HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2013-11-201
Codes and Ordinances Committee Minutes - November 20, 2013
Members Present: Bill Goodman, Town Board, Chair; Pat Leary and Eric Levine, Town Board; Fred Wilcox, Planning Board; Bill King, Zoning Board; Eva Hoffmann, Conservation Board
Staff Members: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk
1. Member Comments/Concerns
None
2. Consideration of Minutes from September 18th and October 16th COC meetings Minor changes were submitted for both drafts. September 18th moved by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eric Levine – unanimous October 16th moved by Eric Levine, seconded by Pat Leary – unanimous
3. Discussion of Staff Memo, Dated November 13, 2013, and Proposed Draft Mining
Regulations, Dated 11-20-13 Chris gave the introduction noting that Susan B had said that the Town’s regulations were inconsistent with the DEC regulations because we were essentially regulating DEC-permitted mines which we can’t legally do. Chris and Susan B worked on the proposed regulations that were in front of the Committee. They determined that the simplest way to address the issue was to take the regulations out of the Ag Zone provisions in the Code and create a new provision in the Special Regulations section, to address what we can do with DEC-permitted mines and what we can do with non-DEC regulated mines. Chris and Susan B recommend that the Planning Board review all mines, whether they are DEC-permitted or not, even though we can’t place a lot of conditions on the DEC-permitted ones. We can still require them to go through a review process. The Committee reviewed the draft. D. Special Permit standards and criteria for Non-DEC regulated mines. D(1) - Standards: D1a. The question is whether we want to set a size limit for non-DEC regulated mines. Chris noted that we did not have a lot of context or perspective on this one because the only mine that has ever existed in the Town of Ithaca is the one on Mecklenburg Road owned by John Rancich, which is 4.9 acres in size. Bill G asked if the DEC had size limits and staff responded that the DEC does not have size limits, as they really only care about what is being taken out of the earth and how it is being taken out. Sue R asked if we were talking about just where the excavation happened or the whole area of activity, including machinery. Susan B thought it was the entire operation. Fred thought we would want jurisdiction over the road leading to the mining operation. The definition would have to describe what the Town means by “mine,” such as whether it includes the area being mined
2
and/or the ancillary activity and equipment - at what point is the line drawn if a mine is in a small area of a large lot. D1b. Discussion of possible setbacks for mining operations from property boundaries, etc.: Of the two numbers presented, Planning staff recommended that the Committee consider the larger setback from property boundaries and such. Bruce related experiences and problems he has with a neighboring mining operation in his hometown, citing that there are ongoing erosion, noise, and dust issues. Bruce said that the mine was a DEC-regulated mine. Discussion followed and the consensus was to require a setback for mining operations that is 200 feet from any property line, public roadway, residence or business structure. D1c. Discussion of possible setbacks for mining operations from wetlands: DEC requires a 100 foot buffer from wetlands for mining operations. Staff provided two possible setbacks for the Committee to consider (100 and 200 feet). Staff also noted that they included language from our Stream Setback Law. Bill G asked if we had any designated wetlands in our AG zone and staff responded that we had at least one. Bill G suggested a 200 foot buffer and Eva asked why we were limiting it to just public waterways instead of any waterway since any waterway eventually became a public waterway. Chris stated that the language was taken from another law, but that she felt the language was too long and confusing and was looking to the COC for their opinion. Susan B thought parts of it might belong in another section of the law. Susan B and Chris will tighten this section up and condense it for the next draft. D1d. Delete the words “auditory and visual.” Chris said this was from our current law, but the Committee had questions about the word “buffer” and the difference between that and a “setback.” Chris stated you could require certain things in a buffer zone, such as vegetation or berms or fencing etc. Discussion followed on whether that would be a good thing or not. Fred noted that he would prefer that the law be as specific as possible and not leave buffer requirements up to the Planning Board’s discretion. D1g. Water table considerations. Change the word “from” to “above.” The Committee was confused how to regulate this because water tables change. Chris will research and find where that came from or if there is a standard. Sue R thought there was something for a sole-source aquifer, which we don’t have. Fred asked the Committee why we are not simply prohibiting mining and Susan B said we could, but Bruce thought regulating mines wasn’t a big issue if it is done correctly and in a courteous manner. Bill G thought the Committee should move forward on the premise of allowing mining. D1h. Grading specifications. Fred asked if we can specify a slope numerically to avoid back and forth with applicants or staff. Chris stated that the DEC doesn’t have numerical specifications in their regulations, but she and Susan will look at alternate language for this section. The suggestion was to possibly require certification of the slope from a professional. Bill G asked how the Planning Board would make sure this is done when the mining hasn’t started. There was also some discussion on who would do the inspections for this type of thing and Bruce thought it should be the Engineering Department. The Committee agreed that the Engineering Department would be the best to handle inspections.
