Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2019-09-11TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of September 11, 2019 – 5:30 P.M. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Bill King; Bruce Bates and Marty Moseley, Codes; Susan Ritter and Chris Balestra, Planning; Susan Brock, Counsel Absent: Yvonne Fogarty, Eva Hoffmann, Paulette Rosa 1. Member Comments/Concerns— Bill G. mentioned that the Town Board discussed the Short-Term Rental (STR) legislation on Monday, coming from the STR Committee and that Susan Brock is analyzing the draft for further board review. 2. Approval of Minutes from August 14, 2019 COC meeting: Pat moved and Eric 2nd approval with one change – unanimous. 3. Continued Discussion of Draft Ithaca Energy Code Supplement (aka Green Building Policy), dated August 8, 2019 – Nick Goldsmith Nick gave an overview on the public outreach efforts and results so far. He said there have been no major concerns expressed from the outreach meetings. Bill G reported that Ithaca College has approached him to set up a meeting; Cornell has already submitted their comments. Bill G discussed Rich DePaolo’s comments at the Town Board meeting (9/9/19), pertaining to the tables on page 14, and his question of allowing ½ pts for certain situations. Rich felt that the current point system would encourage someone to build more solar than they need, saying that someone could build a McMansion with excessive solar and receive 3 pts, yet the goal was to encourage smaller buildings. Rich also thought the language in Option #3 should be clarified, noting that that option is what the Town of Ithaca renovation at the Public Works facility may be using. The total energy savings throughout the project will meet the threshold, but many sections of the building itself are not involved in the actual project. Members discussed other concerns raised by Rich, some of which were minor. Nick will get them from the TB minutes/recording. Susan B had a number of comments, as follows: The word “space” is used throughout the document; and she recommended using another word or define “space”. Other words that are used throughout the document that need a definition. Page 2: Under #2 Applicability: 4) “space” and “substantially” needs defining Eric asked how to prevent segmentation of projects to avoid having the laws apply. “Grace period” – laws go into effect when filed by New York State Secretary of State or on date specified in the local law; instead of grace period, include a transition provision or “effective date” – i.e. same date it goes into effect or specify a date that is six months from when adopted. There is the situation where someone has started a design process or application process, so we need to know how those will be handled. Some discussion followed, and Nick will work with Codes to understand the issue. Page 2: “Surface area” under Adaptive Reuse definition – what does this mean? Is surface area different than “envelope”? Needs defining. Page 3: “Certification”: Consider a catchall for new organizations or products or standards that become approved. Nick responded that that might create problems and he would prefer that the law be amended when and if new technologies come online because there are other areas in the law that would have to change to reflect that. Susan B said she understood that explanation and agreed. Page 4: Density: “should” is noted twice, but if you want to require it, then change the word to “must” “Major renovations” – “space,” “substantially renovated,” and segmentation issue again; and change ‘to at least two out of three’ Page5: Compliance Summary – Discussed “considered definitive” – maybe change to “these are only summaries and must meet requirements as detailed….” Nick said it is meant to show that these are not all the details and you need to read further to get the details (this is a useful table, but not comprehensive). Page 6: A|1: under details – “reference size” is not defined or clear Easy Path: were these calculated on a building per building basis? Nick replied that it applies to each building. Susan suggested that he make sure with a group of buildings, as one building can’t make up for a deficit of two other buildings. Stretch Code version: references 2020 version, is this what we want? Nick confirmed that yes, this was listed on purpose because the 2020 code is strict. Page 8: “Note on Fossil Fuels”: first line, add “new” between “all buildings”; be more precise on date; new and additions and renovations and spell out how it applies. EE2: what does “initially” set on heat pump-only mode mean? Typical hybrid hot water heater can use traditional and heat pump; it’s optional. Discussion followed. Bill K suggested eliminating the sentence “The heat pump water heater shall initially be set on heat pump-only mode”. Assume one will use the heat pump mode because it is more efficient; unless one is not getting enough hot water. How can you regulate how people are using this setting? How would you even find out? Suggestion: Replace first sentence with “Install a heat pump water heater”. Bill K suggested language stating that it must be sized properly, so that it will function properly on heat pump mode for the needed use. There are standards that outline appropriate sizes. Nick will get with Marty for wording. Nick noted that there is a companion document to the Energy Code that explains how to get the best performance out of the heat pumps. Discussed the possibility of owners breaking up projects so that it doesn’t trigger the Energy Code requirements. Can a condition be added that subsequent additions within a certain time period will be evaluated? Page 9: 6.2 Affordability Improvements: Hotels – all rooms; or just guest rooms? Page 11: “Trade-offs among spaces are permitted”… what does that mean? Suggest giving an example of what this means. Additional interior lighting power section: difficult to understand. Nick stated that this language was taken directly from NYS Code. Page 12: 6.3 Renewable Energy (RE): Issues of enforcement with off-site renewables. Nick is looking for input on how to handle this. What happens after 20 years? If your provider stops functioning, how do we enforce that? Marty stated that it is very difficult because how would we know when a provider stops and starts? Discussion followed. Nick said the feedback they got was very strong on including offsite renewables, but it is problematic. Last Paragraph – “Documentation”: If possible, simplify this section. Page 14: Table 5 – Title: add “or ground-mounted solar photovoltaics”. Page 15: OPI Development Density: reword. Page 15: Use Types and Categories: Consider putting in a table for clarity. Confusing language. Keep it clear which is a category and which is a use. Page 18 and Page 19: On January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2030: Do new requirements apply to submitted applications? Change “or” to “and” for heating and clothes drying. Susan B. suggests deleting the sentence that starts with “The standard by which net-zero is defined.” Remove “In the absence of such a standard being defined” because a standard will be developed by the time this document goes out. If the standard changes, the paragraph can change. Nick said the standard is changing but he liked the suggestion of stating there is a standard and the additional document can be kept updated. This sentence will read “The following standards will be used to determine if net-zero is met.” Page 19: Compliance: Delete first sentence that states “A successful green building…..” it adds nothing. Page 20: Appeals: Add standards for how this will apply. Need to define the smaller issues, both by the city and the town. Need tight standards for variances, and call these “variances” not “appeals.” The committee decided to revisit the Energy Code Supplement after the City of Ithaca reviews it (possibly coming back to committee in November). 4. Continued Discussion of Town Telecommunications Law Revisions: Chris: provided a quick summary of materials that were included in the 8/14/19 COC packet. She also described the location of existing, approved telecommunication facilities in the town. - Susan B: referred to the sheet that she and Chris provided last month that explained suggestions for aesthetic requirements and review processes for various telecommunications facilities. She encouraged the committee to review the memo on staff recommendations for what needs to be reviewed, the proposed aesthetic standards for each facility, and the staff recommendations on who would review these standards (administrative/staff vs. Planning Board). - Committee will be prepared to discuss these items at the October COC meeting. 5. Other Business: Split Zones: if parcel contains 2 zones, then which zoning requirements apply? Susan B and Chris researched municipal and case law examples and will provide some suggested language for the committee to consider at the next meeting. Meeting adjourned at 7:10pm.