Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2013-08-21 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES August 21, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King. ABSENT: Fred Wilcox. OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner GUEST: David Nutt, Ithaca Journal reporter. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:34 pm. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes from June 19, 2013 meeting: Pat moved and Bill K. seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended, all in favor of the changes with one abstention. Agenda Item No. 3 – Initial Discussion on the Regulation of “Domestic Animals” (referral from the Town Board): Chairman Goodman informed the Committee that the ZBA recently heard a case that involved a woman on Five Mile Drive who currently keeps guinea hens as pets on her property. A neighbor complained about the noise from the guinea hens and the fact that they were outside all the time. An internal Code staff investigation of the complaint led to the ZBA hearing. Per the Town Code, the ZBA was asked to make an interpretation as to whether the guinea hens met the definition of “domestic animals” and whether they were required to be inside an accessory building. The ZBA determined that the guinea hens did meet the definition of a “domestic animal” because they were an animal “of a similar nature” to chickens, ducks, and geese, which were listed in the definition. The ZBA also determined that the requirement to house such animals in an accessory building didn’t mean that the animals always had to be in an accessory building. The ZBA therefore permitted the woman with the guinea hens to keep the animals and let them roam, but referred the matter to the Town Board for further discussion. One neighbor came to a recent Town Board meeting to complain about the guinea hens, so the Town Board referred the matter to the COC to review the issue further. Bruce added that domestic animals are permitted as of right in the Low Density Residential Zone and by ZBA Special Approval in the Medium Density Residential Zone and that the property in the recent case was in a Low Density Residential Zone. He said that the ZBA struggled with the determination because the definition of domestic animals did not have limits on the number of animals allowed on a residential property. The definition notes that the animals were for “personal use” and Code staff has been basing their determinations on what a reasonable personal use was. Bruce explained that the Codes Department received three types of complaints regarding domestic animals. The number one complaint was animals running free, followed by odors, and finally noise. So he recommended that the COC consider regulating animals based on those topics. He also suggested that the Committee consider limiting the number of types of animals permitted, noting that 15 chickens, for example, would have a different impact in a residential area than 15 donkeys or pigs. 2 The Committee had a general discussion on the issue and came up with several potential solutions to explore: • Add language to the Town Code that limits noise or odor impacts on neighboring properties, like the ZBA conditioned for one case involving pigeons on Whitetail Drive • Limit the types of animals that the definition applies to, e.g. take pigs, horses, etc., off the list and the clause “or similar” animals out of the definition • Limit the number of animals and base the limit on lot size, not on zoning district • Require setbacks from adjacent property lines for accessory structures related to the animals • Allow animals as of right based on xx lot size and by special permit based on xx lot size • Update the animal chapter in the Town Code (a.k.a. “barking dog ordinance”) so it regulates noise from other animals besides dogs • Check with specialists and research what types of animals typically cause noise and odor disturbances and then limit those types of animals • Check the Town Code and see where domestic animals are mentioned in each zoning district • Research other municipal ordinances on this topic to compare and get ideas Chairman Goodman offered to work with Bruce Bates and Susan Brock to draft amendments based on the discussion. They will provide a draft for the Committee to review at a future meeting. Agenda Item No. 4 – Discussion of NEW and Improved Town Draft Sign Law (provided by Susan Brock): Chairman Goodman mentioned the new materials that were provided to the COC by Chris Balestra and Susan Brock. He explained that Susan and Chris worked on a new concept for the law to make it as content neutral as possible. Chris referred the Committee to the clean and redlined versions of the new, simplified law, and explained that the new format did away with regulating signs based on their uses (construction signs, house number signs, real estate signs, etc). Instead, the new law would regulate by sign size, with different aggregate and individual sign size limits in each type of zoning district. Commercial and Industrial Zones would allow certain types of signs, e.g. canopy or awning signs, that were generally prohibited in other zones. Susan explained that only signs that required ZBA variances or were part of a Planning Board approval would require sign permits. The Committee started going line by line