Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-16 - PB TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD 11 /16/04 Approved August 18, 2005 Present : John Wertis, Chairman, Planning Board Members David Tyler, Rose Hilbert, Alex Rachun-Zoning Officer, Robin Carlisle-Peck, Secretary. Excused : Margot Chiuten, David Means, Lorren Hammond . Rod Porter arrived 7 : 35 pm . Chairman Wertis called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 pm . A quorum is present at the meeting. PLANNING BOARD/TOWN OF ULYSSES Mr. Wertis presented to the board a historical recap of recent past Planning Board meetings . July focused on body of building ordinance had strong words to say about Al zone, August looked at Site Plan review with resolution to Town Board with list of changes, September 9- subdivision questions passed to the Town Board, September 23rd back to Site Plan Review because Planning Board changes were incorporated with Town Board additions/changes . These items were reviewed and recommendations sent back to the Town Board. October 14`h Design Standards become focus, looked at several items and made recommendations regarding Business Signs . November meeting was slightly derailed by Mr. Wertis ' report and follow up discussion of Town Stormwater Committee; and the Planning board spent little time in Design Standard discussion. Mr. Wertis stated in reviewing Design Standard the word buffer zone is used . Stormwater Committee uses buffer as a vegetative area along water body—Design Standard uses buffer as a visual item covering something ugly. Mr. Wertis suggested this be addressed to be consistent among the documents . Ms . Hilbert indicated this is also used in the light industry area. Unfortunately, other items were addressed at that meeting and the buffer discussion did not happen. Mr. Wertis stated "buffer" needs to be defined and correctly used in Design Standards and other ordinances . DESIGN STANDARDS Town Board has looked at most of the Design Standards, main focus for November 18 `h meeting is on Tower Ordinance and next two items in revised Zoning Ordinance — if time, they will go to Design Standards . They are waiting to hear from Planning Board regarding the Design Standards and Ms Chiuten's input . They have not looked at Design Standards . At last meeting Mr. Hammond stated Mr. Tyler is expert in Design Standard, Mr. Tyler stated he is not an expert but offered if town is working on Design Standards then the Planning Board should continue review and make recommendations to the Town Board until completed . Ms . Chiuten reseafched and Mr. Wertis delivered documents from the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) and National Electrical Manufacturer ' s Association (NEMA) . Planning Board 2 11 / 16/2004 Mr. Wertis found IDA interesting, NEMA is representative of a more traditional and technical approach. Mr. Tyler stated NEMA has a more vested interest in providing lighting whereas IDA does not . Ms Hilbert indicated she liked the NEMA chart indicating light pollution, glare and trespass levels, she found this to be very informative . Mr. Wertis asked how the members felt they should progress from here . Mr. Tyler asked if the Town Board has the IDA/NEMA information. Mr. Wertis informed the members the Town Board does not and how should Planning Board present this to them . Mr. Tyler indicated there are different levels —Commercial more light more customers . Mr. Porter stated safety/security is also a key issued in lighting. Mr. Tyler stated he feels some of this is overplayed-some commercial parking lots you can see the face of a dime, but is that intensity necessary, i . e . Pyramid Mall . Mr. Tyler indicated this is typical of that type of facility. Mr. Porter stated that in today' s society if not enough, and injury is sustained then there are grounds for lawsuit . Ms Hilbert stated how many places need light at night, to sustain rural character, how many places are open at night and need lighting, i . e . Racker Center-needed lighting in the evening but not after nine pm . Ms Hilbert offered some are applicable in stating purpose of lighting and stating what the Town believes are criteria in whether lighting is or isn ' t allowed, or shut off time ; areas that are not supposed to be industrial areas thus do no need to have lighting at night . She believes the Planning Board should set up definitions and criteria design code . Mr. Tyler offered different people have different ideas what is appropriate what is not . Mr. Wertis stated he has difficulty buying wholesale into the IDA model or the NEMA model . In reviewing what the current standards there is a focus on time but it is very limited, he fells this could be expanded, but he does not feel comfortable writing it. Mr. Tyler stated the models could be presented to the Town board as ideas to guide the review . During review of the model Mr. Wertis found that many of the zones in the models were not applicable to Ulysses . til {{{{{{ 11 • Planning Board 3 11 / 16/2004 Mr. Tyler suggested his thoughts on lighting, 1 . If a property owner feels the need for lighting there should be limits necessary to achieve safety, etc . 2 . A requirement that lighting in your area not go beyond property line . Mr. Rachun commented regarding NEMA having a vested interest in lighting would be comparable to the drug companies having interest in the PDR, or the American Builders Association and Georgia Pacific setting building standards vs . promoting their interest. He continued in that lighting standards can be common sense and feels the board is capable of setting the thresholds . Does not feel it should be limited to commercial , the threshold for residential areas should be set . Mr. Tyler noted that IDA uses wattage vs . lumens . Mr. Rachun offered that there is a huge difference, he noted a case at Cayuga Addiction Center, a 55 watt sodium bulb was used, and it was extraordinarily brighter than a halogen . These units were replaced with florescent units using 55 watt bulbs-the difference between the two bulbs light intensity was night and day. Mr. Wertis stated IDA uses wattage as a numeric quantifier to make it easier for the general public . Mr. Porter stated there is a big difference between wattage and lumens . Ms Hilbert proposed definitions of some words be given to the board, as well as examples of what a 50 watt incandescent bulb , 50 watt halogen with comparison of what lumens would be given from each . If higher watt then the zoning officer would be utilized to review these . Mr. Rachun, suggested the board spec . out incandescent lighting period, sodium vapor, mercury vapor and halogen are extremely bright lights . i' Mr. Wertis asked if the board could familiarize themselves with the definitions to draft a chart reflective of the zones in Ulysses to present to the Town Board. Mr. Tyler stated when addressing the intensity of light question it maybe more complicated but it might accomplish what we are trying to get at and have the benefit of a more long term solution . When spec out maximum use wattage and lumens, not to exceed X wattage. Two items would be received- encourage people to conserve energy yet thwarting the person who wants to conserve energy but use the high tech items . Mr. Porter stated he is not sure why we would use wattage, does not measure anything but the energy used. Ms Hilbert read from the current ordinance "to assist property owners in their effort to provide a safe and secure environment, control energy costs and keep unnecessary direct light from shining onto abutting property or streets . t i Planning Board 4 11 / 16/2004 It is also intended to reduce the problems of glare, minimize light trespass and help reduce the energy and financial cost of outdoor lighting by establishing regulations which limit the arealthat certain types of outdoor fixtures can illuminate or limiting total allowable illumination of lots located in Town of Ulysses . " Thus Ulysses already has a paragraph stating that this section is supposed to limit lighting for several reasons . Mr. Porter stated the NEMA definitions are very good . Mr. Hilbert offered that she liked the definitions of glare and light trespass . Mr. Wertis asked the Planning Board how he should present this information to the Town Board . Mr. Porter and Ms Hilbert suggested giving the board a copy of the NEMA document and that would give substance to the definitions as being from light experts . Mr. Rachun offered that high intensity discharge (HID) could be banned from residential areas . Mr. Porter stated he has difficulty agreeing, just because it is high intensity does not make it intrusive. Ms Hilbert stated you can have a HID light with shielding and it would be acceptable as being indirect. Mr. Porter stated then you go back to light trespass and glare requirements . Mr. Wertis asked in residential zones, how many people would use HID lights . Mr. Porter informed that there are actually small HID fixtures for entryways to residential home; a ban would not necessarily do what the board is looking to do , florescent lights can also have glare and light trespass . Ms . Hilbert stated that she feels 25 feet is very excessive for a light post. Mr. Rachun offered that if the light is shielded then this can eliminate the problem . Mr. Tyler indicated that he strongly feels the need for shielding; a bulb glaring into an individual ' s home is intrusive and should not happen . He definitely feels this should be eliminated in any regulation passed . Mr. Tyler stated that people have the right to light or not light, he proposed the board stay away from minimums but set maximums . We would need three limitations- height of light source, lumens of light source and shielding to prevent the light source from glare and trespass . IEEE Planning Board 5 11 / 16/2004 Mr. Rachun insisted that when using shielding caution should be used, if it is to eliminate the ability to visibly see a light bulb many of the residential outdoor fixtures would have to be removed under this requirement. To eliminate this Mr. Rachun proposed a maximum be placed if over X amount of lumens shielding is required . Ms . Hilbert offered the maximum of 900 lumens required for shielding . Mr. Rachun offered 2500 lumens for the total maximum lumens . Mr. Rachun stated the current ordinance is 15 feet for height requirement. Ms Hilbert requested the height of a garage door. Mr. Rachun replied a garage door is 14 feet. Mr. Tyler stated that a 15 foot maximum would be good . Residential Areas Lighting Maximums Zones Lumens Height Shielding All R Zones 2500 15 ft . Required over 900 lumens Non Residential Lighting Minimums — unless Site Plan Review Mr. Wertis indicated he would take the definitions and chart illustrating maximums for Height, Lumens and Shielding to the Town Board meeting Thursday, November 18th Mr. Tyler stated he would like to inform the Town Board the above were based on two authoritative documents- chart recognized as bare bones start of maximum standards. Motion made by Mr. Tyler to accept definitions and chart, Mr. Wertis seconded. Ms . Hilbert Nay Mr. Porter Aye Mr. Tyler Aye Mr. Wertis Aye Motion to adjourn by Mr. Tyler, seconded by Ms . Hilbert. Approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned 9 : 20 pm. Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Secretary