Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2013-10-161 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES October 16, 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; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:31 pm. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None. Agenda Item No. 2 – Discussion of Materials Related to Outdoor Wood Boilers and Outdoor Wood Burning:  Dutchess County Planning Federation Newsletter  Town of Ithaca Draft Regulations for Outdoor Wood Boilers  (available at the meeting) Revised Draft Regulations on Outdoor Camp Fires Bill G noted the email from Mr. Estabrook that he had distributed. The Committee discussed the draft law that regulates, instead of banning, outdoor wood boilers. Eva noted there was an article in the Ithaca Journal about wood boilers and in particular, wood pellets, along with a proposal for a plant in the Binghamton area to make pellets from remnant furniture manufacturing. She thought this might encourage others to consider OWBs. Bill K. responded that it is a different technology and is cleaner than the traditional wood burning stoves and that it is also different than the outdoor wood boilers. Bill G. thought it was the dampers that keep a fire smoldering in OWBs when the temperature doesn’t warrant a full burn; this causes the smoke that bothers the neighbors. Sue R explained that she researched a number of laws from other municipalities and she picked and chose different wording from a number of them. She stated that although she is not a fan of OWBs, she was not comfortable with prohibiting them. She found that in cities and villages or places where people lived in close proximity to each other, OWBs have been prohibited but largely in towns they are allowed in areas where people are not so close. She proposed that the Town of Ithaca allow them but only in certain zones. Her draft suggests allowing them in LDR, Ag and Conservation Zones with the caveat that the property be a minimum of 3 acres in size and that an OWB be setback at least200 feet from the property lines. She also suggested defining the allowable months of operation. In coming up with 3 acres as a baseline, she looked at a variety of parcel sizes in MDR and LDR and that seemed to be an average that would also provide a fair amount of distance from neighbors. The factor in determining a “season” for use, say October 30th through April 30th is that sometimes in May it is already getting warm and the air is humid and heavy and the smoke is lower in the air and might bother neighbors. 2 Sue moved on to stack height, noting that she relied on the DEC for the suggested height. DEC states that an 18-foot height may be required if a complaint is received from a neighbor. So it hinges on a complaint, but in Sue’s personal experience with her neighbor, a higher stack would have solved problems with her other neighbor, so she thought it was a good place to start. The DEC does require the stack to be at least 2 feet higher than the peak of the residence and she interpreted that as the residence being served by the OWB, not the neighbors’ residence. Susan B noted that State DEC requires residential-size OWBs to be 100 feet from the nearest property line and that commercial-size OWBs have even more stringent requirements. Bill G. added that commercial sized OWBs are prohibited from purely residential areas. Eric thought that setbacks were more important than acreage because there are odd shaped lots which could be 3 acres in size, but in a cone shape, where the houses could be close but the lot sizes are huge. The Committee members discussed the idea of using the 200-foot distance requirement from the property lines to protect neighbors, noting that the important thing is to be away from residences on neighboring lots. The 200-foot setback from your own property line should ensure that, regardless of the placement of a residence on a neighboring lot. The statement that OWBs would be placed “with due consideration to prevailing winds” was discussed at length. There were concerns regarding determining what the prevailing winds are and it was decided that there are agencies that do determine that and they could be referenced in the law. Bill G. asked Sue R. to research the availability of maps of prevailing winds and what the municipality that has that requirement has learned from requiring it. Some of the DEC regulations were discussed and it was noted that our suggestions are stricter. We could reference the DEC requirement basics as a starting point so we would not have to repeat things, such as the units must be approved boilers, certified boilers, etc. Bill G discussed the DEC stack height requirements, especially the “2-feet higher than the roof of the structure.” That could be 40 feet high in some places and not aesthetically pleasing. Discussion followed. The Committee did not feel complaints should be the trigger, so a minimum height needs to be decided upon. Sue R. will research pictures of various heights to assist the Committee with their recommendation. Susan B asked which requirements under section “6”would apply to existing OWBs. Members thought that the easy things to comply with would be required but location and setbacks would be grandfathered in, similar to the DEC grandfathering in their regulations. There was some discussion on OWBs that are used for heating pools and water heaters, and the months of use restriction would not allow that year round. There was a lengthy discussion on approved fuels, and the difference between fuels for burning and starting OWBs. Many starting fuels are banned from being burned as fuel. The word “fuel” should be added to “K”- and “A” and “I” should be deleted. The law could rely on DEC regulations, which require following manufacturers’ directions. Between the two laws, there should be enough directions and descriptions of what is acceptable to detail it adequately for everyone. There are wood/oil combination OWBs, so banning oil as a fuel doesn’t really work, but having everyone go by DEC regulations and manufacturer’s directions covers it. 3 Campfires Bill G opened the topic of campfires and referred to an email from Mr. Estabrook, who thought the 50 and 100 foot setbacks would not be sufficient, even though they would solve his problem with his neighbor. Discussion followed on what the lot sizes are in different zones right now, and what the setback requirements were in each zone. For example, you can have a lot in a MDR that is 100 feet wide at the street line and 10-feet wide at the required setback from the street line. The Committee discussed using the same setbacks from property lines for campfires as it is considering for the outdoor wood boilers. Bill G. noted there is a concerted effort by a group of residents to bring this topic to the County Legislature. Eric thought that a 200-foot setback from neighboring lot lines would effectively ban campfires in the Town and he didn’t think that was fair. There are regulations from the State that a fire cannot be left unattended and it is the smoldering that is offensive for the most part. Campfires are seasonal and not as constant as an outdoor boiler. Eris felt that there should be regulations so there is recourse if someone has a complaint, but that a 200-foot setback is excessive. Paulette shared her experience when she was a volunteer firefighter, noting that her Chief gave people 3 strikes then charged them a $100 fine. There was no law, but word of mouth got around in a small town and basically peer pressure and embarrassment for the volunteer firefighter to have to get up and go out was enough. Committee members thought that some neighbors may be afraid to complain, thinking they may be retaliated against. There is an element of common sense that has to be applied and there are always going to be people that are irresponsible or don’t follow the rules. The idea of educating people about the law through the Town newsletter was discussed, as well as the possibility of fines for repeat offenders. This would be much more involved than in the rural community Paulette talked about, but Bill G. will look into the possibilities. Bruce and Paulette could only remember 2 people complaining about campfires in the 6 years or so they have been with the Town of Ithaca. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continued Review of New and Improved Draft Sign Law, Redlined Draft Dated September 18, 2013 (left off on page 4, just below “E” near the top of the page) Signs in Residential Districts Page 4 E2 Chris reviewed the changes incorporated. Staff looked at institutional buildings in the Town as well as some of the larger houses to determine a minimum square footage to encompass the types of commercial or institutional buildings we are hoping to address and 8,000 square feet was the determination. This would allow places like CMC or IC to have the number of signs they need but regulate where they are placed so they do not distract drivers or ruin the view, yet they are able to direct and target their particular audience when they are on their campus. Projecting Signs Chris explained we are spelling out the requirements for what we allow now and adding it to residential zones. They would still have to follow the aggregate limits but we are spelling it out in each category. Eva had concerns about the safety of the projection of the signs and Chris explained they would still have to follow all the other regulations so they would not be protruding into pedestrian areas, etc. Bruce used the example of the Merrill Sailing Center. They have a wall sign and it does not cause a safety issue. Chris added that this is a standard measurement in the industry. There was some discussion regarding the placement of signs in a Right-of-Way (ROW). Looking at real estate signs as an example, those are quite often set in ROWs. They are prohibited in the current law and will also be prohibited in the aggregate under our new law. We are no longer differentiating 4 between temporary and permanent signs. Real estate and campaign signs are the usual offenders and it will probably still happen, but we will be able to enforce it. There was some discussion on what to do when there is no other place to put the sign but in the ROW, but no change was suggested. Signs in Agricultural Districts Chris noted the only difference between the residential section and the agricultural section is that the agricultural section is exploring the idea of permitting copy-change signs. The Ag Committee has requested allowing ones like the Early Bird Farm sign, as well as a slightly larger aggregate size for Ag Zones. The sign at Early Bird Farms on Route 13 changes with what is available at the moment. The Committee did not approve of the old-style backlit, on-wheels type of signs at all. They are looking at more like the Early Bird sign which is very tastefully done. Eva was concerned about the size of poles used for signs and the phrasing. Chris expanded on the copy-change allowance staff was exploring, noting that only a 6 square foot section of the sign would be permitted for copy changing and the sign would be required to be neutral in color. The Committee discussed whether they could require “neutral” colors and Susan B said we could, but it would have to be defined. This started a discussion on what one person may think is neutral is not what another person may call neutral. The key would be defining the word “neutral.” Chris explained that we would only suggest allowing them in AG zones. Chris cautioned that copy- change signs are prohibited right now in all zones, but that many commercial entities want them, so we would need to be very clear about what we want to allow and where we want to allow them. There are two in zones other than AG in the Town right now that obtained variances from years ago. Chris asked members to think about this and look at the one at the Seventh Day Adventist Church on Trumansburg Road. The Committee decided to look around for copy-change signs and think about what they want to permit in terms of colors and sizes (if they want to allow copy-change signs at all). Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business: None. Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for November 20, 2013. • Revised Draft Mining Regulations • Revisit Outdoor Wood Boilers and Outdoor Campfire Regulations • Continuation of the Town Draft Revised Sign Law. Meeting adjourned at 8:31 pm.