through the new law structure, which specifically pertained to residential zoning districts. A long discussion ensued regarding the prohibition of off-premise signs. The Town’s existing law prohibited off-premise signs and the new improved draft also prohibited such signs. Some Committee members thought that it would be reasonable to allow some types of off- premise signs (such as non-profit or event signs like the St. Catherine rug sale sign and AIDS Ride for Life sign), with time and size restrictions. Other Committee members and staff argued that this approach would not be content-neutral or fair; that it was better for the law to be consistent. Bruce explained that most of the off-premise signs he collected were at intersections but that there were many event and rug sale signs all over the town and city. Susan Brock asked the Committee if they truly wanted to accommodate event and non-profit sales signs. She questioned whether the Town could do this without the law becoming more content-based. She suggested that the people advertising the events and sales should find other ways to advertise and get the word out regarding their event. Chairman Goodman noted that he’d gotten complaints from angry East Hill Farmers Market people because the Town kept removing their illegal temporary signs. Staff clarified that the East Hill Farmers Market required site plan approval from the Planning Board 3 and that part of that approval included conditions on allowable signs. The market people could put up a permanent sign on the property itself and could also post small temporary signs on the property during the day that the market was happening. Staff explained that the market people agreed to these conditions, but had repeatedly violated the Sign Law by placing signs all around the East Hill area, off- premise (not anywhere near the property where the market was being held), and for many days at a stretch. Chairman Goodman wondered how the town could prohibit the content of an off-premise sign that happened to be on a resident’s personal property (outside the right-of-way and not at an intersection). For example, what if he wanted to put a St. Catherine church rug sale sign on his property because he supported the church? If he kept the size of the sign within the limits of the law, then the Town might be prohibiting the sign based on content. Susan Brock agreed that prohibiting off-premise signs was content-based but that the U.S. Supreme Court had said that municipalities were allowed to do that. The Committee continued their deliberations regarding content versus non-content neutral signs and eventually came to the conclusion that they might want to explore allowing off-premise temporary signs to accommodate events, with restrictions on size, location, and timeframes for removal. One suggestion was to modify the wording in the definition of “off-premise” sign so that it didn’t pertain to events. The Committee did not vote on this idea, but Chris and Susan Brock stated that they’d look around for possible language. Regarding the requirement for signs to be located outside of a right-of-way, the Committee felt that some properties in the Town contained thick brush and/or topographic conditions that would make placing the sign outside the right-of-way impractical. One Committee member suggested adding language in the law to allow signs in a right-of-way if topographic or environmental conditions prevented placing the sign outside of a right-of-way. Chris stated that the NYS Sign Program restricted the placement of signs inside of a state road right-of-way and that the NYS law pertained to some local roads as well as state roads. Chris stated that the Town’s farming community and Agricultural Committee desired to have off- premise directional signs that pointed people to their farms and their farm products. The Agricultural Committee provided Chris with a few ideas on how to make that happen, although Chris wasn’t sure if the ideas were content-neutral. She offered to supply the information to Susan Brock and to present any viable options to the Committee at the next COC meeting, when the Committee revisited the off- premise sign issues. Overall, the Committee supported the new law structure and the suggested individual and aggregate sign sizes for the residential zones. They directed Susan Brock and Chris to provide the remaining sections for their review at the next COC meeting. Agenda Item No. 5 – Other Business: The Committee considered changing the meeting day for 2014 to the second Wednesday of the month. The reason for this was that some of the Committee members and staff otherwise found themselves attending meetings three days in a row in that third week of the month. The Committee seemed supportive of the idea to change the meeting date but wanted to see the various meetings of the Town plotted out for 2014 before they made a final decision. Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2013. Potential agenda items include: (1) Continued discussion of off-premise signs/review of new and improved Draft Sign Law 4 (2) Discussion of draft local law that regulates outdoor wood smoke/burning apparatus (3) Discussion of draft regulations pertaining to domestic animals Meeting adjourned at 8:34 pm. Respectfully Submitted: Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff