HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2016-08-10TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
Meeting of August 10, 2016 6:30 P.M. – 8:26 P.M.
Minutes
Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King 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.
1. Approval of Minutes from June 15, 2016 COC Meeting. Changes discussed and made. Moved by Eric, seconded by Bill K.; unanimous with Eva and Yvonne abstaining.
2. Member comments/concerns. Bill G. reported that the Town Board adopted the Chicken Law last night, with comments from Jane Marie Law and her sons.
3. Solar Law: Final Discussion Items and Clarifications. Sue stated that she started working on the SEQR EAF for the solar provisions and that some of the questions in the EAF brought up some issues for clarification. She wanted the COC to discuss and finalize the issues and provided the COC with a memo containing topics for consideration (underlined below): Clarification of what “accessory use” means in the context of the solar facilities: Sue noted that there are two different interpretations of what an “accessory use” could be. If an accessory use was merely someone just having a building on a property that they didn’t serve with solar, then one could build a solar farm in some zones if you simply have a building on the lot. Alternately, accessory use could be considered as using the solar energy for a building that exists on the site - so if one has a commercial building on the site, the solar would be used for that building and not built to a size to sell huge amounts back to the grid. Sue thought that this should be clarified in the law or the town might have problems with potential solar farms in zones like the MDR zone, where lots are smaller and potential impacts would be greater. Discussion followed. Bill G. thought that in an Ag zone for example, a farmer might want to produce much more solar because he has the land for it and can lease it for a solar array that won’t be serving his farm. Sue said it is allowed as a principle use in Ag Zones and Susan explained that would be allowed because you can have more than one principal use on a lot in the Ag zone, so the issue was moot there. The problem only exists in the residential zones because our Zoning Code requires one principal use for properties in residential zones. Sue explained to the committee that, the way the law was drafted, nothing would keep someone from constructing a large solar farm on a 20 acre parcel in the MDR zone. Eric asked if we were essentially talking about solar consumption and an accessory use would mean you are producing less than or equal to the amount you are consuming on a property and a principal use means you are producing more solar energy than you are using on a property. Susan and Bill G. didn’t think it worked that way because a property’s consumption goes up and
1
down and the amount of sunlight goes up and down. Susan did not think the law should be tied to consumption. Sue clarified that staff was more concerned with large scale solar systems as accessory uses in the MDR zone, as the MDR zone is the one zone that stands out among the residential zones as allowing a large scale system. More discussion followed, with the committee contemplating the question: do we care if there is a large solar system that is overbuilt for the use of the property in the MDR zone? Bill K. surmised that the cost of the system in that case versus the return one would get would keep that likelihood of someone installing a large system very low. Sue noted that one of the major problems is that the colleges are located in the MDR zone. The town wants to allow them to have large arrays but not necessarily the other smaller parcels. Sue stated that if the town is to allow large solar arrays in the MDR zone, then she’ll need to identify all of the potential impacts related to that decision on the SEQR form. Some of the impacts could be considered “significant,” which could then require the Town Board to issue a positive declaration of environmental significance. The town would then need to go through the EIS process before enacting the solar law, which would be an excessive and unnecessary exercise. After more discussion, the committee made the following decisions:
If the solar array is a principal use, then it can serve both onsite and offsite uses. A medium scale solar array as a principal use (doesn’t serve the building on the property) is allowed in AG, LDR, OPC, LI and I zones. In the MDR zone, one can have a solar array to serve a house or buildings on the property, but one cannot overbuild the system to produce solar for offsite uses.
Define Accessory Use as such: “A use is accessory to a parcel if it is designed for use primarily on the parcel.” Large scale systems need front yard setback defined: The issue is that the use may be principal and there is no yard because there is no building to define front yard. Susan looked at the draft solar law and noted that it should say in 5(c)[2]i. “75 feet minimum from a lot line except a front
lot line that abuts a property...” The same language should be added to ii in that same section. The committee agreed. Bill G. thought the problem actually arose because of the “abutting” a property line. Sometimes the “abutting” lot line is the highway right-of-way line and the zone is different across the road, so what are you abutting in that case, the zone before the street or the zone across the street? Sue suggested clarification if a property line abuts a road. Susan suggested using the same terminology as in the medium scale section of the draft law, section [2] iii. and iv. The committee looked at the medium scale section language. After a bit more discussion about the numerical setback to apply to the large scale system, the committee decided to add a new iii and iv to the large scale system language in [2] to mimic what was listed in the medium scale section: “iii. Minimum setback from front lot line equals the maximum number of feet for required front yards in the zone, except in Light Industrial and Industrial Zones” and “iv. In Light Industrial, Industrial and Planned Development Zones, minimum setback from front lot line is 50 feet.”
2
Clarification on 270-219 G.(b) 4 ii “modification of an existing plan that otherwise trigger site plan review:” Sue thought this needed some additional language so as not to be misconstrued. The intended purpose was to require site plan approval only for those medium scale solar system projects that are coupled with other project modifications that trigger site plan approval. The way the solar law is written, it could be interpreted that the solar facilities by themselves would trigger site plan approval, which was not intended. The committee agreed with Sue, so Susan will work on clarifying that language. The committee moved on to review comments on the draft solar law that were received from various organizations and boards: Comments from the Conservation Board: The Board recommended that the rear yard setback for small scale systems be 10 feet and not the 25 feet as proposed, especially given that accessory structures can currently be 3 feet from the property line according to the Code. Eva explained that the member who wrote the comment would not have been able to put his array in without a variance under these new rules because he couldn’t meet the 25 foot setback and another member with an odd yard would also not be able to meet the 25 foot setback in the rear. Discussion followed. The committee decided to change the rear and side yard setback to 10 feet for small scale solar facilities. Comments from Ulysses Planner: Sue stated that in Ulysses there is an issue with an installation on Jacksonville Rd. with a resident across the street who says that they are bothered by glare from the array for a certain amount of time during the day. She did not think the town of Ithaca needed to add standards to our laws because we have a statement regarding reviewing those types of issues during the site plan review process. Bill G agreed that we did not want to get into as much detail as the Ulysses planner is proposing. Committee agreed. Comments from Cornell: Cornell thought the largest array size category might need to be bigger to account for the presence of wetlands and topography on a property, but Sue thought that our definition covered that eventuality. Some discussion followed. Susan suggested taking the 10- acre limit out of the large-scale definition and instead put it in the law, so someone who wanted an 11-acre or larger array could seek an area variance and the ZBA would apply the appropriate criteria in review of the variance request. Committee agreed. Susan will modify the law language. Barbed wire fence – Cornell asserts that some companies require barbed wire fencing. The Committee felt that instance would have to be proven and then a waiver could be discussed and decided upon during site plan review. No changes to law. Wildlife-friendly fencing – Cornell is concerned that small humans or lambs used for grazing could get through this type of fence, noting that “lambs are the size of cats.” The committee disagreed. No changes to law. Underground wires – Cornell misread our law. We are saying “whenever possible,” utility lines should be underground. Emergency shutoffs etc. are covered under the NYS Building Code. Susan suggested removing the last line on page 6-7, viii. dealing with electrical transformers. The committee agreed.
3
Decommissioning – The comment is about the 18 month timeframe to complete construction of a photovoltaic system, which might not be long enough, particularly for those projects that receive financing. Discussion followed. Bruce thought if all parties were operating in good faith, then all should be ok. He also noted that a renewed building permit would cost 50% of the cost of the original permit, so getting the system running before the building permit expires will be an incentive for applicants. The draft law, page 7 [6][i] says from the “issuance of site plan approval” and the committee changed it to the “issuance of an initial building permit.”
Comments from Nick Goldsmith: Sue stated that one of Cornell’s comments was the same as Nick Goldsmiths’ regarding the standard in the law (page 3, “F”) related to the height of the system at maximum tilt. Cornell and Nick seem to think that the description should just be a straight height, no matter where the tilt is. The committee did not think this was an issue, as the language in the law measures the tilt from the natural grade. Pg. 5 (c)[4] (i), Nick suggested removing the following part of the sentence: “in order to sell electricity to the public utility.” Committee agreed. Nick also expressed concern for residents not knowing they would be responsible for costs associated with decommissioning and Sue thought that could be an issue but perhaps be considered in the application process and not in the law. Comments from Tompkins County Planning Department: Committee agreed to delete the roof-mounted safety requirement from the law, as the issue of ice-shedding and snow removal will be covered in the NYS Building Code. The County suggested that provision to require underground utility lines for large systems might impair the financial viability of a project and there should be exceptions to the rule. The committee discussed the requirement. Bill G. noted that the provision only applies to large scale systems, so it should be more financially feasible to have underground utilities in a large scale operation. Discussion followed and the committee decided to add “financial feasibility” after the word “site” in that section. The County’s other concerns were addressed in the responses to the previous comments. The committee finished their review of the solar law and all comments related to it, and moved to pass the law back to the Town Board for consideration of adoption.
4. Moved to next meeting-Continued Review and Discussion of Draft Art Mural Provisions
(Discussion draft from March 9, 2016 COC meeting).
5. Moved to next meeting-Draft Sign Law: Remaining Discussion Items and Questions.
6. Other Business.
Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for September 14, 2016.
4
5