HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2015-11-04TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
Meeting of November 4, 2015
6:30 p.m. — 8:20 P.M.
Minutes
Present: Bill Goodman (Chair); Pat Leary, Yvonne Fogarty, Bill King, and Eric Levine; Susan
Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates,
Director of Code Enforcement; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk.
Absent: Paulette Terwilliger, Eva Hoffmann, Susan Brock.
Guests: Claire Forest, Forest Family Farm; Melissa Kemp and Raija Bushnell, Renovus Energy.
1. Member comments/concerns. Bill G. opened the meeting. Committee members had no
comments or concerns.
2. Approval of October 14, 2015 COC Minutes. No changes were made. Moved by Eric,
seconded by Pat. Unanimous.
3. Continued discussion of Draft Regulations Pertaining to Chickens. Claire Forest was
invited to address the committee and started out by stating that her family has farmed on West
King Road in the Town of Ithaca for over 25 years. Their farm is in the NYS Agricultural District
and in the town's Ag zone. They grow organic red raspberries, peaches, apples, and just planted
blueberries for a pick -your -own berry business. Claire indicated that visitors to the farm were
appalled by noise from guinea hens at an adjacent property, located in the Low Density
Residential zone across the road. She also noted that the neighboring property also had roosters
that crowed all day. Claire was particularly concerned that the noise from the guinea hens was
negatively affecting her farm's pick -your -own berry business by making it too noisy for her and
her customers. She asked that the town not allow guinea hens, roosters, pigs, or similar animals,
or butchering within the town.
Bill G. said that, in the current Town Code, domestic animals are allowed, and that the definition
of domestic animals in the ordinance allows certain "fowl." The COC has been talking about
taking fowl out of the domestic animal category and instead creating a separate ordinance just
pertaining to chickens. The draft law would propose limits on the size of the flocks to six in
Medium and Low Density zones and 12 in Conservation and Agricultural zones. The law would
prohibit roosters and slaughtering on site. He asked how many guinea hens the neighbor has.
Claire responded that the woman told Claire that she had 60 guinea hens.
The committee went over the draft language that Mike provided in the mail out. All fowl would
be taken out of the definition of domestic animals. The law would specifically address chickens.
Bill G. explained that this would mean one would be able to have guinea hens in Agricultural and
Low Density zones if one had a farm, per the definition of "farm" in the Town Code. Bill G. further
explained that farms are allowed in a Low Density zone, but in order to be considered a farm in
that zone, farming would have to be the primary use of the property. Additionally, to be
designated a farm, for real estate tax exemption purposes, one would have to file as such with the
County Assessment Department, which requires filing a Schedule F (Profit or Loss from Farming)
with a tax return.
The COC discussed farms in Low Density zones versus farms in Agricultural zones. Bruce stated
that the right -to -farm law applied regardless of the zone and also pointed out that once the draft
law was adopted, people would have 90 days to comply with the new regulations. They could
then seek an exemption from the law by going to the ZBA for a variance.
Regarding whether the law should specifically prohibit guinea hens, Bruce suggested that if it
was not specifically stated in the law, then the law should at least somewhere clarify that guinea
hens are not chickens. Mike Smith stated that some laws specifically listed guinea hens.
Looking specifically at the draft law sections in Mike's memo, the committee suggested the
following changes:
• C- the last line should read "...but be located no less than 20 feet from any property lines."
• D- should read "Henhouses and enclosures must be kept in a neat, sanitary and humane
condition..."
• Out of the three definition examples provided, the committee chose the "enclosures"
definition for the law.
• G- should read "Chicken hens and/or chicken hen eggs shall be for personal use only and
shall not be offered for sale."
• J - time frame to comply changed from 90 days to 60 days.
Eric moved and Bill G. seconded passing the draft law to the Town Board for review. Unanimous.
4. Initial Discussion of Possible Revisions to the Town Code Regarding Solar Collectors
and Installations. Melissa Kemp and Raija Bushnell from Renovus Energy were present. Sue
stated that the town's existing solar law restricts solar collectors to no larger than 1000 square
feet in area and that it applied only to single-family homes. Any larger arrays would be
prohibited because the law doesn't address them. She noted that there was an urgency to be
able to address larger solar arrays for commercial, multiple residence, and even large-scale solar
farms.
Sue referenced the Comprehensive Plan and the town's goals for sustainability regarding solar,
stating that she thought it was important that the town take a look at how to accommodate
larger solar arrays. Her goal was to ensure that there were fewer legal hurdles and make it more
straightforward to apply solar in the town. Solar panels are not noisy; they don't cause traffic
impacts; they don't annoy neighbors. So, with that in mind, town staff talked to staff at Renovus
Energy to gain some understanding of the technical aspects of solar.
Sue went on to say that the current law talks about the surface area of the solar panel itself.
Other laws she researched talk about physical footprint of the array, which made more sense.
She focused on ground -mounted systems, since the town already allows roof -mounted systems
without size limitations. This would effectively be a whole new law instead of a modification of
an existing law. Sue referenced the memo she provided to the committee, which described three
different sizes or scales of solar installation, each with a slightly different regulatory need. A
small system for a single-family home would be allowed with only a building permit with a
certain amount of setback.
Setbacks could fluctuate, depending on the density of the neighborhood. Right now, solar panels
are restricted to rear yards, but Sue noted that there are many houses on dirt roads or without
2
street frontage or any neighbors nearby and that, in those cases, solar panels in a side or front
yard might be appropriate. So the town should consider provisions that would not require
someone in that situation to seek a ZBA variance. The main concern appears to be aesthetics, so
in a neighborhood with sidewalks, we wouldn't want people putting in a lot of huge solar panels
in the front yard. To deal with these different situations, Sue added some caveats into the draft
law, e.g. a medium scale array for a multiple -dwelling unit in a dense residential area might be
limited in size to only what's required on site, and not to sell for off -site energy usage. For large-
scale arrays, remote net metering would create opportunities for off -site solar, which would
allow them to be put in a remote area and also allow people who can't have solar to purchase it.
Committee member questions:
Bill K. commented on the sizes of the three different systems. He's familiar with residential solar,
and noted that 10 kW wouldn't be enough for a single-family home that's using electricity for
most things. He suggested 20 kW as the top for a single-family home. The panels are becoming
more efficient, so more energy is produced with a single panel.
Melissa agreed with Bill. She sees more homes switching over to smart electric, installing heat
pumps, and using electric for everything, thus requiring a larger energy output.
Yvonne added that people who have electric cars are using solar to plug their cars in. She asked
why someone in MDR or HDR would want solar on the ground. Chris said siting considerations
such as topography, roof pitch or shading from buildings or trees might prevent someone from
installing roof -mounted panels. Yvonne thought more focus should be on solar farms. She
thought having solar on the ground in the MDR and HDR would negatively affect housing prices.
She thought it would be more efficient to use solar from solar farms instead of putting panels all
over people's yards.
Sue informed the committee that NYSEG has a web site where you can look to see where you can
put large-scale solar farms, noting that their equipment is such that there can't be solar farms all
over the county. Rather, there might be very limited areas where you can have a solar farm. Also,
the farm is only going to provide energy for a limited number of homes. She thought it would be
critical to distribute solar throughout the community, in order to generate enough electricity to
keep everyone from using non-renewables. Melissa commented that the allowance for solar
farms has only been in effect since last week in Tompkins County. She doesn't think solar farms
will or should replace on -site solar. It's important for people to have the right to have solar on
site.
Bill G. asked Yvonne if her concern was mostly aesthetic. Yvonne said it was mostly with solar in
front yards. Bill pointed out that there's a house in Forest Home where, because of a cliff in back,
they had to mount panels in their front yard. They're up high enough and not tilted, so they look
like an arbor or a covered space. He walked by and didn't even realize they were there. So,
depending on design considerations, they can be un-noticeable. He added that we would need
solar farms for apartment buildings and people in the city who can't put solar on their property.
Bill K. stated that rooftop panels were cheaper than ground -mounted, so the roof would remain
the first choice for most people.
The committee agreed that it would be appropriate for staff to draft a new law, so Sue will
provide a draft law for the next meeting. The committee discussed property setbacks for small
3
and large arrays and decided that, due to aesthetics, larger systems should require bigger
setbacks and smaller arrays should require smaller setbacks.
Bill G. wondered if there were any larger arrays in the Ithaca area that he and other committee
members could drive by and look to get a sense of what a neighbor might see. Bruce noted that
his office has an inventory of all solar permits that have been applied for since we started using
Municity (2014). The list includes both roof mounted and ground mounted systems. The
committee requested that staff take pictures of some of the arrays around the area and to
provide these for the committee to review at the next meeting.
5. Other Business
❖ Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for Dece ber 9 2015
❖ Agenda: continue with solar law discussion
21