Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-23Dryden Planning Board November 23, 2015 Page 1 of 4 Dryden Planning Board November 23rd Members Present: Joe Laquatra (Chair), Craig Anderson, Marty Hatch, John Kiefer, Martin Moseley, David Weinstein Liaisons: Craig Schutt (Conservation Board) Town Hall Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director and Kevin Ezell, Code Enforcement Officer The meeting was called to order at 7 pm Review and approval of minutes from October 22, 2015: C. Anderson moved to approve the minutes as amended, D. Weinstein seconded the motion and the minutes were unanimously approved. C. Anderson said that Ray Burger (Planning Director) has dug up information from the Public meetings in Varna in regard to the Varna plan. At the last meeting, it was indicated that there seems to be a disconnect between the Varna Plan and the community. Perhaps the information from those meetings will demonstrate the reason for the difference between what Varna was hoping for and what the plan calls for. Form Based Zoning: David Weinstein D. Weinstein is proposing that the Planning Board apply to Cornell Design Connect (the group that put together a trail plan for the Conservation Board) to put together a form based plan for Varna. He is hoping that process will help the people of Varna and the Planning Board understand what Varna desires. He said there is an elaborate procedure that will delineate more detail of what characteristics of the community and buildings they want to see. He said the Varna Plan calls for form based code but the zoning implemented is a use based zoning except for the design criteria. The students would get an education on what form based zoning is and the Planning Board would also learn from the experience. C. Anderson asked if the Board has seen the Town Board’s resolution to the Planning Board that was discussed at last week’s Town Board meeting. D. Weinstein said that it has gone through several edits and he has not seen the finished resolution. It is not the same document that he had sent to the Town Board. The Comprehensive Plan says form based zoning should be used in Varna and we need to determine how to implement it. The Board changed it to an exploration of what form based code would bring to the table and whether it could solve the disconnect problems in certain zones. It might help to get information from people as to what they want or think they are willing to accept in the various zones. It might help to avoid situations where a developer wants to put in a project and, based on the zoning, can do it but the citizens are not in favor of it. The Town Board said they are willing to spend the $500 donation that Design Connect asks for but the Town cannot make a donation. (The issue is that Design Connect cannot provide a W-9 and therefore, the Town cannot provide monetary support) Therefore, Mr. Weinstein and James Skaley have offered to make the donation themselves. J. Kiefer said he doesn’t understand what is so complicated about the Varna situation. He understands the desire to maintain the residential district but the inclusion and Dryden Planning Board November 23, 2015 Page 2 of 4 permitting of multi-family housing in the zoning does not support that desire. He believes that should have been addressed before now and that was the opportunity for the Varna residents to speak up. M. Moseley pointed out a form based code that doesn’t look at uses could create zoning that might end up with higher density than the current zoning permits. D. Weinstein said the Form Based Code Institute has put together a guidebook that will help guide the community to determine what characteristics they want in the community. It is advantageous because it would cause them to go through each of the questions and determine what the community really wants. He is not asking for a moratorium but wants to be better prepared the next time a project is recommended for Varna. It is not the actual code he is looking to implement but another attempt to find out what the community wants to help guide future projects. T. Hatfield thinks there isn’t that much feedback. The 902 Dryden Road project is the first proposal since the Varna plan. Is this a re-do? They had pretty good community involvement when they were putting together the Varna plan. A group of people have spoken against the current project but that still doesn’t give a good idea of what Varna really wants. Maybe a survey to see how many people really care would be beneficial before moving forward. M. Hatch pointed out that there are several things that are happening right now with Varna; the TIP money and the project on the corner of Forest Home Drive. We cannot predict what the future will be; it is going to be piecemeal. No matter what people envisioned, there is no guarantee it will end up that way. The Varna Plan already exists and they have had many chances to have their voices heard. Now they want something other than what they already agreed with. D. Weinstein agrees but now the folks in Varna have a project before them and it makes the Plan real. Now that people have had a chance to look at a potential project, they might be able to determine what they are hoping for. M. Hatch pointed out that there are two manufactured homes behind the 902 Dryden Road site and a manufactured home park across the road. This section of the hamlet, the strip that was intended to be single or two family homes, that is not what the zoning says and reality says it is time to move forward. Form based zoning won’t necessarily give the residents what they want. C. Anderson pointed out that this “disconnect” might only be with a few people. Who is driving the desired change? Only a few people have showed up to Town Board meetings and even when R. Burger went out to the Varna Community Center, only 20- 30 people showed up. Only small segments of the population are showing up and only when they are unhappy with something. He agreed a survey is a good idea to see if there really is a disconnect or is it just a small group. T. Hatfield concurred with Anderson and Hatch. He would like to see a short survey go out to the households in Varna to see if there is a reason to review the plan; how many people are really interested. He is concerned that the Planning Board sends a bad message if they go back and keep changing the zoning. Dryden Planning Board November 23, 2015 Page 3 of 4 M. Hatch agreed that by moving ahead with the Design Connect idea will lead some people to think that the zoning is wrong and is going to be changed. If we want to give Design Connect the option or we want to learn about form-based zoning, then let’s learn about form-based zoning or have Design Connect do a different area of town. R. Burger was asked for his opinion and he likes the idea of learning about form based zoning even if it is not applied. J. Laquatra agreed with Ray Burger that this is a potential learning opportunity and even if that zoning is never applied to Varna, at least everyone will get a lesson on form based zoning and what can be done with it. The deadline for proposals to DC is December 4th. Several members don’t want to commit to that date. T. Hatfield suggested that the Varna Community Association should look into the Design Connect option. That would give us all more information without involving Town government. Presentation on New York State Building Codes: Kevin Ezell Please see attached presentation. ICC = International Code Council created by the combination of four different code groups. The Code is revised every three years and used mainly in the United States. Code Committees: A minimum of 33% of the ICC members are code enforcement officers. There are 19 different committees and the members are appointed by the Board of Directors. Code change proposals can be generated from anyone in the public. There was a good discussion regarding the change from having studs at 16” on center to 24” on center. It is a way to reduce the use of lumber and is still structurally sound. It does require a thicker sheetrock to maintain the sheetrock between the larger gaps. J. Laquatra indicated that the “pay back time analysis” theory (how long it will take to recover the initial cost) is a flawed idea – energy efficiency is captured in the value of the home. The home will cost more to purchase. He also said that at some point, Tompkins County will be participating in a program that rates energy efficiency. Lower operating costs, higher comfort level and higher resale price are all benefits of being energy efficient. Green standards are not yet required at the state level but the Town could adopt those standards for new construction. C. Anderson asked K. Ezell what the most common issue is that he sees when he is checking for compliance. Mr. Ezell said the biggest lack of understanding is the required insulation and caulking around outlets, windows, etc. and where two surfaces meet (between the rafter studs and the roof, for example). He also indicated that the foam insulation that is blown into a 2 inch wall after the construction is more efficient than