Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2016-05-111 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of May 11, 2016 6:34 P.M. to 8:34 P.M. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary (via FaceTime), 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. Absent: Eric Levine 1. Member comments/concerns. No minutes from last month’s meeting (will be available at June meeting). Bill G. informed the committee that he would be out of town at the next COC meeting (June 8th). Two other members of the committee and one staff member would also be out of town. He asked the committee to think about changing the date for the June COC meeting – to be decided at the end of this meeting. 2. Review and 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” and related charts. Mr. Goodman went through the law, page by page, and asked the committee for comments. The highlighted items below were on the draft local law that was distributed to members: Eva would like a definition of “photovoltaic solar energy systems” added to the definition section. Discussion followed, with staff looking at the Town Code to see if there was already a definition for “photovoltaic.” Not finding one, the Committee agreed to add a definition. Susan Brock will work on this. Pg. 1 C. General Requirements 2) The approval and/or permit required for each type of solar energy system is shown in Table x, name below. [Highlighted question from draft: Once COC makes more decisions about the law’s content, it will determine whether the table would be useful.] The COC still needs to decide whether a table would be useful. Pg. 2 E. Solar-Thermal Energy Systems - add “(Roof-top, Building-mounted and Ground-mounted)” to title to clarify. Pg. 3 F. Standards Applicable to All Ground-Mounted… Bill K. suggested removing the word “photovoltaic” so it applies to all solar energy systems, including thermal. Committee agreed. Take out the word “photovoltaic” in the Abandonment clause (d). Pg. 3 F (continued) Sue Ritter stated that Renovus had a question about a solar facility that crossed property lines and that the town in other instances has stated that if it is mutually agreeable to both parties, then building an array across a property line might be fine. The 2 Committee agreed to add a new “e” in this section to read “ Solar energy systems may be built across common lot lines by mutual agreement among all property owners” and to add easement language. Pg. 3 G. Additional Standards… 2) b. Medium Scale Photovoltaic Solar Energy System Standards: [1] Permitted Use: i. Accessory use in the following zones: MDR, HDR, MHP, MR, C, NC, CC, PDZ. There was a lot of discussion on whether to require site plan approval for solar arrays in PDZ’s and in other zones in the town. The discussion included a review of the language above (Chart that was included in the packet goes with this question). Using the chart, medium-scale arrays would not be allowed in the Lakefront Residential, Lakefront Commercial and Vehicle and Fueling Repair zones. Bill G. asked why we wouldn’t want panels at the Cayuga Heights Sewer plant or the sailing center (both of which are located in the Lakefront Commercial zone) and staff noted that a ground-mounted array wouldn’t fit on the sailing center property and that the topography of the water plant would not work for a ground-mounted array. Regarding arrays in the various PDZ’s in the town, the committee felt that the PDZ’s were very individualized and one rule might not work for all of the PDZ’s in the town. Bill G. wondered why the town should consider regulating them in the PDZ’s and Susan thought if that if an array were a principal use then it should come in for some review, even in a PDZ. Using Ithaca Beer Company as an example, there are a lot of places on their property to put a medium-scale array. Some of the places on the property might be more attractive than others and some could have impacts on the neighborhood. Long discussion followed on the difference between “principal” and “accessory uses” and whether accessory arrays should be permitted without any review, as the draft law is currently written. The committee seemed split on whether to allow or not and Bill G. decided to leave the law written as is and let the Town Board decide. Pg. 4 (still under Medium scale standards) [4] Site plan review: i. Required in LDR and MDR [Highlighted question from draft: and HDR?] YES, the committee decided to require site plan review in HDR also. Pg. 4 c. Large Scale Photovoltaic Solar Energy System Standards: i. 75 ft. minimum from front, rear, and side yard lot lines that abut property in any zone except a commercial or industrial zone. [Highlighted statement from draft: COC needs to clarify front yard setbacks in i above and ii below—notes are not clear] ii. 40 ft. minimum from front, rear, and side yard lot lines that abut property in a commercial or industrial zone. The committee confirmed that all of the numbers above were correct. No changes made. Sue suggested using the one range instead of having them all over the place. For PDZ’s, the Committee decided to use the predominant range in each size category. Small scale = 50/25/25; 3 Medium scale = 50/ 30/60; and Large scale= 40/75, unless the individual PDZ language had more restrictive setbacks. iii. roads and landscaping may occur within the setback (Highlighted question from draft: should fencing be allowed within the setback?) YES, the committee agreed to allow fencing within the setback and wanted the word “fencing” added to read “roads, landscaping and fencing…” Pg. 4 (still under large scale standards) [3] Lot Coverage: Sue noted that Ulysses’ final law removed the provision to measure arrays at 110% of maximum lot coverage because if a property owner wanted to sell land to the solar company they would need more land than really necessary and that could reduce and potentially negatively affect agricultural land. Discussion followed on the implications of measuring lot coverage using a variety of methods. The two main ways to measure lot coverage would be either the calculation of the overall array footprint or the actual panel surface area. These methods are completely different and could have big implications. For example, measuring lot coverage via the footprint of the array would include counting the space between rows. Measuring lot coverage via the panels themselves could present challenges because the panels would generally be angled - so do you measure them as if they were flat like a table or calculate the area as they are angled? A very long discussion followed on this issue. Bill K. stated that there is a computation that measures the area the panel projects onto the ground, which he would consider “lot coverage.” Sue was worried that the law was not clear on what lot coverage is. The committee ultimately decided not to consider lot coverage requirements for large-scale systems. Susan and Sue will think of scenarios and options for the small and medium-scale systems. Pg. 6 (still large scale standards) [5] Design Standards: vii. Signage: a) A sign shall be displayed on or near the main access point identifying the owner and providing a 24-hour emergency contact phone number. (Highlighted statement from draft: May want to consider sign size limitations- Town of Ulysses limits this sign to 8 square feet.) Committee decided to leave this as is – no changes or limitations. Committee also decided to delete “b” because NYS Code covered this. Pg. 6 (still large scale standards) [6] Decommissioning: iii. If the owner and/or operator fails to fully implement the decommissioning plan within 180 days, the Town may, at its discretion, provide for the restoration of the site in accordance with 4 the decommissioning plan”, Highlighted statement from draft: Could the Town amend Property Maintenance Law to address abandoned solar facilities? There is some question of whether a Town can require financial surety to cover Town costs in dealing with abandonment. John Nolan at Pace Law Center has done some research—it may be ok to require as a site plan condition but questionable if it can be in the local law; this needs more investigation. The committee engaged in a discussion on whether the town could make an agreement for the town to access the property to remove arrays, which would be simpler than what is required under the Property Maintenance section of the Town Code (similar to the stormwater O & M agreements). Another option would be to require a removal bond similar to the ones required for cell towers. Susan Brock will look into this. The COC ended their review of the solar law. Susan Brock and staff will provide the committee with a revised draft to consider at the June COC meeting. 3. Continued Review and Discussion of Draft Art Mural Provisions. The committee postponed this discussion until the June COC meeting. 4. Discussion of Draft Regulations Regarding Chickens in the MDR Zone. The committee postponed this discussion until the June COC meeting. 5. Other Business. Due to vacation schedule conflicts, the committee re-scheduled the next COC meeting to Wednesday, June 15, 2016.