Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Packet 2021-12-08 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us 12/01/2021 TO: Codes and Ordinances Committee: William Goodman, Chair Patricia Leary Eric Levine Eva Hoffmann Bill King Yvonne Fogarty FROM: Christine Balestra, Planner RE: Next Codes and Ordinances Committee Meeting – December 8, 2021 The next meeting of the Codes and Ordinances Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, December 8th at 5:30pm via Zoom (details on the next page). A quorum of the Town of Ithaca Town Board may be present at this meeting. However, no official Town Board business will be conducted. The following items are attached:  Meeting minutes from the November 10, 2021, COC meeting  Memo from Nick Goldsmith regarding Energy Code Supplement revisions  Previously approved “Approval Process and Aesthetic Requirements” list and flow charts  Map that shows a 300-foot radius setback from all residences  Proposed 2022 COC Meeting Schedule The committee will also review the “Selected Provisions from the Town of Fishkill Draft Telecommunications Law” (drafted by Andrew Campanelli) that was included in the October 2021 COC mailout. If you cannot attend this meeting, please notify Christine Balestra as soon as possible at (607) 273-1747, (607) 227-0956, or cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us. cc: Susan H. Brock, Attorney for the Town Susan Ritter, Director of Planning Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement Abby Homer, Administrative Assistant Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Town Administrative staff (email) Town Board Members (email) Town Code Enforcement staff (email) Town Planning staff (email) Town Public Works staff (email) Media TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 PLEASE NOTE: Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting via Zoom may call in on a cell phone or landline at (929) 436-2866 and enter the Meeting ID: 675 059 3272; or may view the meeting by computer at https://zoom.us/j/6750593272. Once on Zoom, click on “Join A Meeting” and enter the Meeting ID: 675 059 3272. The meeting will also be recorded on the Town of Ithaca YouTube Channel. Meeting of December 8, 2021 – 5:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Member comments/concerns. 2. Minutes from November 10, 2021, COC meeting. 3. Discussion of Potential Energy Code Supplement Revisions. 4. Discussion of Updates to Town of Ithaca Telecommunications Law –report on Town of Fishkill law status and review of attached meeting materials. 5. Other business:  Discussion of Proposed 2022 COC Meeting Schedule Town of Ithaca Planning Department December 1, 2021 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of November 10th, 2021 – 5:35 pm –Zoom, and live on You Tube] Draft Minutes Members and Staff Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, and Eva Hoffmann, Bill King, Yvonne Fogarty, Pat Leary, and Eric Levine - Members. Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel, Abby Homer, Planning Admin Asst - Staff. Bill G. set up the meeting to broadcast on You tube along with the Zoom platform. 1. Member comments/concerns. There were none. 2. Minutes from October 2021, COC meeting. The first draft was circulated, minor changes were recommended by Susan Brock and Eva. All changes were accepted. Eva moved to approve the minutes as amended and Yvonne seconded. All members voted in favor of approval. 4. Discussion of Update Town of Ithaca & Town of Fishkill Telecommunications Law. Susan Brock virtually attended the 10/20/21 Town of Fishkill public hearing on their proposed Telecommunications Ordinance, drafted by Attorney Andrew Campanelli. There were many questions and statements between the Board, Mr. Campanelli, and the public. One highlight from the hearing included a sentiment that the proposed Ordinance would potentially cause a 95% denial rate for telecommunications applicants, since the law requires applicants to prove that there’s a significant gap in service – and telecommunications services are apparently considered adequate in the Town of Fishkill. Susan quoted some statements that Mr. Campanelli made at the hearing, including those related to a pivotal 1999 court case that changed the way municipalities could handle telecommunications applications in NYS. Mr. Campanelli explained the difference between the technical definition of “Personal Wireless Services” (PWS), which is the ability to place a call from a cell phone to a land line, and the definition of “Information Services”, which includes general internet services, data streaming, etc. He mentioned that the Telecommunications Act protects PWS - municipalities cannot prohibit them. However, the Act does not protect Information Services – and wireless broadband is considered an information service, not a personal wireless service. Mr. Campanelli believes that wireless broadband service is not protected by the Act. The telecommunications industry has been asserting that all their services are protected by the Telecommunications Act. Both Mr. Campanelli (at the Fishkill meeting) and Susan Brock (at the COC meeting) clearly stated – and repeated - that a municipality cannot legally regulate telecommunications based on environmental/health concerns. [Staff note: most comments by Ithaca residents in the last few months have focused exclusively on environmental/health concerns, and residents have emphatically requested that the town deny telecommunications applications based on health concerns]. 2 Susan reported that Mr. Campanelli reduced his recommended setback distances between wireless facilities and residences, stating that 300-foot setbacks were reasonable and legally feasible rather than the 1500-feet that he previously recommended. The setback distances in the law between telecommunications facilities and residences were left blank at the time of the Fishkill hearing, so their Board could decide on an enforceable setback. After some discussion, the Fishkill Board ultimately settled on 300-foot setbacks. Since other questions remained in the draft law, e.g., bonding and appeals processes, the Town of Fishkill did not take formal action at the public hearing. The Board will continue their review at their December meeting. Susan then answered clarifying questions of the Codes and Ordinance Committee, including:  Were larger setbacks discussed in the Town of Fishkill meeting? Yes, although none as large as 1500 feet or 1640 feet. Susan noted that the setbacks can’t prohibit development, but aesthetics can be considered as a factor in regulating the placement of facilities.  If the applicant has proven that there’s a significant gap in coverage, found that no less intrusive means are available to close the gap, and the setbacks are met, can the project be denied? No.  How is the setback distance factored, if not for health/environmental reasons? One can factor in things like visual impacts, line of sight, aesthetics. Is 300-feet defensible? Yes, 300- feet is defensible.  Does the town have cell coverage maps to see if there is adequate coverage in the town? No. Maps provided by carriers alone may not be current or accurate – the town could hire a consultant to determine, but the applicant still needs to prove the gap in coverage.  Can’t the carriers just upgrade the existing facilities when/if needed? Modifications and upgrades have taken place on the sites around town throughout the years. Some have required permit modifications or additional review under the town’s existing telecommunications law.  If the applicant cannot prove a gap in coverage, can applications/permits be denied? Yes, if the language in the law were crafted that way. Additionally, standard zoning regulations would apply. Susan stated that she would investigate this further and get back to the committee. A brief review of the Town of Fishkill Law indicated that their Board makes local zoning determinations, and if the facility is denied based on existing zoning, then the Telecommunications Act determination (significant gap in coverage, least intrusive means to remedy gap) would be applied.  Is there a way to differentiate between 3G, 4G, 5G? Can we approve one type but deny others? No, they are all technology that is protected under the Telecommunications Act specific to personal wireless service (calls from cell to landline). Chris Balestra presented two maps requested by the committee at the last meeting. The committee asked for maps that showed the setbacks surrounding residences. One map showed a 250-foot radius setback from all residential buildings in the town. The other map showed a 1500-foot radius. Chris clarified that most telecommunications facilities were located along roads (linear layouts), whereas these maps showed a distance around each residence, whether along a road or not (radial layout). Chris also pointed out the approximate locations of the three current telecommunication towers in the town, along with smaller free-standing cell antennas on many buildings and businesses. 3 The committee thanked Susan for her time, research, and presentation of the information and will continue the discussion on setbacks for telecommunications facilities at the December COC meeting. Bill G. asked the committee to turn their attention to the annotated Town of Fishkill telecommunications law provisions that were provided in the previous COC mail out. Susan had added red text boxes to the law, with questions for the committee to consider. Given the late hour, the committee only focused on the following:  Who initially reviews the telecommunications applications and determines completeness? Is it the Codes, Planning, Engineering Departments? The Planning Board? The committee generally agreed that staff should conduct the initial review but did not decide which department. Planning and codes staff will get together to discuss this before the next COC meeting.  The “Adequate Coverage” and “Effective Prohibition” definitions were noted as relevant to the determination that must be made for all telecommunications facilities.  Should the Planning Board make the Factual Determinations for ALL facilities or should staff members handle the small stand-alone antennas, co-location modifications, etc., and have the large proposals referred to the Planning Board? There was general agreement that the small stand-alone antennas and small modifications should be made by staff. But the committee wants to look at the previous flow charts that were prepared that showed internal review for some circumstances and Planning Board review for other circumstances. The committee will discuss this at the next meeting. 5. Other business. Yvonne recommended the Planning Board receive training on the updated regulations before applications with specific parameters come before them. Bill G. reported briefly on information be received from Marty Moseley before the meeting regarding FAA concerns related to 5G frequency interfering with air traffic control/airplane safety equipment. There may be a pause on the 5G as this is researched. Susan stated she would forward the FAA bulletin issued on 11/2/2021 to the committee and encouraged more research on the internet for anyone interested. It is not clear at this time what effect this will have on the town.  