Bill G - Reported that the Comprehensive Plan is adopted!
2. Approval of August 13, 2014 COC Minutes
Two changes were made. Motion made by Fred Wilcox to accept the minutes as amended and
Eva Hoffmann seconded. Unanimous
3. Continued Review of New and Improved Draft Sign Law, Redlined Draft Dated
September 18, 2013.
Discussion of §221-19 -Terminology (updated version attached)
Continued Discussion of §221-15 - Enforcement (copy of Town Code Chapter
205, Property Maintenance attached)
The Committee started with the topic of enforcement, with Susan reviewing the research she was
tasked with from the last meeting. Susan B. distributed the Town's Storm Sewer and Surface
Water Protection Law, a.k.a. the Illicit Discharge Law, including its enforcement clauses.
Comparing it to the Town's Property Maintenance Law, Susan noticed that it was less onerous,
but had due process built in. Susan stated that there was some difference in the level of due
process because the Illicit Discharge issue would be an imminent threat type of situation where
the removal of a sign would not be. She thought if the Committee liked the enforcement
provisions in the Illicit Discharge Law, then she could look into the history of it and see if there
were any limitations to using it for the Sign Law.
Bill G. gave an overview of past discussions regarding enforcement in the Sign Law, and noted
that the Town was looking for something stronger because there was no due process in the
current, law especially for the larger, more permanent types of signs. Bill G. asked if staff would
have to go through all that process for the simple "xxx cleaning" signs that staff pulls from the
Town road right-of-ways. Susan B. stated that staff would not need to go through the process in
the cases of signs in the Town right-of-ways but that there were county and state roads to
consider too. Discussion followed. The Committee wasn't as concerned with the smaller,
simpler signs and didn't think there would be any push back on those, but the larger signs, such
as the Resnick Mattress type of sign, which was out of business for years, was the focus.
Approved Minutes pgl
Bruce thought that the Property Maintenance format would force sign owners to take the Town
to court instead of the other way around. Bill G. thought it was better to keep the enforcement of
the Sign Law simpler. He summarized that currently there was no due process in the Sign Law;
and the Town needs to have provisions for that for the larger signs the Town wants removed or
repaired. Discussion followed.
Susan B. suggested that she refine the Illicit Discharge Law format for the Sign Law and see
where that goes. The difficulty will be with right-of-ways and use -by -rights and the difference
between those and ownership of the property. The Committee then went into a lengthy
discussion on the difference between the types of courts that signs in violation would go through
and the associated costs. The Committee ultimately decided that a shorter enforcement section
would be better.
Susan B. will work on adapting the Illicit Discharge format to the Sign Law and will provide
something for the Committee to consider at the next meeting
Discussion of §221-19 Terminology (Updated version for /10/2014)
The updated definitions for consideration included pictures to show some of the types of signs.
The Committee liked the addition of the pictures, but Paulette wasn't sure if General Code could
publish them. She will check with General Code about the pictures and diagrams and will report
back to the Committee at the next meeting.
The Committee reviewed the revised terminology section in order and provided the following
comments:
Section C. Certain words imply and include other words as follows:
C. 2. Building: This brought up the question of whether the Sign Law was going to be
incorporated into the Zoning Code, and if so, words that were defined in the Zoning Code should
not be duplicated in the Sign Law. Staff will need to compare the Sign Law definitions with the
Zoning Code definitions and take those that are in the Zoning Code out from the Sign Law.
C. 4 - Erect: The Committee noticed that "alter" was in the list as being similar to "erect" or
"build." They questioned whether alter really meant erect or build and directed staff to look
through the Sign Law and see where and how the various words were used. Chris will do this for
the next meeting.
Awning - Suggested definition: "Afixed or movable roof -like frame structure that is entirely
supported from a building and projects over doors, windows or storefronts and provides protection
from the sun and rain."
Susan thought this definition was restrictive because an awning could project from other places
than "storefronts" and it didn't always protect from the sun, etc. Lengthy discussion followed
with Susan noting that the actual awning structure itself was being defined, which may or may
not have a sign put on it. It's simply defining the structure itself, so the definition should be
broad.
Discussion followed around the terms "fixed" or "movable" in the awning definition, which led to
the question of how an awning differed from a marquee. The Committee recommended
Approved Minutes pg2
narrowing the definition of a marquee by saying that a marquee "extended perpendicularly to
the surface." Then anything else would be an awning. The Committee therefore changed the
awning definition to: "A fixed or movable roof -like frame structure that is entirely supported from a
building and projects over doors, windows, or other portions of the building exterior."
Banner - Suggested definition: "A type of flag, not an emblem of a government or institution, with
graphics that are purely decorative or that identify, advertise and/or convey commercial,
institutional or community event information. All corners of a banner must be attached to poles by
grommets or pole pockets and must be made of heavyweight fabric or have air slits."
Susan noted that we do not have another definition of banner in the whole Code right now. She
thought the Committee should really describe what it is and not what could be on it. She also
wanted the definition to be clear about the difference between a banner and a flag, in that
banners have to be made of heavy weight material, have air slits and attach by grommets or pole
pockets, where flags do not. A banner is more rigid and a flag drapes and flows.
Lengthy discussion followed on flags that may have content on them. The Committee also talked
about banners that are attached to fences, not poles. Staff noted that those were the type the
Town wanted to restrict. Bill also thought the word "flag" should not be in the definition of
"banner," explaining that the main idea of a banner was that it could be displayed from a pole or
attached to a building. Bill K. thought that "pole" didn't belong in the definition of a banner
because a banner could be strung from other things, such as a corner of a building to another, etc.
Chris reminded the Committee that those were the types of banners that the Committee
previously decided they did not want to see. Bill K. asked about the sail -type banners that are
popular now. Chris responded that they are illegal because they are considered a fluttering sign,
which the Town does not allow.
The Committee made many changes to the suggested definition, and agreed upon the following:
"A type ofsign made of flexible material that has all corners attached to poles by grommets or pole
pockets."
Backlit Sign - replace "text" with "graphics" in both instances. Chris will do a word -search in the
current Sign Law to see where this word shows up.
Building face- The Committee wondered where this showed up in the Sign Law, so Chris will do a
word search and let the Committee know at the next meeting.
Building frontage - Susan wanted the Committee to think about the "public place" part of the
definition and whether the Committee wanted to regulate internal signs, such as those found in
courtyards. Chris will do a word search to see if the term is used anywhere in the law. Bill noted
that the "no smoking" signs that were located throughout the hospital campus were regulated.
Bruce noted that the South Hill Business Campus also had to get permitted signs that are on their
campus that the public didn't see. Discussion followed on whether the Committee really wanted
to regulate these internal signs, or have a buffer zone from public throughways.
Canopy - Suggested definition: "A fixed or movable roof -like frame structure that is supported by
the exterior wall of a building and on columns or poles or self -supported wholly on columns or
Approved Minutes pg3
poles. Canopies also provide protection from the sun and rain. A canopy differs from an awning
because it is not entirely supported from the building."
Susan started with grammatical changes to the proposed definition and also recommended
dropping the end sentences. The Committee discussed whether a canopy was a structure that
needed a building permit. Susan again noted that the definition was defining the structure itself,
and would be referred to when an applicant was looking to put a sign on a canopy and then the
regulations would apply as far as design, size, etc.
The Committee revised the definition as such: "A roof -like frame structure that is a) supported by
the exterior wall of a building and on columns or poles, or b) self -supported wholly on columns or
poles. A canopy differs from an awning because it is not entirely supported by the building."
Copy Change - There was some discussion on the term "periodically changed, replaced or
covered over manually," which implied that one could just paint over an existing sign. Chris
iterated that copy -change refers to the type of sign where one physically changed the letters/
numbers to change the content of the sign. This was the only kind of copy -change sign the Town
was allowing. With that in mind, the definition was changed to 'A sign that is designed such that
the visual message may be physically removed and changed on a periodic basis."
Enforcement Official - The Committee decided to delete this definition, as it is not being used in
this law and the new law will instead use the term "Code Enforcement Officer".
Exempt Sign - Suggested definition: "A sign which may be erected or placed without a sign permit
under the provisions of this chapter." Proposed from Susan and agreed upon by the Committee:
"A sign described in section (insert appropriate section of the law where exempt signs will be
addressed) that is exempt from the provisions of this chapter."
Flashing Sign - Chris explained that this definition was not in the Sign Law or the Outdoor
Lighting Law, but that she found it in the Zoning Code. She wasn't sure where or why it showed
up in the Zoning Code, so she will do a word search and recommend deleting it in both laws if the
term isn't used anywhere.
Flag - Previously suggested definition: "Any fabric or other flexible material attached to or
designed to be flown from a flagpole or similar device." The Committee engaged in along
discussion around pennant -type flags that are used as a display but don't have any written
message on it. Chris stated that those were considered fluttering signs and not allowed and
acknowledged that some do not have any message on them e.g. the multi -colored little pennants
flown along the frontage of a used car lot. Susan thought adding the word "sign" in the definition
suggested that a message needed to be on it to be regulated under the law, but then realized that
the Committee addressed this under the beginning of the law by saying signs or "displays." The
prayer flags and Eruv's were then discussed. Members decided that these types of things had to
be addressed under the definition of a "sign" because a sign "conveys a message to the general
public."
The Committee changed the definition of flag to: "A type of sign made of fabric or other flexible
material attached to or designed to be flown from a flagpole or similar device."
Approved Minutes pg4
Flagpole - Previously suggested definition: "A freestanding structure or a structure attached to a
building, to the roof of a building or on a parcel and used for the sole purpose of displaying flags."
Chris noted that this definition was chosen by the Committee a while ago from a number of
options. Discussion followed focusing on the word "parcel" and what that meant and whether
the word "sole" was necessary in the definition. The Committee modified the definition as such:
"A freestanding structure or a structure attached to a building and used for the primary purpose of
displaying flags."
The Committee continued to debate the definition, particularly in regards to the word "sole,"
although it was agreed upon to change it to "primary." Members argued that the purpose of
defining a flagpole seemed to be centered around the definition of a flag. If someone flew a piece
of material from a telephone pole, would the telephone pole be considered a flagpole? Would the
piece of material be considered a flag? Bill asked the Committee to think about this topic for the
next meeting.
The Committee left off at the top of page 3 of the Updated Definitions for the 9/10/14 Meeting
and will resume their discussion of "flagpole" at the next meeting.
4. Other Business
Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for October 8, 2014. The Committee will
anticipate going until 9pm to complete the review of the Sign Law.
Approved Minutes pg5