TOWN OF HURON PLANNING BOARD MINUTES - subject to approval
Regular meeting - March 2, 2009
Call to Order: Larry Lockwood called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Larry Lockwood, Joe Snyder, Chris Kenyon and Charles Boorgaard (Jack McGuire was absent)
Other Officials present: David Scudder - Assessor (Councilman Buisch and Roger Gallant notified the board that they were unable to attend)
Correspondence:
Larry said that he had received the Planning Newsletter and the email about the county training that is taking place at the end of March and is available to board members. He said that he was at the county meeting last Wednesday and at that point, there were 17 positions left open for the training. There had been a good response from the county. Chris Kenyon said that he had signed up.
Joe said he thought that initially the board was told that Alan Knauf was going to set up training and then the note was sent by Shirley about the county training and he wondered if the county training would be the only option.
Dave Scudder said that both options were viable; you could pick the one that would fit you best. At this point, Alan had nothing set up, so if one was able to attend the county training, they probably should in case the town training was not convenient.
Larry said that the company that is putting on the training and others are cutting back on the amount of training that they are doing.
Dave agreed saying that the State is backing away from training because of cost. In the past, the State has held all day training twice a year. Dave thinks that the training is going to be harder and harder to get, so members should take advantage of what's available locally if possible.
Approval of Minutes: Joe Snyder moved, seconded by Charles Boorgaard to accept the minutes of February 2, 2009 with the following changes. On page 2, the sentence He used two different scenarios - one with a minimum stack height of 2 feet..., will read a minimum stack height of 2 feet above adjacent residences and one without a minimum stack height. Also on page 2, the sentence Jack remarked on the stack height requirements which ranged from 2 feet to 5 feet, will read 2 feet to 5 feet above adjacent residences. On page 3, the sentence Joe thought that it seemed, will read Joe thought the handout seemed to only deal with existing properties...
Old Business:
1. Outdoor Woodburning Furnaces
Charles questioned the section of the draft under Suspension of permit which dealt with opacity. He wondered how the town would measure that and felt that would be an unnecessary added expense if the town had to purchase a meter for that purpose.
Joe said that he was not advocating that the town buy an opacity meter; he thought that if there was an issue that could not be resolved, then you would have something quantitative to fall back on.
Charles said that if they put it in the law, someone might be able to force the town to purchase a meter in order to prove that there was a problem with their furnace.
Dave Scudder said he had seen a similar situation involving a noise ordinance. In that case a meter had been purchased and then in order to insure accuracy had to be calibrated quite often.
Joe said that another option would be to hire a company who could come out and measure opacity for the town if it became necessary.
Charles said that the expense entailed in situations like that could put an undue burden on the town.
After further discussion, Joe said that he would try to find a way to avoid any quantitative measure without precluding someone from using an opacity measurement if needed to support a complaint.
Joe then said he would like to discuss the section on "New Construction on Adjacent Property."
Dave Scudder and Joe then discussed the issue of concern over reducing the value of adjacent undeveloped property by allowing the wood furnace to be placed in an area that might be non-compliant if a residence was later built on the property. The draft states that if a residence were to be built and the furnace was then out of compliance, it would be the responsibility of the furnace owner, upon complaint, to bring that furnace into compliance, which could mean movement or removal of the furnace.
Dave said he didn't know if that was what the board would want to do because it pits neighbor against neighbor.
Joe said that originally, they tried using the property line but that was not received well. The decision was to use a 20 foot setback because he thought that was the maximum in the town's zoning districts.
Dave said that in the agricultural zone, the setback distance was 50 feet.
Joe said that he was unaware of that.
There was some discussion of what the setback number should be; should it be set according to the existing setback numbers for the zone? It was agreed that in the resort zone, that would be 10 feet which would be counter-intuitive to what the board was trying to accomplish. The consensus was that the setback number should be uniform across the zoning districts.
Joe said that he thought that 20 feet would still be a good number to use.
The next item that was discussed was the section that dealt with existing outdoor furnaces. Part ii states that even if there is no complaint, the existing furnace must meet the stack height requirements and the owner must register the furnace within one year of the law taking effect.
Charles wanted to discuss the "Penalties for offenses" section. He was concerned about asking a furnace owner to remove the furnace during the heating season.
After discussion, Joe said that he would put in some type of contingency clause that would cover a case requiring removal of a furnace during the heating season.
Joe will draft something for the next meeting with changes dealing with opacity measurement and the forced removal of a furnace due to non-compliance.
Joe asked if there were any other comments on the draft.
Chris said he liked this draft, that he liked the table that Joe had included. He said that with this regulation there were a lot of options for a resident who wanted to own a wood-burning furnace.
2. Tax Issues for Townhouses and Condominiums
Dave Scudder gave the board a handout of a proposed local law from Attorney Knauf. Dave said that it doesn't eliminate the possibility of condominiums in the town; it eliminates the conversion of an existing situation into a condominium type of ownership. This would prevent someone from converting to the condominium form of ownership in order to receive the decrease in taxes. Dave also noted that a conversion could actually increase the property value because of the lower taxes.
Joe asked if condominiums were defined in our laws.
Dave said that the laws are at the state level and they are not well defined.
Joe asked if we had anything in the Huron laws.
Dave said that condominiums are mentioned but not defined.
Joe feels that the Town needs to define for the locality what will be considered a condominium and that the definition should be a part of the law.
Dave agreed and said that was really the direction that the assessors were given by their State group.
Joe then asked for some clarification of the wording in the "Purpose" section. Dave went through that part for the board.
Joe felt that the first step must be to define what the town will consider as a condominium.
Dave related some of the different types of condominiums that he has lived in. He also said that the State has been very slow to fix this aspect of the law probably due to pressure from downstate areas. Dave thought that perhaps the new local law could require people to come before the board in order to establish condominium status.
After further discussion, Dave suggested that since this was a first draft of the law, that the board members should read it over, do some research, and ask questions.
Joe thought that what was needed was the definition for converted condominium units.
Dave will take it back to Alan and request that a definition for converted condominium be added.
Larry asked if it needed to include patio homes.
Dave said that it didn't matter; there could be many others that hadn't been discussed.
Joe wondered if we could say what it could be as well as what it can't be.
Dave thought that it might be a good idea to do that.
Charles wanted to know if any group that shares common areas could just say that they are a condo and get the reduced tax rate.
Dave said that there is more to it than that. You would have to have the common property deeded over to the condo association.
Charles wondered if, as we approach these types of issues, we need to take another look at what we want for the town.
Dave said that it has been a long time since the Comprehensive Town Plan has been addressed.
Charles feels that the board is stumbling blindly over these issues without a clear direction as to where the town would like them to go.
Larry asked Dave if he would contact Alan about the questions that the board had about the draft and Dave agreed he would.
3. Keyholing (Keyhole Development)
Larry gave the board a handout that he had gotten from the Internet. He said that he found mainly laws when searching the topic and that some of the laws went way back. He said that there are already keyhole developments that exist in our town. Most of what he found was laws that dealt with inland lakes. He wondered after reading about the Keyholing regulations, if regulating it could negatively impact the area. He thought that the availability of access to the water for some inland developments is what draws people to purchase or rent properties. Shaker Heights would be one example.
Dave said that he agreed with that but if it's not regulated, the usage of the bay may become more than the bay can handle. In some Keyholing instances, the access area may not even be contiguous with the development; as in the case of Shaker Heights and the Virts proposal. This raises even more concerns about the over-usage of the bay. He said that some of the issues are covered in Docks & Moorings but only to a point. He feels that some of these developments could be viewed as commercial as opposed to residential because of the monetary return to the developer in the form of higher sales prices of the properties. He thinks that the Town's Comprehensive Plan is lacking; that the Harbor Management Plan, at least for the water, quantifies it but must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning regulations.
Chris brought up a case from the past in which someone wanted to build a marina on his private property and then sell lots to people who could use the marina. The case had to be taken to the State, and was denied but came close to approval.
Dave said that the current situation is that the existing marinas are not filled to capacity. In the Virts case, Dave feels that if properly contained, the dock would have minimum impact.
Charles asked who maintains these docks in this Keyholing type of development, for instance if there were ice damage.
Dave said that generally, in these situations, they use removable docks that are taken out for the winter. He said he didn't know who would handle the maintenance in the Virts situation.
Larry asked if the Docks & Moorings law as it deals with right of way would apply in these situations.
Dave said in some cases it might depending on the situation. He said that a right of way is very limited in size and is regulated as to where it's located in regards to the property line.
Larry asked if the board thought a Keyholing development should be restricted to a maximum number of units, perhaps 3. He added that Brett DeRoo from the County was going to check into Keyholing for him and see what information he could find.
Dave thought that maybe we could look at some areas in New York that may have already regulated this type of development (Lake George, Lake Placid) to see if their laws have been court tested.
4. Recreational Trails
Chris spoke with Kevin Rooney, Brett DeRoo and Sharon Lilla. He picked an area that he thought would be a good draw for tourists. This would be a biking trail, not a walking trail because a walking trail would require a lot more than a biking trail. The biking trail would only require striping and some repairs. Since there doesn't seem to be any money available, he thought this would be the best option.
Joe asked what this would look like; if it would look any different than it does now.
Chris said that it would not.
Joe said that when he brought up the idea, he had hoped that it would be something that would allow people to be off-road when walking, jogging or biking.
Chris said that if that was the direction the board wanted to go, then there was no sense in continuing because there are no funds for that type of project. He said that we could do a 10 mile loop which would be repaired, striped and signed by the county. The bike lane would be 2 feet wide. The route that he picked would begin at Sue Smith's, come down to Chimney Bluffs, wrap around and come back up East Bay Road, take a right onto Lummisville and back on Lake Bluff to Sue Smith's.
Joe said that this plan would be good for one sector of people; he was hoping to include a broader group of people who would be able to use the trail. He felt that we should investigate the cost for semi-improving the shoulder for short distances. Each year a certain distance could be improved, whatever the money would allow.
Dave said that what is being currently proposed would at least take care of a subset of the people that Joe was talking about.
Chris reiterated that there just wasn't any funding for a more extensive project.
Charles wondered if there was any money available through the Stimulus package.
Chris thought that it would be better to start with the bike trail and then go after funding for extending the shoulder at a later date.
Joe thought that we should come up with a plan to get people off the road. He also asked about the standards for the different types of roads. He wondered if the county roads were up to the standards. He wanted to know when Lake Bluff Road would be brought up to the standard of Ridge Rd.
Dave said that he thought that there may be different standards for different county roads. He suggested checking with both Chuck Bush and Kevin Rooney about the road standards.
After discussion, the board thought that Chris should investigate the cost for a section of hiking/biking trail for the board's information but that he should pursue the biking trail to start with since the county is willing to work with the board on this.
5. Mary Hunter's application for Special Permit
Dave reported that the Zoning Board had asked Ms. Hunter to get a professionally prepared site plan and when she has that, the board will address her application.
New Business:
1. County Planning Board Monthly Report
Larry reported that there was nothing for Huron other than the training for the boards.
Ontario changed their law on the windmills, including the fall-zone right into the law.
Dave said that our local law exceeds that and includes other conditions like ice throw, etc.
Larry also reported that Dr. Malchoff was honored at the meeting for 40 years of membership.
2. Discuss amending burning law for controlled burn
Roger Gallant requested this be put on the agenda, but was unable to attend. It will be put on next month's agenda.
Dave reported that there are several structures in the town that need to be removed but the fire departments are more restricted on the controlled burns.
Chris asked if the abandoned building law covered these situations.
Larry said that the regulations for the fire departments had changed a lot during the last couple of years. He said that this topic will be discussed next month when Roger can provide more background information.
Email communications:
During the month of February the following emails were received:
2/3 - from Charles - "Furnace Prices"
2/4 - from Jack McGuire - "Wind"
2/12 - from Roger Gallant - DOS 2006 Wood Boiler Presentation
2/24 - from Joe Snyder - "Proposed Outdoor Furnace Regulations with a reply from Jack McGuire
on 2/25 and a response to Jack from Joe on 2/25
2/27 - from Jack McGuire - "New Land Use Law Conference for NY"
Adjournment: Chris Kenyon moved, seconded by Charles Boorgaard to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Grandjean, clerk
