Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2020-12-09TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of December 9, 2020 - 5:3512m -Via Zoom Video Conference 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: Andrew Molnar 1. Member Comments/Concerns. None. 2. Discussion of Energy Code Supplement. Nick Goldsmith summarized the memo he provided to the COC. The committee began their discussion with the grace period for projects to meet the requirements listed in the Energy Code Supplement (ECS). The proposed grace period has been tentatively set for 90 days. Nick asked the committee if they considered that enough time for an applicant. Susan Brock requested clarification on the 90 days. Would it be 90 days after the date of adoption of the ECS? Or some other specific date that the town set? Nick stated that the proposal was for 90 days after adoption. The committee supported the 90 day grace period, surmising that it should be enough time for applicants to comply with the new ECS requirements. The discussion then turned to publicity and giving people time to learn about the new code and to provide comments and concerns. Yvonne suggested giving out the regulations to people filing building permit applications before the adoption date, so they could consider complying if they wanted to. Nick noted the suggestion and mentioned that people at the City of Ithaca had already begun to measure their projects up against the ECS, even though the code had yet to be adopted. Chris suggested that Nick include something about the ECS in the town newsletter, so it would reach many residents. The committee wanted the notification to go out to as many people as possible as soon as possible. The committee turned their attention to the trigger point for complying with the ECS. Nick explained that the city's trigger point was going to be at the time of submission of a complete building permit application. This led to a very long discussion about what the town would set as a compliance trigger point for the ECS. Should it be before a project receives site plan/subdivision/special permit/special approval? Should it apply to projects that have already received said approvals but haven't submitted for building permits yet? Sue Ritter explained that it made the most sense to require an applicant to comply with the ECS after final approvals were obtained for a project but before obtaining a building permit. Marty agreed and noted that codes staff had the authority to withdraw building permits for projects that have not obtained all required approvals, to prevent applicants from bypassing the approval process. Marty also stated that the Uniform Building Code changed from time to time; and that if a complete building permit application came in before a code change, then a project would follow previous code rules. If an application was incomplete when the code changed, then the applicant would need to follow the new code; they would not get to take advantage of the previous code. Marty explained that, applying this concept to the ECS, a complete application would involve his department issuing a building permit. To that, Susan Brock suggested adding a definition to the ECS with what was considered a "complete" application. Bill G. recommended deleting the suggested wording in the ECS relating to obtaining site plan approval, subdivision approval, special approval, and special permit approval and instead state that if an applicant didn't get their complete building permit application in before the end of the 90 day grace period, then they must comply with the ECS requirements. The committee agreed. Staff will wordsmith this item. The committee moved on to the next item in Nick's memo — "2. Unreasonable Hardship and Appeals Process." The language in the memo came from the City of Ithaca draft. Susan Brock wanted to know the justification for the unreasonable hardship exemption, citing that the Zoning Code only gave relief for severe adverse economic impacts to applicants. She asked what the town would do for example, when a not -for -profit complained that it would be too expensive for them to comply with the ECS and asked the town to give an exemption because of the community service, e.g., affordable housing, that the not -for -profit provides. Nick replied that the ECS working group discussed many situations in which an exemption would be given (historic building in the city, small hunting cabins designed for use without electricity or plumbing, etc.), but ultimately didn't come up with specific exemption criteria, given the vast variety of development projects and situations that might come to the town. Marty suggested ZBA review, so an applicant would seek variances from the law and not leave exemptions to an administrative process. Nick clarified that he included the exemption section in the ECS because he was under the impression that it was mandatory. Some committee members were uncomfortable with the "unreasonable hardship" language, and with allowing one staff person to have the discretion to give an exemption to the law. One member suggested that if the law included the exemption language, and the town didn't list criteria that the applicant must justify before obtaining an exemption, then the law should at least contain something that prevented an applicant from using cost as the reason for the exemption request. Other committee members liked the idea of appealing to the ZBA to seek variances, which led the committee to a discussion on what type of variance criteria to apply, as variances from the ECS wouldn't be area or use variances. The discussion turned to the NYS variance process that is in place for the State Energy Code and whether the town could adopt the variance criteria that is in the NYS Energy Code. Marty will look at the criteria to see if there's useful criteria that the town can copy for the ECS. Marty noted that the state required mitigation if a project could not fully comply with the state law; and that the town might want to include a mitigation factor in the ECS as well. Staff will research this further and will report to the committee at the next meeting. 3. Discussion of Proposed Revisions to Sign Law — excerpted sections December 2020. Chris summarized the changes between last month's version of the law and the current draft language. The committee reviewed the proposed changes and had no additional changes. Susan Brock noted that "(3)" on page one included a slightly different process than what was discussed previously. She referred the committee to the first yellow highlighted paragraph on page two and clarified that if the Director of Planning was going to give the Code Officer a negative recommendation about a sign, then 2 the sign review would go to the Planning Board for design review and recommendation to the Code Officer, and then the Code Officer would make the final decision. Susan explained that, like every decision of the Code Officer, if the applicant wanted to appeal the Code Officer decision after a negative recommendation by the Director of Planning and the Planning Board, then they would then appeal to the ZBA. The committee agreed with this process. The second yellow highlighted area at the end of the draft was for the committee's information, noting that the changes to the sign law also required minor modifications to the Zoning Code site plan review criteria. The committee concluded their review of the proposed changes to the sign law, and unanimously approved a vote to send the law to the Town Board for consideration of adoption. 4. Update on Telecommunications Law. Bill G. summarized the Zoom meeting that happened between Andrew Campanelli and the Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca, Village of Lansing, and Village of Cayuga Heights. The meeting was an hour long and was chock full of information that the town now needs to discuss and figure out. Bill G. will set up a meeting with staff after the New Year to discuss the next steps with the law. There may be some points or ideas to consider that the committee can talk about at the January meeting, before diving into any draft changes. Bill G. expects the discussion to last several months. 5. Other Business. The committee reviewed and approved the 2021 meeting schedule without changes. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 13, 2021. Meeting was adjourned at 7:06pm.