Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-07-16-08 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JULY 16, 2008 PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Kirk Sigel, Eva Hoffmann. OTHERS: Peter Stein, Town Board; Rich DePaolo, Town Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney for the Town; Sue Ritter (Sue), Assistant Director of Planning. Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Pat indicated that the Supervisor’s Advisory Committee (SAC) spoke this morning about the need for possible amendments to Chapter 184 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding noise permit applications. Pat mentioned that the current law requires that an application for a permit has to be filed with the Town Clerk at least 45 days prior to the scheduled event, and that often makes it difficult to schedule the necessary public hearing at a Town Board meeting in the required timeframe. The law also does not currently include any application fee for noise permits. Bill asked the Committee if this could be put on the August Committee meeting agenda. The Committee agreed. Agenda Item No. 2 – Consideration of Further Revisions to Draft Small Wind Energy Facilities Law: Bill reported that the Town Board had again referred the draft Local Law regarding Small Wind Energy Facilities back to the Committee for review and recommendations regarding Section 5 on page 4 of the law relating to noise limits. Rich DePaolo indicated that he had brought a demonstration of recorded sounds at different decibel levels for the Committee to hear. The Committee assembled in the Planning and Zoning Reception area, where Rich had set up a sound system. The demonstration included recorded “white noise”, which Rich played at 50 dB(A) and 60 dB(A) for comparison. Rich also played the recorded sound of a sample wind turbine (Zephyr 1.0 kW) at the 50 and 60 dB(A) levels so that the Committee could hear a sample of a wind turbine at the different levels. The Committee then returned to the conference room for discussion. Bill reported what was discussed at the July 7th Town Board meeting, recalling that there were still concerns from some of the Town Board members regarding noise levels, and that the matter was referred back to the Committee by a vote of 4 to 3. Peter distributed handouts to the Committee regarding current and proposed wording of Section 5 of the law relating to noise and a chart that he would describe later. Peter reported that he had obtained sample wind turbine ordinances from the Genessee-Finger Lakes Regional Planning group. In reviewing other municipal regulations, Peter wondered what the Committee was trying to accomplish in the proposed Section 5 regarding noise limits, and realized that the subject of noise measurement DRAFT – AUGUST 1, 2008 2 and peoples’ perception of noise is a difficult one to understand. Peter indicated that he called the Genessee-Finger Lakes group to find out how they measure sound levels in the noise law provisions. Since the ambient noise level is not something that can be controlled by the measurer, the way to measure the noise levels of a wind turbine is to take separate noise measurements, first with the turbine turned off, then with the turbine on. Then the difference between the two measurements is calculated. The measurements have to be taken from some reference point, which is usually at the nearest property line. The handout with the chart refers to ambient sound levels on the left column (noise in dB(A) with the turbine off) and the acceptable noise of the turbine assuming a maximum permitted sound pressure level of 50 dB(A) (acceptable noise in dB(A) with turbine on). Peter added that the NYSERDA website suggests using a lower sound level of 45 dB(A) at night when people are sleeping. Rich said that he drove around to different areas of the Town and took sound measurements. He found ambient sound levels of 50 dB(A) only in downtown. At the Ithaca Beer Company on Route 13, sound levels spiked at about 60 dB(A) when cars passed. Jonathan handed out a chart (“dB SPL in Real Life”), which illustrates typical sound pressure levels in different types of sound environments. As an example, the ambient sound level in a rural nighttime sound environment is about 20 dB(A), while the ambient level in a quiet rural area is about 40 during the day, and a quiet suburban area is around 50 dB(A). Rich explained that decibels increase in an additive way. Herb said that he has not heard anything at this discussion that is new to what the Committee has previously discussed. Herb added that a small wind turbine makes less noise than a typical air conditioner – everyone lives with noise, and people get used to it. Herb asked why should we discriminate against noise of wind energy facilities when we do not regulate noise of things like air conditioners. Wind turbines are a new technology, and people will get used to them after people start using them more regularly. Herb said that he likes the current wording in the draft law that last went to the Town Board. Peter asked what the current wording was trying to accomplish. Kirk indicated that he was not happy with the wording that went to the Town Board, but that the idea was to allow a liberal sound limit in order to encourage the use of wind turbines. Herb reiterated that he thinks the current wording is good. Eric indicated that he likes Peter’s new proposed substitute wording because it is easy to understand and enforce. Eva said that Rich’s demonstration of sound was useful. Eva added that the wind energy facilities that Committee members visited were qui eter than the sample in Rich’s demonstration. Eva indicated that she likes the new proposed substitute wording. Jonathan referred to the Bergey manufacturer research on noise levels of wind turbines and that using 50 dB(A) as a sound pressure limit would be very restrictive and would not allow some turbines to operate under certain conditions, and that he would be uncomfortable with the substitute wording. Jonathan added that it is not clear how the chart relates to the substitute wording. Peter responded that his chart is part of the law that explains how the measurements are to be taken. Jonathan suggested that wording be added to the text of the law referring to the chart as a figure that would be added to the law. Peter came up with wording that would do that. Herb said that the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) recommends that 55dB(A) is an acceptable sound level for wind turbines, and there are DRAFT – AUGUST 1, 2008 3 communities that use 60 dB(A) as a noise limit. Bill asked whether in the current wording in the law, is 60 dB(A) the noise limit for the facility. Susan indicated that it was explained that way at the Town Board meeting. Bill explained that the Town of Clinton has two laws, one for small wind energy facilities, and one for large-scale facilities. The Clinton law uses 50 dB(A) or ambient sound level plus 5 dB(A), whichever is greater. Susan added that this allows for the sound pressure level of the facility to exceed the ambient sound level by 5 dB(A). Peter mentioned that 50 dB(A) was a common threshold used in many of the Genessee-Finger Lakes samples that he reviewed. Bill indicated that Dryden’s noise level is 55 dB(A). Kirk asked how sound levels drop off as distances from the noise generator increases. Rich responded that noise levels drop off significantly as distance increases. Herb reiterated that we should not be setting dual standards for noise – his home heating system makes more noise than a wind turbine, but the Town does not regulate the noise of his home heating system. Herb added that it is unreasonable to apply a restrictive noise limit on wind turbines. Pat indicated that she would like to move this issue on and wondered if there is a compromise noise level that people would be comfortable with. Is there a number between 50 and 60 dB(A) that Committee members can agree on? Jonathan said that the approach in the chart seems like a good idea in that it takes into account the ambient sound level and tells you how to measure the sound levels. Herb indicated that the Committee looked at many examples of wind turbine ordinances around the country and that it is not an efficient approach to keep revisiting this issue. Kirk suggested that he would be willing to use a limit above 50 dB(A) if members could agree. Eric indicated that turbines have to be maintained over time, and that they may get louder as they get used more. Having a set decibel level would encourage people to keep their wind turbine well-maintained. Susan suggested that a variance provision could be written in the law. Herb indicated that he would be willing to use 55 dB(A) as a limit . Rich also said that he would accept using the NYSERDA recommended range, which references 55 dB(A) as an upper limit. Jonathan mentioned that he came across a provision in a sample law that includes the possibility of a neighbor signing a written waiver to allow a wind turbine to exceed the limits in that law. Bill said that he read Peter’s suggested substitute wording and is not sure if he is ready to move ahead with it. Bill suggested that perhaps Rich could take Peter’s wording using 55 dB(A) as the permitted sound pressure level. Peter said that he would be comfortable with a limit of 55 dB(A) at the property line and 50 dB(A) at the nearest residence. Kirk suggested dropping the reference to the lower noise level at the nearest residence and just using the 55 dB(A) limit at the property line. Peter said he is not sure, and that the nighttime noise is important if there is a nearby residence. Pat said that she is hearing that most of the Committee is comfortable with using 55 dB(A). Pat would like the Committee to decide tonight. Pat added that the simpler the regulation is, the better, and that we do not need the lower noise level in reference to sleeping. Herb made a motion to accept the substitute wording proposed by Peter to replace the current wording in Section 5 of the June 24, 2008 draft law, except using 55 dB(A) as the maximum noise level of a wind energy facility, and eliminating the lower noise level for sleeping, and to add Peter’s reference to the chart and adding the chart as a figure in the law. Eric seconded Herb’s motion. Susan suggested a slight modification of the reference to how the measurements are taken at the property line, by going back to the wording in the June 24, 2008 draft of the law DRAFT – AUGUST 1, 2008 4 that says that sound measurements are measured “at any property site property line abutting a property owned by an entity other than the owner of the property on which the small wind energy facility is located”. Herb and Eric said that they had no objection to Susan’s suggested wording for measurements at the property line, and that the chart would also have to be revised based on using 55 dB(A) as the limit instead of 50 dB(A). Eva indicated that she is not in favor of using 55 dB(A) because she is concerned about the possible noise impacts on neighbors. Rich said that he supports the proposed resolution. Rich added that under this resolution, two wind turbines could be installed each generating 52 dB(A). Peter said that he also supports the proposed resolution. Bill asked for a vote on the proposed resolution as amended with Susan’s suggested wording regarding measurement at the property line as indicated above. The motion was passed by a vote of 5 in favor and 1 opposed (Eva). Peter said that he will send his revised chart to Rich and Jonathan for incorporation into the law. Susan will provide the revised language for Section 5, and Rich will revise the chart to include the 55 dB(A) limit. Agenda Item No. 3 – Continuation of Review of Proposed Stream Setback Law: Sue briefly indicated what she would like to cover with the Committee at the next meeting when there is time to discuss the stream setback law. These items include the one acre exemption issue, how to handle steep slopes adjacent to streams, how to handle at-grade stream crossings, how to approach agricultural uses, and how to handle stormwater facilities within setback areas. Agenda Item No. 4 - Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 5 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: Several members indicated that they would not be here for the August 20 th meeting, including Kirk, Pat, and possibly Eva. Bill indicated that he would be away the week of August 25th, but would be available for the August 20th meeting. The Committee agreed to hold the next meeting on the scheduled date of Wednesday, August 20, 2008. Possible agenda items include continuation of discussion regarding proposed Stream Setback Law, possible amendments to the Zoning Chapter regarding height and setback provisions for fences, minor amendments to the noise law regarding fees and timeframe for noise permits, and return to review of Chapter 221 of the Town Code regarding Signs. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning