The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOC Minutes 2022-04-13 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COCA Meeting of April 13, 2022—5:30 pm —via Zoom and live on YouTube Final Minutes Members and Staff Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, Eva Hoffmann, Eric Levine, Rob Rosen, Chris Jung -Members. Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel; Marry Mosely, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning. Guests: Theodora Scarato, Danny Fox, Sheila Out, David, Andrew Molnar, Marie Molnar, Irina Paris, Fazille Buechel, April Paris. John Galliano, Lisa Petruzzi. Bill set up the meeting to broadcast on YouTube along with the Zoom platform and the agenda was reviewed. Bill then noted that Planning Board representative and member Yvonne Fogarty has resigned from COC and the Planning Board will need to designate a new member as liaison. Public Comments (time limit 3 minutes per person) -Theodora mentioned a recent favorable ruling in a lawsuit against FCC regarding outdated wireless radiation safety limits for cell towers, highlighting that there is no regulatory agency with health expertise that oversees the science-related public health and safety concerns of cell towers. She was thankful that the town is considering as protective limits as possible. -Danny recommended 1640ft setback from towers to limit exposure based on sound scientific investigation. -Sheila recommended staying with the 1500ft setback, knowing that if a gap in coverage is proven, an exception can be applied for. -David supported at least a 1500ft setback and to follow the New Hampshire recommendation, stating there is no reason for 5G in the area. -Andrew played clips of a video where a member of the New Hampshire 5G Commission gave recommendations on how to protect people and communities, noting New York is now forming a commission to study the concerns with electromagnetic exposure. He urged the town to set high setback distances between homes and cell towers such as 1500-1640 feet. -Marie recommended the precautionary principal of a 1640ft setback from homes and noted the two hesitating factors raised by the committee (high setback wouldn't leave many locations for new antennas and that it could prohibit service). She said the 1640ft setback would be effective in preventing many new antenna sites and there are alternatives to building new towers, such as the ability to upgrade existing facilities and apply for exception/exemption if alternatives are not feasible. -Irina noted concern of only 300ft setback impacting home values and compromising people's health and could also result in unnecessary new antennas that do not fill gaps in service and would 1 add to the carbon footprint. 1500ft. minimum setback distance was suggested to prioritize Ithaca's wellbeing. -Fazilee thanked everyone for their time and attention to the important issue and urged a 1500ft or the most restrictive setback possible for the beauty of the area and wellbeing. -April urged at least a 1500ft setback to greatly mitigate the negative effects of radiation from cell towers; also concerned that Town of Ithaca codes do not provide sufficient protection for the population as they stand now. She quoted the Ithaca Town Code's purpose to "promote the safety, health and general welfare of the residents." -Jerrone noted it is imperative for the town to set the most restrictive wireless codes with the greatest setbacks (1640ft) from homes and schools and that the court has ruled that the FCC guidelines are outdated and do not take current science into consideration. -Lisa noted concerns about child development and electromagnetic fields as part of a growing list environmental exposures and recommended setbacks of at least 1500ft or up to 1640ft. The public comments concluded at 6:19 pm. 1. Member comments/concerns: None. 2. Minutes: Eva moved to approve the 3/09/22 COC minutes as amended; Eric seconded. All members voted in favor of approval. 3. Discussion of Updates to Town of Ithaca Telecommunications Law: a. Large cell tower applications? Planning Board site plan review process (currently) or change to internal staff/administrative review?-Planning staff recommended that this remains within the Planning Board site plan review process. The committee unanimously agreed. b. Wireless facilities collocated onto an existing structure/tower?Planning Board site plan review or internal staff/administrative review? Planning staff recommends this be an internal/staff administrative review based on the criteria outlined in the revised law. Additionally, the Planning Board has questioned why these type of project reviews have come to them in the past. The committee agreed with internal/staff administrative review. Susan asked if this would be discretionary or non-discretionary decision? She stated there will be a checklist with objective criteria to be met; if that is all met, then approval is granted? Bill confirmed that, yes, this is how the process was contemplated. c. (Small cell)individual wireless facilities, e.g., one antenna on a pole, not collocated onto an existing structure?Planning Board site plan review or internal staff/admin review? Planning staff originally recommended this be an internal/staff administrative review based on the criteria outlined in the revised law. Committee decided on Planning Board site plan review process. d. Wireless facilities (small cell-part of a group o�facilities on a number ofpoles) that are not collocated onto an existing structure?Planning Board site plan review or internal staff/administrative review? Sue Ritter and planning staff still recommended that these 2 applications go to the Planning Board for a site plan review process. The Committee agreed to Planning Board site plan review process. Eva asked if staff would do the same type of environmental review as the Planning Board? Chris B responded that staff currently conducts the environmental reviews on behalf of the Planning Board. Susan noted that staff would complete the same environmental review for the internal review projects and prepare findings to justify the decision for the file. Eva felt that with the technology and complexity of the matters, the more people to review, the better. Chris J commented that the topic can be volatile with a lot of public concern and internal processing may not have the level of transparency, although supported overall efficient processing of project applications. Bill asked Susan if there were other specific areas of the law, besides setbacks, which needed further discussion before a full draft can be compiled and reviewed at the May meeting. Susan clarified a portion of item B above and stated if other items require additional clarification, she will note them in the draft law. The new draft version of the law will be a combination of the existing law, potential additions from the Town of Fishkill and other municipal laws, and new provisions as they have come up over the course of the committee discussions. For small wireless facilities near residences and schools -what setback does the COC recommend? 500 feet? 1500 feet? Something in between? Bill noted that this still needs to be resolved. Many comments and concerns have been raised by the public. He asked the committee members if they had any questions or if they needed more information on anything before making their recommendations. Legal questions for the attorney would need to be done in closed session, if there are any. Susan said attorney-client communications do not have to be part of a meeting. She said the committee could adjourn the meeting and then there could be an attorney-client communication after the public meeting ends. Bill agreed with this process. 4. Other business: Marry mentioned that he would be bringing Chapter 125 to the committee, due to NYS amendments to part 1203 of Title 19, which requires municipalities to update their Chapter 125 in relation to the Uniform Building Code. He will provide the recommendations at a future meeting. Marry also noted that discussions were needed about the more restrictive local law for sprinklers -recommendations will be forthcoming for that as well. Next meeting: May 11, 2022. Agenda: Review new draft of telecommunications law (public comment will not be taken). The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. 3