HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2021-08-25 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC)
Meeting of August 25, 2021 - 5:4512m - Hybrid: In-nerson, Zoo , and live on.You Tubs=1
Final Minutes
Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eva Hoffmann, Bill King, Yvonne Fogarty, Members; Marty Moseley,
Director of Code Enforcement (via Zoom); Susan Ritter, Director of Planning (via Zoom); Chris Balestra,
Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel (via Zoom).
Absent: Pat Leary, Eric Levine
1. Member comments/concerns. Bill G. explained the hybrid meeting setup for the participants in
the room and on Zoom and You Tube. He also announced that this COC meeting was a combined
meeting for August and September and that the next meeting will be on October 131". He mentioned
that he would allow members of the public to speak at the October meeting, alternating allowing
comment every other month. The agenda was read, noting the end of the meeting would conclude with
a closed session to seek advice of counsel.
2. Minutes from June 9, 2021, COC meeting. The committee approved the minutes with minor
changes. Eva moved and Bill King seconded. All who were present were in favor (Pat and Eric were
absent).
3. Begin review of Draft Local Law—Town of Ithaca Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,
redlined and highlighted version. Bill G. mentioned that the City of Ithaca Administration Committee
was going to discuss the city's Telecommunications Law on September 22nd. For the town, Bill expects
the topic to take at least three meetings, with some sort of draft being ready to go to the Town Board
after the November COC meeting.
The electronically circulated proposed document of the full Telecommunications Law with most
of the recommended additions and changes that the committee has been working on (less a few of the
June meeting changes due to timing of the meeting) was reviewed. The committee focused on the red
lined proposed language changes as opposed to the yellow highlighted discussion areas. Bill G. read the
redlined sections aloud and Susan Brock offered legal clarification where needed.
In B. Definitions section, under "Antenna," a question was asked to clarify "unintentional
radiator". Bill G responded that a comprehensive review of definitions will be done by the staff and
attorney later.
C. General approval and permit requirements for wireless telecommunications facilities, (6),
Susan Brock explained that the redlining was related to property that the town owns and/or controls.
The Town Board has no right to dictate whether something can go on a road-by-use. Committee agreed
with the redlined change.
E. Applications for small wireless facilities, committee agreed with redlined text in E. (5), (6) and
[2]. In (r), "Documentation justifying the total height of any proposed antenna and structure and the
basis therefor" Susan Brock explained that "Such justification shall be to provide service within the
Town" was part of the Bedford Law and that she'd need to check to see if it's legal. The committee
generally agreed to strike the second sentence if the Town cannot legally require the justification in the
manner written. Committee agreed to redlined text in "()" on page 14 (there's no number or letter
1
associated with the statement). The number and lettering system needs to be updated for the whole
document.
F. Engineering, Safety and Maintenance Requirements, committee agreed to redlined text in 5
(a), (b), and (d). In 5 (c), the town still needs to determine who shall pay for the required radiofrequency
emission certification test. It could be the town or the owner/operator.The City of Ithaca policy was
referenced as an example.
G. Approval procedures, (2) Findings and decisions, the committee discussed whether to
incorporate additional findings in this area, like those found in the City of Ithaca Code. The findings
could be reworded as criteria that must be met. Committee members agreed to include the additional
language if it was not repeated or redundant.
H. Location, the priority list lettering needs revising, as items may have been previously
removed. Susan Brock will check and renumerate.
E. Priority of sitting locations, Bill G said if COC uses the town's current list, expand #1 to cover
colocations on all structures, not just on towers . A question was asked to clarify#6 "on any other
property in the town". This was explained as the lowest priority in determining site appropriateness, if
the other 5 above preferred areas were not available. The committee will tackle this at the next meeting
in October.
K. Visibility and Aesthetics, (2,3 &4) the most recent Aesthetics requirements, although similar in
content, replaced the prior requirements in this section. These are the aesthetic requirements that the
committee spent so much time crafting last year.The "at least 250 feet away from a structure that
contains a dwelling unit" setback requirement was noted as still needing discussion, along with "1,500
feet from another small wireless facility". 4 (a) the language in "There shall be no external cables and
wires related to the small wireless facility hanging off or otherwise exposed" was noted as possibly
needing to match other sections with similar wording(maybe adding "on the wireless support structure"
to clarify ambiguity). Chris Balestra would investigate the reasoning of why it was worded differently.
M. Recertification of small wireless facilities permit, 1 (c) Marty asked if there were criteria for
when this should go to review. Discussion around wording the section so it doesn't imply that no
permits were needed if there were changes. What types of modifications would require a modified
permit (anything that changes RF emissions, etc.?) Marty recommended to add a section specific to
modifications for these types of facilities to indicate when a modified permit is needed (rather than
using the site plan modification criteria). He would follow up with Susan Brock on this.
Q. Liability insurance. One committee member asked who would the liability coverage proof
come from? Independent contractors? Other companies? Subcontractors? Susan Brock stated that it is a
common requirement when on town property, and the specific inclusions usually list the town, Board,
employees, etc. This could be applied to contractors as well as owners. The town's insurance agent will
review this language in detail.
The committee moved on to review, in detail, an email from Andrew and Marie Molnar related to the
city's draft law language, with summarized points listed as follows:
1 & 2. Setbacks: Committee members were in favor of increasing the setbacks from the proposed
250 feet from dwelling units. Remove "DAS", as -that type is not often used. The setbacks will
apply to all small cell antennas. Committee will discuss in October, when the full committee is
present.
3. Insurance and pollution exclusion: "such [insurance] policy shall not include a pollution
exclusion" was recommended by the residents and not opposed by the Committee members
2
present now or previously in attendance. Susan Brock stated the specific insurance language is
still in review and will be discussed/researched with the town insurance agent for wording,
availability, etc.
4. Random testing: Cost paid by carriers -City of Ithaca Law listed for reference. Set limit of times
per year that this may come up?Annual in city, possibly same time frame as applicant testing
and spacing to ensure that it ends up twice a year (one random and one applicant provided). The
owner's testing section was referenced for the process if the test fails, the random testing has
not been fully drafted yet, but it will likely be replicated in the random testing section. In event
of violation, an increased frequency of testing should be in place, this language will need to be
added to the proposed language and was briefly described by Susan Brock with committee
member input. Committee agreed with this approach.
5. Revocability: City language was provided for reference and consideration. Susan Brock will follow
up with the city for clarification on the clause when it "may" be required.
6. Certified Mail Notices: The residents recommended the city language require the applicant to
provide names and addresses of all property owners and provide written notice of the public
hearing by certified mail, and to add that the notification should be to anyone within 1500 ft of
the proposed site. It was noted that the town does this currently, for property owners within
500 feet, with certification not necessary, due to being sent directly from the town. Susan Brock
asked if the committee would like language added that this cost shall be reimbursed to the town
although not typical when a fee is charged for the permit initially. The committee disagreed with
the residents -the town should continue to notify the neighbors, since then it is guaranteed that
the notification gets done. The permit fee usually covers the cost to do so. The committee will
determine if more than the standard 500 feet is recommended.
7. ADA: It was recommended to establish a procedure for disabled persons suffering from EHS to
submit requests/grievances in ADA accordance. City language was provided, Susan Brock will
research this need further.
8. Codes applying to all wireless transmitting antennas: The residents recommended adding the city
language that would include private homes, ensuring all wireless transmitting antennas were
covered by this code. It was not clear if there were exemptions in the town proposed language-
the intent is that all would be subject to the code. Committee members present agreed.
9. Define "significant gap in coverage"- Including significant gap in coverage definition. Examples
were not defined in comparable laws. The committee will revisit this in October.
10. Citizen deputized to test for RF emissions: The city code states that if an RF emission exceeding
the limit is found, their code provision established a private right of action by any city resident
against the facility owner to secure its removal with reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs
if the resident prevails. Susan Brock needs more information about this provision by the city.
There was a concern about the reliability of the equipment if a citizen were to perform their own
test. Committee was also concerned that private citizens wouldn't be properly trained.
The Committee was satisfied with the red lined areas with the clarifications above and will focus on the
yellow highlighted questions for the October meeting.
3
4. Other Business.
• Next meeting: October 13, 2021 (September meeting cancelled due to vacations)
• Agenda: Updated Telecommunications Law- Report on City Administration Committee meeting
of September 23, 2021. *Bill G. will allow public comment at this meeting*
Bill G. motioned to go into closed session to seek advice of counsel at 7:05 PM. Motion was seconded by
Eva, and all were in favor. Bill G moved, and Yvonne seconded to come out of closed session at 7:28 PM.
All in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:29 pm.
4