Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2020-01-291 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of January 29, 2020 – 5:30 P.M. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planning; Susan Brock, Counsel; Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner, and Christine Khong, Sustainability Intern. Absent: Yvonne Fogarty, Eric Levine, Susan Ritter and Paulette Rosa 1. Member Comments/Concerns – None. 2. Approval of Minutes from September 11 & October 9, 2019 meetings Susan Brock felt that the September 11th meeting minutes did not correctly capture the discussion by the committee. She had many comments and asked the committee to hold off on approving them until the next meeting. In the meantime, she will check with Sue Ritter and Bill Goodman to see if her notes match their notes. The committee approved the October 9th meeting minutes, with typos that Susan will email Paulette. Pat moved to approve and Bill K. seconded; vote was unanimous. 3. Continued discussion of Energy Code Supplement (Green Building Policy) Nick Goldsmith provided the committee with a memo to update them on the development of the Energy Code Supplement. The working group received around 250 comments from several public meetings and outreach efforts in August and September 2019; and Nick and Ian from Taitem Engineering had been taking time to respond to each one of the comments (they are around 90% done). The comments and responses will be reviewed by the working group and then added to the final document, so readers will see where changes were made or at least that suggested changes were considered. Nick summarized some of the changes being considered based on the comments received: Removal of the exemption for historic buildings – during public meetings, there was unanimous agreement to remove this exemption. Addition of electric vehicle parking space point – up to two points given for that. Removal of the “no-fossil fuel” pre-requisite for the custom energy improvement point – comments received about promoting efficiency in buildings even if they are still powered by natural gas. Some changes made to the offsite renewables chapter to make it easier to comply. Nick also noted that the working group considered public comments that suggested changes to GHG emissions and the timing of requiring net-zero buildings and no on-site fossil fuels, but that the group elected to not make the changes. 2 The biggest piece left in the process is to codify the law. Nick’s memo provided the committee with a rough timeline that showed a completion date of May 2020. However, Nick noted, this would depend on the length of the codification process. In the meantime, the working group will meet at the end of February to consider approving the document. Nick then hopes to bring the document back to the COC in March. Bill G. added that there was an additional meeting in November that consisted of people from the local business community, along with Cornell, TCAD, CMC, Ithaca College, city and town officials. The purpose was to discuss the Energy Code Supplement. Participants had concerns that the document was too strict. Cornell expressed that they would not be able to comply with the Code if it was this strict. They were concerned that they’d need to stop all construction as a result. By contrast, Bill G. said that city and town officials had also heard from the climate change activist community that the Energy Code Supplement isn’t strict enough. It’s a balancing act. Bill G. encouraged the committee to pay attention to the progress of the working group, as the COC will have two more chances (possibly March and April) to voice concerns and express suggestions for additional changes. To conclude, Bill G. noted that the city of Ithaca has chosen an unusual way to pass their version of the Supplement. They passed a one-page ordinance that references the larger document. The city’s building department is in the process of codifying the language itself, outside of their code. However, the town hasn’t decided how we want to do this. More discussion and research will be necessary. 4. Continued Discussion of Town Telecommunications Law revisions Susan Brock provided the committee with a model telecommunications law based on the Town of Bedford that also contained highlighted sections where the town could input portions of our existing law and/or the decisions the committee made regarding aesthetic criteria for various types of telecommunications equipment (referring to staff memo from August 14, 2019 COC meeting – decisions made by COC at October 9, 2019 meeting). Susan also passed out a flow chart sketch that she created to help the COC understand all the different types of telecommunication facilities; and to illustrate the variety of FCC Orders and rulings that affect the way a municipal government may regulate telecommunications facilities. She walked the committee through the flow chart, step by step, beginning with the left side of the process (which is easier than the right side). The committee followed along with the flow chart and asked questions at various points in the discussion. The committee decided that it would be valuable for staff to create a more formalized version of the chart, including pictures to illustrate the various facilities, for review at the next COC meeting. Susan and Chris will work on this and will provide this for the next meeting mailout. 3 Regarding the model law that was in the packet, the committee decided to consider initial questions or concerns now and to wait to thoroughly review the law (page by page review) at the next COC meeting. Initial comments included: Page 10 – Small wireless facility permit required. Marty noticed that the language gave the Planning Board authority to issue a facility permit and a building permit, which isn’t something that we do at the town of Ithaca (Town of Bedford operates a little differently). Susan Brock noted that she and staff still needed to go through this model law to cater it to the town’s rules. Page 15 – Approval procedures. Marty noticed language here that says “the Planning Board, at its discretion…” which is subjective language that the town does not use. Chris noted that (2) of that section also doesn’t follow the town process. These will be corrected in the next draft of the law. Page 20 – Recertification of small wireless facilities permit. This is something that the town does not currently require, but is a good idea, so the committee will need to decide whether to keep the language in the law. Staff supports keeping it in the law. To be discussed at the next meeting. Susan Brock has called the planner for the town of Bedford but has not yet connected with him. She wants to ask him: who worked on the law? Were they as stringent as they could be in their language? If so, where in the law were they as stringent as they could be? How’s the law working? Are there any changes that need to be made based on their experience with the new law? She will try to contact the planner before the next COC meeting. The COC will begin their page by page review of the law at the next meeting. 5. Other Business The committee reviewed and approved the 2020 meeting schedule, with the final dates being: March 11 April 8 May 13 June 10 July 15 (Bill B is out of town the week before) August 12 September 9 (October meeting cancelled – Bill G out of town) November 18 (Veteran’s Day holiday week before, Bill G out of town the week before that) December 9, 2020 Next meeting agenda will include continued review of the Telecommunications Law update. Meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m.