Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2021-02-10 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of February 10, 2021 – 5:33pm – Via Zoom Video Conference Final 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: Andrew Molnar, Adam Monzella, Jerone Gagliano, Jennifer (no last name provided) 1. Member Comments/Concerns. Bill G. mentioned that the Town Board met on 2-8-21 and held a public hearing and adopted the changes to the Sign Law that were recommended by the committee. Bill G. then allowed members of the public to speak briefly for 3 minutes each on the topic of wireless telecommunications facilities. Andrew Molnar spoke on behalf of the “Ithacans for Responsible Technology” coalition. He appreciated seeing that the committee met with Andrew Campanelli and was heartened by the potential proposals noted in Susan Brock’s memo. He asked the committee to consider three additional items in the revised telecommunications law: (1) please include a clause for insurance without pollution exclusion, so telecommunications companies cannot wiggle out of lawsuits because they have insurance with a pollution exclusion related to radiation exposure; (2) please consider increasing the minimum distance from a cell facility to a home or school to 1,500 feet – the draft law proposes 250 feet; (3) please include a revocability clause so that if the law changes, any signed contracts between the telecommunications company and the town can change as well. Andrew noted that he sent information to the COC via email relating to potential updates to FCC radiation guidelines, and that the new FCC chairperson has gone on record in the past to be amenable to local government concerns. Adam Monzella spoke and echoed Andrew’s comments, reiterating that the town had some excellent potential provisions (e.g., requiring submissions for wireless stations to be verified under penalties of perjury, mandating compliance with FCC radiation emission standards, requiring evidence to show significant gaps in coverage). Adam also requested that the committee consider adding a revocability clause and a clause for general liability insurance without pollution exclusion. He asked that the committee be cautious and sensitive to the links between health issues and proximity to radiation exposure from telecommunications facilities. Bill G. mentioned that the town has been receiving the emails from residents and is continuing to review those emails and the information contained within. He clarified that the town is looking at updating the telecommunications law but, unlike the City of Ithaca, the town was not currently in negotiations with Verizon or any other provider for a master license agreement to provide telecommunications facilities in rights-of-way. That would be a separate process at the town, particularly because the town does not own many of the roads within its jurisdiction - most roads are either county or state-owned and controlled, so the town has no rights to engage in any legal 2 agreements on roads that they do not own. The City of Ithaca is different, in that they own the roads within their jurisdiction and can control what happens within the rights-of-way. 2. Minutes from November 18 & December 9, 2020 COC Meetings. The committee approved both sets of minutes with some minor changes. Eric moved and Yvonne seconded the November 18th minutes; Eric moved and Pat seconded the December 9th minutes. Unanimous vote on both sets. 3. Update on Telecommunications Law. Bill G. pointed out that the COC packet included an excel spreadsheet illustrating the aesthetic requirements and approval processes for telecommunications facilities that the committee approved in June 2020. Chris briefly explained that there was no new information, but she wanted to present the information differently than the 5 page list that the committee went through back in June. Chris noted that the content was much easier to read and understand and that it was easier to capture redundancies in the language by placing the requirements in a spreadsheet format rather than a list. The committee was encouraged to review the spreadsheet but hold questions and discussion about it until a later COC meeting. Bill G. turned the committee’s attention to the memo provided by Susan Brock, which summarized the discussion that the town had with Andrew Campanelli, the attorney from Long Island who represents local governments on telecommunications and zoning matters. Bill stated that the intent of the memo was to spur discussion on what else the town might want to see in an updated telecommunications law. He expected the committee to discuss the items in the memo and to eventually provide guidance to the Town Board. The committee went through the memo item by item (item headings are summarized in italics- refer to the memo for the exact wording): 1. State in the updated telecommunications law that to approve an application, the Planning Board must determine that the facilities are the least intrusive means for closing a significant gap in services. Susan explained that the FCC included a different standard in their new Small Cell Order than the one that was interpreted by the Second Circuit Court (federal court of appeals whose decisions are binding in NYS). She stated that the new standard is more lenient in terms of what is considered an “effective prohibition” of personal wireless services. Susan emphasized that the FCC could not just change the standard that was upheld by the Second Circuit Court. The committee should consider adding language in the law to require telecommunications companies to prove that their proposals are the least intrusive means to close a significant gap in service/coverage. 2. Discuss adding language specifying how proposed improved service (such as 5G) is treated in the significant gap/least intrusive means analysis. Bill G. noted that this relates to #1…having telecommunications companies prove that they need the facilities to close a gap in coverage. 3. Require applicants to submit drive-test data, dropped-call data, and in-building test results (where gaps are asserted within building) to prove significant gaps in coverage. Do not accept propagation maps as evidence of significant gaps. Bill G. reiterated that this relates to #1…having telecommunications companies prove that they need the facilities to close a gap in coverage. 4. State whether to allow applicants to build for future capacity needs. According to Andrew Campanelli, the town does not have to allow applicants to build towards future capacity. The question is whether the town wants to allow them to or not. 3 5. Should there be a process in the law for the Planning Board to determine when a showing has been made for an exemption to the separation requirements (e.g., 1,500 feet from another wireless facility)? Or should the applicant apply to the ZBA for an area variance? This is something that will be considered as the town figures out the approval process in an updated law. 6. Require one or more of three options listed in memo to prove that the applicant is compliant with FCC RF emissions on start-up and prior to wireless facility renewals. The committee should discuss requiring test data that shows compliance and/or conducting random tests of facilities to ensure compliance (and require the company to pay for the testing expenses), etc. 7. Require all submissions to the Town to be verified under penalties of perjury. Andrew Campanelli has encouraged this. The committee expressed interest in pursuing all seven (7) of the proposed items in Susan Brock’s memo. Bill added that he expected the discussion to continue at the committee level at the March COC meeting and that the Town Board will be introduced to the topic via Susan Brock’s memo at their February 22nd meeting. The committee went into closed session at 6:10pm to seek advice of counsel (motion by Bill, second by Eric, unanimous vote). The committee came out of closed session at 6:30pm (motion by Bill, second by Eric, unanimous vote). 4. Discussion of Energy Code Supplement (IECS). Bill G. guided the committee to the memo that Nick provided in the packet, which highlighted specific sections of the IECS draft for public comment, dated 01/28/2021 (68-page document). The sections intended to be discussed by the committee included Chapter 3-Definitions, Chapter 4–Sections C403 and C404, and Chapter 5. Bill G. stressed the importance of getting some COC input on changes in the document tonight, since the City Planning and Economic Development Committee (PEDC) was going to hold a public hearing on the draft in a week’s time and Bill wanted to make sure that the town provided some comments by then. Nick mentioned that public comments on the document had just started rolling in and that he expected some significant ones, as Ithaca College and Cornell University have both indicated that they planned to send comments. He noted that it was very unlikely that the PEDC would move the law on to Common Council immediately, adding that the renewable energy section was not yet finalized. It is expected that the PEDC and the COC would continue to discuss the document at their respective March meetings. The committee had the following general comments and questions related to the IECS:  Please explain where the document will be and who will receive it. Susan Brock responded that the IECS would be in the Town Code, which is accessible online via General Code and on the Town of Ithaca website. Also, there will be a larger, interpretive document that will help people better understand the IECS and that document will be on the town’s website and in 4 hard copy at Town Hall. Town Codes staff, or in some cases Planning staff, would refer applicants and provide guidance on where to find the document and how to use it.  What is the process for someone who wants to add an addition to their house (for example)? Town Codes staff would assist a homeowner looking to add an addition to their home, just as they would guide the homeowner through the NYS Building Code process. Planning staff would assist a developer that is going through the site plan review process for a large development.  Will there be a cheat sheet for people to follow? There’s some guidance in place in the Applicability section (Section 202) of the code. See Section 202.1 (page 3). Bill G. noted that we can add something to the town’s website to make it a little clearer for people. Staff will also look at creating a checklist for applicants to follow, but that will come later. It won’t be in the IECS itself. Beginning with Chapter 3, Definitions (page 5 of hard copy/page 18 of pdf), the committee had the following comments: [Note: all page references below correspond to the hard copy]  Page 5, “ASHRAE” – Eva asked what the acronym stood for. Nick stated that it stood for “American Society for Heating and Air Conditioning Engineers.” Committee recommended adding the full title to the definition, possibly at the end of the definition.  Page 6 – Eva asked what “Easy Path” meant. She also wondered why it was also now called “Prescriptive Compliance Path”, noting that it seemed like one must go somewhere else in the law to understand the meaning. Nick explained that the names of the compliance paths were modified after talking with code inspectors, who requested that the names be more like the terms in the NYS Building Code. Hence “prescriptive” path (same as “easy”) and “performance-based” path (same as “whole building”). The result is a hybrid of terms that reference the process for applicants to follow when trying to comply with the IECS. The easy/prescriptive path is a points-based system of compliance and the performance- based/whole building path requires meeting certification standards and modeling, but not points. This still seemed confusing to committee members, so Bill G. suggested that staff consider clarifying the definitions so that the meaning of the various paths was more obvious in the definitions. Staff will work on this for the March COC meeting.  Page 8 – under “Process Energy”, Eva asked what “receptacle loads” meant. Bill G. noted that this term is a building trade term. Nick explained that the top of the definitions section (page 5) contains a statement that refers the reader to the NYS Energy Conservation Code for any terms that aren’t defined in the IECS. He will check that code to see if receptacle loads are defined there.  Page 9 – under “Window-to-Wall Ratio”, Eva asked what spandrel window assemblies were. Bill explained that this is an architectural trade term. Nick reiterated that he’d check the Energy Conservation Code to see if the term is defined in that code. The committee moved on to Chapter 4, Section C403 – Performance-Based Compliance Path/Whole Building Path (page 29 of hard copy, page 42 of pdf).  The committee had no comments on this section.  Nick stated that the intent of the section was to provide flexibility to developers who were already comfortable and familiar with the systems listed (LEED, Passive House, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation-Based Compliance, etc.). He noted that Cornell helped develop the 5 C403.4 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions/GHG) calculations and provided a template that the town and city adapted. Nick asked Marty if the regulations gave enough guidance for code inspectors, so they would know what documentation should be required and how applicants should show compliance. Marty indicated that he would look closely at this section and would provide comments to Nick. The committee then focused on Chapter 4, beginning with Section C404 – Commercial Future Requirements (page 33 of hard copy, page 46 of pdf). The section explained what would be required in 2025.  Bill G. summarized that the easy/prescriptive path would require 6 points until 2025, where that path would then require 12 points (C404.2). He mentioned that people involved with the “Sunrise Movement” have asked the City of Ithaca to consider a stronger policy by starting out with requiring 12 points and not waiting to 2025 to bump the requirement from 6 to 12 points. Nick indicated that he would not be in favor of jumping to 12 points immediately. He would recommend instead that if the town and city wanted a more aggressive timeline, then keep the three steps but shrink timeline e.g., move the requirement for 12 points to 2023 instead of 2025. Bill asked the committee to think about this, as the Sunrise Movement might contact the town to ask for the same changes.  The committee had no other comments on this section. Continuing with Chapter 4, page 35 (page 48 of the pdf), Section C404.7, which explained that all new commercial buildings would need to be built to have net-zero GHG emissions and not use fossil fuels for space heating, water cooling or clothes drying as of January 1, 2030. The committee had the following comments:  Bill K. wondered if the provision eliminated natural gas completely or if it allowed natural gas for cooking. Nick noted that it still allowed cooking using natural gas.  Eva expressed concern with the amount of fossil fuels allowed to be used by larger, existing industrial buildings and wondered why the IECS was not requiring them to utilize alternative sources of energy for processing. The committee engaged in a short discussion about narrowing the definition of “process energy” to limit fossil fuel use in larger, existing buildings. Bill G. noted that to evaluate fossil fuel use in existing buildings will require grants and studies and would result in a multi-year process. He suggested that the town get the IECS in place now to address new buildings and then turn attention to existing buildings.  Susan Brock stated that there were some items in Chapter 4 that referred to a new building or new buildings, but that it was important for people to know that the standards also applied to additions to existing buildings. Nick will make a note of this.  The discussion diverged to shortening the timeframe to sometime before 2030 for requiring new commercial buildings to be constructed to have net-zero GHG emissions and not use fossil fuels. Bill G. noted that this was a much larger item to discuss and that the committee should talk in more detail about it at the March COC meeting. All the committee members were in favor of recommending the change. The committee left off on Chapter 5, page 37, after a short discussion about air-to-water hydronic heat pumps that were not covered by NEEP. Bill G. suggested that the committee take time to fully review Chapter 5 and come prepared with questions at the March COC meeting. 6 5. Other Business.  Discussion of Potential Future COC Topic: Bill G. mentioned that the Town Board received a request from a resident who lives on Texas Lane, in the northeast part of the town. The resident wanted to put a pool in their back yard that would be located within the stream setback required by the Stream Setback Law. The resident could have sought a variance from the ZBA but instead found another location on the property for the pool. He then sent a letter asking the town to look at the stream setback provisions and consider making an exception to let residents place structures and conduct other activities within the stream setback when a significant portion of the resident’s back yard lies within a stream setback. The consensus of the committee was that the Stream Setback Law was put in place for good reasons and that they weren’t amenable to changing it, but that they would like to review the details of the case at the March meeting. Marty will provide materials for the committee to consider. Meeting was adjourned at 7:39pm.