HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-03-21-07TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2007 – 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Member Comments/Concerns.
2. Approval of Minutes of February 21, 2007 Meeting.
3. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy Facilities.
4. Review of Draft Local Law Regarding Amateur Radio Towers.
5. Consider revision of definition of “side yard”.
6. Continuation of Review of Certain Provisions in Chapter 221 Signs in Town of Ithaca Code (If
time permits - 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, April 18, 2007.
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
March 14, 2007
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 2007
PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Cathy Valentino, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Diane
Conneman.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Esther Blodau-
Konick, Planner.
GUESTS: Carl Steckler, Kris Merschrod, Kevin Feeney, Claudia Huayhuaca (student from TCCC).
Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns:
Pat reminded the Committee of the workshop on “Creating Walkable Communities” to be held in
Corning, NY April 17-18th, and that the deadline for early registration is Friday (March 23rd). Eva
expressed interest in attending. Jonathan said that he would provide her with registration material and
information on the workshop.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of February 21, 2007 Meeting:
Susan indicated that she noted one typo on page four of the draft minutes, and provided the correction to
Jonathan. The Committee approved the Minutes of the February 21, 2007 meeting with the above
correction by consensus.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Draft Local Law Regarding Amateur Radio Facilities:
Herb suggested that the agenda order be modified to start with the item regarding amateur radio towers
since several guests were in attendance for that item. The Committee agreed.
Herb referred to the comments on the draft law that had been sent to the Committee by Kris Merschrod.
Kris raised a question as to whether the law should refer to amateur radio “towers” rather than
“facilities”. Susan indicated that the term “facility” includes tower, and if the law only refers to tower,
then it would not permit anything else. Kris responded that the FCC has the authority to grant
permission for a radio facility, not the Town. Susan responded that the draft law is intended to make it
clear that all facilities related to the amateur radio operation would be permitted. Carl insisted that the
FCC regulations preclude local regulations from unreasonably restricting amateur radio operations, and
is concerned that the prohibition in front yards would prohibit feed lines. Susan indicated that the law
could allow feed lines and other facilities in the front yard if the Committee modifies the law. Carl was
concerned that the draft law could be read to include mobile equipment such as hand -held radios. Susan
said mobile equipment could be excluded from the definition of “amateur radio facilities”, and referred
to a similar approach in the Town’s telecommunications facilities law. Kris asked if the proposed law
would regulate things like televisions, stereos, and radios located inside a house. Susan said no. Kris
said then why regulate an amateur radio facility – it would be no different. Kris added that the
regulation should only regulate the tower, and perhaps a shed or other outdoor equip ment. Herb asked
what the Committee thinks about this issue. Pat asked how the height restriction would relate to
facilities. Susan responded that height limits would apply to towers, antennae, rotors and any other
equipment on top of the tower. Susan added that the law could exclude buildings related to amateur
2
radio operations, and treat those as permitted accessory buildings. Jonathan mentioned that accessory
buildings are only allowed in rear yards, so it would benefit radio operations to include related buildings
as amateur radio facilities because they would be allowed in rear and side yards. Carl said that he
understands why things like anchors, guy wires, and mountings should be considered as part of the
tower. Herb asked whether this discussion has provided enough information for clarification of the law.
Susan responded that based on the discussion, feed lines could be allowed in front yards as well as side
and rear yards, and buildings could be excluded from the law. Carl clarified that feed lines connect the
radio to the antenna, and that the rotor on top of the tower also includes wires that connect to the
antenna, and that these should also be allowed in front yards.
Herb asked whether other installations could be co-located on an amateur radio tower, such as a satellite
dish antenna. Carl indicated that some radio facilities operate in the microwave range, and do require
dish antennae. Susan responded that the primary reason to allow amateur radio towers in this law is
because the FCC says they should be permitted. Herb suggested that the law be clarified to say that
other facilities not related to the amateur radio operation are not permitted on the amateur radio tower,
or perhaps if any other facility is allowed on the tower, it would be subject to a special permit approval.
Jonathan added that someone had mentioned the possibility of installing weather monitoring equipment
on an amateur radio tower – should this be allowed? Herb said that the law should be clear that no other
facilities not related to the amateur radio operation should be allowed on the tower, and that any such
installation would, therefore, be subject to the granting of a variance.
Herb referred to the draft law commentary on page 2, which raises the question of whether amateur
radio facilities should be permitted principal and/or accessory structures. Susan explained that if a
principal use, then a tower could be located on a vacant lot without a principal building. Fred added that
the Zoning does not currently allow an accessory structure such as garage on a lot without a house.
Herb asked if there could be a case where a radio operator would want to locate a tower on a lot without
a building. Carl said yes, if the operator owns an adjacent vacant lot next to their house lot. Susan
referred to a court case where a condo association did not allow an amateur radio operator to set up a
tower, so the operator tried without success to locate the tower on adjacent vacant land that he owned.
Eva said that since amateur radio operations are a hobby, they should be treated as accessory uses. Carl
responded that it is more than a hobby – that amateur radio operations are an important part of
emergency communications. Eva said she understands that. Kris mentioned that he has a second vacant
lot, and could see the need to use it for a radio tower. Herb indicated that he does not see this as a
problem, and that perhaps the law should allow towers on vacant lots. Fred mentioned that a tower on a
house lot is usually placed next to the house, and the house screens the tower from view of adjoining
lots. If a tower is allowed on a vacant lot, there would be no house to screen the tower. Diane
suggested allowing towers as accessory uses in residential zones, and as principal uses in other zones.
Pat agreed. Eva mentioned that the Planning Board tries to make commercial development as attractive
as possible, and wondered whether a tower in a commercial zone would preclude a commercial use.
Cathy agreed with Eva that small commercial zones are planned for commercial use. Fred added that a
restaurant owner might want to set up an amateur radio tower in a commercial zone and didn’t see a
problem with this as an accessory use. Jonathan added that there is not a lot of vacant commercial land
available in the Town at this point. Karl mentioned that some operators have a tower at a remote,
undeveloped location. Herb summarized that the last proposal was to allow amateur radio facilities as
accessory structures in residential and commercial zones, and as principal structures in industrial and
agricultural zones. Eva indicated that she was not sure about this. Fred said that he is okay with this
approach. Pat said that she is also okay with this approach. Diane added that any smart farmer would
not place a tower in the middle of a field that would affect a farm operation. Diane and Eva said that
they would prefer treating radio facilities as accessory uses in all zones. Cathy said that she is okay with
the approach of allowing them as principal uses in agricultural and industrial zones. Pat indicated that
these towers are not a large impact on the land. Eva thought that a tower in the middle of a field could
3
have a negative visual impact. Pat asked how a small tower would be different from a barn or silo. Karl
suggested that the accessory use approach should be limited to high and medium density residential
zones. Herb brought this portion of the discussion to a conclusion by indicating that the majority of the
Committee supports the option of accessory use in residential, conservation, and commercial zones, and
as a principal use in agricultural and industrial zones. The Committee agreed.
Cathy asked whether anything in the proposed law is inconsistent with the Bolton Point radio antennae
that are located on pump stations or other water facilities. Susan responded that these were addressed in
the amended telecommunication law that was adopted recently.
Kris asked about the tower removal provision in the draft law, and indicated that a tower should be
considered as an asset to the property. Kris added that as long as the tower is properly maintained, it
should be able to remain on a site, even if not in active use. It might also be difficult for a code
enforcement officer to be able to monitor and enforce a removal provision. Diane said that the intent of
a removal provision is to remove an unused tower before it becomes a hazard. Carl asked what other
structures in Town laws have this kind of removal provision. Eva responded that both our
telecommunications tower law and solar collector law have a similar removal provision. Cathy
indicated that it is important to leave the removal provision in the law to avoid potential problems. Herb
asked what the Committee thinks. The Committee agreed to leave the removal provision in the draft
law.
