HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2021-04-14 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE WOC)
Meeting of April 14, 2021 — 5:34pm —Via Zoom Video Conference
Final Approved Minutes
Digitally Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King, Yvonne Fogarty
(left early); Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris
Balestra, Planner; Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel.
Guests: Luis Aguirre Torres, Bruce and Doug Brittain
1. Member comments/concerns. Bill G. explained the order of the meeting and the agenda. He
then introduced the committee to the guests and invited Luis Aquirre Torres to introduce himself.
Luis is the new Director of Sustainability for the City of Ithaca. He explained his background to the
committee. Bill permitted members of the public to speak, so Bruce and Doug Brittain provided their
comments related to the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement [see#3 below for their comments].
2. Minutes from March 10, 2021 COC Meeting. The committee approved the minutes with
some changes. Susan Brock read additional language to include in the minutes. Eric moved and Eva
seconded. All were in favor, with Yvonne absent (she needed to leave before the vote).
3. Continued discussion of Ithaca Energy Code Supplement (IECS):finish review of Chapter 6,
discuss revised Renewable Energy section, and discuss additional items. Bill G. indicated that his
goal was to complete the review of the IECS, and to meet with staff and Susan Brock in a week's time
to revise the remaining portions of the law accordingly and then pass it on to the Town Board. To
that end, the COC would not be seeing the IECS again.
Bill G. allowed members of the public to speak on the IECS. Public comments:
Doug Brittain explained that he and Bruce hoped the committee would make changes to the IECS
because, in their opinion, it would cause more CO2 than necessary. They argued that the IECS was
predicated on the electrical grid being 100%green, but that the grid was only 17% green according to
NYSEG's website. In their opinion, by encouraging electrification, the IECS effectively would increase
the dirty electricity in the grid instead of decreasing it. For example, the IECS encourages the use of
heat pumps, but heat pumps require a back up heat source (most common is natural gas, which is the
"cleanest" of dirty energy sources). If one applies electric resistance heat as the backup source, then
the efficiency of that source will only be as good as the efficiency of the power plant that generates it.
If there's an increase in electrical demand and the grid isn't 100% clean, then dirty energy makes up
for the remaining demand. So, by encouraging electrification, the town is increasing electrical
demand on the grid.
Bruce added that the IECS did not allow passive solar as an energy source, which he termed as "free
energy". He also noted that the plan treated windows as being bad, with the maximum fenestration
allowed being the minimum for livability. Bruce stated that the single most efficient water heater
was an on-demand gas water heater; and that one could get 97% efficiency with gas. He argued that
by eliminating all gas now, the usage shifted to the power plant, which would increase CO2.
1
Doug and Bruce concluded by asking the town to modify the IECS to not give the impression that any
use of gas in the home was bad. They also recommended that the town wait until the grid was 100%
green before implementing the IECS. [End of public comments]
Bill G. brought the matter back to the committee. There was a short discussion about the use of
propane in residential energy use, as propane would be considered a cleaner energy than natural gas.
Nick reported on what was happening at the city level and referenced the brief update that he
provided in the memo that went out with the COC packet. The city's Planning and Economic
Development Committee voted unanimously on March 17, 2021 to move the IECS on to Common
Council with the advanced timeline. Common Council will discuss moving the 2025 compliance
deadline to 2023 and the 2030 deadline to 2026. The city hopes to decide on the matter at their May
5` Common Council meeting. Bill G. added that the IECS was hopefully going to be considered by the
Town Board in May as well.
Bill G. asked the COC to decide what they'd like to do about the IECS timelines for compliance. Luis
clarified the various terms used to describe "green" energy, stating that "clean" energy wasn't
necessarily akin to "renewable" energy and that clean energy standards would include nuclear
energy. The committee went into a discussion about nuclear energy, which is considered clean but is
not renewable. Luis explained that the existing nuclear plants were expected to go offline by 2050
but would still be needed as back up energy until the transmission and distribution infrastructure
converted to renewable sources. He expected this to work in conjunction with increasing renewables
and that the phase-out would happen over time. This initiated a very long discussion about the
amount of the NYSEG grid that was truly green, with various people providing conflicting numbers.
Bill G. eventually reminded the committee and the members of the public that the IECS was only
addressing new construction, not existing structures. There was a false assumption that people
would be forced to halt the use of natural gas and other fossil fuels all at once with the new law. In
actuality, the conversion of existing structures would be incremental.
Nick explained the reason why natural gas was being prohibited as a backup energy in the law,
explaining that natural gas was more dangerous to the environment and more heat trapping than
other fuels. He also noted that the team writing the IECS did consider the use of fossil fuels as backup
but intentionally decided against it because of concern that homeowners would not be motivated to
fix a system right away when it fails because there would be a fossil fuel backup. The team wanted to
avoid an unknown or unregulated switch to fossil fuel as the main energy source.
Bill G. steered the discussion back to the COC recommendation for the compliance timeline. He noted
his support for moving the timeline up a few years for the first phase. He surmised that it would be
easy for people to get the required 6 points and still have their existing fossil fuel systems, so they
wouldn't need to eliminate natural gas right away. He explained that if the town decided to
completely prohibit fossil fuels by 2026, then that was still five years away; and the Federal and State
governments would be cleaning the grid a lot by then. Even so, existing buildings that use natural gas
would still use natural gas (unless the owners chose not to), so the system would not be completely
electric. Bill reiterated that this was a long, gradual process that needed to start somewhere, and
that he was comfortable setting ambitious goals now.
2
The committee appreciated the comments made by Luis and by the Brittain brothers, and each
expressed their opinions.
Eva noted that there was not a lot of new construction in the town, as there was in the city, so she
believed it'd continue being that most existing residential structures in the town would use fossil
fuels for a while. She hoped that there would be new ways of producing clean electricity in the
future. She also stated that she was worried about the continuing use of nuclear energy because
storing the waste materials was a problem that would just be pushed off into the future. She
supported the advanced timeline.
Bill K. agreed with the Brittain brothers about the efficiency of natural gas backup versus resistance
electric. But he did question NYSEG's data, as it seemed to be at least two to three years old.
Regardless, he had hope that the grid would get greener and he supported moving ahead with the
plan. Bill K. also mentioned that he installs heat pumps and that they are getting better and better at
working in the winter. He installed one last year and it never used its electrical resistance at all the
entire winter.
Eric mentioned that requiring compliance with only new construction made this a gradual shift, and
that he's not concerned with moving away from natural gas. He didn't want to slow down the new
code and supported advancing the timeline.
Pat also had no problem with moving up the timeline, but she wanted the IECS to allow for some use
of natural gas or propane as a backup energy source.
Yvonne appreciated hearing the information related to the national grid and expressed her support to
go with the advanced timeline. She would still like to see something in the code that would allow the
use of propane or natural gas for backup heat until a specified amount of time.
Bill G. motioned to make a recommendation to move the IECS draft timeline from 2025 to 2023 and
from 2030 to 2026. Eric seconded the motion. No further discussion. The decision was unanimous.
The committee then continued their review of the IECS draft where they left off at the last meeting
(January 281" version). Beginning with the document titled "Changes to IECS 01-28-21 draft," Bill G.
summarized the various changes made to the IECS to date. The committee had no comments or
questions on the document.
Moving on to Chapter 6 of the IECS draft from 01-28-21—Compliance, Enforcement and Appeals,
Nick explained the main difference between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca sections. The
city is enacting an ordinance that is 12 pages long and will reference the main IECS document. So, the
enforcement language that is applicable to both municipalities is currently located within that
ordinance and not within the IECS main document under review by the town. The town will include
all this information in one place when the IECS is enacted and will re-word some of the sections that
pertain to the city to language that is appropriate for the town.
3
For the purposes of review, Nick shared his screen so the committee could view the city's ordinance.
§146-55 (City section number) Unreasonable hardship exemption/appeals process: Bill G. and Susan
Brock stated that the committee previously debated allowing some sort of exemption for those who
could not comply with the IECS but that no decisions were made. Bill G. opened the matter to the
committee for discussion.
Susan Brock explained that the NYS Energy Conservation Construction Code contained a variance
process that the town could adapt to the IECS, if the COC wanted to allow some sort of exemption
process with standards. The Code allows for variances where strict compliance causes unnecessary
hardship, provided that the variances would provide for alternative energy conservation standards or
requirements. Susan suggested that the IECS could include this language, along with criteria that the
decision-making board would apply when considering the exemption e.g., other energy options that
are offered in place of compliance, illustration of how the variance request is unique, proof that the
variance requested is the minimum needed to achieve the project, etc. The specific variance criteria
language could be like area variance or town sprinkler variance criteria language.
There was a short discussion about the NYS Stretch Code and Energy Code, and whether the town
should or could apply the same variance processes for the IECS as is considered in the Energy Code.
Bill G. suggested that the IECS include the variance process that the ZBA and the state are used to,
rather than try to follow a new "unnecessary hardship exemption" idea.
The committee asked for examples of an unreasonable hardship per the IECS. Nick responded that a
not-for-profit organization that wanted to comply but had a limited budget was one example, and a
historic building would be another. With that, Bill G. canvassed the committee to get an idea of how
they felt about the idea of adding exemption and/or variance language to the IECS.
Bill K. expressed that the IECS had a lot of flexibility built into it, providing people many ways to
comply. He did not want to allow for hardship exemptions, and if a variance procedure was added,
he'd support very strict criteria. Eva agreed.
Eric supported the hardship exemption idea, provided it was well defined and strict. He would not
want to encourage anything that could be liberally granted. Pat agreed and added that one cannot
anticipate every situation, so the option for variances should be allowed.
The committee then engaged in a discussion about agricultural buildings. Marty noted that the NYS
Uniform Code and Energy Code did not apply to agricultural buildings; that NYS Agriculture & Markets
worked tirelessly to protect agricultural uses; and as a result, they are exempt from most building
code provisions. Bill G. suggested adding language to the IECS that exempts agricultural buildings
that also qualify for exemptions from the NYS Residential and Energy Codes. The definitions related
to agricultural structures should be included from the Uniform Code to the IECS to be consistent. The
committee agreed with this approach.
Bill G. asked the committee to decide on the variance procedures and asked if they would be ok with
Marty and Susan preparing the language that mirrors the variance process allowed by NYS. Susan
4
Brock would add standards for the reviewing body to apply, since the state code didn't have those
standards (the standards would be along the lines of the ones noted in the second paragraph on page
4 of these minutes, under the unreasonable hardship heading). Susan also suggested making the ZBA
the reviewing body for the variances. The committee agreed with this.
Fines and penalties: Susan asked how the town wanted to deal with penalties for non-compliance.
The current thought was to prohibit the issuance of a certificate of occupancy as the only penalty,
except for renewable energy section where the town could add a fine. Susan Brock clarified that, if
including some sort of fine, then the law needed to list specific fines and not be vague. She stated
that the NYS Code also has specific penalties in it. Marty suggested that we model the fines after
Town Code Chapter 125, which requires a $200 per day fine, and each occurrence would be a
different violation. There was a short discussion about cross referencing Chapter 125 with the IECS in
both laws. Ultimately, the committee agreed to include all the suggested provisions from NYS Code
and from Town Code Chapter 125, except for the imprisonment provision. Town staff will come up
with language to add to the law and it will all be reviewed by the Town Board.
4. Continued Discussion of Stream Setback Law—property on Texas Lane.The committee did
not get to this item. It will be discussed at the May 12 COC meeting.
S. Other Business.
• Next meeting: May 12, 2021.
• Agenda: Discuss telecommunications and stream setback law.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:48pm.
5