Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2021-05-12 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of May 12. 2021 — 5:41pm —Via Zoom Video Conference Final Approved Minutes Digitally Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King, Yvonne Fogarty (left early); Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Paulette Rosa,Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Counsel. Absent: Eric Levine [Note: This COC meeting started late because of a special Town Board meeting that ran from 5:30pm to 5:40pm] 1. Member comments/concerns. Bill G. reported that the City of Ithaca Common Council adopted the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement (IECS) on May 5t" with two minor changes. He encouraged COC members to check out the City's YouTube channel to watch the meeting. He indicated that staff was working on the changes to the Town IECS draft and that the Town Board will review the code at their study session on May 24t", with a tentative public hearing set for June 141n 2. Minutes from April 14, 2021, COC meeting. The committee approved the minutes with minor changes. Yvonne moved and Bill K. seconded. All who were present were in favor (Eric was absent). 3. Continued discussion of Telecommunications Law update. Bill G. provided the group with a brief history of how the town has approached the telecommunications law updates: • Existing law mainly deals with towers for large cell facilities (100ft tall or taller). • Small cell facilities becoming more frequent; technology has changed. • COC started working on revised regulations in 2019. Committee decided in 2020 to focus on revising law to address aesthetic impacts related to all facilities (small and large). Town was waiting for lawsuit decision on small cell facilities from the Ninth Circuit Court before doing anything more with law. • Town officials met with City of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, and Village and Town of Lansing in July 2020- all four municipalities approached by Verizon to engage in master licensing agreements associated with deployment of 5G telecommunications technology. Town and City looked at getting some information from Andrew Campanelli, an attorney that is very knowledgeable about telecommunications law. • Town met with Andrew in October 2020 to learn more about emerging technology and law. • City contracted with Andrew Campanelli to revise their law. Bill G. received a copy of Campanelli's report to City of Ithaca -43 pages long, goes into long legal analysis, based on Campanelli's understanding of federal court telecommunication decisions since 1996. City Administration Committee met in April to discuss report. • City will be inviting Andrew Campanelli to the next Administration Committee meeting on May 26, 2021. All meetings on You Tube. The COC reviewed Susan Brock's February 4t" memo that was included in the COC packet. The memo included points identified from Andrew Campanelli as important to consider and/or include in a revised telecommunications law. Bill G. reminded the committee that the town could not outright 1 prohibit any telecommunications facilities based on health concerns. If a facility met the radiofrequency limitations that the federal government set, then the town could not prohibit the facility. The town can require testing and proof of compliance, though. Bill G. summarized each item in the memo, and the committee discussed item number 4 at great length. Susan Brock explained that the federal standard is that the town cannot prohibit service where there is a significant gap in coverage, and where the company is proposing the least intrusive means to close the gap. A "gap in coverage" means that consumers cannot connect into the network or once a consumer does connect, they get kicked back off or their call is dropped. This is what is considered current capacity. Susan noted that#4 of her memo ("State whether to allow applicants to build for future capacity needs") asks the town if we want to allow companies to develop for future capacity needs if they are not experiencing a significant gap in coverage currently but think that they might experience a gap in coverage in the future. She stressed that this would be a policy decision and that the town did not legally have to allow companies to build for future capacity needs. She stated that the revised law would need to be explicit one way or another. The committee discussed the idea and collectively agreed that they want the revised law to limit telecommunications companies to build only for current needs and current gaps in coverage. Specifically, Eva expressed concern with the uncertainty that would come with future technology needs e.g., if the town allowed companies to build for future capacity needs now, then what would happen if/when technology needs changed again, maybe in ways that don't require any towers at all? The "future buildout" would be unnecessary, and the town would be left with infrastructure that is obsolete. Yvonne, Pat, Bill K., and Bill G. agreed with Eva, that the town law should only allow for closing current gaps in coverage and not future capacity needs. Bill