3
D1i. Adequate roadways. The provision is there to keep dirt from going onto the public ROW or creating a mess on the road. Chris talked with Creig Hebdon, Town Engineer, who suggested that the pavement requirement be more like 100-feet instead of 250-feet. Creig had explained to Chris that an 18-wheel truck was 60-feet long, so a 250-foot blacktop haulageway requirement would be for long-term, very large operations that seemed too excessive for the Town’s purposes. The Committee discussed requiring gravel, like other construction sites, rather than blacktop, to eliminate pavement or impervious surfaces that are left over after remediation. The Committee suggested a 200-foot gravel driveway with maintenance requirements. D1l. Location of activities. The Committee thought this is something the Planning Board should be able to regulate - it is reasonable to want to control sight issues, noise, runoff and similar concerns. D(2) - Criteria: This section deals with what the developer has to submit as part of an application for Planning Board review. D2c. Discussed but did not decide to revise wording to read “A reclamation bond in the amount equal to the cost of the reclamation plan.” Staff will look at bonds for other projects we have. D2f. Move this section to the DEC-regulated mine part of the law. D(3) - Bond/Insurance: Staff is still researching this. D(4) - Special Permit Expiration and Renewal: The Committee decided on a 5-year permit renewal time and the Town Engineer or his or her designee as the one who will conduct the annual inspection. E. Special Permit criteria for DEC-regulated mines. E(3) - DEC renewals. Staff is still working on the timing and details for this. E(4) – Inspections. Committee decided on the Town Engineer or his or her designee as the one who will be available for inspection. G. Abandonment – Chris noted that there is no language in Rancich’s mining documents regarding abandonment, but that the DEC had something called the “File Termination Notice.” Staff will look at this item more closely and will provide language for the COC at a future meeting.
4. Continued Discussion of Outdoor Wood Boilers and Outdoor Wood Burning
Regulations
Sue R reported that she could find nothing on identifying prevailing winds. She searched the internet and she could not find any maps of wind directions, just maps showing wind speed. Bruce said that winds are specific to each property. The Committee decided to take this reference out because we are proposing good setbacks which should take care of the issue. L – URL listed and EPA approved. Sue R reported that there is no such thing as an EPA-approved outdoor wood boiler. What she did find is that the EPA refers you to your state regulations. She suggests changing the language in “L” to refer to the DEC list of models certified by the state.
4
Sue R has not investigated the chimney stack height issue yet.
5. Continued Review of New and Improved Draft Sign Law, Redlined Draft Dated
September 18, 2013 (left off on page 6-“h,” discussion of copy-change signs in general
and in the Agricultural Zone)
Page 6, item “H” – copy-change signs in the Ag Zone Bill G reminded the Committee that they were supposed to have looked around at copy-change signs in the area for examples of what was and was not acceptable. Chris found some signs on the way to Rochester and Indian Creek Farm has one that she snapped a picture of to show the Committee. The Committee revisited requiring neutral colors and had the concern that the concept is subjective. Bill G stated that he does not care as much about the color as about whether we allow the portable trailer type signs. Pat stated that the copy-change signs don’t bother her. She doesn’t like the neutral requirement because the purpose of a sign is to catch attention/communicate information and neutral colors would not catch attention or provide enough contrast for the words to be easily readable. Fred reminded everyone that one could put any words on a copy-change sign, and the group responded that one can put anything on a permanent sign as well. Discussion followed on colors. The Committee agreed they do not want to see neon or florescent colors or dayglow colors. Current verbiage in the Sign Law prohibits “phosphorescent, florescent or similar reflective material or paint.” Susan B suggested deleting “similar” and the Committee agreed. Bill G brought the discussion back to the size of copy-change signs in the Ag. Zone. The Committee thought that 6 square feet is small and agreed on 12 square feet as a limit. Bill G asked if the copy-change applied to both permanent and temporary signs. Staff responded yes. Some Committee members thought that, given they are in an Ag Zone and the nature of farmstand signs, that portable copy-change signs should be allowed. However, the Committee could not agree on whether wheeled portable signs should be allowed. They tabled this discussion for another meeting. The Committee left off on page 7, Section 221-10. Commercial and Industrial Signs. They will review this section at the next meeting.
6. Other Business Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for December 18, 2013. Possible agenda items: -continuation of sign law review -updated mining regulations -updated outdoor wood burning regulations -distribution of proposed 2014 schedule