Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2013-06-19 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES June 19, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Bill King ABSENT: Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:35 pm. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Fred reported to the Committee that residents were complaining about the Cornell University Plantations lighting being on in late hours but that Cornell Police said it was required for safety reasons. Fred asked Bill G. if he would pass this information on to Herb and the Town Board members. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes from April 17, 2013 meetings: Fred moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended, all in favor of the changes. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Discussion of Town Draft Revised Sign Law – picking up with item “C” in Section 221-6 Temporary Signs (new blue-lined version, dated March 26, 2013): Chairman Goodman opened this section of the meeting with a discussion of the flag definition from the March 20th meeting. He listened to the audio tape of the March minutes and reported that the Committee’s final decision was to use the simple first definition of possibilities on the list that Chris provided to the Committee. So, the definition should read as “Any fabric or other flexible material attached to or designed to be flown from a flagpole or similar device.” The Committee then voted to amend the March minutes to reflect the correct decision, with Fred motioning Bill K. seconding; all in favor. Item “C” - Temporary Signs: Chair Goodman noted that our draft law suggests 12s.f. for the size of construction signs. He mentioned that he knew people in the construction industry that used small pre-made signs (home repair construction) and thought that they were about the same size as political signs. He added, however, that he thought signs for a federally funded housing project would likely be larger and that the Committee might want to consider permitting construction signs that are larger than 12s.f. in that case. Attorney Brock disagreed and recommended that we treat all temporary signs the same, including not setting up different sizes and not having any content-based distinctions. That is, the size, duration of time, and the number of signs should have a uniform standard that applies to all types of temporary signs. Then, temporary signs that could not meet whatever standards we set would require a permit or variance, depending on what process the Committee wanted to require. The Committee seemed to support this idea. Attorney Brock then read examples from different court cases related to political signs. She recommended that the set of standards should apply for all temporary signs and that we should not give more preferential treatment for political signs. One Committee member suggested that we include a removal provision for all temporary signs. Attorney Brock mentioned that one town permitted 2 “temporary signs relating to events such as elections, benefit events, fundraising projects, etc. not to exceed 60 days;” and that the courts said that “durational limitations were content-based” if they restricted the posting period of signs related to certain events. The 60-day posting limit on all temporary signs passed constitutional scrutiny, but the town in that case also permitted the posting of some temporary signs beyond the 60-day period, which amounted to those signs being treated differently than other signs. So that did not pass constitutional scrutiny. Attorney Brock added that our law could have a removal provision for all temporary signs that could say something like “temporary signs must be removed within XX days after conclusion of the event.” That would be content-neutral and one way to regulate political signs without explicitly calling them out. The Committee then went into a discussion on an appropriate removal timeframe for temporary signs. Chair Goodman asked how a form-based code dealt with signage. Planning staff stated that there were sign standards associated with a form-based code, but that they were largely regulated based on architectural design standards and aesthetics. Chairman Goodman then mentioned the Hopkins Law and staff noted that their biggest concern was that there was hardly any regulation on aesthetics in the Hopkins Law. The Committee then embarked on a long debate on how the Town of Ithaca should deal with temporary signs, whether they should be limited by numbers in each zone and if so, how many; what a reasonable size limit would be, whether to permit them or allow them without permits, how to define temporary signs and permanent signs, legal ways to set time limits on political signs and not on others, aesthetic considerations, etc. The final suggestion: temporary signs (political signs, campaign signs, event signs, etc.) would need to be taken down within XX amount of days after the event; temporary signs of a specific size would not require a permit; and any sign over the size limitation whether it be temporary or permanent would need a sign permit. The Committee seemed to approve this approach. However, no recommendations were made. Instead, Chair Goodman suggested that staff and Attorney Brock research how other municipalities were managing temporary signs, exempt signs and political signs. Regulated signs – Residential Zoning Districts: Chair Goodman suggested that the Committee review this section of the law line by line, as they did with the former sections. The portions that spurred discussion were in regards to banners, athletic scoreboards, and signs for colleges, universities and institutions in a residential zoning district. Chris mentioned that the last sentence in (D) was an experiment regarding copy-change signs. That is, the Town did not currently permit copy-change signs except under certain conditions in the commercial zones. Staff wanted to explore the option of permitting them in residential zones with strict size, color and illumination requirements. The Committee seemed neutral to negative about this idea. In reviewing (E), the Committee turned their focus on athletic scoreboards. One member pointed out that, the way the law was written, anyone could put an athletic scoreboard up to 400 square feet in area as long as it was located at least 500 feet from a public right of way and an adjoining property. Staff and other members noted that most homeowners would not have a parcel large enough to put up a huge scoreboard 500 feet from their neighbors. Discussion followed regarding a size that would exclude all private lots, school scoreboards being a certain type, and the Town Comprehensive Plan-proposed recommendation to establish an “Institutional zone” that would encompass the colleges and universities which would eventually contain separate regulatory standards for signs. Chair Goodman stated that he would like to start looking a little closer at the regulated portion of the draft Sign Law to see the types of questions and concerns the Committee would have in dealing with signs in 3 residential, agricultural, commercial, and industrial districts. The sections after that would pertain to sign construction, maintenance, materials, and enforcement. For next time, the Committee would like to see more research and more examples of what other places have done to help guide the Committee in the temporary and exempt sections. Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business: Chair Goodman canvassed the Committee to see if there was any interest in having a general discussion about outdoor/backyard fires. He recently received calls and emails from a resident who lives in the Coddington Road/South Hill area whose neighbors were having outdoor campfires. The resident was concerned that the smoke was seeping into his home, and that the fires were really close to his property and home. This resident provided Chair Goodman examples of regulations from other places and how they handled open fires, outdoor wood boilers, etc. Staff noted that fireplaces and woodstoves used in the winter should be discussed separately from outdoor burning apparatus. Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for July 17, 2013: • Continued discussion of Town Draft Revised Sign Law, Section 221-6 Temporary Signs then moving on to Section 221-7 Regulated Signs. • Discussion of outdoor wood boilers, open fires, campfires, and other outdoor burning apparatus. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 pm. Respectfully Submitted: Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff