Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2016-01-13TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of January 13, 2016 6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine, Pat Leary, Yvonne Fogarty and Eva Hoffmann. Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Absent: Bill King, Chris Balestra Guests: Christine Fournier, and Jane -Marie Law 1. Member comments/concerns. - None 2. Approval of December 9, 2015 COC minutes. Paulette read three paragraphs of additions to be added to the end of the draft minutes. Other changes were made and the minutes as revised were moved by Eva, seconded by Yvonne; unanimous. 3. Review and Discussion of Revised "Draft Regulations Regarding Chickens," dated anuary 5.2016. The Committee looked at the changes. Mike explained the maps he had distributed showing the number of parcels between 3 and 5 acres and over 5 acres in the LDR zone that the committee was looking at regulating chickens on. Bill G noted that this was done because the changes suggested last time were based on lot size and he went through the changes on the draft law. • Changed to allow 6 roosters or guinea hens in LDR, AG and C zones if you have more than 4 acres, henhouse no less than 100' from property line and enclosure no less than 50' from property line. • Removed reference to slaughtering • Removed the word "metal" from containers requirements • Removed reference to sale of eggs • Added different maximums and setbacks for lot sizes and zones. Comments: Yvonne noted that the word chickens in T" should be "hen" and in "E" it should be "birds." Eva thought section F was too dense and complicated and should be broken out in some way to make it easier to read. Eric thought a table might work and be clearer and Susan agreed. Eric then asked about the figure of six for the roosters thinking that that seemed a lot. He did not think he had heard from residents that six would be needed for homesteading. He said he is not as concerned about how close hen houses were to a lot line as much as how close to a residence. He used the example of someone having one close to his lot line, but still 100' in the back of his COC Minutes 1-13-2016 pg. 1 house, versus right next to his house and close to his property line. He thought the measurement should be from a residence and not just based on acreage. He did not think the acreage is to the point of being less impactful because of the various shapes a parcel can take. Bruce was concerned about measuring from a neighbor's residence because a neighbor can't go onto someone else's property without permission. He also didn't know where the numbers came from as far as 6 roosters, 36 hens etc. Bill G stated that they had talked about something similar when discussing the outdoor fire pits, in terms of taking the measurements from a residence, and that houses do have certain setbacks from a property line. But Eric noted that would apply only if the house was built after zoning was passed and many are not. Eva stated that she had the same reaction to the number of roosters being allowed but then she remembered that if you hatch your own, it is hard to tell which are male and someone may temporarily have too many. Bill G responded that they just picked a number for discussion but if the committee wanted something else that would be fine. Pat asked how big of a problem ticks are and a number of people stated it is a huge problem. Eric added that he was concerned about the impact on people who may have to reduce the number of chickens they already have and the limits should be phased in over a longer period of time. Guest - Jane Marie Law thanked the committee again for being so thorough and taking this question so seriously. She had a number of terminology suggestions and comments: • A should be F and F should be A and it would flow better. • Hen house should be "poultry house" because the word chicken includes hens, and roosters. Poultry includes guinea hens. • Humane should be changed to enclosures kept clean and animals treated humanely. • Confined should be restricted • Add "no roosters or guinea fowl" to the 6 maximum in MDR since that is the zone that is going to worry the most people and that is where the regulations should be the most specific Guest - Christine also thanked the committee and stated that she is in an LDR zone and currently has no restrictions on her property of slightly less than 5 acres. This law would restrict her to 36 chickens, and she has guineas and roosters, so in the summer, when she wants to raise meat birds, she would be over that limit and that would impact her greatly. She stated that there is case law on this where people were allowed to keep livestock and then restrictions were imposed and the town would have to compensate people and she hadn't heard that talked about yet. She thought the concerns really were generated in the MDR zone and wondered why the committee is looking at restricting LDR when there haven't been complaints or problems. COC Minutes 1-13-2016 pg. 2 Jane Marie asked why the two issues are being combined because this does take something away from LDR while giving something to MDR. Those are two really different agendas and needs and she doesn't want to lose the change to allowing 6 hens, no roosters or guinea hens, because of issues around restricting LDR. The two needs are totally different and the LDR could just be left alone and just talk about MDR and then everyone will be happy. Bruce responded that one of the complaints came from a LDR resident and Pat stated that there were concerns about health, safety and balancing the rights of all people in the zones. The question is whether restrictions in the LDR are a "taking" because you can still have them, but less of them. Susan did not think it was, especially if the birds they had were allowed to decrease naturally. Eric thought that as far as LDR restrictions go, there is going to be more and more development and we are doing away with that type of zone and moving to semi -rural. Bruce added that the initial complaints have been about noise and guinea hens more than chickens. Bill G asked Christine to send the case law to him if she could. Sue cautioned on putting too much weight on the AG Committee's forthcoming comments since they will not have heard the same concerns and information expressed from residents, and also since their lots are well over 5 acres they might not have the same sensitivities on the needs of the smaller lot owners. Jane Marie again spoke about appreciating the time the committee has spent and her frustration with people who say "if you want chickens, move to a farm" because this is not where the trend is going and sustainable food and providing your own food is important to a lot of people and a lot of times the people making the rules just listen for 5 minutes and say it will smell bad and that's that. Eva had one additional comment, stating that the Conservation Board has asked to present a report to the Town Board regarding deer control because deer and mice are the main carriers of ticks. 4. Review and Discussion of Draft Local Law titled "A Local Law Amending The Town Of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled `Zoning.' To Revise Provisions Related To Solar Facilities" Bill G looked at the draft provided and went through the yellow -highlighted areas. C 6 - Solar Access - Sue noted that she found this in another municipality's law and that if someone had solar panels on their roof, we would be sensitive to their needs for sunlight when new developments are proposed. Susan raised the question that if a proposed development was going to shade the neighbor's solar panels, yet meets all of our zoning requirements, is that going to be grounds to deny the site plan review? This affects the neighbor's use of their property and is very different from what we have. She added that once she understood how the committee wanted this applied, she could adapt the language. Susan went on to ask about building permits under the same scenario and whether we are now vesting our code officers with discretion to COC Minutes 1-13-2016 pg. 3 deny a permit based on this which is a move from ministerial to discretionary and is a bigger issue. Eva asked if it had to be discretionary because she knows of some cases where if there is a proposal for a building that is fairly tall, in order to determine the impact, it would have to use balloons or similar means to show the impact. Susan responded that was her question; if that is determined, do they have to deny the application. Yvonne asked what other scenario would have the reviewer look at the neighboring property? She was thinking about trees, and what if a neighbor has a tree that grows up and shades a neighbor? Do they have to cut it down? Sue responded that she thought this meant that when a project came into the Planning Board, there would be a sensitivity of the Board to elements of a project that might shade a solar investment next door. Susan said she thought landscaping and buildings were two different things and that the Planning Board routinely specifies the type of landscaping for other purposes. But she was thinking about the building piece of it and do you want to say that a building can't shade neighboring solar. Yvonne stated that was a huge restriction and Susan agreed but said you can't have the word "encourage" because the board wouldn't know how to interpret that it could be one extreme to the other. Bill G thought it wasn't going to be much of an issue because we do not allow tall buildings and the size buildings we have would be setback from the property line and not be close enough to a solar array to affect it. Susan responded that we are allowing them on any building so a garage that is only 3 feet from the property line and someone builds a house next door, it may shade the array or installation. She thought this is really something to think about. Yvonne asked what if someone comes in with a large lot and the house is just big enough that it is going to shade the neighbor's panels, do you tell them they have to revise the plans or they can't build them? The committee decided to not address this idea. D 4 - Emergency access Bruce said this is covered under NYS Law. The committee decided to delete this section. F Solar Thermal Systems Sue stated that solar thermal systems for hot water seems to always be associated with a building so it is always going to be an accessory use and would therefore be similar to a roof - mounted system and should have the same regulations. The committee agreed. F 2 c - Buffer Sue explained this pertains to land that a developer is required to set aside for parks/open space and that we don't want them to use this for installation of an array. There was some discussion on if this would apply to buffer areas, and the committee thought other restrictions would probably prevent this but agreed to let it stand as "...open space, park, or buffer zone." COC Minutes 1-13-2016 pg. 4 The representative from Renovus Solar asked about the Abandonment section and noted that there are sometimes differences between the property owner and the system owner and she thought the system owner should be responsible. Susan and Bruce responded that the town has leverage on a property owner, not a business owner. 4 Design Standards Sue stated this was just a start, but the committee had talked before about the aesthetics and if we want some landscaping or fencing. Lengthy discussion followed on whether a fence would be more unpleasant than the system. Sue responded she was thinking more for developments or having a certain length be a trigger and then also have some set standards for the smaller ones. The solar representatives noted that would be an added cost and may be the deciding factor and Bill G responded that the town is giving these installations a break by not requiring board approvals and fast -tracking them so we are asking for a fence or buffer when the backside of the array is facing the road relatively close to the road. The committee decided to work on this section a little and come back next month with suggestions. Miscellaneous changes: • Insert photovoltaic before Solar at Ground Mounted Solar Energy Systems • Add "facility" between solar footprint to encompass all equipment and structures • Size ranges have to be adjusted with less than and greater than verbiage • Consistent terminology use of "energy system" throughout • Remove reference to painting systems • What is "wildlife friendly" needs clarification • Setbacks and "adjacent residential zone" needs clarification • Define where the measurement begins and how we are measuring Some discussion on the size ranges and the representatives thought what was listed was within reason and expected installations. Grammatical and minor changes were made to the draft as well as a need to go through the draft and use the same terms throughout such as "energy system." Bill G asked staff to make the changes and bring it back next month. 5. Other Business Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for February 10, 2016. Finish solar draft and review work plan for the year. COC Minutes 1-13-2016 pg. 5