The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOC Packet 2022-03-09 TOWN�� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215N.TiogoGt14850 007273.1747 OS/02/20%2 TO: Codes and Ordinances Committee: William Goodman, Chair Eric Levine Eva Hoffmann Rob Rosen Yvonne Fogarty ChriSJung FROM: Christine Ba|estra, Planner RE: Next Codes and Ordinances Committee Meeting— March 9, 20%2 The next meeting of the Codes and Ordinances Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, March th at 5:30pm via Zoom (details on the next page). A quorum of the Town of Ithaca Town Board may be present at this meeting. However, no official Town Board business will be conducted. The following items are attached: ° Minutes from the February 15, 2022, meeting. ° Memo from planning staff related to telecommunications law, with excerpted minutes from 11/10/21 & 12/8/21, meetings. If you cannot attend this meeting, please notify Abby Homer as soon as possible at (507) 273- 1747, or . cc Susan x.Brock,Attorney for the Town Susan Ritter,Director ofPlanning Marty Moseley,Director uf Code Enforcement Abby Homer,Administrative Assistant Paulette Rosa,Town Clerk<emaiV Town Administrative staff(emaiV Town Board Members(emaiV Town Code Enforcement staff(emaiV Town Planning staff<emaiV Town Public Works staff(emaiV Media TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 PLEASE NOTE: Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting via Zoom may call in on a cell phone or landline at (929)436-2866 and enter the Meeting ID: 506 3713554; or may view the meeting by computer at https://us06web.zoom.us/i/5063713554. Once on Zoom, click on "loin A Meeting" and enter the Meeting ID: 506 3713554. The meeting will also be recorded on the Town of Ithaca YouTube Channel. Meeting of March 9, 2022 - 5:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Member comments/concerns. 2. Minutes from February 16, 2022, meeting. 3. Discussion of Updates to Town of Ithaca Telecommunications Law. 4. Other business: • Next meeting date: April 13, 2022 Town of Ithaca Planning Department March 2,2022 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (,COC) Meeting of February 16, 2022—5:30 pm—via Zoom and live on YouTube Draft Minutes Members and Staff Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, Eva Hoffmann, Yvonne Fogarty, Rob Rosen. Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel. Absent: Eric Levine, Member. Guests: Chris Jung, Town Zoning Board of Appeals member—attended as potential ZBA representative on the committee. Bill 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. 1. Member comments/concerns: None. 2. Minutes: Eva moved to approve the 1/12/2022 COC minutes as amended; Yvonne seconded. All members voted in favor of approval. 3. Discussion of Energy Code Supplement Amendments: Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner, described the remaining proposed amendment to the Energy Code Supplement that carried over from last month's discussion. The amendment was related to the "Adaptive Reuse" sections 144-C402.5.4.1 and 144-R502.5.4. The sections were reworded to clarify and align with each other and provide additional detail. Nick worked on the reworded language with Marty and sought clarification from other local sources as well. A diagram was provided to the committee and recommended to be included within the provision, along with an example table for calculations of total surface area. Also included for reference were the definitions "building thermal envelope" and"major renovation". The proposed language in Nick's memo was discussed in detail. Eva asked for more clarification on the diagrams pertaining to the differing arrows in the roof portion of the drawings for a flat-roofed versus pitched-roofed structure. Marty explained that insulation methods vary slightly depending on the style of the roof. Nick offered to add text to explain the differences in the diagrams that highlight which surface areas should be used in the calculation for the adaptive reuse point. Rob added that he supported the language, detail, diagram, and intent of the proposed language, and encouraged consistent language between the Town and City of Ithaca laws. Bill agreed that consistency might be important and asked Nick to tell the city, so they might consider the same law changes that the town is making. The NYS Codes Council approval of the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement was discussed, with the town and city's language both being before the Council and the need for the proposed amendments to be in line with each other. Nick will follow up with Bill after communicating with the city regarding the status of the amendments within their municipality. 1 Susan Brock recommended changing the first sentence to read"The building must maintain 50% or more of the following five existing building elements,based on their(remove "the") total combined surface area, as shown in the diagrams below." Committee members agreed to incorporate this change. Bill motioned to approve the above proposed amendment to the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement along with the four previously discussed amendments and recommend sending the proposed amended document to the Town Board for formal consideration. Motion was seconded by Rob, all 4 committee members voted in favor. 4. Town of Ithaca Telecommunications Law: Bill noted that the committee had two new members: Chris Jung, potential new ZBA representative, and Rob Rosen, new Town Board representative. He also noted that these two members did not have any history or context related to the town telecommunications law updates. Rather than go into a detailed discussion tonight, Bill suggested that staff meet with Chris and Rob and bring them up to speed on what has been discussed to date regarding the law. The committee therefore postponed specific law discussion to the March meeting. However, the following general discussion occurred: Susan noted that the committee still needed to make a final decision on setbacks between small wireless facilities and residences. Bill noted for the new members' information that this was the big point of concern raised by the public at town meetings as well as within the City of Ithaca, when their telecommunications law was being revised. Bill suggested that the committee iron out all other details in the law first and worked on setbacks as the last item before formal recommendation to the Town Board. Susan also thought that another set of items to look at were who/which town department would process telecommunications applications, which applications would go through an internal staff review, and which ones would go through a board review. Chris B mentioned that this was largely settled by the committee in December, as noted in the detailed December COC minutes. Chris B will include those minutes for the committee's March continued discussion on the topic. The FAA and potential delayed roll out of 5G was briefly discussed. Susan reported that she thought the issue was remedied for the time being, with some airports prohibiting 5G cell service from being turned on within a certain distance of the airport (possibly 2 miles from airports), depending on the type of aircraft being used. The intent would be to limit the interference of 5G with aircraft signals and instruments. 5. Other business: Next meeting: March 9, 2022- no public comment will be taken at the meeting, but comments are always welcomed and encouraged via email though the Town Clerk or Planning Department. Agenda: Town of Ithaca Telecommunications Law continued discussion; review of Town of Fishkill excerpts if needed. The meeting adjourned at 6:18 p.m. 2 TOWN�� '� �� 7� �� 0� �� /� =w� �� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215N. Tioga8t14850 007.273.1747 .PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Codes and Ordinances Committee /COC\ Members FROM: Christine Ba|estra, Planner DATE: March 2, %022 RE: Te|econonounicationsLavvUpdate—nextsteps The COC has been reviewing the Town of Fishkill telecommunications law over the course of several meetings to determine if parts of it might be beneficial to apply tothe Town of Ithaca Telecommunications Law update. To assist the committee with their decision-ma king, I've attached excerpts from the November %O2l and December 2O2l [OC meeting minutes. I've bolded the areas where the committee had questions and made tentative decisions; and provided the most relevant excerpts related to the discussion around setbacks of facilities from residences, potential approval structure, and process. At the December COC meeting, the committee decided who the "gatekeeper" would be for receiving initial wireless applications. Members discussed and expressed differing opinions On which applications would be internally/administratively reviewed versus board reviewed. The committee also discussed setbacks between facilities and residences, schools, etc. but did not make 3 final decision.The committee should therefore consider deciding the following items 3t the March meeting: l. For -what setback does the COC recommend? 5O0 feet? l500 feet? Something inbetween? 2. 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? b. Planning Board site plan review Orinternal staff/administrative review? c Individual (one antenna on a pole) wireless facilities that are not collocated onto an structure?existing Planning Board site plan review orinternal staff/adnoin review? d. Wireless facilities (part of a group of facilities on a number of poles) that are not collocated onto an existing structure? Planning Board site plan review orinternal st8ff/administr8ti\eRview? Susan and Bill may have other items for the committee to consider at the meeting as well. Once these items are decided, staff can prepare a draft law for the committee to review. Just a reminder that, while the topic of5G is important to discuss, there remain many other sections of the existing law that still need to be revised. Until a revised law adopted, the town is utilizing the existing law, which does not comply with the updated FCC Orders. Please feel free to call me at (607) 273-1747 or email me at cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us if you have any questions prior to the meeting. 2 For 3-9-22 COC mtg Excerpts from final approved COC minutes— 11/10/21- Telecommunications The setback distances in the Fishkill law between telecommunications facilities and residences were left blank at the time of the Fishkill hearing, so their Town Board could decide on the setback. One of the public commenters pushed on Andrew Campanelli and asked about 1,000 feet and 500 feet, and he said no to both. He suggested different setbacks based on districts, but the Town Board wanted the same setback everywhere. Mr. Campanelli said a blanket setback of 200-300 feet could be used as long as that did not wipe out all residential districts. Mr. Campanelli said if a carrier does not meet the setback, all that means is it would need to apply for a variance. Ironically, it might be easier to get a variance than people want. Someone asked if the law could say wireless facilities are not allowed at all. Mr. Campanelli said you cannot outlaw wireless facilities in residential districts. He said "300 feet is probably safe unless that would wipe out the entire residential district." After some discussion, the Fishkill Town Board ultimately settled on 300-foot setbacks and asked him to put that in the Fishkill law. Given the late hour, the committee only focused on the following: • Who initially reviews the telecommunications applications and determines completeness? Is it the Codes, Planning, Engineering Departments? The Planning Board? The committee generally agreed that staff should conduct the initial review but did not decide which department. Planning and Codes staff will get together to discuss this before the next COC meeting. [see December meeting excerpts below] • The "Adequate Coverage" and "Effective Prohibition" definitions were noted as relevant to the significant gap/least intrusive means determination and findings. • Should the Planning Board make the factual determinations for ALL facilities or should staff members handle the small stand-alone antennas, co-location modifications, etc., and have the large proposals referred to the Planning Board?There was general agreement that the small stand-alone antennas and small modifications should be made by staff. But the committee wants to look at the previous flow charts that were prepared that showed internal review for some circumstances and Planning Board review for other circumstances. The committee will discuss this at the next meeting. [see December meeting excerpts below] Excerpts from final approved COC minutes— 12/8/21 -Telecommunications 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 1 For 3-9-22 COC mtg 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." 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. 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. 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). 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 2 For 3-9-22 COC mtg 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. 3