HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2020-11-18TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC)
Meeting of November 18. 2020 — 5:33pm —Via Zoom Video Conference
Approved Minutes
Digitally Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King, Yvonne Fogarty;
Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra,
Planner; Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel.
Guests: April Paris, Carmel Rome, Andrew Molnar
1. Member Comments/Concerns. None.
2. Approval of Minutes from September 16, 2020 COC meeting. The committee approved the
September 16, 2020 meeting minutes with three corrections. Eric moved to approve; Yvonne
seconded. Minutes approved 6-0.
3. Discussion of Energy Code Supplement. Nick Goldsmith highlighted a few points in the memo
that was sent to the COC, noting that the draft Energy Code Supplement was nearing
completion. The previous draft was completed in August 2019 and since then, Nick has been
working on codifying the language to make it more official. The next major milestone is to
bring the new draft for public comment again.
Nick explained that the City of Ithaca has decided to create three documents: a 10 page
Energy Code Supplement Ordinance, the larger Energy Code Supplement document, and a
Reference Manual. The Reference Manual will assist developers with complying with the code
and code enforcement officers with interpreting the code. The town documents would only
include the supplement and manual, but the overall content will be the same.
Nick reviewed the section of his memo that illustrated what types of actions that would be
covered in the code, noting that the city was discussing a new item that would capture
projects that are submitted piecemeal or in phases.
In terms of trigger points that would require adherence to the policy, the city has been
considering requiring applicants to show compliance when submitting a building permit
application. The city has also been contemplating a 90-day grace period, wherein projects
that are submitted 90 days after the code is in effect must comply with the code.
Nick turned the committee's attention to the "Commercial Compliance Summary for Easy
Path/Prescriptive Path" chart in the memo, explaining that there were two new items in the
"easy path" list: "EE4" — points for commercial cooking with all electric cooking equipment,
and "OPT" — points for installing electric vehicle charging stations and parking spaces. Bill K.
asked a clarifying question about "EE2" in relation to heat pumps. Nick explained the
circumstances where heat pumps were required for an entire water system and where they
were required for parts of systems, e.g., dishwashers in commercial kitchens would only
require heat pumps for the pre -heating unit.
Bill K. also had questions related to "RE 1" and "RE 2" and to electrical vehicle parking spaces.
Nick confirmed that the points for RE1 were based on a certain amount of power production —
the project must produce a certain amount of renewable energy per square foot of the
building. Nick explained that one would need twice as much renewable energy production for
commercial buildings as for residential buildings to get the same number of points.
Regarding "RE 2", Nick explained that the minimum combustion efficiency requirement was
based on the NYS NYSERDA standards in their biomass program. Regarding the item with the
electrical vehicle parking spaces, the requirement was based on the square footage of the
building for commercial buildings and on the number of units for residential buildings.
Nick then talked about the timeline of approvals for the code, indicating the plan to bring the
final draft to all committees in December. Since the City of Ithaca required approval by the
Common Council before circulating documents for public comment, the draft city code would
be out for comment in December 2020 and January 2021. The city will review a final draft of
the code in February (February 10). Since the Town of Ithaca operated differently, the draft
town code would be back before COC in December, but then not again until March - if the
town wanted to wait for revisions and comments from the city.
4. Discussion of Proposed Revisions to Sign Law — excerpted sections, October/November
2020. Chris and Marty explained that the main reason for requesting changes to the Sign Law
was to simplify the method for seeking and obtaining approval for sign permits. Chris stated
that one of the main objectives when the draft revised Sign Law was under committee review
the first time was to eliminate the two -board process that existed in the old law, with the
Planning Board making recommendations to the Zoning Board for signs that didn't comply
with the law. The revised law only partially achieved that objective.
Chris and Marty clarified that projects with signs were still going to the Planning Board as part
of a site plan review, but that there were several recent projects that didn't have signs ready
for the board to review at the time of the site plan approval. Those projects needed to come
back to the Planning Board again - paying fees and submitting materials again - for sign
reviews. Some of the same projects also needed area variances from the Zoning Board
because the signs were larger than required. So, some applicants were going to three boards
for the eventual approval of one sign.
Chris stated that the language in the site plan review section of the Zoning Code was not
accounted for when the town revised the Sign Law. The language requires applicants to seek
site plan modification approval for elements of a project, including signs, that aren't approved
at the time of the original site plan approval. She indicated that it became apparent with the
recent projects that the complicated two -board sign review process wasn't really eliminated
with the Sign Law revision.
Chris stated that the proposed revisions before the COC simplify the entire sign review
process by creating an internal staff review for signs that require permits. She mentioned that
planning staff already researches the law, applies the criteria required for sign design review,
and provides recommendations and justifications in resolutions to the Planning Board. The
2
research and application of criteria wouldn't change with the proposed revisions, but instead
of making a recommendation to the Planning Board, planning staff would make a
recommendation to Codes staff, who would then consider issuing a sign permit. This would
eliminate the Planning Board review process entirely unless the Director of Planning decided
to send the sign to the board for review.
The committee looked at the specific sections of revised Sign Law text that was provided in
the mail out. Bill G. questioned whether proposed §270-251 "C" would be better placed
elsewhere in the law; and Susan Brock wondered if "C" was even necessary, as it seemed
redundant. After a short discussion, the committee decided to delete proposed "C".
The committee moved on to §270-260.13 (1). Susan Brock noted that the language in B(2),
which gives the authority to approve or deny signs, was struck in the proposed revision, which
led her to wonder what the Codes staff would do with the "recommendation" by the Director
of Planning. Marty explained that the intent was to give the Planning Department the
authority to compare the proposed sign against the design review criteria in the law, and then
provide the Codes staff with a recommendation on whether to approve the sign, given the
criteria in the law. This led to a lengthy discussion on which entity should have the authority
to approve or deny signs and how to craft language in the law to clearly and accurately reflect
the steps taken to approve or deny a sign. Ultimately, the committee agreed with the process
to have the Director of Planning make a recommendation to the Codes Department on
proposed signs, who would then approve, approve with conditions, or deny the signs.
The committee then discussed item (3) on page 2, which would allow the referral of signs to
the Planning Board in certain cases. The committee supported the concept of keeping the
Planning Board involved in the process to some degree. Susan Brock indicated that this
section should be rewritten to contain specific criteria that the Director of Planning would use
to judge whether a sign should be referred to the Planning Board. Susan, Marty, and Chris will
work on revised language for this section and will bring it back to the committee in December.
5. Update on Telecommunications Law. Bill G. reminded the committee that he was looking to
coordinate efforts with the City of Ithaca, Village of Lansing, and Village of Cayuga Heights to
meet with Andrew Campanelli, the attorney in Long Island that is an expert in
telecommunications law. Krin Flaherty, city attorney, has been trying to set up a date for
everyone to meet. The municipalities are expected to have several questions for Mr.
Campanelli, so Bill G. will report to the committee in December. He noted that, given all the
new information received via public comments, the updates to the town law will take a lot
longer than originally thought.
Yvonne indicated that she hadn't received any of the public comments that were submitted to
the committee. Chris mentioned that she forwarded all of them to the committee but check
and make sure that Yvonne received them.
Chris stated that she had been reading a lot of the public comments on the topic of 5G, along
with the attached links and other information provided by residents. She also reported to the
committee that she attended an online American Planning Association webinar on the topic
and was disappointed to learn that all the speakers were Verizon Wireless representatives.
3
The webinar wasn't a very balanced discussion about the 5G issue, although the speakers did
mention that 5G was envisioned for the future to facilitate the Internet of Things. The
speakers noted that the use of data was very important to evaluate the Covid-19 pandemic
and that there was a need for more data since so many people were working from home.
Chris shared two slides from the webinar that showed photos of local 5G installations and
how they compared with 4G installations, with the main difference being that 5G installations
had no separate equipment cabinet. All necessary equipment would be located within the
antenna itself, which is only slightly larger than the 4G antenna.
Susan reported on her research into the applicability of the Federal NEPA law, noting that
NEPA was different than SEAR and that it applied to the installation of small cell deployments.
Susan explained what a NEPA review was and how it involved the municipal review process,
stating that the FCC made the determination whether an installation falls under "categorical
exclusion", and would therefore be exempt from further NEPA environmental review based
on a list of criteria in the NEPA law.
Susan indicated that the NEPA review language would be included in the town's updated
telecommunications law; that it would require applicants to submit proof that supports the
assertion that the application meets NEPA's categorical exclusion criteria. The town could
forward the information to the FCC, who would then make a NEPA environmental
determination and findings. Susan explained that one big difference between SEAR and NEPA
is that issues raised about radiation emissions could be considered under NEPA; that the town
can inquire about the effective radiated power for a proposed facility and for all other
facilities in an area around the proposal, so the information can be forwarded to the FCC for
their determination. If the effective radiation power exceeds the FCC limits, then the FCC
could require a NEPA environmental review or even an environmental impact statement to
address any potentially significant environmental impacts.
6. Other Business. The next COC meeting is tentatively scheduled for December 91". Discussion
items will include the revised Sign Law, the draft Energy Code Supplement, and possibly the
Telecommunications Law.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:13pm.
0