HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2022-05-11 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COCA
Meeting of May 11, 2022— 5:30 pm —via Zoom and live on YouTube
Minutes
Members Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, Eric Levine, Rob Rosen, Chris Jung -Members.
Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel; Marty MoseIV, Director of Code
Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning.
Guest: Ariel Casper, Town Planning Board member was introduced as potential member of the
Committee to fill the vacant Planning Board representative seat.
Member Excused: Eva Hoffmann
Bill set up the meeting to broadcast on YouTube along with the Zoom platform and the agenda
was reviewed. Planning Board Member Ariel Casper was introduced as a potential
representative on the COC from the Planning Board.
1. Member comments/concerns: None.
2. Minutes: Eric moved to approve the 4/13/22 COC minutes as amended; Chris J. seconded.
All members voted in favor of approval.
3. Discussion of Draft Local Law-§270-219 Personal wireless service facilities: A partial
draft of the first part of the law was circulated to committee members with the input gathered
from the previous discussions and a recently adopted similar ordinance from another township in
NYS. There were questions for the committee to discuss highlighted in the draft and the
committee began review of each section of the document. Bill noted the email received from
Andrew & Marie Molnar with comments regarding the draft local law. Capitalization, number or
lettering, alphabetization and formatting is still being worked on in the draft. It is anticipated that
it will take an additional two meetings to dedicate to work on the complex language and details.
Committee changes included:
B. Definitions. [Question from Susan Brock:Due to the technical nature of the telecom provisions,
keep these definitions in §270 219 instead of putting them in §270-5 Definitions?] The committee
agreed to keep the definitions in 270-219. The committee also decided to review the necessity of
some of the definitions, such as "Amend," "Applicant," "Application," "Necessary," "State," etc.,
as they do not typically need to be defined and might not be referred to in the document body
(Chris B & Susan will go over the definitions internally before presenting revisions to the
committee).
1
"ADEQUATE COVE RAG E"Brock notes and questions:Adapted this from the Fishkill law. Need to
find out where the 97%came from. Separate issue:For collocations that staff(not the Planning
Board) will handle, do you want a Town Planner or a Code Enforcement Officer to make the
determination? If you want the Town Planner to do so, is "Town Planner"an official title? If not,
change to "Director of Planning"and state in the law that the Director of Planning may designate
their duties to Senior Planners and Planners (if those are the official titles)?]Committee and staff
agreed that the Planning Department should be handling the collocation applications, and that
the law should read "Director of Planning or designee" wherever the Town Planner is referenced.
Sue R. asked about the adequate coverage part related to the staff review: how would this be
determined and how technical would it be? Would an outside consultant need to be hired? Chris
B. noted that the internal staff reviews would be done in the same manner as the full Planning
Board reviews and that staff would apply the same criteria. Susan added that it should be simpler
to make the determination in the future, as the town would be receiving more detailed
quantifiable data for the affected geographical area. There will be a provision in the law for an
expert consultant to be hired, but it may not be necessary with complete applications for
collocations.
"SMALL CELL, SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY, MACROCELL"The committee discussed if these were
three separate things. Susan noted that these will need to meet the same federal definition—she
will research further.
C. General approval and permit requirements for personal wireless service facilities. Susan asked
if the committee still wanted to not allow small wireless facilities in Historic Districts, which can
be added to "C" if it is still the consensus. Chris B noted that the aesthetic requirements had
statements prohibiting the facilities in Historic Districts for individual small cell sites and groups of
small cell facilities (DAS), so this was a previous committee decision. The committee will make a
final decision at a later meeting.
D. Approvals and permits required for personal wireless service facilities and Section 6409(a)
eligible facilities.
(1) "All PWSFs shall require a building permit issued by a Code Enforcement Officer, where the
New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code or the Ithaca Town Code requires
a building permit." Marty was asked if both the NYS and Town Code should be referenced
here, and he replied only the Town Code requires the building permit. Therefore, any NYS
Code references should be removed. The sentence in (1) will now read "All PWSFs shall
require a building permit issued by a Code Enforcement Officer, where the Ithaca Town Code
requires a building permit."
(2) "All PWSFs proposed to be collocated on an existing structure, and their related ground-
mounted or underground facilities and equipment, shall require a PWSF permit issued by a
Town Planner." [Brock comment and question: This works for small wireless facilities that
remain small wireless facilities after collocation. For all other collocations, are there situations
under which site plan approval should be required? What if collocation requires tower height
to increase by x, or antennas to jut out from the tower more than x feet, or the numbers of
2
cabinets to increase by more than x? For example, the Town of Fishkill requires more process
if the collocation will:
(a) Increase the approved height of the supporting structure by more than 15%
(b) Cause the original approved number of antennas to be exceeded by more than 5096;
(c) Increase the original approved square footage of accessory buildings by more than
200 square feet;
(d) Add new or additional microwave antenna dishes;
(e) Expand the footprint of said support structure;or
(f) Cause adverse impacts on the existing support structure or the surrounding area.]
The committee supported having non-small wireless facility collocations involving changes
above specified thresholds go to the Planning Board and not staff. Regarding the Fishkill list
above, the committee really liked the list and would like to incorporate it into the town's law,
with at least one exception: in (d), delete "Add new or," so it just refers to additional
microwave antenna dishes. The committee thought it was redundant to say, "add new or
additional." Susan offered to review the current Town of Ithaca streamlined provision
thresholds with staff and compare them with other town laws in NYS for proposed thresholds
at a future COC meeting.
(3) "All PWSFs that do not fall under subsection 2 above shall require site plan approval and a
PWSF permit, both issued by the Planning Board pursuant to the requirements of this section
and in accordance with Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XXIII (Site Plan Review and Approval
Procedures)" [Brock question: What if a group of PWSFs is proposed, with some collocated on
existing structures and others to be placed on proposed new structures? Treat them as a
group and require site plan approval?]Yes, the committee confirmed the previous COC
determination that the groups would go to the Planning Board.
(4) Marty noted there was another reference to the NYS Code in this section and reminded the
committee that all references to NYS Building Code should be removed.
F. Applications for personal wireless service facilities and Section 6409(a) eligible facilities. [Brock
comment: This section and many more to come. Current members of the COC should also review
the aesthetic criteria below that the COC previously developed and that will be incorporated into
the law. COC should discuss whether the categories below still make sense, or whether they
should be changed or consolidated. There are no criteria for large new towers (new towers that
are not small wireless facilities). The current Town Code provisions in §270-219 have some
general requirements. Should any of the criteria below also apply to large new towers?]
The committee reviewed the aesthetic requirements after Chris B. explained the background in
compiling these items, which was taking some of the provisions currently in place for large towers
and adding other language from other municipal laws. Chris stated that the existing provisions
seemed to work well and that the provisions include Planning Board authority to add criteria that
is specific to a facility (270-219.H(7)). Chris reminded the committee that the intent of all the
3
aesthetic provisions was to minimize visual impacts. The new aesthetic provisions are sectioned
out by type of facility.
References related to historic districts were discussed, along with scenic viewsheds. Chris noted
that there is one historic district currently in the town -the Forest Home Historic District. The
committee discussed whether small cell facilities should be prohibited in these districts, but no
decisions were made.
The following criteria item (duplicated in all sections of the aesthetic criteria list) was discussed—
the words in bold were added and approved by the committee at the meeting:
a) There shall be no exposed wires. All cables and wires associated with the facility leading to
and away from the facility must be fully concealed and the cable covering or conduit shall
match the color of the structure on which the facility is located. There shall be no external
cables and wires related to the facility hanging off or otherwise exposed.
There were no committee oppositions to any of the other aesthetic requirements listed in the
draft. Bill reminded the committee that they still needed to discuss and consider setbacks. Susan
will have more draft provisions for the committee to review at the next meeting.
4. Other business:The committee discussed the town's new video conferencing policy that
takes effect June 91". A copy of the policy would be sent to the members and staff. The June 81"
COC meeting will likely be the last full virtual meeting and the town policy will be followed for
subsequent meetings. In summary, the policy requires a quorum (4 in the case of COC) of the
"public body" to be present for the public in the advertised location(s) and remote attendance
beyond the quorum is only allowed under extraordinary circumstances (e.g., disability, illness or
significant health concerns requiring precautionary actions, caregiving responsibilities, other
significant or unexpected factors or events, and events when a member is out of town for a short
duration). It was also noted that during a declared "State of Emergency" by the Governor, the
meetings can be completely virtual.
It is unknown whether the COC is considered a "public body" and therefore subject to the new
rules. Susan will investigate.
Next meeting:June 8, 2022 (no public comment will be taken), note July meeting moved to the
111 Wednesday, July 61" (from the 131") due to the chair being out of town on the second
Wednesday in July.
Agenda: Continued review and discussion of Draft Local Law- §270-219 Personal wireless service
facilities (public comment will not be taken).
The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m.
4