Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2020-06-101 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of June 10, 2020 – 5:35 P.M. – Via Zoom Video Conference Final Minutes Digitally Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann, Yvonne Fogarty, Bill King; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Chris Balestra, Planning; Susan Brock, Counsel; Lisa Carrier-Titti, Network/Records Specialist. Absent: None Guests: None 1. Member Comments/Concerns None. 2. Approval of Minutes from May 20, 2020 meeting The committee approved the May 20, 2020 meeting minutes with a few typos and corrections. Yvonne moved to approve, Eva seconded – Unanimous. 3. Continued Discussion of Revisions to Town Code Chapter 125, Building Construction and Fire Prevention (redlined version, revised for 4-29-20 COC meeting) The committee picked up their review of the revised law on page 19 with §125-13. Violations. Marty explained that the redlined text in this section came from NYS Model 1203 Law, which is a law that is proposed to municipalities. Marty reorganized the locations of some of the items within the model law, particularly “D,” “E,” and “F”, but noted that the process will not change from the way the town issues orders to remedy. The town already follows the process outlined by the state. Bill started the conversation on item C in that section, pertaining to an order to remedy, with a sentence at the end of the first paragraph that ends abruptly. Marty stated that the sentence should be modified to read something like “…except in the event that the violation endangers the life, public health, and safety.” Marty will consider making additional changes to the sentence. Susan Brock noted that section C stated that orders to remedy must be corrected within 30 days after the date when the order to remedy was issued and that this conflicted with “a” at the bottom of page 19 in the same section, which stated that the timeframe may be less than 30 days. Marty agreed that the language was inconsistent in this section. He and Susan Brock will wordsmith this to clarify and make the language more consistent. Susan will also work with Marty to wordsmith inconsistent language in item “D” and other areas as well. In “D”, Marty brought to the committee’s attention that the order to remedy contains a statement that a hearing may be requested, which would be held before the Town Board. This is not something that is in the town’s law now, but it is something that is required for the town to offer in accordance with state law. Bill G. indicated that this would be a change and that he hasn’t recalled anyone 2 appearing before the Town Board to appeal an order to remedy before. Marty indicated that he added the Town Board as the suggested board to hear appeals, but that the law could specify any board or committee the town wanted. The committee discussed this further and decided that it made the most sense to have the Town Board hear the appeals for now. The Town Board will discuss this when the revised law is brought to them for consideration of approval. Bill G. asked why the Superintendent of Public Works would be notified in “F” on page 20. Marty explained that the town might require the Public Works Department to secure or clean up an unsafe building that has not been repaired or removed. The committee moved on to §125-14. Penalties for offenses and discussed the basic concept around fines for violations in section “A”. Marty explained that some of the language in the section was pulled from the state recommendation and that a judge would decide the actual fine for violations. Yvonne was concerned about violators who end up fined but don’t have the money to pay the daily fine or fix the violation. Bill G. explained that the fine would be in the discretion of the judge, that the town would have nothing to do with the judge’s decision once a hearing was held. Susan Brock had several changes to the section, including removal of references to the Town Zoning Code (Chapter 270), “violation orders,” and other small items. She and Marty will work out the modifications internally. §125-15. Records. Marty stated that this section came from the NYS model law. The committee had no changes or discussion about this section. §125-16. Removal of dangerous buildings or structures. Susan Brock mentioned that this section conflicts with Chapter 129 in the Town Code (Unsafe Buildings) and has conflicted since this law was revised 15 years ago. Marty will look at this section and how it compares with Chapter 129. §125-17. Intermunicipal agreement. Another new section from the NYS model law. No comments. §125-18. Variance and review. No changes. Without any further comment, the committee decided to move the law on to the Town Board for consideration of adoption. Eva moved and Pat seconded - unanimous. 4. Continued discussion of Town Telecommunications Law revisions Bill G. summarized that Susan and Chris provided the committee revised versions of the “Approval Process and Aesthetic Requirements” and the town Telecommunications Law in the mail out for this meeting. He also noted that the Town Board had been hearing concerns from residents related to 5G and 4G telecommunications technology, particularly the alleged public health impacts of the technology. The City of Ithaca has also received many comments in opposition to the 5G rollout, citing public health concerns. 3 Bill G. informed the COC about the strategy/timeline for sending the proposed changes to the Town Board. The current thought is to incorporate the aesthetic requirements into the existing law and have the Town Board consider those changes now; and then consider the remaining changes to the law later. The aesthetic requirements have been in process for more than two years and are something that the town can legally implement now. Bill G. then mentioned that he, along with Susan Brock, Sue Ritter, and Chris Balestra had a Zoom conference call with concerned residents (Andrew & Marie Molnar) who have been very actively opposed to the 5G telecommunications roll out. The residents provided the town with lengthy comments and attachments on what they think should be included in the town law. Planning staff has been analyzing the comments to see which ones might apply to the town, as there are some incorrect assumptions based on laws from other states and other information that needs to be verified. The focus of the remaining discussion was on the revised aesthetic requirements that were to be incorporated into the redlined telecommunications law that was included in the mail out. One member was concerned with the terms “undergrounded” and “undergrounding”, which are found in several sections in the aesthetic requirements. The member thought that the terms were unnecessarily complicated, especially if a member of the public read the law. Chris explained that this was standard terminology used to describe how equipment can be placed underground and that they are very well-known terms in the telecommunications industry. The committee discussed the language further and decided not to re-word the terms “undergrounded” and “undergrounding.” The committee turned their discussion to the yellow highlighted sections of the redlined telecommunications law (pages 5, 6, 7, and 10). The committee had no comments on page 5 of the law, pertaining to 3 a-f of the aesthetic requirements. Regarding page 6 of the telecommunications law (4 a-k of the aesthetic requirements), the committee focused their attention on aesthetic requirement 4.i.1, distance separation requirements between a wireless facility and another wireless facility; and on aesthetic requirement 5, setback requirements between facilities and a residential structure. Regarding 4. i.5, Chris reported that she and Susan Brock reviewed at least a dozen other municipal laws, including those referred by Andrew & Marie Molnar and discovered that there were no standard setbacks for facilities near residential structures. Each municipality seemed to cater their law to the characteristics of their own community. Some communities had no setback requirements at all, while others required 10-foot, 20-foot, 50-foot, 200-foot and 500-foot setbacks from residences. The committee discussed all of the options, reviewed pictures of typical 3G and 4G installations, and considered the characteristics of the town’s residential areas (many rural roads, some developed areas, very few densely developed areas, varying lot size requirements) and determined that 250-feet was a reasonable setback between a wireless facility and a residential structure. 4 Regarding aesthetic requirement 4. i.1, the committee had previously agreed to require wireless facilities to be at least 250-feet apart from one another. Chris noted that she discovered the same variations in numbers in other municipal laws, and that, like in 4. i.5 above, there were no set standards. Sue Ritter cited a law from Petaluma, California, that required a 1,500-foot distance between wireless facilities. Susan Brock cited another California law that required 1,000-foot distances between wireless facilities, unless the company could prove that they needed the facilities closer to provide necessary coverage (this was specific to facilities in ROW’s). Chris noted that the town of North Hempstead, NY, also had a provision in their law that required 1,500-foot distances between wireless facilities. The committee discussed the potential for seeing many more poles along town roads with the 5G rollout, and thought it might be a good idea to increase the distance separation between facilities, as that would result in fewer poles and less of an aesthetic impact on the community. One member suggested that if the telecommunications company found that they needed the poles closer together, then they could seek an area variance from the Zoning Board; or possibly the law could include language that requires the company to prove that they need to have the poles closer together. At 7:13pm, Bill G. moved, and Pat seconded the motion to go into closed session to receive advice from counsel [recording stopped]. At 7:25pm, Bill G. moved, and Eva seconded the motion to move out of closed session [recording resumed]. After a bit more discussion, the committee decided to follow the North Hempstead example, with 1,500-foot distances between wireless facilities. To summarize, the committee made the following changes to the aesthetic requirements: 4.i) Guidelines on placement of DAS facilities and wireless support structures: 1. Increase the separation requirement between facilities from 250 to 1,500 feet, sentence to read: “No closer than 1,500 feet away, radially, from another small wireless facility and support structure, unless the telecommunications provider can prove that the facilities need to be closer together to meet a specified legal standard.” 5. Increase the setback between a facility and a residential structure from 150 feet to 250 feet, sentence to read: “at least 250 feet away from a structure that contains a dwelling unit.” The committee moved on to page 7 of the redlined telecommunications law, specifically the yellow highlighted section under K (3), Engineering and maintenance. Susan Brock suggested that we add language that requires periodic new measurements of RF emissions, e.g. annually, as a condition of special permit; and that we change the language to track the draft new law that contains a paragraph about RF emissions. The committee agreed to the suggestion. This law change will be added to the telecommunications law update now, along with the aesthetic requirements and remaining redlined changes. On page 10 of the redlined law, staff will confer with Susan Brock to add application provisions and develop a definition of “small cell wireless facility” to §270-5 Definitions. 5 With the above changes, the committee decided to send the aesthetic and approval recommendations to the Town Board for consideration of adoption. Eric moved and Pat seconded- unanimous. 5. Other Business Bill G. mentioned that Rod Howe has been trying to decide if it would be useful for the town to sponsor a public 5G community forum to discuss concerns related to the 5G rollout, given the public comments received by the town and the city. The forum would be a joint city-town effort and include panelists with differing opinions on the public health issue, along with legal counsel, representatives from the telecommunications industry and other experts on 5G technology. The idea would be to have as balanced discussion as possible. The committee supported the forum idea. The next COC meeting is tentatively scheduled for July 15th. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40pm.