HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2013-07-17
1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
July 17, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann
ABSENT: Eric Levine, Bill King
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce
Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner; Rich DePaolo, Town Board member; Fred
Estabrook, Town of Ithaca resident.
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:35 pm.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Chair Goodman switched Agenda Item No.’s 2 and 3; starting with Agenda Item No. 3.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Initial Discussion on Regulating Campfires, Wood Stoves, Outdoor Wood
Boiler, or other Outdoor Burning Apparatus (emails provided by Bill Goodman):
Chairman Goodman opened the discussion on outdoor wood boilers mentioning in the packets were
copies of emails he received from Frederick Estabrook who lives on Coddington Road. Mr. Estabrook
came to a Town Board meeting last fall with concerns regarding campfires and wood smoke coming from
a neighbor. Town Board made the suggestion for COC to research this and all types of wood fire issues.
Mr. Estabrook researched what other municipalities have and found the Town of Bristol, WI and Elmira,
NY had restrictions similar to what the Town of Ithaca may or may not be looking for.
Discussion followed as Sue Ritter mentioned how her neighbor has an outdoor wood boiler and the
problem she had with the smoke. Currently the Town of Ithaca has no outdoor wood boilers. It was also
mentioned that the City of Ithaca was starting to look into woodstoves but the feeling was woodstoves
would be harder to regulate since woodstoves are indoors and wood boilers are an outdoor structure.
Wood boilers could require a building permit and be regulated that way; Bruce mentioned that DEC has
put some regulations on them as far as new construction and what needs to be met.
In terms of the smoke, one member asked if the Town could regulate the smoke stacks in certain areas,
certain seasons and height of the stack.
Turning to the Elmira law and the ‘Ringelmann Chart’ which means the Ringelmann scale for grading the
density of smoke or the opacity of the smoke. One member asked how one would measure the smoke;
using a chart that goes from zero percent of opacity to 100 percent, meaning zero percent is white and 100
percent is black. Susan Brock added the chart is published by the US Bureau of Mines and many
communities use this to measure smoke. If the Committee is interested in this, we could include this in
the next packet, it’s a handy little document.
A COC member had a concern about kilns or electric kilns used by potters and ceramicist. Even though
nothing is visible in the form of smoke, the pottery glazes often contain substances that are extremely
toxic, like manganese and other things and wonder if this is something we should regulate from being
located in residential areas.
2
The focus turned to regulations and locations on campfires, open burning, recreational fires and
comparing the Bristol, WI examples for outdoor burning (Section 7, 7.7; 7.10 and 7.14), and the NYS Fire
Code. In the NYS Code, open burning, recreational fires location ‘shall not be less than 50 feet from any
structure and provision shall be made to prevent the spread with 50 feet of any structure’. Two exceptions
are ‘fires in approved containers that are not less than 15 feet from a structure, and the minimum required
distance from a structure shall be 25 feet where the pile is 3 feet or less in diameter and 2 feet or less in
height’. Wood stoves would be regulated under the ‘Mechanical Code of NYS’ which regulates heating
appliances, etc. and there you are regulating the proper chimneys and the proper clearance within the
structure. For fire location it may be easier to enforce if you have distance requirements or setbacks.
Chair Goodman asked the Committee how they would feel about some type of a draft that deals with
setbacks, with one member saying it would be easier to enforce. Another member felt the combination of
distance and time limits would be good; limiting the use only in certain seasons and only for a certain
period of time, like recreational fires, boilers and others that are most common. Together with the size
limit, this could work. There was a thought to ban outdoor wood boilers, but thought these could be used
in a certain season, the stack being a certain height, having certain setbacks and whether or not to allow
them in certain zones (not allowing them in high, medium density but okay in low density). The thought
was outdoor wood boilers would need its own definition. Bruce added in the property maintenance code,
it addresses when a structure must be heated that runs from early fall to late spring. Discussion turned
back to campfires and recreational fires and having a definition clarifying what is a recreational fire and
what is a campfire.