a 6 inch wall with traditional insulation. Dryden Planning Board November 23, 2015 Page 4 of 4 NYSERDA Assisted Home Performance Energy Star program – 0% interest loans or grants are available if a person is income qualified to improve the energy efficiency of a home. Planning Board Vacancy: The Board agreed that Mr. Moseley should be reappointed to the position he has filled for the past couple of months. Marty Hatch offered the following resolution: Whereas, Martin Moseley has been serving since May 2015 on the Planning Board, first as an alternate and then as a full member; and Whereas, Mr. Moseley has maintained good attendance and provided quality input; and Whereas, the Planning Board currently has a vacancy; Therefore, be it resolved, the Planning Board recommends Martin Moseley be reappointed to the Board for a full seven year term. The motion was seconded by John Kiefer and unanimously approved. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9PM. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk 11/30/2015 1 People Helping People Build a Safer World™ ICC Vision Protect the health, safety and welfare  of people by  creating safe buildings and communities ICC Mission To  provide the highest quality codes, standards,  products and services for all concerned with the safety  and performance of the built environment The I‐Codes 15 Codes Building, Residential: IBC, IRC Fire, Wildland‐Urban Interface: IFC, IWUIC Fuel Gas, Mechanical, Plumbing, Pool: IFGC, IMC,  IPC, IPSDC, ISPSC Existing Buildings, Property Maintenance: IEBC,  IPMC Energy, Green, Performance, Zoning: IECC, IgCC, ICC  Performance (ICC PC), IZC The I‐Codes Each code is comprehensive All codes are coordinated and compatible with each  other All d   dld di   h    All codes are developed according to the same process  in the same forum All codes reference consensus standards developed by  Standard Developing Organizations (SDO’s) Coordination of I‐Codes Defined scope of each code  Interdependence and reliance on the entire family of  codes  C  fi d dlii f ii  ihi  Cross referencing and duplication of provisions within  code scopes IRC is a “stand alone Code” Issues resolved in a single and central public forum 11/30/2015 2 ICC Code Development Process Goal Utilize a process open to all parties  with safeguards to  avoid domination by proprietary interests. ICC  Governmental Consensus Process achieves this with the  final vote resting with those administering  formulating final vote resting with those administering, formulating  or enforcing regulations relating to public health, safety  and welfare. Code Committees Representation of interests  General: Consumers, Regulators Producer: Builders, Contractors, Manufacturers,  Mil Aii SDO’ Ti LbMaterial Associations, SDO’s, Testing Labs User: Academia, Designers,  Research Labs, Owners,  Product Certifiers Not less than 33% of each committee are Regulators Code Committees Appointed by the ICC Board of Directors Call for committee posted in January of year  proceeding cycle // Cl P  J/ 2012/2013/2014 Cycle: Post January/2011  Applications due in June of year proceeding cycle 2012/2013/2014 Cycle: Due June/2011  Code Committees 19 Code Committees. One for each code, except: IBC 4 Subcommittees IFC & IWUIC combined IgCC 2 Subcommittees IPC & IPSDC combined IPMC & IZC combined IRC 2 Subcommittees Energy –2 Committees: Commercial (IECC); Residential (IRC  & IECC) Administrative Provisions Committee ‐Chapter 1 of all I‐ Codes (with exceptions such as IRC) and updates to currently  Referenced Standards Code Changes Submitted Code Change  Agenda Posted &  CD Distributed Committee Action  Hearings (CAH) cdpAccess for  another 2 weeks PCH Results  Posted; New  Edition Published I‐CODE  cdpAccess for  about 2 weeks CAH Results  Posted & CD  Distributed Public Comments  Sought on CAH  Results Public Comment  Agenda Posted &  CD Distributed Public Comment  Hearings (PCH) DEVELOPMENT  CYCLE 11/30/2015 3 Typical  Cycle Snapshot Code Change deadline: First working day in January  (with flexibility to accommodate Holidays) Committee Action Hearings (formerly called Code  Development Hearings): Apr MayDevelopment Hearings): Apr‐May Public Comment Hearings (formerly called Final  Action Hearings): Oct‐Nov The Process  Open Transparent Balance of Interest Due Process Consensus Appeals Process The Players Code officials Design professionals Code consultants Trade associations Builders/contractors Manufacturers/suppliers Government agencies  Anyone with an interest Energy Code Players US Department of Energy became a “player” in Code  Development DOE  proposed a goal to increase the efficiency of  buildings to use 30% less energy by 2012 using the buildings to use 30% less energy by 2012 using the  IECC 2006 as the base code Pacific Northwest National Laboratory partnered with  DOE to do research and present means to help  determine if the goal was met Energy Code Players States and Money from the Federal  Government ARRA monies tied to adopting most current “Energy  Code”  New YorkNew York Training for Building Officials & Builders NYSERDA has been doing this IECC Zone Map 2012 11/30/2015 4 Energy use Savings for  Typical  New  Residential Dwelling Unit Based on 2009 and 2012 IECC as compared to 2006 Use is calculated using EnergyPlus™ Software Single‐Family is 2,400 sq ft and the apartment is 3   lifil ih 6 i   fl     f  story multi‐family with 6 units pre floor at 1,200 sq ft  each unit‐Used weighted averages Used four different heating plants; NG fired furnace,  oil‐fired furnace, electric heat pumps and electric  resistance, weighted averages off DOE Res Energy  Consumption Survey 2009 Domestic water assumed same as space heating SITE VERSUS SOURCE ENERGY Site Energy is amount of heat and electricity  consumed by a building‐Utility bills Primary‐raw fuel burned to create heat and electricity Secondary‐energy product that is purchased from the y gy p p grid or received from a district steam system Source Energy equals the total amount of raw fuel that  is required to operate the building including all  transmission, delivery, and production losses Conversion factors Electric –3.16 Natural gas –1.10 Energy Savings continued Energy Savings Energy Savings Comparisons of IECC 2006‐2012 11/30/2015 5 Comparisons of IECC 2006‐2012 Comparisons of IECC 2006‐2012 Comparisons of IECC 2006‐2012 Comparisons of IECC 2006‐2012 30 Year life cycle Parameters used in determination Duct sealing, windows and envelope sealing have 30 year life Insulation has a 60 year life with linear depreciation leaving Insulation has a 60 year life with linear depreciation leaving  only 50% residual value at the end of 30 year period Light bulbs at 6 year life and are replaced four times during  the 30 year analysis period Comparisons of IECC 2006‐2012  from National Residential Cost Effectiveness DOE pdf NEW PROVISIONS OF IECC 2012 Residential‐ Blower Door Tests ‐meet 3 or less air changes per hour at  50 pascals Any building envelope that is tighter than 5 ACH at 50 Any building envelope that is tighter than 5 ACH at 50  pascals has to have Whole House Mechanical  Ventilation System Whole House Mechanical Ventilation (WHMV) Prescriptive table in Code based on # of bedrooms and size of  home ‐Table M1507.3.3(1) WHMV does not have to run continuous but has to move air  @ cfm from Table M1507.3.3(2) 11/30/2015 6 Table  M1507.3.3(1) & (2)NEW PROVISIONS OF IECC 2012 Duct Blaster Testing Only on ducts outside the building envelope Total  leakage is to be less than or equal to 4 cfm per 100  square feet of conditioned floor area square feet of conditioned floor area  Without the furnace, 3 cfm Would  include heat exchanger in furnace if outside the  envelope Basement wall insulation upgraded: It is now 10’ below  grade or to the floor, whichever is less (this is in the  2009 Code) Used to be 4’ below outside grade DEFINITIONS ENERGY CODE RESIDENTIAL‐ Detached one‐family  dwellings not more than 3 stories  Above Grade Plane Detached two family dwelling the sameDetached two‐family dwelling the same Buildings that (i) consist of three or more attached  townhouse unit (ii) not more than 3 stories AGP Buildings that are classified R‐2, R‐3 or R‐4 not more  than 3 stories AGP COMMERCIAL‐Any building not defined as  “residential building”. ENERGY CONSUMPTION http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#consu mption Energy Cost savings Analysis of the 2015 IECC for  Commercial Buildings:  Difference between 2012 & Commercial Buildings:  Difference between 2012 &  2015 IECC Codes  https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/docu ments/2015_IECC_Commercial_Analysis.pdf COMMERCIAL TABLE http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/free_resources /NYS12IECCComm/NYS12IECC_Comm_main.html SPECIFICS IN COMMERCIAL Continuous insulation above roof deck from R‐20 to R‐ 30 in Zone 6 In Attics, R‐38 to R‐49 O  D    f  U   U  (U f  Opaque Doors went up for U‐0.70 to U‐0.37 (U factor  is the inverse of R factor) Sliding Doors‐U‐0.50 (R‐2) to R‐4.75 or a U‐0.21 11/30/2015 7 INTERNATIONAL GREEN  CONSTRUCTION CODE Not a “stand