Next meeting: December 8th, 2021  Agenda: -Report on Town of Fishkill December meeting (December 1, 2021) -Discussion of new map that shows a 300’ setback radius from all residences -Continued discussion of Town of Fishkill law excerpts, specifically the assignment of a “gatekeeper” (staff or board), who would review applications for completeness, and which applications go to the Board or staff for factual determinations. -Discussion of Susan Brock’s ADA memo to the COC [attorney-client privileged and not subject to FOIL, do not distribute externally]. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 pm. Date: 12/01/2021 To: Codes and Ordinances Committee From: Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement Regarding: Energy Code Supplement amendments Overview The Energy Code Supplement (ECS or IECS), adopted earlier this year, has not yet been reviewed in full by New York State. During the creation of a document meant to help the State in its review, we discovered that one tiny element of the ECS is less stringent than the current New York State Energy Code (NYSECCC), which is not allowed. At the January 2022 COC meeting, we will be proposing two amendments to remedy this (items 1 and 2, below). At the same time, we will propose three other minor amendments which we see as quick, easy, and non-controversial. (There are other amendments under consideration which are not as straightforward. These may be advanced in the future, before the ECS becomes more stringent in January 2023.) Proposed Amendments Following is an overview of the proposed amendments. We will bring code-ready language and red-lined documents to the January COC meeting for your consideration. 1. Right Lighting, provision 144-C402.3.4.2 Lighting Power Allowance refers to table AA1 in Appendix A. The lighting power density (LPD) value for Electrical/mechanical room in Table AA1 will be updated from 0.48 watts/sq. ft to 0.43 (watts/sq. ft), to match the LPD value in the 2020 NYSECCC TABLE C405.3.2(2) INTERIOR LIGHTING POWER ALLOWANCES: SPACE-BY-SPACE METHOD. 2. Overall, the IECS is more stringent than the 2020 NYSECC. It is the intent of the Town and the City that every individual requirement of the IECS is at least as stringent as the related requirement(s) of the NYSECCC. To avoid any ambiguity around this intent, language similar to the following will be added to provision 144-201.1 of the IECS: “In the case that a requirement of the IECS is less stringent than that of the NYSECCC in effect at the time of application, then the NYSECCC shall take precedence. The IECS shall be followed to the greatest extent possible while meeting the requirements of the NYSECCC.” 3. EV parking space, section 144-R502.5.3.10: Some residential buildings (e.g single family homes and duplexes) should be exempted from the EV signage requirements. Possibly tie the requirements to shared parking spaces. 4. EV parking space, sections 144-R502.5.3.7 and 144-C402.5.3.7: Add language specifying that current National Electric Code standards must also be met. 5. Adaptive Reuse, sections 144-R502.5.4 and 144-C402.5.4: The intent is not to require buildings to keep old insulation. Remove “and building thermal envelope” from the first sentence. We look forward to discussion on this issue. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments before then. June 2020 – Town Telecommunications Law 1 Approval Process and Aesthetic Requirements - All Wireless Facilities 1. For New Towers that are not small wireless facilities – Minor updates to existing provisions, Planning Board site plan and special permit approval per the existing town law. 2. For Cell Antenna Collocations onto existing towers that are not considered “substantial” under §6409 (FCC Order 2014) – Internal administrative staff review by Planning staff (to determine §6409(a) applicability) and building permit only. The criteria that makes a facility “Substantial” * is defined in the Order. 3. For Cell Antenna Collocations onto existing communications towers that are considered “substantial” under §6409 (FCC Order 2014)– Planning Board site plan and special permit approval with the following criteria: 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 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. b) Each antenna shall be located within a stealth enclosure that matches the materials, color and design of the tower on which the antenna is located. c) All equipment enclosures shall be as small as possible and undergrounded when possible. Building-mounted enclosures shall be located within a stealth enclosure that matches the materials, color and design of the structure on which the enclosure is located. Ground-mounted enclosures shall have appropriate vegetative buffering to buffer the view from neighboring residences, recreation areas and public roads. The Planning Board may require screening adjacent to waterways, landmarks, refuges, community facilities, or conservation or historic areas within common view of the public. Collocations along New York State- designated Scenic Byways or located within an area listed in the Tompkins County or Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Inventory must be as visually inconspicuous as possible. The views of, and vistas from, such structures, districts, and corridors shall not be impaired or diminished by the placement of wireless facilities. d) There shall be no illumination, except in accord with state or federal regulations. e) No portion of the wireless support structure or its accessory structures shall be used for signs or promotional or advertising purposes, including, but not limited to, company name, phone numbers, banners, streamers and balloons. f) Access to the facility shall be achieved by using existing public or private roads; no new accessway, driveway or parking area shall be constructed. Equipment or vehicles not used in direct support, renovations, additions or repair of any wireless facility shall not be stored or parked on the facility site. 4. For Small Cell Distribution Antenna Systems (DAS) –Planning Board site plan and special permit approval, with the following additional criteria: a) If the DAS is located within a public ROW, then the preferable placement locations are the same as in the existing law for towers (e.g. most preferred= collocation on June 2020 – Town Telecommunications Law 2 existing towers, utility poles or other structures; least preferred= installing all new poles) b) If collocation is not possible, then all new poles and equipment must be the same height, color and finish as surrounding poles. c) There shall be no exposed wires. All cables and wires associated with the facility leading to and away from the facility shall be installed underground. If undergrounding is not possible, then all cables, wires and connectors must be fully concealed on the wireless support structure and shall match the color of the wireless support structure. There shall be no external cables and wires related to the DAS facility hanging off or otherwise exposed on the wireless support structure. d) Each DAS antenna shall be located entirely within a shroud or canister type enclosure or a stealth facility. The diameter of an antenna enclosure at its widest point should not be wider than two times the diameter of the top of the wireless support structure. e) All antenna enclosures shall either be mounted to the top of the wireless support structure pole and aligned with the centerline of the support structure or mounted to the side of the structure such that the vertical centerline of the antenna enclosure will be parallel with the wireless support structure. Stealth enclosures shall match the architecture, materials, color and design of the structure on which they are located (e.g. streetlight pole, building rooftop chimney, cupolas, etc.) Photo examples of stealth applications include the following (source: stealthconcealment.com): f) All equipment enclosures shall be as small as possible and undergrounded when possible. Ground-mounted equipment shall incorporate concealment elements into the proposed design, matching the color and materials of the wireless support structure. Concealment may include, but shall not be limited to, landscaping, strategic placement in less obtrusive locations and placement within existing or replacement street furniture (see photo example of stealth pole above). g) 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. h) There shall be no illumination, except in accord with state or federal regulations, or unless the illumination is integral to the camouflaging strategy (e.g. design intended to look like a streetlight pole). i) Guidelines on placement: DAS facilities and wireless support structures shall be located: 1. No closer than 1,500 feet away, radially, from another small wireless facility and support structure, unless the telecommunications provider can prove that the facilities need to be closer together to meet a specified legal standard. June 2020 – Town Telecommunications Law 3 2. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights. 3. Equal distance between trees, when possible, with a minimum of 15 feet separation such that no proposed disturbance shall occur within the critical root zone of any tree. 4. So as to be not located along the frontage of any building that is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. 5. At least 250 feet away from a structure that contains a dwelling unit. 6. Facilities along New York State-designated Scenic Byways or located within an area listed in the Tompkins County or Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Inventory must be as visually inconspicuous as possible. The views of, and vistas from, such structures, districts, and corridors shall not be impaired or diminished by the placement of such facilities. 7. If a streetlight is present, a combination wireless support structure and streetlight pole should only be located where an existing pole can be removed and replaced, or at a location where it has been identified that a streetlight is necessary. j) Internal administrative staff review by Planning staff is permitted only if a DAS system is located at least 500 feet from a public right-of-way and from the lot line of any adjoining owner. k) No portion of the wireless support structure or its accessory structures shall be used for signs or promotional or advertising purposes, including, but not limited to, company name, phone numbers, banners, streamers and balloons. 5. For Individual Small Cell Sites - Internal administrative staff review by Planning staff and building permit only, with the following criteria: a) There shall be no exposed wires. All cables and wires associated with the facility leading to and away from the facility shall be installed underground. If undergrounding is not possible, then all cables, wires and connectors must be fully concealed and shall match the color of the structure on which the small cell facility is located. There shall be no external cables and wires related to the small wireless facility hanging off or otherwise exposed. b) Each small wireless antenna shall be located within a stealth enclosure that matches the architecture, materials, color and design of the structure on which the antenna is located (e.g. streetlight pole, building rooftop chimney, cupola, etc.). Examples of stealth applications include the following. Photo examples of stealth applications include the following (source: stealthconcealment.com): c) All equipment enclosures shall be as small as possible and undergrounded when possible. Building-mounted enclosures shall be located within a stealth enclosure that matches the architecture, materials, color and design of the structure on which June 2020 – Town Telecommunications Law 4 the enclosure is located (see photo examples above). Ground-mounted enclosures shall have appropriate vegetative buffering to buffer the view from neighboring residences, recreation areas and public roads. Planning staff may require screening adjacent to waterways, landmarks, refuges, community facilities, or conservation or historic areas within common view of the public. Collocations along New York State- designated Scenic Byways or located within an area listed in the Tompkins County or Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Inventory must be as visually inconspicuous as possible. The views of, and vistas from, such structures, districts, and corridors shall not be impaired or diminished by the placement of such facilities. d) There shall be no illumination, except in accord with state or federal regulations, or unless the illumination is integral to the camouflaging strategy (e.g. design intended to look like a streetlight pole). e) No small cell wireless facility shall be located in a historic district that has been listed in the State or National Registers of Historic Places. f) No portion of the wireless support structure or its accessory structures shall be used for signs or promotional or advertising purposes, including, but not limited to, company name, phone numbers, banners, streamers and balloons. g) Access to the small cell wireless facility shall be achieved by using existing public or private roads; no new accessway, driveway or parking area shall be constructed. Equipment or vehicles not used in direct support, renovations, additions or repair of any wireless facility shall not be stored or parked on the facility site. Town of Ithaca Wireless Facility Review/Approval Process Flow Chart (finalized June 2020) NO Is it a Small Wireless Facility Collocation? NO Requires internal Planning staff review ᶺ, building permit (#5*) Town law contains aesthetic, location, dimensional, etc. requirements. 90 day shot clock for approvals.  Is Proposed Facility Collocated onto An Existing Structure? YES Is it collocated onto a Communications Tower? NO §6409(a) “shall approve requirement” (#2*) Building permit only. Documentation required to prove that it falls under §6409(a) 60 day shot clock for approval. YES Is there a “substantial” change per FCC order/ §6409(a)? YES  Requires PB site plan approval & special permit, building permit (#3*) Town law contains aesthetic, location, dimensional, etc. requirements. 60 (for SWF’s) or 90 day shot clock for approvals. *See staff-prepared “Recommendations for Approval Process and Aesthetic Requirements: All Wireless Facilities”, dated June 2020 ᶺ PB approval required when SWF is located along New York State-designated Scenic Byways, or within an area listed in the Tompkins County or Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Inventory. Is it a New Individual Small Wireless Facility? NO System (e.g. DAS, #4*) Requires PB site plan approval & special permit, building permit (exception: internal Planning staff review, building permit only for systems at least 500 feet from public ROW & adjoining owner lot line). Town law contains aesthetic, location, dimensional, etc. requirements. 90 day shot clock for approvals. Requires internal Planning staff reviewᶺ, building permit (#5*) Town law contains aesthetic, location, dimensional, etc. requirements. 60 day shot clock for approvals. YES YES Town of Ithaca Wireless Facility Review/Approval Process Flow Chart (finalized June 2020) Is Proposed Facility Collocated Onto An Existing Structure? NO Is it a New Small Wireless Facility? New Tower (#1*) Requires PB site plan approval & special permit, building permit. Town law contains aesthetic, location, dimensional, etc. requirements, per §332(c)(7). 150 day shot clock for approvals. NO System (e.g. DAS, #4*) Requires PB site plan approval & special permit, building permit (exception: internal Planning staff review, building permit only for systems at least 500 feet from public ROW & adjoining owner lot line). Town law contains aesthetic, location, dimensional, etc. requirements. 90 day shot clock for approvals. NO Requires internal Planning staff review ᶺ, building permit (#5*) Town law contains aesthetic, location, dimensional, etc. requirements. 90 day shot clock for approvals. YES Is it a New Individual Small Wireless Facility? YES *See staff-prepared “Recommendations for Approval Process and Aesthetic Requirements: All Wireless Facilities”, dated June 2020 ᶺ PB approval required when SWF is located along New York State-designated Scenic Byways, or within an area listed in the Tompkins County or Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Inventory. 300-foot Radius Around Residences in the Town of Ithaca Map prepared by Town of Ithaca Engineering with data from Tompkins County GIS, November 18, 2021 0 1 20.5 Miles TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE DRAFT 2022 MEETING SCHEDULE Unless noted below, the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC) will meet at 5:30 p.m. on the second Wednesday of every month in 2022: January 12, 2022 February 9, 2022 March 9, 2022 April 13, 2022 May 11, 2022 June 8, 2022 July 13, 2022 August 10, 2022 September 14, 2022 October 12, 2022 November 9, 2022 December 14, 2022 Meetings will be held via Zoom or in the Aurora Conference Room at Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY. Please contact Christine Balestra, Planner, at 607 -273-1747 or cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us for more information.