Susan asked the Committee to address the commentary on page 1 of the draft law regarding the number
of towers allowed on a single parcel. Carl mentioned that a single tower can only hold a limited number
of antennae, and some operators need multiple antennae to get the frequency coverage needed. Kevin
added that the disadvantages of multiple towers are cost and visual impact. Cathy asked how many
different frequencies are used by amateur radio operators. Kevin responded that numerous frequency
bands can be used, and that he has multiple antennae on his one tower. Kevin added that if he had
enough money, he would have more than one tower. Carl indicated that he has four towers. Herb asked
the Committee how many towers would be reasonable on one parcel. Fred responded that perhaps two
towers next to each other would be reasonable. Kevin agreed. Herb asked if anyone objects to more
than one tower on a lot. Fred suggested allowing two towers by right, and any more than two by special
permit. Karl indicated that two towers by right in the Town of Ithaca would be fine. Kevin agreed.
Herb asked the Committee if two towers per lot by right is okay, and added that Kris’s tower is the first
one proposed in the Town in many years, and it does not seem like there will be a large number of
requests. Eva said that one tower is enough by right. Diane indicated that she is okay with two towers.
Herb summarized the discussion by saying that two towers would be allowed per lot by right, and any
more than two would be subject to a special permit. Susan agreed to revise the draft law based on the
Committee’s discussion.
Agenda Item No. 4– Discussion Regarding Yard Definitions:
Susan handed out an outline describing the current Zoning definitions of front, side and rear yards and
proposed new definitions. Susan indicated that the problem with the current definitions of yards is that
the side yard extends through the front and rear yards, so there is ambiguity in regard to structures that
are prohibited in front yards. This is becoming more important with some of the new regulations that
are being drafted by the Committee, such as with solar collectors and amateur radio towers.
Jonathan showed the Committee the examples of yards and possible ambiguities with overlaps that he
had drawn on the board. Fred noted the issue of corner lots and how yards are defined. Jonathan
referred to Section 270-221 that deals with side yards on corner lots. In going over the proposed new
definitions, Susan indicated that she used the assumption that structures prohibited in a front yard should
4
not extend beyond the front of the house. Susan described the difference between the yards as defined
in the Zoning and yard setback requirements, which are not clearly stated in the Zoning. Jonathan
pointed out a potential conflict that would not be resolved with the new definitions, which has to do with
the wording in front and rear yards regarding extending from the exterior corner of the façade of the
house to the adjacent side lot line. In the case of a setback measurement, staff uses a perpendicular line
to measure the shortest distance between the lot line and the building, but for purposes of the
identification of the front or rear yard, the extension of the corner of the house to the side lot line would
normally be a line flush with the façade of the house, which on an irregular lot, could be a line diagonal
to the side lot line. Susan indicated that at some point in the near future, it would be good to rectify the
difference between these two measurements, but for now, at least the new definitions of yard will fix the
existing problem with yard overlaps. Herb asked if the Committee was okay with the proposed new
yard definitions. The Committee agreed. Susan said that she would prepare a draft local law
incorporating these new definitions.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy Facilities:
Esther indicated that the Committee left off with wind turbine height at the last meeting. Herb
suggested that 80 feet would not be high enough for a threshold. Esther mentioned that the effectiveness
of a wind tower depends on topography, adjacent trees, and other factors, and that the payback period
for shorter towers is usually longer. Esther suggested that 100 feet might be a better permitted height to
include in a regulation. Eva mentioned the site visit to the wind turbine in Enfield, where the residents
had wished they had a higher tower. The company that installed the tower was a little off with their
estimate with the payback period of that tower – if the owners had known, they would have preferred
building a higher tower.
Esther suggested that the Committee might want to invite some wind energy experts to a meeting to get
their input on what a realistic height threshold might be. Eva added that at the Enfield site, nearby trees
created wind turbulence, and a higher tower would get above the turbulent area. Herb suggested that
100 feet, if not 120 feet, would be a realistic height, and that the Town should be as permissive as
possible to encourage the use of alternative energy sources. Herb asked if any Committee members
object to a height of 120 feet permitted by right. Fred said that he would reluctantly go along with 120
feet. Eva said that she objects.
