Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2016-04-131 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of April 13, 2016 6:32 P.M. to 8:38 P.M. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine, Pat Leary, Eva Hoffmann, and Yvonne Fogarty. 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. Absent: Bill King. Guest: Raija, representative from Renovus Energy. 1. Member comments/concerns. None 2. Approval of March 9, 2016 COC minutes. Changes discussed and made. Moved by Yvonne, Eric seconded. Unanimous. 3. Continued Discussion of 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 (Spreadsheet containing current setback requirements for primary structures, garages, etc., maximum lot coverage requirements, proposed setbacks for solar panels). Bill G. started the discussion with the table Chris prepared. The table at the top of the page referred to setback requirements for all primary structures in all zones in the town; the bottom green table referred to proposed setbacks for solar arrays based on the proposed law. The blue table on the sheet showed the existing lot coverage requirements for all zones in the town. Sue stated that the blank spaces in the tables showed that we do not have enough information or requirements to treat arrays as garages, accessory buildings or wood sheds because there are not defined setbacks in all zones for all structures; the only structure with a setback in all zones is the primary structure. So we will need to consider new setbacks for arrays in all zones. Front, Side, Rear Setback Discussion Bill G. used the primary structure setback to start thinking this through, starting with front yard setback considerations. The committee thought that medium and large scale solar systems could be quite large and should not be allowed in a front yard without a variance. The committee also discussed concerns regarding the small scale in the front yard with the concern being that the area would look very cluttered if everyone had an array in their front yard and there are varying setbacks with the existing houses. Some areas, such as Forest Home, have very small yards and limited space to put an array with a lot of them needing to be in the front yard because of the slope and topography. If a lot of people put them up it would definitely look cluttered. Some committee members were in favor of requiring site plan review for all arrays, but the final decision was to prohibit medium and large scale solar systems in the front yard as accessory 2 uses and to require the maximum setback of the primary structure as the minimum setback for small scale systems in the front yard. For example, if one can build a house at a 75-foot maximum front yard setback, then the minimum setback for a solar array would be 75-feet. This would apply to residential zones in the town. The committee also decided to require site plan review for medium-scale arrays that would be located in the front yard in residential zones. The committee then discussed the provisions for the Light Industrial and Industrial zones, which had larger front yard setbacks for the primary structures. Members felts that a 150-foot front yard setback was excessive, so they decided to require a 50-foot front yard setback for arrays in these zones. The committee talked about the Mobile Home Park zone and its 20-foot maximum front yard setback. Members wondered if that was enough of a buffer, but decided it was not going to be an issue after realizing that there was only one of these zones in the town and there would not be room within its front yard for an array anyway. Bill G. turned the discussion to side and rear yard setback requirements. One of the committee members expressed concern about the glare that could possibly come off of a solar array, causing traffic and safety hazards. The representative from Renovus assured the member that newer arrays did not produce glare like they used to. Bill G. confirmed this, stating that he has never experienced glare from Ecovillage’s solar panels and he lives on the second story. A discussion started on whether to allow medium and large scale systems in the front yard as principal uses. If the array was the principal use on a vacant lot, there would be no “yard” and therefore no real setback. Susan suggested that staff revise the chart to create separate requirements for arrays as principal uses and as accessory uses. The committee decided that if a parcel in a residential zone was vacant and there was no primary structure, then there would be no “yard,” but that a setback would still apply. Lot Coverage Discussion The committee looked at the blue lot coverage chart and discussed the literal interpretation of allowing an additional 10% lot coverage for solar arrays, beyond the lot coverage percentage permitted for each zone; what does the extra 10% refer to? If a zone allows 10% lot coverage for all structures on a parcel, and the solar arrays are allowed an additional 10% lot coverage, then that’s a 100% increase (which seems excessive). Discussion followed. Staff clarified that the 10% was on top of the existing X% lot coverage for a zone (so, 10% of 10% = an additional 1% more lot coverage for an array; 10% of 20% = an additional 2% more). The Committee agreed that this would be good for small and medium sized arrays, but restricted lot coverages on the large arrays to no more than 50% of the lot area, excluding the space or aisles between arrays. General questions on remaining sections of law Fences – Susan provided information on wildlife friendly fences around solar systems. Discussion followed on how to quantify the term “substantially reduce the number.” Bill G. thought that since this section of the law only applied large installations over 5 acres and the Planning Board would review proposals of this size, then the phrase would not need to be clarified. Committee decided to leave in the redlined sentence in the draft, but re-phrase it to 3 “minimize wildlife injury or death due to entanglement or strangulation” rather than “eliminate or reduce.” Vegetation Clearing (Trees) – The committee chose not to include a tree replacement policy because this would be covered under the Planning Board review process, which would include a SEQR review. Staff would advise the Planning Board in those reviews. A final draft of the proposed solar law will be prepared for the next COC meeting. 4. Review and Discussion of Draft Art Mural Provisions (Discussion draft for March 9, 2016 COC meeting). The committee began their review of the draft that was included in their mail out from the March COC meeting. They began with the highlighted sections of the law on page 1. 2. Allowed Art Murals A. Regarding the height criteria listed for art murals, the committee decided that a 30-foot maximum height was appropriate for murals but that additional language should be added to this section. The new sentence should read “No part of the art mural shall exceed 30-feet in height, from the bottom of the mural to the top of the mural.” B. Regarding the width criteria (6” from the wall), the committee was fine with the 6” number and decided to NOT allow 3D objects as part of the mural. C. Regarding the proposed five year time limit for murals, some members thought it was nice to see murals change over time and others wanted permanent murals. Discussion followed and the committee decided on a three-year time limit. The committee left off on page 1 and will pick up the discussion with the highlighted item under #3 at the next meeting. The committee will also discuss possible limits on the width of murals, which is not currently written in the proposed law. 5. Other Business. Guinea hen field trip comments: The committee held a field trip to a local farm property to evaluate the behavior and noise associated with guinea hens. The goal was to assist members in their decision to possibly regulate or restrict guinea hens in certain zones of the town. There were 11 guinea hens on the property. Members provided their comments: - The guinea hens weren’t noisy and certainly couldn’t be heard from across the road. - The rooster on the property was much noisier. - Members thought that the location of the guinea hens was fine, mainly because the distance between the farm to the neighboring house across the street was significant. - The property owner managed the flock well and the setup was appropriate. - One member added that there are guinea hens at the Ithaca Beer property, but they never go in the public area. - The committee decided to move forward with the chicken regulations and to leave guinea hens alone at this point. Guinea hens would be allowed under the current law as long as the property met the yard size requirements. Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for May 11, 2016.