HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2013-01-16
1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
January 16, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Bill King
ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning;
Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Tasman, Asst. Director of Planning; Chris
Balestra, Planner
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:30pm.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of 2013 Meeting Schedule: COC Committee adopted the 2013
meeting schedule with one change; changed February 20th to February 13th.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Discussion of Draft Modifications to the Town Cluster
Subdivision Provisions (additional materials included in mail out):
The Committee discussed the Cluster Subdivision, and the density bonus issue. Under the
density bonus issue; Bill G. summarized that under the NYS Law, it prohibits density bonuses in
the subdivision regulations. There was a question in the current law regarding the maximum
amount of units per acre in the MDR and LDR districts and whether it actually provides for
density bonuses or not; but could do it under the Zoning Law. In terms of this, the COC
Committee can’t make changes to the Cluster Subdivision law.
The Committee considered other changes to the cluster subdivision law regarding ‘Open Space’.
What percentage of open space would the Town want to have; and the definition of what would
qualify as ‘open space’. The last issue to consider is minimum building spacing, height and the
clarity of bulk requirements. These three issues could be put together as one item; and the
question of making any changes to the 30’ requirement for building spacing and a requirement of
40’ from the pavement if it’s on a public road. Other issues were chimneys, lightning rods, cable
television, etc., unrelated persons and the suggestion was to remove these items (#6, #7 and #8).
A suggestion was made that defining ‘Open Space’ would be a top issue in the case of a project
proposal coming in.
Bill G. added that one of the quick changes to consider is the clarification of what’s in the
Town’s Cluster Subdivision laws right now; do we regulate things such as yards and setbacks.
The Committee was reminded of the proposed Greenways project.
The Committee agreed that #6 through #9 would be the easiest to deal with now.
2
Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of 2013 Work Plan:
The Committee reviewed the work plan list, with discussion of finishing the Sign Law, then the
Cluster Subdivision and then the Sprinkler Law. Hydro-fracking was brought up but felt it
wasn’t a priority issue at this time.
Susan B. mentioned the current Town regulations for mining is illegal; and suggested revising
what it is we’re regulating. Discussion followed on certain things the Town cannot regulate and
what the Town can that aren’t regulated by DEC. Suggestion of setting up a two -tier system on
regulating mines in the Town may be what we need. Refer ence was made regarding the Rancich
Mining/Gravel Pit project expiring in August and going through the site plan process with the
Planning Board to renew the permit.
Under the ‘Affordable Housing Regulations’, a new sub-committee was formed to consider a
policy/local law that would require a certain set-aside of affordable units in new residential
subdivision proposals. The sub-committee is looking at the median income housing and the 80%
to 120% range for the set-aside. The sub-committee is hoping in three to four months to have a
draft law based upon other municipalities to bring to the COC Committee for review.
Small discussion on responding to issues brought up by residents regarding wood boilers, wood
stoves and camp fires that could be a top priority. One suggestion for the wood boiler was to
limit them in a particular zone, height and season (not allowing them in the summer); it may
need its own regulations separate from camp fires and wood stoves. Camp fires and wood
stoves being a different issue from wood boilers would still be difficult to regulate, would be
more of an issue with residents.
In the ‘Town’s Solar’ provisions, it was mentioned the NYS Building Code is making changes to
the law with a new section on solar and how much of a roof area it can cover. It was suggested
to wait until the new code came out.
Suggestion of adding ‘definition of family’ to the COC list; after discussion the Committee
decided not to add to the list, feeling it was an enforcement issue. In the ‘Rental Registry’; the
suggestion to review and discuss updating the definition of a family, making it illegal for tenants
to lie about “family” on leases since this would relate to rentals.
An update on Regulating Retailers to Prohibit Plastic Bags: Tee Ann and Bill G. met with the
City of Ithaca and attended a meeting at the County’s Environmental Management Council. The
Environmental Management Council created a sub-committee to look at this on a County level;
which may make this come off our list in the future. A question asked if the County had the
ability to regulate businesses throughout the County. [Inaudible] Within the Town, we can
regulate businesses in various ways but not sure if the County has that authority. Discussion
followed if it was the idea to prohibit the bags or have the businesses charge a deposit, and using
other alternatives.
Bill G. wanted to get a sense from the Committee of where the members stood on chickens. Pat
didn’t like the idea of allowing chickens in residential zones, being a nuisance or a potential
health hazard. Chickens are allowed on certain lot sizes, and are allowed in Low Density Zone
3
but in the Medium Density zone they are allowed by special approval (ZBA). Discussion
followed about allowing a certain number of chickens, roosters, upkeep, and noise.
Bill G. volunteered to write up a draft with limits (i.e. no roosters, size of the flock, pens,
distances and minimum lot size); and to allow more than what the Town currently allows.
The Committee agreed the top five priorities will be:
• Sign Law
• Proposed Amendments to the Town’s Cluster Subdivision Regulations
• Affordable Housing Regulations
• Discussion of Prohibiting Outdoor Boilers and Regulations for Camp Fires and Wood
Stoves
• Proposed Amendments to Chapter 225, Town Sprinkler Law
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continued Discussion of Town Draft Revised Sign Law, end of
“Prohibited” and onto “Exempt” sections (picking up at the bottom of page 2):
Pat handed out to the Committee members to review and discuss at the next COC meeting a
possible addition to prohibited signs and the purpose clause relating to intimidation signs (i.e.
violence, hate speech, etc.).
Starting with the “Exempt signs”, red-line version on page 3, and the suggested wording from
staff dealing with ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’; it was suggested that these four were similar enough to
combine into one and possibly Section ‘K’ to all fall under the ‘Public information signs’.
Chris asked the Committee how they felt about the suggested wording where it combines ‘A’
through ‘D’. The Committee discussed the meaning and intent of keeping ‘A’ through ‘D’
separate and determined that the list would be less confusing if ‘A’ through ‘D’ were separately
stated rather than clumped together. The Committee then went on to discuss ‘A’ through ‘D’
individually.
The Committee discussed the meaning of “official” in regards to public information signs;
assuming “official” could mean “governmental”. The Committee went back and forth on what
types of signs would be ‘official’ and what would be ‘public’ and many examples were given.
Susan B. asked if emergency and safety signs would always be considered governmental signs.
The COC also talked about if public utility signs would fit into the definition, or traffic signs,
historic signs, mile markers on highways, etc. The Committee referred to the sign law definition
of public information sign as a guide. Not knowing what the intent was when they wrote the
sign law, the Committee decided to delete the word “official” and replace it with
“governmental”.
Moving on to ‘B’ “street identification….” signs, the Committee went through the various types
of signs that could be considered street identification signs and ultimately decided to delete the
word “governmental” from the sentence.
The Committee discussed ‘C’ and decided to leave the sentence as is.
4
In regards to ‘D’ “emergency or safety…” signs, the Committee discussed the difference
between the wording in the existing sign law and the proposal in terms of lighting (existing law
states “not-self illuminated” and proposed states “illuminated as required”). Staff explained that
the wording was changed because some of the illumination definitions in the proposed law were
deleted and that most lighting sources noted in the proposed law just refer to the Town’s Outdoor
Lighting Law, which would govern the lighting sources for signs. After a short discussion
regarding moving ‘D’ to the temporary section, the Committee decided to eliminate “illuminated
as required,” part of the sentence, noting that it was otherwise confusing and that emergency and
safety signs should still be exempt whether they were illuminated or not.
Going back to the top of the Exempt section, the Committee decided to change the wording of
the sentence under the main section heading from “The following signs are exempt from this
chapter” to “The following signs do not require a permit.”
COC Committee left off at ‘E’ “Holiday decorations” on page 3.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Other Business: None.
Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for February 13, 2013.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce
Administrative Staff