K. wondered if it would make sense to write in the law that the telecommunications company could install a percentage above the current need (110% of the current need, but no more). The town would need to explore this idea with industry experts, as it requires knowledge of what we would measure, how we would measure and how we would track the measurements, which might be difficult. The rest of the committee didn't seem to support the idea. So, Susan Brock will come up with wording that will require telecommunications applicants to prove a significant gap in coverage, and that their proposals are the least intrusive means to eliminate the significant gap. Bill G. opened the discussion to the other items in Susan Brock's memo. At some point, Susan will ask Andrew Campanelli for more detail on what he means by requiring all submissions to be verified under penalties of perjury (item #7). Yvonne wanted more information on the use of electricity related to 5G. Bill G. will check in with JoAnn Cornish to see if an issue of high electrical usage associated with 5G technology had come up in the city's discussion. The committee will go into more detail on Andrew Campanelli's report to the city at the next COC meeting. Susan Brock mentioned that a lot of the items in the report were also in her memo. Chris will email the report to the committee, so they have it in advance for the discussion at the June COC meeting. Additionally, there are several items that the committee previously decided upon when they approved the aesthetic considerations that will need to be reconsidered (flow charts and spreadsheets, etc.). Bill G. expects the topic of telecommunications to take at least the next two COC meetings. 2 4. Continued discussion of Stream Setback Law—property on Texas Lane.The committee viewed a map of the property on Texas Lane that has experienced significant flooding due to a stream on their property. The property owner wanted to put a pool on the property, within the stream setback, and was told that they needed to go to the ZBA to do so. Rather than appear to the ZBA, the owner chose another spot on their property in which to place the pool. The owner then sent a request to the Town Board to see if the town would consider modifying the Stream Setback Law to allow for a 5-foot or 10-foot stream setback instead of a 50-foot stream setback, for lots where a stream takes up more than 25% of a property. The Town Board referred the matter to the COC for consideration. The committee discussed the intent behind the Stream Setback Law, and the reasons why the 50-foot setback was established. Sue Ritter explained that the whole point of the law was to protect streams and riparian areas. Changing the law so drastically now would negatively impact the intent of the law and would have negative consequences on the streams themselves, as well as the properties downstream of a parcel that would now only have a 5-foot or 10-foot setback. She added that the law contains a variance procedure that includes mitigation, and that the town has received very few requests for variances since the law was enacted in 2012. Chris added that only 2-3 properties in the Texas Lane area contained a stream that took up more than 25% of their property. The town would be considering a blanket change to a provision that would affect hundreds of properties, only to accommodate a few properties. Eva noted that she was on the Conservation Board when the law was enacted; that she was involved in creating the law. She suggested that one would need to have a serious problem to stray from the law and that she would not consider it a serious problem that the property owner could not build a pool within the setback. Bill G. added that the property owner did eventually find a place outside the setback on the property to put the pool. The committee agreed that the Stream Setback Law should not be amended to accommodate the Texas Lane property owner. Marty mentioned that the property owner also asked the town to consider allowing a homeowner to do preventative maintenance on a stream depth and bank when a homeowner could provide documented evidence of an adverse impact on a property as a result of stream overflow. Marty showed the COC a video of the stream on the Texas Lane property that showed significant overflow. Pictures of the area showed considerable overgrowth of vegetation in the stream, which appear to be the result of a blocked culvert and poor stream maintenance upstream in the Village of Cayuga Heights. After a short discussion, it was determined that the flooding was not the fault of the property owner and that there should be some provision added to the Stream Setback Law to assist property owners in these sorts of circumstances. Bill G. suggested that staff consult with the Public Works Department to talk about the situation and to see if there is language that could be added to the law. S. Other Business. • Next meeting: June 9, 2021. • Agenda: Detailed discussion on the Campanelli telecommunications memo— Report on City Administration Committee meeting- discussion of next steps in the Telecommunications Law. Meeting was adjourned at 7:48pm. 3