Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-02-13-08CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2008 PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann. OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney for the Town. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Bill asked if any members had any changes to the agenda. Hearing none, Bill asked whether any progress had been made on the Illicit Discharge Law. Susan said no. Bill suggested removing that item from the agenda. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Pat asked about the status of the Carrowmoor Planned Development Zone local law. Jonathan indicated that Susan had completed a preliminary draft, and that Herb, Susan and Jonathan would be getting together to discuss and revise that draft, and would be meeting soon with the Carrowmoor developers. Herb reported that the Lakefront Residential Zone amendments were discussed by the Town Board at the February 11th meeting and lakefront residents attended that meeting with concerns about the proposed amendments, including the prohibition of roofs on boat lifts, the need for longer docks where minimum water depths are not reached, and others. Eric mentioned that the residents made a convincing case for the need for roofs on boat lifts and the need for longer docks in some cases. Bill indicated that the Town Board asked for a staff presentation regarding the background and research done on the proposed amendments at the March Town Board meeting. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of January 16, 2008 Meeting: Eva gave Jonathan an edited version of the draft Minutes with several typos she found. Subject to these corrections, the Committee unanimously accepted the Minutes of the January 16, 2008 meeting. Agenda Item No. 3 – Report and Discussion Regarding Comments Received on Draft Wind Energy Facilities Law: Bill asked Jonathan to report on the comments received on the draft wind energy facilities law. Jonathan gave a brief overview of the background of the proposed law and research that had been done by Esther Blodau-Konick on wind energy facilities. Jonathan referred to the memo dated February 6, 2008 that he had sent to the Committee summarizing the process by which comments on the law were obtained from installers, environmental interests and others, and including summaries of the types of comments received. Jonathan also indicated that all of the specific comments received had been provided to Committee members. The following is a 2 summary of the Committee’s discussion on the comments received and on how the draft law might be modified to address some of the issues that were raised. Blade length: Pat indicated that there were several comments from installers regarding the proposed limit on turbine blade length. Jonathan added that the technical experts said that they would prefer not to limit blade length because there are a variety of blade types and sizes available. Herb stated that the Committee had been concerned with a blade breaking and falling on a neighboring property. Kirk mentioned that Esther’s research had found that blade lengths were typically less than the 20 foot maximum in the draft law. Facility height and vertical axis turbines: Kirk asked how the Committee should handle the comments regarding facility height, indicating that a number of comments suggested allowing higher facilities than the 125 maximum hub height in the draft law. Herb mentioned that the Committee’s research showed that 100 feet was usually an adequate height for a residential -scale facility, and that the 125 foot maximum in the law was quite liberal. Herb added that the higher the facility, the more likely that people will see it. Eva stated that with a higher facility, there would have to be a larger fall zone, requiring a larger lot. Eva added that wind turbulence can be an issue with effectiveness of a wind turbine requiring taller structures in some cases. Herb mentioned that one of the installers was concerned that the draft law might not accommodate vertical axis turbines, which are a newer technology than the standard, propeller- like turbines. Kirk suggested that the law could be changed to delete the reference to turbine blade length and hub height, and instead, just have a maximum height of the entire structure and the minimum ground clearance that is in the law. Kirk added that whatever requirements we go with, there can always be variance requests for proposals that do not meet the standard requirements. Herb agreed that eliminating the hub height and blade length sounds like a good idea if the Committee can agree on an overall maximum height. Eric indicated that the current fall zone includes the tower height plus blade length plus 10 feet. That totals 155 feet. Kirk added that there are vertical axis turbines that are like blades but oriented so that the blades are not visually obtrusive. Bill reminded the Committee that the main purpose of the new law would be to make it as easy as possible for homeowners to place a wind energy facility and to encourage this as an alternate source of energy. Bill added that as new technologies develop, the law may need to be further revised in the future. Pat asked whether the illustration on page 5 of the draft would still be needed if the references to hub height and blade length are deleted in the law. Based on the above, the Committee decided to delete the references in the law to maximum hub height and maximum rotor blade length, and add a new overall facility height limit of 145 feet above ground level. Number of facilities per lot: Pat indicated that the limitation of one facility per lot may be too restrictive, and that some of the comments received were on this issue. Pat suggested that more than