Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2016-06-151 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of June 15, 2016 6:32 P.M. – 8:22 P.M. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eric Levine 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: Eva Hoffmann and Yvonne Fogarty Guests: Residents from Westview Subdivision (Evan Lambrou, Kirk Macolini) Representative from Renovus (Stefano Breda) 1. Approval of Minutes from April 13, 2016 and May 11, 2016 COC Meetings. Changes discussed and made. April – moved by Eric, seconded by Pat, unanimous. May – moved by Pat seconded by Bill G., unanimous. 2. Member comments/concerns. Bill G allowed the residents that were present to speak about the proposed solar law. Residents Evan and Kirk, both living in the Westview Subdivision (one on Schickel Road, the other on Larisa Lane), started the conversation. Evan stated that he had sent an email that Bill G. had forwarded to everyone. Evan also had reviewed the draft regulation and his main concerns were 3-fold: (1) the method to convey solar energy - in MDR neighborhoods where he lives, he thought the ground mounted arrays were horrendous and would detract from his property value. The developer put restrictive covenants in all the deeds and he wasn’t sure if public policy could over rule that. He suggested that other residents should invest in remote-net metering via solar farms rather than putting what he considered an eyesore in the yard; (2) he was concerned about the danger to children. The large size of the units that were being considered to be allowed should be reconsidered. The 24-panel units are 420 s.f. He feels that this is very, very big and not appropriate in his neighborhood; (3) he questioned whether ground mounted systems were stable in this climate. Kirk stated that he was also concerned about property values and whether this new law could overrule the restrictive covenants in the subdivision. If so, he felt that wouldn’t be right, but the law should acknowledge that homeowner agreements are valid and should be upheld. The representative from Renovus responded that there have been numerous studies done that show property values are not affected by either roof mounted or ground mounted solar arrays. Bill G. corrected the residents and clarified that the town’s law does not have to reference deed restrictions; the deed restrictions would stand as a separate legal contract. The law would have no effect on the restrictive covenants that were created for the Westview Subdivision. 3. Review and Discussion of Revised draft Local Law (dated May 25, 2016) titled “A Local Law Amending The Town Of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled ‘Zoning,’ To Revise Provisions Related To Solar Facilities” and related chart. 2 Bill G. turned to the current draft and reviewed the changes. Pg. 4, proposed setbacks for PDZ’s Sue reported that she read through all of the PDZ’s and the language was all over the place in terms of setback requirements. Some of the PDZ’s had setback requirements that relate to the most restrictive zone that underlies the PDZ, which would not work for the solar law. Sue instead proposed that the setbacks for the PDZ’s should be the same as the others listed. Sue also recommended that the committee decide whether to allow solar arrays in the front yard and to also consider setting limits. Discussion followed on where the limitations would be listed. One problem that was encountered was that many PDZ’s did not have a clear “front yard.” Ultimately, the committee decided to: Small scale arrays pg. 3, G.2)a.[2]iii. - delete “and I zones” and replace with “I, and PDZ’s.” Medium scale arrays, pg. 4, G.2) b.[2] iv. - delete “and I zones” and replace with “I, and PDZ’s.” Also, change language in i. to “…minimum from a lot line (except a front lot line) that abuts property in any zone except a commercial or industrial zone,” and ii. to “…minimum from a lot line (except a front lot line) that abuts property in a commercial or industrial zone” Large scale arrays – pg.5, G. 2) c.[2] i., change language to “…minimum from a lot line that abuts property in any zone except a commercial or industrial zone,” and ii. to “…minimum from a lot line that abuts property in a commercial or industrial zone” Looking at the bottom chart for Principal uses, Susan noted that may be a time when a PDZ is developed or subdivided off for a solar farm as a principal use, so we may have to put ranges in there. Discussion followed and Bill G. thought that would be handled through the Planning/Town Board approval process, noting that it wouldn’t necessarily be prohibited, but would be done through changing the PDZ language itself. Pg. 6 Decommissioning Susan reported that she had done some research regarding requiring bonds for decommissioning and that there were problems with statutory authority for requiring them. Susan suggested handling this section of the law like we do in our stormwater law. The stormwater law levies any costs to the owner’s tax bill. Bill G. asked if this should be in the law or if there should just be an agreement, like the stormwater O & M Agreement. It was decided that Susan will review the storm water provisions and work on adding those to this draft. Susan believes this will take care of the reference on pg. 7 also. Comments from others, responses to previous comments Bill G. turned to Steve William’s email (Paulette read it out loud) which suggested that the committee scrap the solar law entirely and instead refer to the New York State Code for their restrictions and guidelines. Bill G. asked the committee if anyone was interested in commenting on the suggestion. Bill K. thought it was a big leap from the months of work the committee had done. Pat thought his comment about technology was valid and wanted to make sure the draft that the committee had been considering takes into consideration advances in technology. Susan said there may be ways that the law will need to be changed, but the committee thought those changes would simply improve the size of the arrays and make the law and setbacks even better. The committee decided against Steve’s suggestion. 3 Pat acknowledged the residents who spoke earlier in the meeting and wanted to make sure the committee took their concerns into consideration. The committee felt that the required setbacks being proposed would be very sufficient for buffering between properties. Susan reiterated that the committee had discussed that if you can put a whole house beyond the 60’ foot setback, then an array should be allowed. The committee agreed. That the residents simply didn’t like ground mounted arrays was not enough of a reason to prohibit arrays. Discussion followed on the Westview Subdivision restrictive covenants and how they would be enforced. Chris stated that they were not a town-regulated document but that they were included as part of the Planning Board subdivision approval for the project, so the Board might require modification of the approval if the restrictive covenants were to be revised. Bill K. responded to the safety concerns expressed by the resident, noting that there is nothing on an array that one can touch and get hurt; if someone were standing under the angled part of the array during an ice melt, then they might be impacted by ice, but that would not cause significant harm. With that, Bill K. moved sending the draft to the Town Board for consideration, seconded by Eric; unanimous. Sue and Bruce will send to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals for their recommendation to the Town Board. 4. Continued Review and Discussion of Draft Art Mural Provisions (Discussion draft for March 9, 2016 COC meeting). This discussion was postponed to the next COC meeting. 5. Discussion of Draft Regulations Regarding Chickens in the MDR Zone, dated May 4, 2016. The committee reviewed the proposed draft and began a lengthy discussion on item “G” which references a farm. The town defines farm in the Code as “any parcel of land containing at least three acres which is used in the raising of agricultural products, such as crops, livestock, poultry, and dairy goods…” Bruce stated that if a lot met the definition of “farm” then chickens would be allowed, regardless of which zone it is in. The committee decided to delete “G.” Susan also thought that “H” was not needed because chickens would either be legal and compliant or they would not be legal and then could not be kept. Sue suggested that language pertaining to allowing chickens as “domestic animals” should be added to the Conservation Zone. The definition of domestic animals currently lists chickens, so adding the same language for domestic animals as is found in the LDR Zone (Town Code §270-56.F) would essentially allow chickens in the Conservation Zone. The committee agreed that this would be a good idea. Eric moved to refer the law to the Town Board, seconded by Bill K., unanimous. Susan will re-organize the draft law so it makes more sense and will provide it to the Town Board. 6. Other Business. Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for July 13, 2016.