Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2021-12-08 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of December 8 th, 2021 —5:3 0 12m—via Zoom and live on YouTube Final Minutes Members and Staff Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, and Eva Hoffmann, Yvonne Fogarty, Pat Leary, and Eric Levine - Members. Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel-Staff. Member Absent: Bill King Bill G. 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 not be taken at this meeting but may be taken at the January 2022 COC meeting. 1. Member comments/concerns. There were none. 2. Minutes from November 2021, COC meeting. The first draft was circulated, major changes were added by the town attorney for clarity; and the approval was tabled to January 2022, so members had time to fully review. 3. Discussion of Potential Energy Code Supplement Revisions. Sustainability Planner Nick Goldsmith and Director of Code Enforcement Marty Moseley submitted a memo briefing an overview of proposed amendments needed to the Energy Code Supplement(ECS) to be in line with NYS Energy Code. Marty explained that the NYS Codes Council had not yet reviewed the ECS in full, however one element in the local code had been identified as being less stringent than the current NYS Energy Code. A cursory review also identified a few other areas that need minor amendments. A full, red-lined document for comparison and consideration will be presented to the committee in January. 4. Discussion of Updates to Town of Ithaca Telecommunications Law—report on Town of Fishkill law status and review of attached meeting materials. Susan Brock reported that Andrew Campanelli drafted a revised law for Fishkill after feedback from the previous October version. The newest revision is available on the Town of Fishkill website. Two sections were noted as still being "reserved"-including the ADA accommodations section. A public hearing was held; there were no public comments. The Town of Fishkill left the public hearing open until the next Fishkill meeting, scheduled for 12/15/202 1. Andrew Campanelli said the revised Fishkill law included design standards, along with parking, lighting, fencing, and other provisions that were carried over from their current law. The setback section was left blank in the October draft. But the revised draft included a 300-foot setback between wireless facilities and all residences town-wide. This was agreed upon as the highest number that Andrew Campanelli was willing to go, as the Fishkill Town Board wanted as high of a number as possible without prohibiting all residential locations. Susan read the setback section from the revised draft, and it read as follows: "Within all residentially-zoned districts, all small wireless facilities shall be set back a minimum of 300 feet from any residential dwelling or structure, unless the facility is being installed upon a pre-existing utility pole or is being collocated upon a pre-existing personal wireless service facility." Within non-residential zones, "the minimum setback shall be SO feet, unless the facility is being installed upon a pre-existing utility pole or other utility structure. " Susan concluded that the language meant there would be no setback requirements for small wireless facilities that are placed on pre-existing utility poles or co-located on pre-existing personal wireless service facilities. She suggested following up with the Town of Fishkill Planning department to inquire why the law was worded that way. Susan will report on the progress of the Fishkill law at the next COC meeting in January. Chris Balestra noted she would follow up with the Town of Fishkill Planning department on the pre-existing setback section and report back to the committee at the next meeting. The committee then reviewed the setback map prepared by staff that showed a 300-foot radius around residences in the Town of Ithaca. The committee had previously reviewed 250-foot and 1500-foot setback maps. The COC moved on to discussing the "Town of Ithaca Approval Process and Aesthetics Requirements For All Wireless Facilities"that was finalized in June of 2020, along with the accompanying application process flow charts. These documents were referenced when the committee discussed the question of who would be the "gatekeeper" for applications submitted to the town. Susan Brock noted the importance of this role, due to the FCC shot clock timing sensitivity. Chris stated that the Planning Department had taken the role of gatekeeper in the past, and was the main communicator between the applicants, the Planning Board, and the Codes Department. The Planning and Codes Departments informally discussed this before the COC meeting and agreed that the process should begin with Planning Department staff. Susan Brock noted that there may be changes needed to the existing flow charts, based on the FCC Orders and other necessary changes. She stressed that the charts should be viewed as "current working drafts" and not final drafts. For example, the flow charts did not specifically identify a gatekeeper or the specific department/staff member that would begin the process, nor who makes the factual determinations e.g., findings, that would be in the law. The Fishkill draft identifies the Building Inspector as the gatekeeper. Chris reiterated that Planning department staff began the process at the Town of Ithaca and recommended that Planning staff become the "gatekeeper." Committee members agreed with the recommendation that the Planning staff would continue to be the gatekeeper. The Planning and Codes Departments also discussed the factual determinations to be rendered when considering a wireless facility. Staff recommended that if an application went to the Planning Board for review, then the Board would make the determinations, much like special permit findings that are in the existing Town of Ithaca Code. But staff felt uncomfortable and unqualified to make some of factual determinations for facilities that are reviewed internally—if the town adopted the same ones as the Fishkill Law. Chris used the real estate example in the Fishkill law, noting that town staff didn't feel comfortable determining that there would be potential adverse impacts on real estate values of properties surrounding a facility. Planning and Codes staff felt that it would be appropriate to have a board make that type of determination—or to leave that type of determination off the Town of Ithaca's version of the law. The committee discussed the possibility of having two lists, and also changing the Fishkill list to be more in line with the Town of Ithaca. 