Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Packet 2022-08-31TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607)273-1747 PLEASE NOTE:Due to COVID-19 and the NYS legislation allowing virtual meetings (Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2022 signed by Governor Hochul on 4/9/22), this meeting will be held via the Zoom audio/visual application with no in-person attendance permitted. Members of the public who wish to view the meeting may visit the Town of Ithaca YouTube Channel, where it will be livestreamed and recorded: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live Meeting of August 31, 2022–5:30 P.M. AGENDA 1.Member comments/concerns. 2.Minutes from July 6,2022,meeting. 3.Continued review of draft local law §270-219. Personal wireless service facilities. 4.Other business: •Next meeting date:September 14, 2022 Town of Ithaca Planning Department August 24, 2022 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of July 6, 2022 – 5:30 pm – via Zoom and live on YouTube Draft Minutes Members Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, Eva Hoffmann, Eric Levine, Rob Rosen, Chris Jung & Ariel Casper -Members. Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning. Guests: None Chris B. set up the meeting to broadcast on YouTube; and the Zoom platform was used for committee members and staff. Bill then reviewed the agenda. 1. Member comments/concerns: None. Bill welcomed Ariel to the committee. 2. Minutes: Rob moved to approve the 5/11/22 COC minutes as amended; Eric seconded. Five members voted in favor of approval as amended, one abstention (Eva). 3. Discussion of Draft Local Law - §270-219 Personal wireless service facilities: Susan Brock provided the committee with an updated version of the law that was reviewed at the previous meeting. The revised document included the input gathered from the previous discussions and a recently adopted similar ordinance from another township in NYS. New provisions for discussion were included and additional questions for the committee to discuss were also highlighted in the new draft. The committee began with review and discussion of the new sections, with their changes or additional review noted below: Page 21 of “For 7/6/22 COC Meeting - Rough Draft” G. Applications for personal wireless service facilities. Chris B and Susan explained that the building permit submission and review process needs to be discussed and thought about further, with the shot clock timing including the Planning Dept and Board review and issuance of building permit. The Director of Buildings and Codes was not at the meeting, so this item will still need further internal discussion and recommendation for the submission and coordinated review process. G (1) (f) will need Town Engineer wordsmith assistance. G (1) (j) Needs to be answered by the Director of Building and Codes. G (2) (b) ROW fees will need future discussion. Modification to the escrow section is needed as well - this is discretionary under the existing law for large tower facilities, however with the shot clock timeline, the ability to require a deposit or escrow fee to hire a special consultant should be clear for all applicable applications. Those exempt from the law should be identified. Chris B offered to research the escrow fees that other 2 municipalities require and come back with options for the fees and wording recommendations. G (2) (f) will need Town Engineer wordsmith assistance. G (2) (j) references a visual impact analysis, as referenced “below”; exactly where “below” should be cross-referenced so one can find the location more easily. G (2) (o) needs additional wordsmithing- the existing law was used for a placeholder. The existing law’s language specifically related to towers and removal bonds is not shown because it will be added elsewhere in the new law. The committee then discussed other application requirements that still need to be added, including information to support a showing of need/effective prohibition claims. Susan B is gathering more information and examples of language for the showing of need claim section to be added into the application requirement section of the law. The next section the committee discussed was whether to retain the following colocation application provisions in the existing law. Chris B explained this was initially related to large tower facilities, so it may not be applicable for the small cell collocation facilities. The committee agreed to retain the language, and to incorporate the provisions into the application requirements for small cell collocation facilities as well: Current §270-219.M(4). Agreement that the applicant will negotiate in good faith with any subsequent applicant seeking to co-locate a telecommunications facility on the initial applicant's structures. This agreement shall commit the initial applicant and landowner and their respective successors in interest to: (a)Respond in a timely, comprehensive manner to a request for information from a potential shared-use applicant. (b)Negotiate in good faith for shared use by third parties. (c)Allow shared use if an applicant agrees in writing to pay reasonable charges for same. (d)Make no more than a reasonable charge for shared use, based upon generally accepted accounting principles. The charge may include but is not limited to a pro rata share of the cost of site selection, planning, project administration, land costs, site design, construction and maintenance, financing, return on equity, and depreciation, and all of the cost s of adapting the tower or equipment to accommodate a shared user without causing electromagnetic interference or causing uses on the site to emit electromagnetic radiation in excess of levels permitted by the FCC. The COC then discussed retaining the section in the rough draft, titled “Current §270-219 D. Co- location (with staff edits).” If so, then subsection (p) “Information required by, and proof of compliance with, subsection __ (Collocation)” will be added to reference that subsection, and the requirements will be placed in a separate section (not in the Application section). Upon review, the committee agreed to retain the language, with changes to #2 on the list, related to inventory reporting. Staff recommended changing the 75% of the height standard to “within a 3 one-mile radius of the proposed facility.” However, Susan B noted that for small cells, that would encompass every shed and house. So, the wording was reconsidered to something exceeding 75% of the height of the proposed tower, e.g., “if the proposed tower exceeds XX feet” or other similar language- maybe 75 or 80ft, and 100% of the height below a certain number. Staff will make recommendations. For “(e) the property owner or owner of the existing telecommunications facility or other structure refuses to allow such collocation,” the committee chose to replace the word “refuse” with a phrase such as “unable to reach a good faith agreement.” The committee then discussed whether to retain the section titled “Current §270-219.E priority siting provisions” in the town’s existing law and add an application requirement for a priority site analysis submission. Would we exclude proposed small cell collocations from these provisions if we retain the section? Chris B stated it would be good to have for the large towers but may not apply to the small facilities. The committee concluded to apply it to small cell facilities as well if possible. Moving on, the committee reviewed the remaining sections provided by Susan B, who noted that “Section H” still needed to be word smithed. Among other things, state the analysis must comply with any applicable FCC Bulletins or other FCC requirements. “The most current” should be added to the first paragraph when it talks about the FCC permissible radiation limits. Section “I. Visual impact analysis.” The provisions from Fishkill’s law were added with a note for additional wordsmithing. Susan B and staff will add analysis provisions regarding important views. Also, the committee decided to require additional information suggested by Susan B for all facilities, including line-of-sight drawings, detailed elevation maps, visual simulations, before and after renderings, and alternate tower designs to identify adverse impacts more clearly for the purpose of their mitigation. Susan B asked if a reference should be added in the visual impact analysis section for protected/scenic views in the town, on the Town of Ithaca or Tompkins County Scenic/Resource inventories. Chris B noted that the list of aesthetic requirements already mentioned the inventories but was not opposed to listing the same in this section. The committee agreed to add a reference to the Scenic Resources Inventory and continued their review of the visual impact analysis section: I. (a) Wordsmith the word “Tower.” Perhaps use “support structure” or “facility,” as this applies to more facilities than just a tower . I. (b) (i) Change “Zone of Visibility Map” to “Visibility Map.” The language in the last paragraph includes an assessment of alternative designs and color schemes related to abutting properties and streets. Chris B will investigate the meaning of this, as it does not seem to be relevant to the town and is hard to understand. 4. Other business: None. Next meeting: August 31, 2022 – changed from August 10, 2022, due to vacation schedules. 4 Agenda: Continued review and discussion of another segment of draft Local Law - §270-219 Personal wireless service facilities. Bill noted the receipt of emails from the public regarding personal wireless service facility concerns. No public comment will be taken at the committee meetings until the final meeting when the draft Local Law and recommendation to the Town Board on setback distances is held, possibly September. The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m.