Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2022-01-12 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of January 12, 2022 – 5:30 pm – via Zoom and live on YouTube Final Minutes Members and Staff Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, Eva Hoffmann, Yvonne Fogarty, Rob Rosen, and Eric Levine - Members. Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel, Abby Homer, Planning Admin Asst -Staff. Bill set up the meeting to broadcast on YouTube along with the Zoom platform. The agenda was then reviewed, and Bill noted that public comment would be taken at the beginning of the meeting. Public Comments (time limit 2 minutes per person): -David recommended restricting 5G codes for good level of community control, supported 1500 ft. setback -Andrew Molnar noted the scientific studies of 5G harmful radiation, supported 1500-1640 ft. setback for safety, thanked committee for hard work -Wendy commented 5G is an unnecessary source of unsafe radiation -Irina noted concern over change to proposed 300 ft setback, asked for residents to be priorit ized, not to compromise home values and health -Sheila supported 1640 ft. setback for safety -April supported 1500 ft. setback, noted the codes were not sufficient safety protection -Lisa Betruzzi commented that the Federal Telecommunications Act is immoral, recommended following the lead of New Hampshire and set 1500 ft. setback. -Fazilee recommended writing restrictive codes to protect the citizens and beauty of the area and a 1500 ft. setback. The public was thanked for their comments and asked to resume viewing the meeting on YouTube, if desired. 1. Member comments/concerns. New Town Board/COC member Rob Rosen was introduced and welcomed to the committee. 2. Minutes: Second draft of November 10th minutes were circulated; all changes were accepted. Eva moved to approve the 11/10/2021 COC minutes as amended, Yvonne seconded. All members voted in favor of approval. The December 8th meeting minutes were circulated. Minor changes were suggested for clarity and outlined by Susan Brock; changes were accepted by the committee. Eva moved to approve the 12/8/2021 COC minutes as amended, Yvonne seconded. All members voted in favor of approval. 3. Discussion of Energy Code Supplement Amendments: Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner, described the individual amendments proposed to the Energy Code Supplement outlined 2 in detail in his 1/5/2022 memo to the committee. The proposed changes come as a result of review after identifying a less restrictive section compared to the NYS Uniform Energy code as well as the 2015 NYS Energy code being used as a reference originally and that code was updated in 2020 which identified the few other changes needed. The ECS must be approved by NYS Codes Council and is scheduled for a March 2022 review (the ECS can be implemented and enforced in the meantime). The City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca have applied for the NYS review at the same time. It is likely that similar revisions to the city code will be brought to their committee and boards for amendments as well. The committee reviewed and approved proposed amendments 1-4 from Nick’s memo. Sue Ritter commented on the EV parking space requirement for multiple residence. She noted that because the provision requires the space to be only used for electric vehicle charging purposes (versus overnight/long-term parking), the parking provisions in the Town Code for multiple residences will need to be amended to reference these additional EV charging space(s). The 5th proposed amendment, “Adaptive Reuse, Sections 144-C402.5.4 and 144-R502.5.4,” was discussed in detail. Nick and Marty proposed language at the meeting that was slightly different than the language in Nick’s memo, but the main intent was to not require buildings to keep old insulation. A definition for “building structure” was also added. The basis on how to measure maintaining the 50% or more of the existing building structure and building thermal envelope was proposed to be revised further to include foundations, posts, beams, structural columns, load-bearing walls and roofs. Susan Brock asked if the intent of the language changes was to include interior and exterior elements, as outlined in the proposed definition. She also noted that the I (for Ithaca) in the “IECS” acronym should be removed from Section 144-201.2 to be consistent within the document. Nick explained that the inclusion was after consultation with the STREAM Collaborative consultants that helped develop the Adaptive Reuse section. He confirmed, with the agreement of Marty, that the intent of the building structure definition and measurement was to include the load bearing elements of a structure, even if they are not exterior walls. Other calculation methods were discussed, and the language provided seemed the most reasonable. Marty added that these numbers would be provided by the applicant to receive the point that is being sought. The calculations would be made by the code officer and verification would need to be on the documentation provided by the applicant. Rob expressed that measuring the total surface area could be complicated and could possibly have an unintended effect that would not strengthen the code or the intent to minimize the energy input to the building. Bill asked what the language would be preventing by requiring the total surface area as opposed to the exterior. Nick explained that it was the insulation part that the revision would clarify. Bill also asked if the same language would be in the residential section of the ECS. Nick confirmed that the language would be the same for commercial and residential structures. Eva recommended taking a closer look at this language and put more thought into it, as it seemed like a complicated way to measure how much energy a building used and would 3 vary based on the building construction. Yvonne recommended taking out the posts beams and columns from the definition. Nick asked if removing the posts, beams, and structural columns from the building structure but keeping the foundations and load-bearing walls in the definition would alleviate the committee concerns and still achieve the goal and benefit of saving building material. Bill stated that it would be easier to figure out the surface area if those terms were removed from the definition. Bill concluded that the remaining proposed amendment (#5) to the Energy Code Supplement would need further discussion internally between now and the February meeting. The committee will discuss this further in February. 4. Town of Ithaca Telecommunications Law: Susan Brock, Bill and Chris offered to set up a Zoom meeting with Rob to provide the history of the existing law and its relation to the 1996 Telecommunications Act that governs municipalities’ abilities to regulate telecommunications facilities. Susan mentioned to the committee that the Town of Fishkill adopted their law written by Attorney Andrew Campanelli. She reviewed the final public hearing, comments and questions brought forth by a Fishkill resident which included the same question the committee raised on setback provisions. The Fishkill Town Board originally requested a 300ft setback between small cell wireless facilities town wide, and the final draft language was: zero setback where the facility would be installed on a pre-existing utility pole or collocated on a pre-existing personal wireless service facility, a 300ft setback in residential zones from residential dwellings or structures, and a 50ft setback in non-residential zones unless the facility is placed on a pre- existing utility pole or other utility structure. Mr. Campanelli provided the answer to why he recommended the 300ft setback - he stated that, after reviewing the layout of the Town of Fishkill on Google Earth, he discovered that anything more than a 300ft setback town wide would be “problematic - basically it would wipe out the entire town” as a possibility for providing service. The 300ft distance requirement was made to avoid constituting a “prohibition on wireless services”. Application denials could still occur based on aesthetics, property values impact, etc. He explained that a sufficient gap in service coverage must also be proven by the applicant to be approved, and that the least intrusive means would need to be used to remedy the gap. Mr. Campanelli noted that these may be hard standards for the companies to achieve if there is plenty of service with 4G in the area, stating that “this is not drafted to prevent 5G, it is drafted to prohibit the irresponsible placement of wireless facilities”. 5. Other business: Bill brought up a resolution proposed by the Association of Towns, calling for the NYS Legislature and Governor of NYS to continue to support broadband and cellular access and deployment, specifically citing “advancing 5G technology is essential for public safety, commercial economic growth, our education and the overall wellbeing of our citizens”. The first whereas clause in the proposed resolution, which was shared on screen with the committee, seemed questionable. The committee was not 100% in support of the resolution as written. It was noted that the ability for one town to change the language in the resolution may 4 be difficult, however a suggestion was made to have the Town of Ithaca delegate at the Annual Associations of Towns meeting in February express our concerns. Bill stated the Town Board will discuss this further at their upcoming study session. Eva stated that the specific 5G reference as “essential” might not be fully accurate, based on the information known to date that 4G is adequate in many places locally. • Next meeting: February 16th, 2022 • Agenda: (no public comments will be taken) -remaining Energy Code Supplement proposed amendment #5 (Adaptive Reuse) -Telecommunications Law The meeting adjourned at 7:33 pm.