one per lot may be appropriate as long as the required setbacks and fall zone could be met. Herb responded that the more facilities there are on a lot, the more potential there could be for visual impacts, and that one facility per lot should normally be sufficient for the needs of a homeowner. Herb acknowledged that the Committee may need to address larger facilities for 3 institutions or businesses at some future point. Pat mentioned the example of EcoVillage and other larger developments as possibly needing larger wind energy facilities if they decide to produce enough energy for the whole development, and that it might be better to address these larger facilities in the same law as the smaller-scale facilities. Eva indicated that she is also concerned with the possible visual impacts of wind energy facilities, but that she would rather see several larger facilities on a lot that could provide enough energy for the needs of a site. Susan said that EcoVillage could be handled separately in their Planned Development Zone when they know what type of wind facility they want to pursue. Kirk suggested that a special permit process could be used for proposals with more than one facility per lot, and that perhaps special permits could also be used for facilities taller than the maximum in the law. Jonathan asked for the Committee’s direction on number of facilities per lot. Herb preferred only one per lot to protect the character of neighborhoods. Jonathan suggested the following: If a lot has two acres or more, then there could be a second wind energy facility by special permit to be approved by the Planning Board, but no more than two facilities per lot. The Committee agreed with this approach. Impacts on bird and bat populations: Herb indicated that there were not many helpful comments on affects of these facilities on bird and bat populations because there is no definitive research on this. Herb added that he would like to see some reference in the law to impact on birds and bats. Herb mentioned that the Lab of O. at Cornell has information on stationary towers, but not much information on wind energy facilities. Herb suggested adding some language in the law that reflects the possible presence of bird or bat populations that could be affected by a propo sed wind facility, and added that there should be a special permit requirement for facilities near a flyway or where there is evidence of a significant bird or bat population. Kirk asked how that would be determined. Herb responded that the Lab of O. has information on areas known to have bat populations. Jonathan said that the Code Enforcement Officer would have to have a map or specific listing of areas that would trigger a special permit requirement – otherwise such a provision in the law would not be enforceable. Jonathan suggested that possible areas that could trigger a special permit could include Unique Natural Areas (UNA’s), wetlands, etc. If a proposed facility is located adjacent to or within some distance of a UNA, wetland, etc., then staff would be able to tell an applicant that an application to the Planning Board for a special permit would be required. Herb suggested adding protected lands owned by the Finger Lakes Land Trust or other similar protected natural areas or preserves to trigger a special permit. The Committee liked this approach. Noise: Pat referred to the comments received regarding noise, and suggested that the Committee could just rely on the Town’s recently amended noise law to control impacts of noise of wind facilities. Eric stated that a homeowner wanting to install a wind energy facility should know ahead of time that their facility will be in compliance with Town laws before investing in the cost of the facility. Kirk referred to the comment from John Confer, an expert in wind facilities from Ithaca College, regarding measuring ambient noise levels, and suggested that John Confer’s proposed wording would address some of the issues regarding noise impacts. Eric added that manufacturers indicate the decibel levels of their facilities. Susan added that Bergey facilities can meet the 10 decibel limit above ambient noise levels stated in the draft law. Jonathan agreed that John Confer’s suggested wording would help clarify the decibel measurement. The Committee agreed to add John Confer’s suggested wording. 4 Height of blade above ground level: Susan said that the current draft law uses a minimum blade clearance of 15 feet above ground level. Susan added that according to Esther’s research, some municipalities use a minimum clearance of 30 feet, citing “no moving parts closer than 30 feet to the ground”). Flicker: Eva referred to the Conservation Board’s concern regarding “flicker” (the blinking effect of light when rotor blades are moving). Eva agreed with the Conservation Board that the flicker effect can be an annoyance to neighbors. Herb said that there is not enough of a shadow issue with wind facilities to be a problem. Pat also said that flicker is not a significant issue to be concerned with. Dan asked whether the Committee had dealt with the issue of light reflecting off of the surface of a wind facility. Jonathan indicated that the draft law includes a provision that wind energy facilities shall be painted with a non-obtrusive color. Inspections: Eva asked about inspections of facilities, an item also raised by the Conservation Board, and added that Alleghany requires structural inspections every three years. Dan suggested that this should not be an issue as long as the fall zone is adequate to prevent the structure from falling on adjacent properties or inhabited buildings. Summary: Based on the above discussion, the Committee agreed on the following modifications in the draft law: (1) delete the references to maximum hub height and maximum blade length and add a new overall height limit of 145 feet above ground level; (2) change the minimum clearance of any moving part of the facility from 15 to 30 feet; (3) revise the illustration on page 5 to delete the references to hub, blade length and rotor diameter, and consider adding a new illustration showing an example of a vertical axis turbine; (4) add a provision to allow a second wind energy facility by special permit on a parcel of two acres or more in size, but no more than two facilities per lot; (5) add a provision that any proposed facility (except for roof-mounted facilities) within or adjacent to a natural area (to be defined as UNA’s, wetlands, the Cayuga lakeshore, etc.) shall be permitted only upon receipt of a special permit from the Planning Board; and (6) add John Confer’s suggested wording to clarify how ambient noise levels are to be measured. Bill asked whether the Committee was ready to move ahead with the proposed law. Jonathan suggested bringing the revised draft back to the Committee to review the changes outlined above, and then send it on to the Town Board for referral to the Planning Board for a recommendation and setting a public hearing. The Committee agreed. Agenda Item No. 4 - Continuation of Discussion Regarding 2008 Work Plan Priorities: Bill referred to the revised list of work plan priorities that was based on the discussion at the January 16th Committee meeting and asked for further input. Pat asked about the status of the illicit discharge law. Susan indicated that she has not had a chance to work on the revised law yet, but that it should be ready for the March meeting. Eva mentioned a situation on Pine Tree Road where there is junk stored all over the yard, and neighbors have complained about this. Eva asked whether there are any laws that deal with such situations. Dan responded that the Town Code includes a Property Maintenance chapter that 5 addresses these issues, but it is hard to enforce. Dan added that the Town has been involved with this property for some time, and the owner’s current whereabouts is unknown. The Sheriff’s office may end up getting involved in this case. Susan referred to the amendments to the unsafe buildings chapter, and said that this does need some updates and clarifications. Jonathan suggested that some items on the list like this can be drafted by the Code Enforcement staff and brought to the Committee when ready for review. That way, the Committee should not have to spend too much time on several of these technical items. Dan said that he would work with the staff to put a draft together and go over it with Susan before bringing it to the Committee. Bill asked about the Coy Glen Conservation Zone, and whether it could be sent to the Planning Committee to work on. Herb said that he would prefer keeping it at COC since COC has already spent so much time working on it, and is familiar with the background and materials that have been discussed. The Committee agreed. Bill indicated that he would like to see the stream setback law back to the Committee possibly in April. The Committee concurred. Dan indicated that he would like the Committee to consider modifying the zoning provisions regarding building height. Dan mentioned that at the last Zoning Board meeting, he found out that the Code Enforcement staff have not been implementing the part of the building height requirement that deals with the interior of the building, and have focused on the exterior height limits. Dan added that he would rather see a height limit based on an average grade level and an average roof height. Kirk added that the interior measurement for height does not really affect the exterior appearance of the building. Dan mentioned that a 36 foot height is probably okay for most neighborhoods, but that many of the new larger homes have high ceilings and steeply pitched roofs. Jonathan indicated that height variances are among the most common ones handled by the Zoning Board. The Committee agreed that the Code Enforcement staff should look at this issue, do some research on how other communities address building height in their codes, and bring back a proposal to the Committee when ready. Eva suggested that the Town should also encourage more energy efficient homes. Jonathan mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan update may be looking at energy conservation as an element, and may result in recommendations for guidelines or regulations dealing with this issue. Eva indicated that she noticed that the scenic view regulations are not on the work plan list any more. Jonathan responded that the Town Board referred the Conservation Board’s report on scenic views to the Planning Committee to consider possible ways of implementing that report’s recommendations, and that if the Planning Committee recommends that some kind of regulations be pursued, then that could come back to COC at a future time. Bill asked whether there were other items on the list to discuss. Jonathan asked the Committee if the work plan list with the addition of amendments to the building height regulations can be considered the approved list. Jonathan added that the list can be modified at any time and that items can always be added to the list and priorities shifted. The Committee approved the modified work plan list based on the above discussion. 6 Agenda Item No. 5 - Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 6 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 19, 2008. Proposed agenda items include review of revised Wind Energy Facilities Law based on discussion at tonight’s meeting, and consideration of revised draft law regarding illicit discharges, activities and connections to storm sewer systems. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning