Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2019-10-091 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of October 9, 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; Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner and Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Absent: Yvonne Fogarty and Eva Hoffmann 1. Member Comments/Concerns – None. 2. Approval of Minutes – None. Minutes from the September meeting will be distributed at the November meeting. 3. Continued discussion of Energy Code Supplement (Green Building Policy) Nick updated the committee on the status of the document by stating that the city is reviewing the comments received thus far. He reported that one of the more frequent questions was “why don’t we ban fossil fuels earlier?” Other comments were related to measuring carbon footprint and preparations for putting this in a local law format. Nick stated that, to simplify the process, the city was looking to pass a law on or around November 13th that contains a short document that then refers to the larger Energy Code. This is similar to referencing a NYS law or regulation. A lengthy discussion followed on how and if this would work between both municipalities; and if the town could do this under Municipal Home Rule. Bill G and Susan B will talk with the city attorney to get more information about the city’s proposed process. The committee will discuss updates on the topic at the November COC meeting. 4. Continued Discussion of Town Telecommunications Law revisions Chris provided a very quick summary of the memo and recommendations for aesthetic and review process contained in the materials that were provided to the committee for the August 14th COC meeting. The committee reviewed the suggestions and provided the following feedback on the document titled “Recommendations for Approval Process and Aesthetic Requirements – All Wireless Telecommunications Facilities”: Regarding new cell towers- committee agreed to require PB site plan review and special permit for new towers, with only minor updates proposed to the existing telecommunications law. 2 Regarding cell antenna co-locations on existing buildings, structures, etc. “non-substantial”- committee agreed to internal planning staff (administrative) review process and building permit and agreed with the proposed list of aesthetic criteria recommended by staff. Regarding cell antenna co-locations on existing buildings, structures, etc. “substantial”- committee agreed to PB site plan review and special permit with criteria that is more than just administrative review but less than for a tower. Regarding Small Cell Distribution Systems (DAS) (typically many poles along a road, generally 45-50ft tall and part of an overall system that contains small cell wireless facilities)- committee agreed to PB site plan review and special permit approval and agreed with the proposed list of aesthetic criteria recommended by staff. Questions that came up/more research that needs to be done/comments on guidelines for placement: What is a “passive” cooling system on a DAS facility? Chris will research. Distance radially between DAS facilities and support structures? Make it 250 feet If DAS system is X feet from a public ROW, then internal review only = 500ft Regarding individual Small Cell co-location sites (on existing buildings, structures, etc.)- committee agreed to internal planning staff (administrative) review process and building permit and agreed with the proposed list of aesthetic criteria recommended by staff. Chris will work on finalizing a draft with Susan B for a future meeting, possibly December. 5. Discussion of Municipal regulation pertaining to lots with split zoning boundaries Chris explained that this issue came up during a recent subdivision request where a sliver of a property was zoned Conservation but the majority of the remaining parcel was zoned Medium Density Residential. The interpretation of the Code was that a variance would be needed because the parcel(s) being created would not meet the 7-acre minimum lot size for Conservation Zone, even though there were already homes on the parcels and there was no development proposed. It was just a modification of the lot shapes to make both lots more uniform in shape and size. But the applicant was required to go to the Planning and the Zoning Board for approvals, and it seemed like an excessive process for such a simple project. Planning staff did a little research to see if and where there were other parcels with split zoning designations in the town. Chris showed the committee maps on the large monitor of a number of areas of the town with parcels with some portion of property in two zones. She indicated that in 99% of the cases, the split included a Conservation Zone, which had the much stricter lot size requirements than the other residential zones (7-acre minimum lot size versus 30,000 or 15,000 square feet). The committee discussed the history of establishing the Conservation Zone and compromises that may have happened with the owners to set those boundaries. Chris explained that the Conservation Zone boundaries were different than other zoning boundaries because they did not follow parcel lines. The Conservation boundaries are the result of extensive study by wetlands specialists, botanists, and other environmental specialists. The lands within Conservation Zones 3 contain various environmental sensitivities such as deep gorges, large streams, mature contiguous forests, wetlands, endangered or threatened plant or animal species, etc. So the boundaries follow watersheds and stream banks, and other environmental characteristics instead of parcel boundaries. For those reasons, planning staff recommended protecting the parts of a parcel that were located in the Conservation Zone, especially if the portion in the zone was a very large section of the parcel. Chris explained that staff looked at how other municipalities dealt with parcels with split zones and discovered that they are generally handled in three ways: (1) Require the applicant to seek ZBA variances to follow the more (or less) restrictive zoning district provisions (2) Put a provision in the Code that requires the whole lot or whole use on a lot with split zones to follow the provisions of the more (or less) restrictive zone (3) Allow a certain percentage or area of a zone to encroach into the other zone on the lot. Chris and Sue indicated that some of the methods above wouldn’t completely work for the town of Ithaca, so they appealed to the committee for opinions on the matter. The committee looked at different layouts of properties, where a parcel may be 50/50 split between two zones, but where the overall lot was large and a residence could easily be built without affecting the Conservation area. Then the committee focused on the smaller lots where the split zoning would become more of an issue. Susan B recommended adding some sort of language in the Town Code, because when the code is silent, then the more restrictive application prevails. Discussion continued on how to legislate this. The focus was the Conservation Zone, and Susan B suggested looking at what the town would want to apply, and then consider exempting out certain lot sizes, keeping in mind that there are many legally non-conforming lots that have a mix of zones. The committee considered applying the percentage example. Susan B suggested verbiage to say if one has less than a 7 acre lot, with some Conservation Zone on it (e.g. less than 20%), then the owner wouldn’t have to get a variance to subdivide it, because they are still meeting the other zones’ lot size requirements. But, in terms of what they do when they go to build, they have to meet the requirements of the zone of what is physically under the area they want to build on. Chris restated to be clear: if one has a lot that is split by zoning boundaries, they have to meet whatever requirements of the zone they are building in. For subdivisions, if the lot is less than 7 acres in size, they can subdivide it without a variance if the Conservation Zone portion of the lot is less than a certain percentage of the lot. This would mainly only affect small parcels, as the parent parcel would have to be less than 7 acres in size. The group reviewed the maps on the screen to look at parcels less than 7 acres in size and scenarios of subdividing some of those properties. Bill G noted that the Conservation Zone minimum was slated to increase to 15 acres when the new zoning takes effect, which would change everything the committee just talked about. Since there is no timeline on the new zoning, the committee decided to move forward with the discussion. 4 Eric asked if the point is to create buildable lots at the time of subdivision, and have owners be able to build on the piece of the parcel that is not zoned Conservation, with the guidelines of that zone where you want to build. Sue said yes, but right now, if you could meet the setbacks of the Conservation Zone then you can build there too, especially with a non-conforming existing lot size. She noted that the Conservation Zone is not a protective zone, but very low-density zoning. The committee discussed the idea of prohibiting all development in the Conservation Zone portion of a lot. Paulette suggested restricting the portion in a Conservation Zone to prohibit principal buildings and just allow accessory structures (e.g. sheds), and additions to existing principal buildings (e.g. decks). Marty suggested allowing the Planning Board, during the subdivision process, to identify the developable area of any portion of a parcel that is located in the Conservation Zone. Susan B said if we are going to ask the Planning Board to do this, then we would have to develop very specific standards for them to follow. Chris summarized the potential ideas: 1. Meet whatever requirements of the zone that you are building in. 2. If a lot is less than 7 acres and part is in the Conservation Zone, then prohibit all construction in the Conservation portion. 3. If a lot is less than 7 acres in size and part is in the Conservation Zone, then prohibit construction of principal buildings in the Conservation portion. 4. If a lot is less than 7 acres in size, and part is in a Conservation Zone, you can subdivide without a variance if the part in Conservation makes up X% of the lot. 5. For subdivisions, have the Planning Board identify the developable area of the portion in the Conservation Zone. Susan B asked if the prohibition on building on existing Conservation Zone portions only applies if a subdivision is occurring? Because if the intent is a general provision, then that would be a change in zoning. Bill G said he threw that out for discussion because if you are going to tie it to being subdivided, it should be to all lots. Bill G asked staff to write out and distribute the ideas for the next meeting so the committee can continue the discussion. 6. Other Business Next meeting is November 13. Topics of discussion will include an update on the Energy Code Supplement and regulating parcels with split zones. Meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.