Esther added that there would need to be a fall zone at least equal to the height of the tower and blades
of the turbine, and that the Committee would need to define where the fall zone/setback area would be
measured from – would it be to a lot line, and should it also include a setback from a house. Esther
mentioned that NYSERDA has a fall zone from structures in their requirements for qualifying for
funding and rebates. Esther added that she would look into what increments tower sections are available
in and report back to the Committee. Herb added that rebates are what make wind towers attractive.
Herb suggested a fall zone requirement equal to the height of the tower plus the length of the turbine
blades plus 10 feet as clearance. Fred said that he calculated the fall zone needed for a 120 foot tower
and came up with about one acre. Esther mentioned that the Town could allow a fall zone to extend
onto a neighboring parcel by easement agreement. Susan added that our cell tower regulations include
that kind of provision. Eva asked what if the fall zone includes tall trees – would it be necessary to have
more than the 10 additional feet of clearance that Herb suggested? Esther added that some
municipalities require a fall zone equal to 1-½ times the height of the tower. The consensus of the
Committee was that a fall zone equal to the tower height plus the length of the turbine blade plus 10 feet
would be sufficient. Fred indicated that he re-calculated the area needed for the agreed upon fall zone
and came up with about 1-1/2 acres, based on a 130 foot diameter circle. Fred added that a fall zone
requirement equal to the height of the tower and turbine as extended above the tower plus 10 feet would
be easy for the Code Enforcement officials to monitor and enforce.
5
Herb asked about limitations regarding kilowatt output, and that he does not think that the Town needs
to regulate this. The Committee agreed not to use energy output as a restriction.
Herb asked about noise. Esther indicated that the Town’s noise law does not include a decibel limit any
more. Susan mentioned that noise would be a concern of neighbors. Cathy thought that noise might be
a factor when a wind turbine is not operating properly or if not well maintained. Esther mentioned that
manufacturers are working on the noise issue, and that turbines are noisier as they spin faster. However,
the wind creates its own background noise and helps to mask the noise of the turbine. Esther added that
a proper setback from property lines would help to reduce noise impacts. Herb suggested that in winter,
when there are typically stronger winds, neighbors would close their windows. Eva suggested that a law
could include language requiring the proper maintenance of the wind turbine to avoid noise problems.
Esther added that wind turbines can be turned off when not in use or when repairs are needed. Susan
asked what Dryden’s regulations include regarding noise. Esther referred to the chart of “Sample Wind
Power Zoning Ordinances in the State of New York”, which shows that the draft Dryden law includes a
noise limit of 55 dB. Cathy asked if manufacturers include specifications for decibel levels on their
turbines. Esther said some do, but they are not very reliable – it is more typical on larger towers than
small, residential ones. Herb referred to the Town of Sydney law on the chart, which includes a limit of
50 dB measured at a distance of 1,000 feet from the base of the wind turbine or from the nearest
residential structure. Eva thought that the noise standards in the Precinct 7 Special Land Use District
might provide some useful information on noise limits. Pat suggested that the Town could simply rely
on the Noise Law that prohibits unreasonable noise. Herb asked the Committee to think about the noise
issue and continue discussion at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Other Business:
Pat asked whether the Committee would want to consider starting meetings earlier, at say 7:00 or 7:15
p.m. Jonathan indicated that it is difficult for staff to go home, have dinner and get back to the office
earlier than 7:30, but that a much earlier time, such as 5:00 or 5:30 p.m. would be better. After brief
discussion, the Committee decided to keep the meeting starting time at 7:30 p.m. for now.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 18, 2007. Proposed agenda items
include review of revised draft local law regarding amateur radio facilities, review of draft law
amending definitions of yards, continuation of discussion regarding proposed wind energy facility
regulations, and report by Sue Ritter regarding comments received on the draft stream setback law.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning