Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2022-08-31 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COQ Minutes Members Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, Eva Hoffmann, Eric Levine, Rob Rosen, Chris Jung & Arie| Casper-K8ennbers. Staff Present: Chris Ba|estra, Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel; Susan Ritter, Director ofPlanning; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement. Guests: None. The meeting was set up to broadcast on YouTube. However, there was an error, and the meeting was not able to be livestrearned. The Zoom platform was used for committee members and staff and later posted for public viewing. Bill then reviewed the agenda. 1. Member comlmmemta/concerms: None. 2. Minutes: Eric moved to approve the 7/G/22 [{}C minutes asamended; Eva seconded. All members voted in favor ofapproval. 3. Discussion of Draft Local Law- §270-219 Personal wireless service facilities: Susan Brock provided the committee with an updated version of the law with following summary note: "0Cdiscussed thutrs/port of the law(through the end of the aesthetic criteria oop.2Do/its 5111122 COC meeting, and many of the requested changes have been made and are shown in red-line. C0C did not review the red-lined changes orremaining questions u/its 71\122 meeting, xo they are still shown /nrud'8xc. This version adds u /ew additional notes that are labelled ^&9//ZJno6e'' For the C(JC's 7/0/22 meeting, new provisions began with G6n/n//codonx on page 22 and ended with/(Visual Impact Analysis) ony.3/. For ease o/reading, the oav/rrovb/oox were not red dom//or the 7/&122 meeting. The C(JC2771\12Z changes and uxxor/uteJ/o8ow+gn items are shown /n red line/o this version. For the C()C278/J//Z2 meeting, new provisions begin with design standards onp3J." The committee began their review on page 34 of the revised law at 'T Design standards." Chris B explained that the design standards were from the existing law, which was written for large towers (the only technology that existed at the tinne). Susan noted that once the committee decided which provisions to keep, there could be a general section applicable to both large and small facilities or standards could be repeated in each section. The previously approved aesthetic criteria were moved to this section from the draft, pages 17- 22. The [{}Crevievvedandrevisedthefo||oxvingprovisionsfrorncurrentTovvn [ode §27O-219G & H and decided on the additions/changes to the aesthetic criteria noted below: (1) Towers shall not be artificially lighted and marked beyond the requirements of the FAA. Susan will broaden "tower" to "PWSF's" throughout where appropriate. (2) Notwithstanding the preceding subsection, an applicant maybe compelled to add FAA-style lighting and marking, if in the judgment of the Planning Board, such a requirement would be of direct benefit to public safety and would not unduly adversely affect residents of any surrounding property. Committee decided to keep this provision and to apply the provision to all applications. Appearance and buffering. (The next revision will fix the formatting to be consistent with rest of law section) (a) Have a galvanized finish, or shall be painted gray above the surrounding tree line and gray or green below the tree line, as deemed appropriate by the Planning Board, or... Susan asked a question for staff: Does this add to or conflict with the other aesthetic criteria? Chris B. replied that it does not add to or conflict with the other aesthetic criteria and should be left in to apply to large towers and not small facilities. (6) Without limiting the requirements of the preceding subsection, where site plan review is required, existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible, and no cutting of trees exceeding four inches in diameter(measured at a height of four feet off the ground)shall occur in connection with the telecommunications facility prior to the granting ofsite plan approval. Clear cutting of all trees in a single contiguous area exceeding 20,000 square feet shall be prohibited. Susan noted that the aesthetic criterion about trees currently reads: "Tree "topping,"or the improper pruning of trees is prohibited. Any proposed pruning or removal of trees, shrubs or other landscaping already existing in the right-of-way must be noted in the site plan application and must be approved by the Planning Board."Should any of"6"'s more specific provisions be retained as well? Committee asked for them to all be retained. Chris B. explained that all the provisions in this section were specifically catered to large towers and that some of the provisions could not apply to both large and small facilities. Rather than continue going through the list, Susan recommended that she collaborate with staff before the next meeting to devise a simpler list of aesthetic criteria for the tall towers. Those that also make sense for small facilities could be identified and listed separately for clarity. K. Dimensional standards. (current Town Code §270-219.F) The committee discussed this section and revised as noted below. At a later meeting, COC will determine setbacks from residences and minimum spacing between facilities. (1) A fall zone around any tower constructed as part of a telecommunications facility must have a radius at least equal to the height of the tower and any attached antennae. The entire fall zone may not include public roads and must be located on property either owned or leased by the applicant or for which the applicant has obtained an easement, and may not, except as set forth below, contain any structure other than those associated with the telecommunications facility.If the facility is attached to an existing structure, relief may be granted by specific permission of the Planning Board on a case-by-case basis if it is determined by such Board after submission of competent evidence, that the waiver of this requirement will not endanger the life, health, welfare, or property of any person. In granting any such waiver, the Board may impose any conditions reasonably necessary to protect the public or other property from potential injury. The committee discussed this section at length. Chris B reminded the committee that this provision was written for large towers. Susan asked if the law should require fall zones for small facilities as well? Or only for non-small facilities? How about for non-small facility support structures, such as poles and towers (not for buildings, water towers, and the like)? The committee decided to require fall zones for non-small facilities and their support structures— towers that are typically 50 feet or higher. The committee also decided to retain all the language related to fall zones in this section. (2) All telecommunication facilities shall be located on a single parcel. The committee went back and forth about whether to allow facilities, or more specifically, the fall zones of facilities, to cross property lines. After a long discussion, the committee finally concluded to leave the section as written for tall towers. It was unclear what the committee decided in terms of small facilities. No other final recommendations were made for changes to the remaining provisions in "K," although re-wording will be necessary if the town allows fall zones to be on adjacent properties. L. Accessways and parking. (current Town Code §270-219.I)The committee reviewed and discussed but made no changes to the language presented. M. Security. (current Town Code §270-219.J) No revisions were made to the language as presented. Marty noted that the fencing requirement would conflict with the existing fence law. A reference to this law may need to be added into the existing regulations to make it clearer. Chris B offered to research the approved fencing for previously approved tower projects. (4) The Planning Board(where site plan is required)or Director of Planning may require a locked gate at the junction of the accessway and apublic thoroughfare to obstruct entry by unauthorized vehicles. Such gate must not protrude into the public right-of-way. Susan wondered if this should be deleted or if the committee should consider adding criteria for the Planning Board/Director of Planning to apply to determine if a locked gate is necessary? Chris B commented that locked gates are not typically a Planning Board or Department decision, that they had nothing to do with the land use process but might be something more appropriate for the Codes Department. Gates are typically a standard feature on telecommunications sites, as the telecommunications company wants to eliminate the potential for vandalism and locked gates are a safety feature. Marty noted there is a provision in the Uniform Code about locked gates and a mechanism to assure fire access in conjunction with the Codes Department and Fire Department. It was recommended to add " in consultation with the Director of Code Enforcement" or to delete the Director of Planning part. The committee discussed the possibility of adding criteria for when a locked gate might be necessary, e.g., when a driveway to the facility exceeds a certain distance value. The committee liked this idea. Staff will craft language for the next version of the law. N. Removal. (current Town Code§270-219 L(2) and(3). The committee reviewed the existing removal language, along with the Fishkill law language. The existing removal language reads: (2) At the time of obtaining a building permit, the applicant must provide a financial security bond for removal of the telecommunications facility and property restoration, with the municipality as the assignee, in an amount specified by the Planning Board(where site plan is required) or Director of Planning, but not less than $50,000. (3) At times of modification of modification or renewal of the PWSF permit, the Director of Planning may adjust the required amount of the financial security bond to adequately cover increases in the cost of removal of the telecommunications facility and property restoration. The COC decided to require a removal bond for collocated facilities and small cell facilities, as well as large towers, but an amount was not established. After reviewing the Fishkill law, the committee decided to handle removal of facilities like the Fishkill Law, where there is no set bond amount. Susan and staff will wordsmith the language for the next draft. 4. Other business: None. Next meeting: September 14, 5:30 p.m., public comments will be taken. Agenda: Continued review and discussion of draft Local Law §270-219. The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m.