2 In terms of design/aesthetic standards, Susan reviewed the most recent draft of the Fishkill law and did not see the design standards. It was not clear upon brief review where the design or aesthetic standards were to be placed. Pat noted that a good justification could be made for larger setbacks based on property values being negatively affected, as opposed to the health concern that the public voiced concern over (but is not legally able to be used as criteria for setbacks). Pat suggested setting the setback requirement to something greater than 300 feet from residences, with justification based on property value general impacts. Eva commented that the perception of the impact of property values should be based on facts for accuracy, not based on what is believed. What types are precedents could be researched? Bill G. stated that the committee should consider seeking advice of counsel in closed session for this topic. Bill directed the committee to review the list in Fishkill's "Local Zoning—Factual Determinations" section. He asked if there was any mention in the Town of Ithaca's current telecommunications law on the effect on real estate values. Chris said no—the town's current law did not have anything related to the effect of real estate values. Chris commented that the Fishkill determination seemed subjective, as it didn't require evidence to determine how property values would be impacted. How does their building inspector determine that property values are impacted without some sort of evidence of the same? Susan stated that one of the purposes noted in the revised Town of Ithaca telecommunications law that was drafted in 2020 was to preserve property values of the community. She noted that without all applications going to the Planning Board, the staff won't have the information they need to make the determination on the effect on real estate values. If all applications went to the board, then the public would have the right to speak about property values at the public hearing. They would also have the opportunity to submit comments and concerns to the board related to property values. The public would have no opportunity to weigh in on an internally reviewed project. That said, Susan stated that the application submission requirements for any project (internal or board-reviewed) could include proof related to property values. It may be likely that the companies will have their own property specialists who prepare information to be submitted with the application. The committee went back to the flow charts again to determine what they had previously recommended regarding administrative/staff versus board review of various telecommunications facilities. The goal was to see if the committee still wanted the items in the chart to undergo an administrative Planning staff review or reconsider and have all applications go to the Planning Board. Looking at the charts, Planning staff administrative review was recommended for when a proposed facility would be collocated onto an existing structure. When the proposed facility is NOT collocated onto an existing structure, then the Planning staff administrative review would only be for a new individual small wireless facility (e.g., small individual antenna), and everything else would require site plan review and special permit by the Planning Board. Bill G. was in favor that the proposed approval structure remain as proposed in the flow charts, with detailed criteria listed in the law for either staff or the board to apply. Eric, Pat, and Yvonne agreed (Bill K was not present). 3 Chris questioned if there should be language added like the town did with the sign law- something that states that in an internal staff review, it would be under the discretion of the Director of Planning or his/her designee that any application could be referred to the Planning Board for review. Susan replied that could be looked at as a model, with keeping the FCC shot clock timing in mind. Another option proposed was to have every application go to the Planning Board, so the town could gain experience in applying the law and then later re-determine if some applications should be reviewed internally by Planning staff. The committee discussed this suggestion, with no decision reached but one member supported it and some other members thought staff should make decisions on certain applications. The committee will continue the telecommunications law discussion at a later meeting. 5. Other business: Bill G. mentioned that there were changes coming to the COC membership in 2022. This was Pat Leary's final COC meeting, so she was thanked for her long- time service to the COC and to the town. It was unknown if Bill K. would remain on the COC, and Yvonne stated she would remain through the end of the telecommunications law update, leaving it possible for two new members to be on the committee in 2022. The proposed 2022 COC meeting schedule was discussed and approved for the second Wednesday of every month, with one modification for the February meeting - it will be held February 16t'instead of February 9t'. • Next meeting: January 12, 2022 • Agenda: Energy Code Supplement revisions. If time permits, then the committee will continue discussion of the telecommunications law, with a Town of Fishkill law status update. Bill made a motion go into closed session to seek advice of counsel at 6:57 p.m. and officially adjourn. Eric seconded the motion, unanimously carried. 4