HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-02-21-07TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2007 – 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Member Comments/Concerns.
2. Approval of Minutes of January 17, 2007 Meeting.
3. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Amateur Radio Towers and Other Residential Accessory
Structures.
4. Discussion Regarding 2007 Work Plan Priorities.
5. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy Facilities.
6. Continuation of Review of Certain Provisions in Chapter 221 Signs in Town of Ithaca Code
(refer to outline of Possible Amendments to Sign Law distributed in Nov. 15th mail-out packet).
7. Other Business.
8. Next Meeting Date and Agenda: Tentatively Wednesday, March 21, 2007.
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
February 15, 2007
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 21, 2007
PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Kirk Sigel, Diane Conneman.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Esther Blodau-
Konick, Planner.
GUESTS: Carl Steckler, Meg Richardson, Kevin Feeney.
Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Pat mentioned two things that she heard about at the NYS Association of Towns meeting that she
attended in New York City: (1) there will be a conference on “Creating Walkable Communities” to be
held in Corning, NY April 17-18th – Pat said that she would provide information on this; and (2) Pat
attended a session held by the NYS Department of State (DOS) regarding the impacts of rental housing
on community character and how some municipalities are regulating short -term rentals – Pat indicated
that DOS felt that the regular short-term rental of a property is really a commercial use and would not be
in compliance with most residential zone regulations, and that DOS recommended clarifying zoning
regulations to clearly say what is considered a commercial use. Pat indicated that she would ask the
Committee at some point to re-consider the issue of short-term rentals.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of January 17, 2007 Meeting:
Herb pointed out a correction on page 1 of the draft Minutes of the January 17, 2007 meeting: in the first
paragraph under Agenda Item No. 1, add the word “not” in the sentence which says, “Chris reported that
she could find much more information …” so that it reads “Chris reported that she could not find much
more information …”. Pat noted a correction on page 2 in the second paragraph under Agenda Item No.
4, changing the word “as” to “an”, so that the portion of the sentence starting with “Kirk thought that an
easy way to limit …”, should read, “and that such an approach …”. Pat noted several additional typos
on page 4. Jonathan noted a spelling correction on page 1 (Town of “Goran” should be Town of
“Gorham”). Moved by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Diane Conneman, the Committee voted unanimously
to approve the Minutes of the January 17, 2007 meeting with the above corrections.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion Regarding Amateur Radio Towers:
Herb began the discussion by indicating that amateur radio towers are not currently permitted in the
Town except in the Agricultural Zone. Herb then referred to information on the subject of amateur radio
facilities that had been provided by Kris Merschrod, a resident on Warren Road, who wants to install an
amateur radio antenna on his property. Herb asked the Committee members and the three guests in
attendance to introduce themselves. Carl Steckler, Meg Richardson, and Kevin Feeney were present to
participate in the discussion regarding amateur radio towers.
Herb pointed to the photo in Kris Merschrod’s information packet, and indicated that the proposed tower
would be adjacent to and behind the house, and only part of it would be visible above the house. Herb
also noted in the photo an antenna that had been strung up by Kris between trees on his property, and
2
that he had talked with Kris who said that this temporary antenna is much less effective than one on a
tower would be. Herb wondered if the tower in the photo is typical of other installations. Carl
responded that most towers are similar – some are tubular. Herb asked whether any towers are
supported by guy wires. Carl indicated that most towers are bolted to a concrete foundation, but some
of the larger ones are supported by wires. Herb added that Kris’s tower would be foldable and weigh
only about 60 pounds. Susan asked if towers usually come in 10 -foot sections. Kevin said yes, usually.
Susan asked how thick tubular towers are. Carl responded that they are usually 4 to 6 inches in diameter
at the base, but that they can be thicker for taller towers, and that the tubular type usually come in 10 to
20 foot sections that nest inside each other.
Susan indicated that Kris had said that his tower would be 30 feet tall and is in 10 -foot sections, and
asked whether that would be a good height for the Town to allow. Carl responded that would be a
minimum. Carl then drew a diagram on the board showing how the height of a radio tower is important
in relation to the radio waves reflecting off of the Earth’s atmosphere, and that a lower tower results in
less of an angle, and cannot be transmitted as far. Kevin added that it is also necessary to get adequate
clearance above trees because the more foliage there is, the more distortion can be created. Kevin
mentioned that a 30-foot high tower will usually have an operating range of 50 to 60 miles, and that a
higher tower will allow the radio waves to be above the horizon and travel farther. Susan asked what
would be a good height threshold for the Town to use in its regulations. Kevin said 65 -66 feet to the top
of the antenna is fairly common. Carl added that the antenna itself is usually only a couple of inches.
Kevin added that the top of the tower usually has a rotor to rotate the antenna, and that a total height of
65 feet would normally accommodate a tower and the mast. Carl indicated that an antenna at a height of
120 feet is 10 to 15 times more effective than one at a height of 35 feet. Carl added that other variables
have to be taken into consideration, such as the topography and soils of an area. Carl said that the
normal frequency range for an amateur radio facility is between 44 and 148 MHz, and that of standard
police use is 155 MHz.
Susan asked how high is the State Police tower. Carl responded that it is about 150 feet high. Carl
mentioned that he has two towers that are about 50 feet high, one that is 40 feet, and one that is about 28
feet, and that he needs that many towers because each is only good for a given frequency range. Kevin
indicated that he has one tower, and it is about 45 feet tall, but that he lives on a hill and has good
clearance from any obstructions.
Susan asked whether neighbors ever complain about the presence of the radio towers. Carl responded
that one of his neighbors is concerned about the view, and that there could be interference with
television reception. Carl added that most ham radio operators set up their system to be able to handle
emergency situations to be able to operate when other forms of communication may be down, but they
usually use the facilities as a hobby. Kevin mentioned that most emergency services communications
are at higher frequencies than amateur radio facilities. Kevin cited the case a few years ago where he
was able to communicate with people in the North Country during the ice storm, when most other forms
of communication were not operating, and that this provides an important public function when these
situations occur.
Herb asked what is the interference potential of amateur radio frequencies. Carl indicated that they can
block out things like baby monitors. Kevin added that the FCC regulations allow licensed amateur radio
operations to interfere with televisions, monitors, transistor radios, and the like, but that this would only
occur when the radio transmitter is active. Kevin added that cable t.v. is relatively immune from
interference, and that satellite t.v. reception is not affected. Carl mentioned that amateur radio facilities
are not allowed to use commercial frequencies, and that most cell phones are digital, and would not be
able to be heard on a radio frequency.
3
Diane asked whether there is a large demand for amateur radio towers and how many are there in
Tompkins County. Carl responded that there are about 460 ham radio operators in Tompkins County,
but that there are only about 12 towers, ranging in height from 50 to 160 feet. Carl added that any
towers over 200 feet tall would be subject to FAA approval. Jonathan asked whether any of the guests’
towers required municipal approvals. Carl responded that the Town of Dryden told him that no permit
was needed for his towers, and that the tower should be no higher than its setback from an adjoining
property so that it would not fall on the adjacent property. Kevin mentioned that towers are usually light
in weight, so that they do not pose a safety hazard to property if they collapse. Kevin added that most
towers are made of aluminum and are not subject to corrosion. Kevin said that most operators try to
keep the antenna close to their house because the longer the cable from the antenna to their radio, the
more signal loss there is. Kevin added that many towers are attached to the house, and that towers are
subject to wind and ice damage. Susan asked how long ago the guests had installed their towers. Carl
responded that his first one was about ten years ago, and that more recent ones were four or five years
ago. Kevin indicated that his tower was already installed when he bought his property in Danby.
Herb asked whether Committee members had any more questions for the guests, and thanked the guests
for attending and providing the Committee with technical information about amateur radio facilities.
Fred asked whether the Committee is thinking about allowing towers up to a certain height by right with
a building permit, and that a higher tower up to a certain limit would be allowed by special permit, and
that anything higher would need a height variance. Susan suggested that it would be appropriate to
review towers higher than a certain threshold. Fred added that a fall zone would be important to
establish. Herb asked what happens when a tower is no longer in use. Kevin mentioned that this is self -
regulated because the tower has value and they would probably be re -used. Fred asked about
maintenance and inspections of towers, and whether things like bolts are checked. Carl responded that
he checks his tower base and mounts. Carl said that he lost a tower in high winds once because the
mount had loosened. Kevin added that he does not know of many towers that have fallen, but he knows
of one that was lost by ice build-up.
Herb suggested allowing towers up to 60 feet high by right. Fred said that maybe allow towers up to 36
feet by right, and up to 65 or 70 feet by special permit. Kevin suggested allowing towers up to 60 to 65
feet by right to get the tower above foliage. Carl mentioned a safety factor to consider – that some
antennae operate at microwave frequencies, and that it is better to have those at a higher level. Carl
added that the FCC requires a radiation study as part of the licensing process to ensure that exposure to
radiation levels will not be a problem. Fred thought that a 65 -foot high tower should require a 65-foot
setback from property lines as a fall zone. Kirk said that he prefers allowing up to 36 feet by right, and
that it is not onerous to submit an application to the Planning Board for review of anything higher. Kirk
added that there will probably be only a few applications for amateur radio towers. Pat suggested
having a minimum height to avoid problems with microwave radiation. Diane supported the approach
of up to 65 feet by right with an adequate fall zone. Herb summed up the discussion by indicating that
some on the Committee prefer a higher threshold by right, and others prefer a lower height by right, and
that it might be necessary to compromise on the height issue. Kevin mentioned that most towers come
in 10-foot sections, and many come as a 50-foot package. Kevin added that with a mast and antenna, a
65-foot height allowance would seem to be appropriate. Fred indicated that he had changed his mind –
that if there is an adequate fall zone, then he would go along with a height of 65 feet to the very top of
the structure by right. Fred added that he would not want to allow towers in the front yard, only in side
or rear yards. Herb summarized: allow by right up to 65 feet, in side or rear yards only, with an
adequate fall zone. Kirk suggested allowing towers only in the rear yard. Susan mentioned that the
Committee might want to think about revising the definition of side yard in the Zoning Code because
the current definition says that a side yard extends all the way through the front yard, and there is
4
ambiguity as to what the overlap is (is it a front or side yard). Susan indicated that it would be good to
fix this definition now so that it is clear that the side yard does not extend into the front yard, since it
applies to amateur radio towers, solar collectors, and the like. Herb asked Susan and Jonathan to work
on a draft law based on the Committee’s discussion.
Jonathan brought up the additional issue of accessory structures in residential zones, and the lack of
provisions in the Zoning Code saying that accessory structures, such as flagpoles, basketball hoops, etc.,
are permitted. Jonathan also said that there is a lack of clear regulations regarding fences, and that
perhaps these aspects of the Zoning could be fixed as well. Jonathan pointed to the Zoning section
(270-223) that has been interpreted to say that fences up to six feet high are allowed along property lines
and within the setback area, but that the reading of the relevant sections do not actually say that. Herb
suggested amending the Zoning to state specifically what the Town intends, i.e., fences up to six feet
high are allowed on a lot line. Fred said what about an eight -foot high fence. Pat asked whether
anything is allowed on top of a fence like barbed wire. Herb mentioned that an eight -foot high fence is
necessary to keep deer out of a property. Herb indicated concern that addressing the issue of accessory
structures and fences would take longer and divert attention away from amending the law to allow
amateur radio towers, which is the priority right now. Pat suggested preparing a draft relating just to
amateur radio towers first, and then addressing the other problems regarding accessory structures later.
The Committee agreed.
Agenda Item No. 4– Discussion Regarding 2007 Work Plan Priorities:
Herb suggested that because the Town Board will have new members in 2008, it would be important to
complete items on the priority list that have been underway for some time, including the stream setback
law, Coy Glen Conservation Zone, revised dock regulations, amendments to allow amateur radio
towers, and new regulations for wind energy facilities. Kirk agreed, but added that it will also be
important to fix problems that have been identified in the Zoning Code and Sign Chapter, and that
perhaps staff could propose fixes and bring them to the Committee at appropriate times. Pat added that
the Noise Chapter needs some amendments, but that the timeframe for those is not pressing. Jonathan
indicated that Sue Ritter has received comments regarding the stream setback draft law, and could be
ready soon to bring that back to the Committee. Susan mentioned that the Chapter on Unsafe Buildings
needs to be amended, and that Cathy has asked Dan Walker and Kristie Rice to work on this and bring it
to the Committee at some point. Jonathan indicated that based on this discussion, he could put together
a cleaned-up work plan priority list. The Committee agreed.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy Facilities:
Esther referred to the “Wind Turbine Ordinance” document that had been previously distributed to the
Committee, and indicated that the Committee had already reviewed and agreed with the purpose and
findings sections in that document. The Committee went on to review other sections of the document.
Esther mentioned that the section on NYSERDA grants was included just for informational purposes
and would not normally be part of an ordinance.
Herb referred to the height options in the “development standards” section, and indicated that the tower
that Committee members visited in Dryden is 80 feet. Pat added that the owner of that tower had
expressed that he wished it had been higher because the amount of wind at the 80 -foot height has not
resulted in the energy generation that they had anticipated prior to installation. Esther indicated that
they therefore have a longer payback period on the investment in the tower. Pat suggested that the
Town should be as permissive as possible in regard to wind energy facilities to encourage their use.
Fred thought that there should be a balance between the energy needs with protecting community
5
character. Esther referred to a map at the end of the “Wind Turbine Ordinance” showing locations in
the Town of Ithaca where an 80-foot tower could potentially be located based on size of parcels and
zoning lot size requirements.
Kirk asked what kind of fall zone would normally be required for a wind turbine tower. Esther
responded that fall zones usually not only include setbacks from buildings on the property on which they
are located, but also from adjacent property lines. Kirk mentioned that there would not be many lots
that would be able to accommodate wind towers, and they would not likely be located in the medium or
higher density zones. Kirk added that because of the cost of the facilities and the low anticipated
numbers of proposals, it would make sense to allow them through a special permit process at the
Planning Board. Esther added that most communities require certification of towers by a licensed
engineer regarding structural integrity. Pat suggested allowing wind energy towers up to 150 feet high
by right. Diane asked why should we require a special permit for towers by the Planning Board. Esther
said that such a review could include a visual analysis of tower proposals. Kirk reiterated that since
there are likely to be so few proposals, it would not be unreasonable to include the basic standards into
the Zoning Code, and send each specific proposal to the Planning Board for a case -by-case review.
Herb said that many people think that the Town has too much control over people’s activities, and that
perhaps the Committee should focus on the basic standards, such as height and fall zone. Kirk indicated
that there are potential issues with wind turbines, such as view impacts or neighbor concerns, which
would be appropriate to hear in a public hearing format. Pat countered that if the Town wants to
encourage the use of alternative energy, the process to permit them should not be driven by neighbor
concerns or by the way it looks, and that it should be based on a policy decision. Kirk reminded the
Committee that a special permit means that the use is allowed, and has to meet the criteria stated in the
law, and that it is difficult to deny a special permit application based on something like its appearance.
Pat asked whether the Committee wants to address utility scale wind turbines in a law. Herb suggested
that this would be a good place to continue the discussion at the next Committee meeting, and asked the
Committee to be prepared to move ahead with the wind energy regulations at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 21, 2007. Proposed agenda items
include continuation of discussion regarding regulations for amateur radio towers, revise definition of
side yard, and continuation of discussion regarding proposed wind energy facility regulations.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning