HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2016-03-09TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
Meeting of March 9, 2016 6:32 P.M. to 8:30 P.M.
Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine, Pat Leary, Eva Hoffmann, Yvonne Fogarty and Bill King. Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Christine Balestra, Planner and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Guest: Melissa Kemp, representative from Renovus Energy
1. Member comments/concerns. Bruce reported that the new NYS Building Code will become effective next month and will include regulations on solar installations.
2. Approval of February 10, 2016 COC minutes. Minor typos submitted to Paulette. Eric moved, Pat seconded, and Eva abstained. Approved.
3. Review and Discussion of memo from Susan Ritter, dated March 2, 2016, along
with a revised draft Local Law titled “A Local Law Amending The Town Of Ithaca Code,
Chapter 270 Entitled ‘Zoning,’ To Revise Provisions Related To Solar Facilities,” dated
March 3, 2016. Sue explained the memo and materials that were provided to the COC. She described her research and concerns regarding regulating solar facilities by wattage only. She had maps for each COC member with solar arrays super-imposed on each person’s own property lot so they could visualize the size of the installation on their own lot. She also included the TREE solar array on the Eco Village property for perspective. Sue indicated that each map showed a solar array that was 15,000 s.f. in area. All of the maps also showed a 60-foot setback line between parcel boundaries and some also showed a 150-foot setback line. The committee really liked the visual. Sue went on to explain that her two main concerns with the proposed 3-scale regulatory approach (small, medium and large) were that a threshold of 15,000 s.f. in area could be too large in the medium scale category and that there was no upper threshold set for the large scale category. Sue stated that some options to address medium scale where she thought the size was a little high were a) require site plan approval for medium scale arrays in residential zones or b) think about having only two zones – small and large. She explained that when she initially put the draft law together, she envisioned that the medium scale size would be something like EcoVillage or the Long House Cooperative (4,000 s.f. area) and that the committee would develop some additional standards (i.e. screening) for the medium scale category. In the committee’s most recent draft, she was concerned that the thresholds were now based on only footprint size and that establishing screening standards for the medium scale size proved too difficult. Sue thought that having the two zones might be a simpler approach and that the law could address the upper threshold for the smaller arrays, where no Planning Board approval would be required, with everything else falling into the second category, where Board review would be required.
1
Sue stated that the committee may also want to consider having lot coverage requirements and also decide on final setback numbers. Bill G. summarized that the committee had two main questions before them: (1) decide whether or not to eliminate the medium scale system. The goal was to have most arrays not have to go to the Planning Board. The committee should consider what size array we would want to allow without review and then anything above that would to go for review. Sue added that the Towns of Ulysses and Geneva just have the two categories and both have different thresholds. Bill G. stated that the second question was (2) do we need an upper limit on the large scale category? Sue said there has to be an upper limit on the large category, if for no other reason than the SEQR review, required prior to enactment of the law, would likely trigger a positive declaration of significance. She added that when and if the time comes that bigger facilities want to come to our area, we will know more and have gained general experience with them and can make changes at that time if we want. Bill G. stated that currently the small scale size is “up to 2,000s.f.”, medium is “up to 15,000s.f.” and large is “over 15,000s.f.” Bill G. showed some pictures that he took of the EcoVillage arrays at different distances to give an idea of the setbacks being discussed for the size of this array (4,000s.f.), which would currently fall under the medium category. There were also pictures of the recent installation at the Longhouse Cooperative which would also currently fall under the medium category. With those examples, Bill G. read the options from Sue’s memo again and asked for comments from the committee. Bill K. prefers eliminating the medium scale and just having two scales, but also he was looking more at 10,000 s.f. as the size limit for the small scale. He preferred that because both the EcoVillage and Longhouse would not have had to go to Planning Board for review with that limit. Sue noted that there were no neighbors for those particular projects, so the Board review could have been unnecessary, but asked the committee “what if there were neighbors, would the Committee still think no review was necessary?” Bill K. thought there would be protection from those concerned through the setback requirements. He added that he liked the idea of requiring a maximum percentage of lot coverage for arrays to further protect neighbors. Eva stated that she was also in favor of having two categories instead of three. But she also wanted to see Board review for both categories because, although it may seem unnecessary for the small arrays, in the long run it was for the overall good. Yvonne favored the two categories instead of three and preferred the 5,000 s.f. upper limit for small scale systems, adding that she assumed anything at 5,000 s.f. would be in the back yard only. Susan Brock said the draft law now the small arrays do not need review; the medium arrays need review if the overall development is being reviewed anyway through Planning Board site plan but just putting in an array wouldn’t trigger review. She suggested keeping the small,
2
medium and large categories with the small up to 2K, medium 2k-5K with the setbacks discussed and really focus on review guidelines for the large arrays, which would be over 5K. She felt this essentially allowed smaller setbacks for the small range, bigger setbacks for the medium and review for the large. Discussion followed and Eric thought the medium level should be raised to 7K as the upper threshold. After more discussion, Bill G. took a vote and the committee agreed to keep the three categories, with the following criteria:
Small scale systems – up to 2,000 s.f. in size max. - no Planning Board review required – rear and side yard setbacks as noted in draft law (25’).
Medium scale systems – from 2,000 s.f. to 7,000 s.f. in size max. - no Planning Board review required – side and rear yard setbacks as noted in law, but changes in the zones to read “60’ from all zones but commercial and industrial” and “30’ from commercial and industrial zones.”
Large scale systems – from 7,000 s.f. in size to 10 acre max.- would require Planning Board review- side and rear yard setbacks as noted in law, but changes in the zones to read “75’ from all zones but commercial and industrial” and “40’ from commercial and industrial zones.” The committee then discussed front yard setback requirements, considering Forest Home as an example of a medium-density location. Some members expressed concern regarding aesthetics if several properties in a row in a dense location placed arrays in the front yard. Bruce noted that the town just started allowing garages in the front yard and suggested possibly follow those guidelines. More discussion followed. The committee’s final decision was:
Small and medium scale systems - allowed in the front yard as accessory and principal uses, with the same front yard setbacks as noted for garages in the Town Code.
Large scale systems – keep as currently drafted in the law, 75ft. and 40ft. The committee turned next to the question of lot coverage and, after a very long discussion concluded with the following:
All scales – agreed to exclude the space in between the array rows in the lot coverage calculations.
Small and medium systems – tentatively considered following the existing Town Code lot coverage thresholds for the zone in which the system is located, plus 10%.
Large systems – undecided. Before the committee went any further in the discussion, Susan Brock suggested that staff provide a comparison chart that showed the current Town Code setback requirements for garages and accessory structures and also include the proposed setbacks for solar installations. She felt it would help get a better perspective on what the committee was deciding and would make sure that the committee was not missing anything. Sue agreed to prepare this chart and provide it for the next COC meeting. The committee turned their attention to the yellow highlighted sections of the draft law and made the following decisions:
3
Pages 4/5 Number [4] Design Standards - Glare modeling analysis – omit. Susan will fix the language, but the fact that they have to design and locate it to minimize glare will include this type of modeling analysis so it doesn’t have to be called out.
Page 5, Number [3] Proof of Liability Insurance – omit. Unnecessary.
Page 6, Number [5] Areas of Potential Sensitivity – omit in its entirety. Bill G mentioned that the Town Code already addressed this and could be referenced in the solar law, rather than duplicating a long list of requirements.
Page 6/7, Number [6] Decommissioning - Surety Bond for removal – omit. The committee will pick up the discussion about front yard setbacks at the next COC meeting.
4. Review and Discussion of Draft Art Mural Provisions (Discussion draft for March
9, 2016 COC meeting). Moved to the April COC meeting for discussion.
5. Other Business.
Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for April 13, 2016.
4