HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2014-11-12TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
Meeting of November 12, 2014
6:34 - 8:33 p.m.
Minutes
Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine; Pat Leary via FaceTime; Fred Wilcox; Bill King; 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: Eva Hoffmann.
1. Member Comments/Concerns.
Bill G. mentioned that Katie Stoner had contacted him about having a presentation regarding
Form -Based Zoning and he stated that they have presented or will be presenting to the other
Boards and he didn't want to duplicate efforts and attendance if possible. Sue responded that
they have been to the Planning and Conservation Boards and staff and counsel have seen it. Brief
discussion followed. Bill G. will work with Katie on the best way to go about this.
2. Approval of October 8, 2014 COC Minutes.
Minor changes made. Motion made by Eric and seconded by Pat to accept the minutes with
revisions made. Unanimous.
3. Continued Review of New and Improved Draft Sign Law, Redlined Draft Dated
September 18, 2013.
Continued Discussion of §221-19 -Terminology (beginning with "sign" from the
"Updated Definitions for 9/10/14 Meeting").
Discussion of enforcement as it pertains to the removal of illegal roadside signs.
Discussion of off -premise signs in NYS DOT right-of-ways.
The Committee picked up reviewing the definitions where they left off at the last meeting,
beginning with the definition of "sign."
Sign - Chris noted that the existing definition was carried over into the updated draft and that
the Committee wanted to consider adding something to accommodate ERUV's. Pat noted that
ERUV's were argued to be not signs because they weren't identifiable as signs to the general
public. She thought that in order for an ERUV marker to be considered a sign, the information
conveyed needed to be perceived as information by the general public. Pat suggested adding
"identifiable by the general public" at the end of the existing sign definition. Bill G. explained to
the rest of the COC that an ERUV was a small plastic square or strip attached to telephone poles
and that only a small group or people knew what it meant; anyone else looking would think it
was an emblem on the pole or a cable cover.
1
Discussion followed with Bill G. asking if there were any other examples where this issue could
come into play. The Town shouldn't focus on fixing the definition just for ERUV's. Staff hadn't
observed any other situation like the ERUV one since the Sign Law was enacted in 1980.
The discussion turned to murals and whether they would meet the Town's definition of a sign.
The Six Mile Creek winery recently requested an interpretation of the law so they could place a
mural on the side of their barn with grapes. The decision was made that, since they were a
winery and the mural conveyed information via grapes for a winery, that the mural would be
considered a sign.
The COC engaged in a lengthy discussion on whether that should really be considered a sign and
also whether the Sign Law should regulate murals. Bill G. thought that as long as a company
name wasn't on a mural, it would be a decoration and not a sign. Susan questioned that if Burger
King painted a picture of a hamburger on the side of their building; would that be a sign or
decoration? Bill G. thought it would be a decoration. Chris stated that this brings up an aesthetic
argument; that an area could quickly look cluttered if, for example, all of the businesses on
Elmira Road or in East Hill Plaza decided to paint "murals" on their buildings to indicate what
they sold.
Bringing the discussion back to ERUV's, Bill G. thought maybe ERUV's could be addressed by
exempting them. Susan suggested addressing the exemption by size and noted that ERUV's
would not meet the off -premises sign definition.
Bill G. asked for a sense from the Committee on whether to change the definition or not. The
Committee decided to leave the definition as it was written and possibly add language to the
exempt section of the law that would accommodate ERUV's. Chris will provide something in the
next draft of the law.
Sign Height - Susan noted that height measurements were going to be in the new computation
section of the law, so we might not need to define the term at all. She and Chris will look at
whether we need this definition.
Sign Symbol - Committee didn't know if this term was used in the new law. The term "symbol"
shows up but not in this context. Chris found the term in the law under projecting signs" where
it says that a projecting sign panel or "sign symbol" must have two faces. Chris will look to make
sure it doesn't appear anywhere else, and the Committee will then decide whether it is needed or
not.
Store Frontage - Bruce suggested that frontage should be expanded to define what area of the
building is the frontage similar to the "front yard" versus the "side yard." Chris indicated that the
Sign Law was very clear where and how to measure wall signs, and the new law even had a
picture that shows how to measure a wall sign. She used the various businesses and wall signs in
East Hill Plaza as an example. Susan suggested adding the word "establishment" in the title, to
read "Store/Establishment Frontage" - that part of a building occupied by a single enterprise.
Committee agreed to the change.
2
Street - This was an existing definition, but since the COC decided to include the Sign Law into
the Zoning Code, we'd have to make sure that the definition wasn't already in the Zoning Code.
Chris and Susan will look at this for the next update.
Sign Support - Susan thought the word "structure" should be removed in any definition because it
meant something so specific throughout the Code. Chris will rework this definition for the next
update.
Temporary Sign - Susan thought we didn't need this anymore, noting that we now don't make a
distinction in regulating signs, just that they need to come down when the use is over.
Committee agreed to remove this definition.
Variance - Committee deleted this definition.
Wall Sign - Fine as listed; no changes.
Window Sign - Committee decided to delete the parts of the definition that stated "visible from a
sidewalk, street, or other public place," and "graphics in connection with customary."
Zone - Committee deleted this definition.
This ended the terminology section discussion. The Committee moved on to the final sections of
the law and any additional loose ends:
• §221-20. Severability and Substitution Clauses -Susan has drafted these and distributed
them for the Committee to consider at the meeting. The Committee liked the wording, so
Susan will add it to the new draft.
§221-21. Amendment and Re -Adoption - Delete this section. Susan stated that this is a
holdover from when ordinances were used. Committee agreed.
The Committee then looked at Susan's handout of a few definitions that were still under review:
• Off -Premises - "A sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service,
entertainment, or attraction sold, offered or existing elsewhere than upon the same lot
where such sign is displayed. " There was desire to allow off -premise Agricultural signs,
but Susan did not think there was a way to allow those without allowing all others. The
Committee still wanted to think about allowing off -premise agricultural signs, maybe by
adding a provision to allow seasonal signs within a certain amount of feet from the
premises where the agricultural activity took place. Chris will provide some guiding
language in the new draft at the next meeting.
Rights -of -Way, Public - "The public streets, public roads, public highways, public alleys,
and public sidewalks within the Town that are Town highways by use, or that the Town
acquired by dedication, deeds or grants or through the eminent domain process, including
paved or finished travel surfaces, shoulders, and ditches and drainage ways that convey
water runoff from the travel services." COC recommended deleting "Town" in second line
3
next to highways by use, replacing it with "public" and adding "County or State" after
Town just before the third line. Agreed.
A completely updated draft Sign Law that contains all of the proposed revisions to date will be
reviewed at the next meeting.
4. Other Business.
Next meeting date scheduled for December 10, 2014.
a]