Chair Goodman felt the Committee was interested enough to consider regulations on campfires and
outdoor wood boilers in residential zones, and suggested that the Committee focus on these two issues.
Chair Goodman will research what other municipalities have done and will bring a draft to the next COC
meeting for review.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Continued Discussion of Town Draft Revised Sign Law – Solutions for
Temporary Signs, Moving on to 221-7 Regulated Signs (new blue lined version, dated March 26,
2013):
Chris began by apologizing to the Committee for not having a draft wording for ‘Temporary Signs’ ready
for review. It was Chris’ and Susan Brock’s intent to come up with a draft wording but both had other
issues (Planning Board and Zoning Board) to deal with at the time. Chris and Susan Brock did look at the
sign law in the Orange County lawsuit and agreed that there were a few that stood out for being content
neutral and might serve our needs.
Chris found the Town of Pittsford (Rochester area) has a ‘Temporary Sign’ section that was very simple
and didn’t talk much about any specific type of signs, it limits through setbacks, removal clauses, sizes
and locations for temporary signs. Also, it regulates and categorizes temporary signs in residential
districts and non-residential districts and it permits a set square footage for parcels in those districts.
So, if you live in the Town of Pittsford, you are allowed up to 4 signs on your property; their definition:
“No one sign shall exceed 8 square feet in area and the total signage shall not exceed 32 square feet”.
Being the Town of Pittsford’s rule, Sue and Chris thought what would be the worst thing that could
happen here; if you were permitted two signs on residential properties but not exceed a total square
footage of XX square feet; how many people in the Town of Ithaca would take advantage of that. It may
be worth discussing since they don’t distinguish between political signs, campaign signs, construction
signs, and real estate signs, etc.
3
Susan Brock added if we followed something more like the ‘Hopkins’ model, we wouldn’t need a
‘Temporary Sign’ section, if we took this concept that said, ‘How many total square feet you can have and
no one sign can exceed XX square feet’. Then they can do however they want between ‘temporary’ and
‘permanent’ signs. Sue R. asked: Is this in residential zones or everywhere? Susan B. replied you could
have different numbers depending on what zone they’re in. You might be more permissive and allow a
greater total square footage and a greater size of signs in some districts than in others.
Susan B. also asked, ‘Why do we care if the sign is temporary versus permanent unless you really don’t
want the political signs to sit there forever, but then you’re basing your decision on content’.
Discussion followed regarding real estate signs, the ‘Sugarman’ case, content based signs and having a
durational limit on signs that would apply to all temporary signs, having a definition that would cover
political signs (political signs could fall under ‘permanent’), for sale signs and construction signs, as well
as others. Also mentioned, ‘if you need to read the sign, that’s content based’ you would have to
determine which regulation it applies to. We could define ‘temporary signs’ as only signs that relate to an
event and must be removed within XX days of the event and possibly reword ‘event’ to ‘activities’.
Susan Brock read a section from the Town of Pittsford: ‘Any happening or occurrence of a limited
duration, including but not limited to the sale or lease of a property, an election, a referendum, a garage,
estate or yard sale, the erecting or repairing of a structure on a premises, the seasonal sale of products
grown on the premises of a residential property and the like’; adding, this covers the sale of property,
elections, construction, etc.
One concern was a time limit/duration of a sign that could cause a problem for house sales or construction
that could take longer than 60 days. Chair Goodman made a remark saying, “One question we have to
think about for ‘temporary signs’ is the size limits and permitting for next time”.
Chair Goodman asked Chris and Susan Brock to work on a new wording from the different models
presented and pick the best parts that would simplify our ‘temporary’ section; including removal and a
time limit on the signs and bring back to the next COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business: None.
Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for August 21, 2013.
• Consider discussion on the Regulation of “Domestic Animals”.
• Continuation of the Town Draft Revised Sign Law.
Meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff