Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2022-03-09 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of March 9, 2022—5:37 pm—via Zoom and live on YouTube Final Minutes Members and Staff Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, Eva Hoffmann, Eric Levine, Rob Rosen- Members. Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Marty Mosely, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Counsel. Chris Jung,prospective COC member. Excused: Yvonne Fogarty, Member. Chris set up the meeting to broadcast on YouTube along with the Zoom platform and the agenda was reviewed. Bill then introduced Chris Jung as the Zoning Board of Appeals member to begin as COC member officially in April. 1. Member comments/concerns: None. 2. Minutes: Rob moved to approve the 2/16/22 COC minutes as amended; Eva seconded. All members voted in favor of approval. 3. Discussion of Updates to Town of Ithaca Telecommunications Law: A memo prepared by Town Planner Chris Balestra was distributed as a discussion guide for the COC members related to the remaining telecommunications law decisions. The questions in the memo are excerpted here: For small wireless facilities near residences and schools - what setback does the COC recommend? 500 feet? 1500 feet? Something in between? Bill recommended holding off until the end of the telecommunications law discussion for this recommendation. Who does the committee recommend reviewing: a. Large cell tower applications?—Planning Board site plan review process (currently) or change to internal staff/administrative review? Planning staff recommended that this remain within the Planning Board site plan review process. The committee unanimously agreed. b. Wireless facilities collocated onto an existing structure/tower?Planning Board site plan review or internal staff/administrative review? Planning staff recommends that this be an internal/staff administrative review. Bill, Rob, and Eric agreed. Rob suggested creating two categories here - collocations onto utility pole/tower/other structure already being used for a similar purpose and collocations onto all other structures. Committee did not decide. c. (Small)individual wireless facilities, e.g., one antenna on a pole, not collocated onto an existing structure?Planning Board site plan review or internal staff/admin review? This is considered a NEW small wireless facility on a new pole or structure. Bill and Eric thought this should be an internal review. Rob thought it should be Planning Board review. Committee did not decide. 1 d. Wireless facilities (part of a group otfacilities on a number ofpoles) that are not collocated onto an existing structure?Planning Board site plan review or internal staff/administrative review? This is still considered small wireless,but a group of antennas on a group of poles, creating a system. Planning staff recommended that these applications go to the Planning Board for a site plan review process. Again, Bill and Eric thought this should be an internal review. Rob thought it should be Planning Board review. Committee did not decide. Eva expressed hesitation at the complexity with the way all antennas are described in applications, suggesting that whoever reviews these applications (large or small), the town should be given opportunity for expert advice to be able to understand what they are reviewing, why they are being replaced, etc. While it may appear simple, they should all be handled with care and also think ahead to the future. She also asked what extra is involved for staff when applications go for Board review?Planner Chris Balestra explained that staff prepares resolutions,public hearing notices, detailed memos, environmental reviews, and recommendations to the board to assist them with their decisions. Chris also noted that her expertise, and the Planning Board's authority, is to review the applications for land use planning impacts. In the case of telecommunications, this would be limited to aesthetic/visual impacts, location of the facility, any site or parking layouts etc. The current telecommunications law requires antennas over a certain size to go through the site plan review process (under a certain size, an applicant can apply for a building permit with no additional Board review). Chris further explained that an RF Engineer would be the expert to consult relative to the technical aspects of the antenna capabilities, details related to the antenna design, reasons for the locations, etc. The Planning Board would review the data provided by all parties to help them with their decision. As an example, Chris explained that the Planning Board was currently reviewing an application from Verizon to upgrade antennas on an existing cell tower that was approved by the board in 2013. The proposed antennas are smaller than the existing ones and will be placed exactly where the current antennas are on the tower. Part of the antenna swap involves 5G antennas. The applicant provided drawings, FCC licenses, and RF specifications. The land use planning impacts in this case would be limited to aesthetics. Will the proposed antennas impact views? Will there be significant aesthetic impacts related to the proposal? Susan Brock noted that"d"was previously recommended to go to the Planning Board and is on the flow chart that was drafted previously. Bill noted that was the thought at that time,however now with the depth of criteria being written into the draft proposed law with design criteria, setbacks, etc. and the new COC member input, his opinion is now that these should be internal staff/admin review. If the majority of the committee feels the original recommendation for Board review remain for this, then that would carry. Susan noted that telecommunications companies may not be able to collocate when it comes to a grouped facility. She also noted landowner consent is required as part of the law. Chris agreed that collocating is not always feasible for small wireless facilities associated with the different telecommunications companies. Susan lastly noted that if the staff internally reviews all small cell applications and has to deny them 2 based on the separation distances or setback criteria in the law, then the applicant does have the opportunity to appear before the Zoning Board for an area variance, which has different criteria than the review by the Planning Board. This would result in a lot of denied applications going for zoning variances, with criteria that differs from what the Planning Board considers for the large cell applications. Bill asked if there was still a need for some applicants to seek a variance if the request that the Planning Board approved does not meet the zoning standards? Susan replied, yes, the Planning Board does not deny based on not meeting zoning - it makes the zoning variance a condition of approval if/when necessary. Sue Ritter explained that planning staff currently reviews all development applications and uses the criteria in the law to determine when site plan review, special permits and/or zoning variances would be needed. In the case of telecommunications, she asked: when the criteria is so tight and all the requirements are met, what can the Planning Board really do? Can they just say no if the public is opposed, or other reasons, when all requirements in the law are met?What would be the purpose of the additional steps for the Planning Board review? Bill concluded that committee should consider an official vote on which applications go to the Planning Board at the next meeting, when the full committee is present, along with further consideration of the setbacks which were not discussed tonight. After the April meeting, all the changes can be incorporated into the draft law and be reviewed in full again in May, with blanks left where needed if things not decided. 5. Other business: Next meeting: April 13, 2022 Agenda: continued discussion of telecommunications law (public comment will be taken) The meeting adjourned at 6:37 p.m. 3 4