alone” code. Section 101.2 of the code  specifically states; “This code is an overlay code to be  used in conjunction with the other codes and  standards adopted by the jurisdiction ”standards adopted by the jurisdiction. It can exempt most residential structures from most of  the requirements. Goes beyond typical code requirements in that it  attempts to regulate location and activity ( waste  management, recycling, water usage) 2018 IECC DOE PROPOSALS Residential proposals  1‐Advance Wall  Framing Where you go 24” oc instead of 16” and using single top plates,  insulated headersinsulated headers If you do not want to do that, you have to use “U” values to  show compliance 2‐Improve Fenestration “U” Values Climate Zones 3‐8 only, 3 & 4 0.35 to 0.32 and 4 Marine to 8  0.32 to 0.30 Cost analysis on the Website ‐ www.energycodes.gov/development/2018iecc 2018 IECC DOE PROPOSALS Residential proposals continued  3‐Heat Recovery Ventilation Required in Zones 6‐8 (we are Zone 6) with efficiency of 70% 4 Prescriptive Option Packages4‐Prescriptive Option Packages Gives “trade‐offs” to allow for air leakage  of 4 air changes per  hour for other options that are above code in other areas 5‐Extend High Efficacy Lighting Increasing the minimum efficacy from 60 lumens per watt to  75 lumens Removes the allowance for 40 lumens for lamps 15 watts or  less 2018 IECC DOE PROPOSALS Residential Proposals continued 6‐Require Labeling of HVAC Systems R303.1.5 Equipment Efficiency or energy use.The energy use or  energy efficiency of the equipment listed in Table  R303.1.5 shall be  determined in accordance with the applicable US Department of determined in accordance with the applicable U.S. Department of  Energy test procedure and sampling plan. The energy use or  efficiency, along with the date of manufacture of the equipment,  shall be shown on a label affixed to the equipment by the equipment  manufacturer.  Where U.S. Department of Energy regulations (CFR  Title 10, Part XXXX) provide for different Federal standard levels as a  function of a geographic region or intended installation location, the  label shall also show the geographic region or state where the  equipment is intended to be installed for use. For equipment subject  to FTC labeling regulations, the label shall meet all applicable  requirements. 2018 IECC DOE PROPOSALS Commercial Proposals 1‐Mandatory testing of the building envelope Building of certain sizes are exempt from some of the  requirementsrequirements Large proposal 2‐Lower SHGC Only in Zones 1 & 2 Changes depend on window orientation drop from 0.25 to  0.22 2018 IECC DOE PROPOSALS Commercial Proposals continued 3‐Occupant Standby Control for HVAC Spaces greater than 500 feet Design load of 25 people per 100 square feetDesign load of 25 people per 1,00 square feet 4‐Limit Ventilation No limit on maximum amount of ventilation air 2 to 3 times  currently in some buildings Place that limit at 135% which is less stringent than the 130%  placed by Green Building Standards 11/30/2015 8 2018 IECC DOE PROPOSALS Commercial Proposals continued 5‐Reduce VSD Thresholds for Pumps and Fan Motors 6‐Expand Use of Occupancy Sensors O  l  ffi  Open plan office areas 7‐Faster Shutoff Times for Occupancy Sensors From 30 minutes to 20 minutes 8‐Reduce Interior Lighting Allowances 15 to 17 percent less of the required lighting 2018 IECC DOE PROPOSALS Commercial Proposals continued 9‐Reduce Display Lighting Allowances 50% in Retail  and 36% in Jewelry, Crystal, and China 10‐Reduce Exterior Lighting Allowancesgg LED Lights‐Replacement cost reductions about 4% 11‐Prescriptive Packages for Simple Office Buildings Major change that is being requested by design professionals  and others Table for each zone 12‐Day lightning Controls Tradeoff Allows for reduction in lighting power density to avoid  daylight‐responsive controls PROS AND CONS FOR HIGHER  ENERGY EFFICIENCY Smaller Carbon Footprint and less energy cost Heighten awareness of cost of energy Reputation of building stock and quality in the  icommunity Individual responsibility and community involvement PROS AND CONS FOR HIGHER  ENERGY EFFICIENCY Higher cost of construction We are already at a higher limit in the code than  surrounding counties L  ii i   i   fi  Longer inspection times; more time to confirm  insulation is properly installed,  all areas sufficiently  caulked, gaskets installed where necessary, & est. QUESTIONS Where do we go from here? To  learn more‐Go to New York  State DOS, BSC site http://www.dos.ny.gov/dcea/index.html Department of Energy Talk  to us here.