HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-04-18-07TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2007 – 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Member Comments/Concerns.
2. Approval of Minutes of March 21, 2007 Meeting.
3. Review of Revised Draft Local Law Regarding Amateur Radio Facilities.
4. Review of Draft Local Law Regarding Definitions of Front, Rear and Side Yards.
5. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy Facilities.
6. Report/Update Regarding Comments Received on Draft Stream Setback Law – (Sue Ritter).
7. Other Business.
8. Next Meeting Date and Agenda: Tentatively Wednesday, May 16, 2007.
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
April 11, 2007
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2007
PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel, Diane Conneman.
OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney for the Town; Sue
Ritter (Sue), Assistant Director of Planning,;Esther Blodau-Konick, Planner.
GUESTS: Kris Merschrod.
Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of March 21, 2007 Meeting:
Susan indicated that she noted corrections on page one of the draft minutes regarding the concern that
mobile equipment such as hand-held radios should be excluded from the definition of “amateur radio
facilities, on page two that feed lines could be allowed in front yards as well as side and rear yards, and
on page two that a condo owner tried without success to locate an amateur radio tower on adjacent
vacant land that he owned. Esther noted a correction on page five adding the word “draft” before the
reference to the Dryden law including a noise limit of 55 dB. Esther said that she would verify the
discussion on page five regarding noise levels. Subject to the above corrections, the Committee
unanimously approved the Minutes of the March 21, 2007 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Revised Draft Local Law Regarding Amateur Radio Facilities:
Herb indicated that he hopes that the Committee will be able to complete its review and send the draft
law on Amateur Radio Facilities to the Town Board. Susan mentioned that she realized when drafting
the law that for those zones in which a facility would be allowed as a principal use, there are no yards
related to another principal building, so she built in a provision requiring that the location of amateur
radio facilities shall meet all applicable setback requirements of the zone in which they are loc ated. The
Committee suggested adding the words “and buffer” after setback, so that it would read: … “shall meet
all applicable setback and buffer requirements …”. Eva indicated that she was not comfortable with
allowing radio facilities as the only use on an industrial or commercial site, and that the Town had not
anticipated that such sites might have amateur radio towers on them. Eva added that the Town’s Zoning
Ordinance set up limited areas for commercial, industrial and light industrial use. They w ere selected to
be the best sites for these uses and the ones least likely to interfere with residential uses. If those areas
were to be used for amateur radio facilities, industrial or commercial uses would be displaced because
they are only allowed in these limited areas. Is that what we want to happen? Jonathan mentioned that
amateur radio facilities are generally easy to remove from a site, so locating them on commercial or
industrial sites would not preclude other uses. Herb asked why should we car e if an owner wants to put
up a radio tower on their property and not use it for another use permitted in the zone. Kirk reminded
the Committee that the only zones in which amateur radio facilities would be allowed as principal uses
are in light industrial and agricultural zones, not commercial. Kirk added that if there is no other house
or building on the property, then Planning Board review as a principal use would be appropriate. Kirk
added that the Town does not allow only a garage on a lot – it is not consistent with the character of the
community. Pat thought that a tower looks industrial in character and does not have the same kind of
2
appearance as a garage. After further discussion, the Committee agreed to allow amateur radio facilities
in agricultural and light industrial zones as principal permitted uses and as permitted accessory uses.
Susan then described the fall zone provisions and indicated that the law does not say that no buildings
can be located within a fall zone, thus allowing a tower to be located next to a house or other building.
The Committee was okay with that.
Susan raised the question of why accessory buildings used in conjunction with an amateur radio facility
would not be included in the definition of such facilities in the law. Susan indicated that Jonathan had
mentioned at the last meeting that the original idea was that we would include related accessory
buildings in the regulations so that they would be allowed – if not included, they would be prohibited.
In addition, regular accessory buildings except for garages are only allowed in rear yards, so if not
included in the definition, accessory buildings related to amateur radio facilities would not be permitted
in side yards. Susan suggested adding a provision in the law that would say that “an accessory building
that is part of an amateur radio facility is subject to all requirements applicable to accessory buildings
other than garages in the zone in which it is located, except such accessory buildings may be located in
side yards as well as rear yards. The Committee agreed to add this provision. Kirk added that such an
accessory building should be counted as part of the allowable coverage for accessory buildings.
Herb asked if the other red-lined changes in the draft law looked okay to the Committee. Kirk asked
whether the Planning Board should review towers that are proposed as principal uses. Susan suggested
that site plan approval could be required for those. Herb thought that adding a requirement for site plan
approval in agricultural zones might be counter to the State Agriculture and Markets Law, and added
that less regulation for these facilities seemed like a better approach. Eva indicated that Planning Board
review is not such a burden on applicants. Herb responded that some Town residents think that the
Town has too many regulations. Herb asked for a vote on the issue of whether site plan approval should
be required for amateur radio facilities that would be allowed as principal uses. The vote was as
follows: Pat – no Planning Board approval; Herb and Diane agreed with Pat. Eva and Kirk voted in
favor of Planning Board review and approval. So the vote was three against Planning Board review,
two in favor of Planning Board review.
Kirk asked whether there should be a height threshold over which there would be Planning Board
review. Susan indicated that the law was drafted, based on the discussion at previous meetings, with an
allowable height of 65 feet, and that anything higher would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for a variance.
Susan indicated that she would make the additional changes agreed to at this meeting. Jonathan
suggested that the revised law could be sent to the Town Board for consideration at the May 7 th meeting
to refer the proposed law to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Susan asked whether it should
also be referred to the Zoning Board for a recommendation. Kirk responded that he did not think that
would be necessary. Kris Merschrod, who was attending as a guest, thanked the Committee for working
so quickly on this law.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Review of Draft Law Regarding Yard Definitions:
Herb asked whether the Committee had any questions or comments on the draft local law amending the
definition of yards. Eva asked whether there would be illustrations in the law similar to what the
Committee reviewed at the last meeting. Susan indicated that she was not sure that such illustrations
would be appropriate in the law because there are so many variations of examples that could apply.
Jonathan suggested that perhaps a public information supplement to the law could be prepared that
3
could included a description and illustrations. Kirk asked about the illustration that showed a
discrepancy on irregular lots between the way the setback from the side lot line is measured by a
perpendicular line to the closest point of the house vs. the diagonal line defining where the side yard is
located. Susan indicated that there will always be some discrepancies, but that the new definitions are
much clearer than what we have now. Susan added that an applicant could always request an
interpretation from the Zoning Board. Jonathan mentioned that Kristie Rice, Senior Code Enforcement
Officer, had reviewed the proposed yard definitions, and thought that they were a great improvement
over the current definitions.
Herb asked if the Committee was okay with sending this draft law to the Town Board for consideration.
The Committee agreed. Herb asked whether this law should be sent to the Planning Board and Zoning
Board for a recommendation. Kirk thought that the yard definitions would be good to send to the
Zoning Board because they deal with yard and setback variances so often. The Committee agreed.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Report Regarding Comments Received on Draft Stream Setback Law:
Herb referred to the memo and materials provided by Sue regarding comments received on the draft
stream setback law. Sue provided the Committee with an overview of these materials. Sue indicated
that one of the main issues raised by Deb Caraco, T.G. Miller, P.C., relates to the measurement of
stream setback and the definition of “bankfull”. Sue explained that it is difficult to identify where the
bankfull is located, especially for small and large streams and gorges. Deb Curaco had suggested in her
comments that the law could use setback from the centerline of the stream instead of measuring from
bankfull. Sue suggested that she would like to look at more examples in the field to help determine
what the best setback measurement approach would be.
Sue then focused on comments received from Kate Hackett, Tompkins County Planning Department.
Sue indicated that Kate suggested having just two standard setbacks – 50 feet for small streams and 100
feet for all others, instead of the 35, 50 and 100 foot setbacks recommended in the draft law. Sue said
that the Conservation Board had considered this approach, but decided that a 50 foot setback for small
streams seemed to be too much. Sue added that the Committee might want to look at some examples of
how these setbacks would apply to actual streams and think about this some more. Kate also felt
strongly that headwater streams should be protected with setbacks because of their importance in
preserving water quality. Sue explained that she had come up with a watershed analysis methodology to
determine which streams would be regulated, and confirmed many of the results of that analysis with
field observations. Sue mentioned that Will Burbank had spoken with her about the creek in his
backyard that was not included initially as a regulated stream in the draft setback law, which Will
thought probably should be covered by the regulations – it has a rocky bottom and looks like a regular
stream. Sue suggested the possibility of lowering the threshold in the watershed analysis to include
streams with a 25 acre watershed, but that going to a 10 acre watershed would bring in many very small
streams. Sue indicated that she would like to study this further. Sue mentioned that John Andersson’s
comments (Tompkins County Health Department) included a statement that 100 foot setbacks are too
extreme. Susan added that John Andersson raised another interesting point in which he suggested that
perhaps wells should be allowed in stream setback areas.
Herb indicated that he had noticed that several comments related to allowing animals in setback areas,
and that perhaps the draft law should be more restrictive regarding the impact of animals on streams.
Herb added that his discussions with the Town Agriculture Committee have indicated that farmers are
already keeping animals away from streams. Sue mentioned that there is a farm on Bostwick Road
where she has observed animals in a field that has a stream in the back of the field. Diane added that
4
farmers who have an approved management plan will be following the new setback law anyway, but
that small farms may not have a management plan.
Jonathan indicated that Deb Caraco had suggested requiring two -foot contour intervals on plans in order
to determine where steep slopes in setback areas occur. Jonathan and Sue both indicated that providing
two-foot contours for small projects in setback areas could be very expensive. Diane thought that
Cornell might have some flyovers that might be helpful in determining slopes.
Herb suggested that the Committee continue the review of comments on the stream setback law at the
next meeting. The Committee agreed to go through each of the comments at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy Facilities:
Herb indicated that at the last discussion regarding proposed wind energy regulations, the Committee
had left off with the issue of noise. Esther reported that she had looked up information on decibel levels
and prepared a listing of sample decibel levels associated with typical noise generators. Esther added
that most turbines are only about 5 decibels above ambient sound levels. Typical office noise is about
50 decibels; highway truck traffic is about 60 decibels (above ambient noise levels). Esther mentioned
that a study by the national Renewable Energy Lab concludes that noise associated with wind turbines is
not a significant issue. Esther had spoken with Kristie Rice, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, about
regulating noise, and Kristie had indicated that she was not sure how one would measure noise coming
from a wind energy facility. Kirk suggested that if a turbine can be turned off, you could measure the
ambient noise level, and then measure the noise level with the turbine on to determine the comparative
noise level of the turbine. Esther mentioned that the fall zone requirement would provide a buffer from
nearby uses. Kirk added that the higher the tower, the larger the fall zone would be, thereby resulting in
less noise impact on adjoining uses. Herb mentioned that ambient noise comes and goes, but that the
sound of wind turbines would be constant. Herb suggested talking with neighbors of existing wind
turbines to see if they have problems with noise. Pat thought that the Town’s noise law could be used to
address complaints resulting from turbine noise. Herb responded that we do not want someone to spend
a lot of money to install a wind turbine, and then have a neighbor complain under our noise law and shut
down the turbine. Susan indicated that she likes the approach of measuring noise of a turbine at the
nearest property line – it is easy to measure that. Kirk suggested that there is more noise when there is
more wind when the turbine is generating more energy. Susan suggested that the law could say that
noise cannot exceed some number of decibels above ambient noise levels as measured at the property
line. Esther suggested asking Kristie what she thinks about that approach. Jonathan mentioned that the
Town does have a noise monitor, but is not sure whether it has been used much. Esther added that the
Town might have to purchase a more sensitive noise monitor to measure noise from wind turbines.
Susan suggested checking with other communities that have adopted noise standards for wind energy
facilities. Esther responded that she could check further, but that those communities she has checked
with have said that they either do not have a noise monitor, do not have any wind towers yet, or do not
enforce their regulations. Kirk suggested using the noise levels specified in manufacturers’
specifications as a standard for maximum noise, and that if a neighbor complains, then the neighbor can
measure the noise level and report it to the Town. Jonathan responded that neighbors would not likely
do that, and they expect the Town enforcement staff to do the monitoring and enforcement. Esther
indicated that most of the communities that have adopted noise standards allow the large, utility scale
wind turbines, which are much different from the residential -scale turbines. Pat felt that the decibel
level of the turbine may not be a significant issue, and that ambient noise levels change from day to day.
Esther added that ambient noise levels are relatively constant, but do change with wind speeds. Pat said
that the Committee has gone as far as it can on this issue, and suggested that the Town adopt a law, and
then refine the law later if necessary. Susan again suggested using a decibel level maximum as
5
measured at the nearest property line. Eva noted on the decibel listing that Esther had provided that the
rustle of leaves is about 12 decibels, that a whisper is about 6 decibels, and that a turbine would
probably not be much higher. Herb reiterated that it is not the decibel level that may be a problem, but
that it is the effect of the constant noise that could bother neighbors. Eva mentioned that the pitch of a
turbine also has an impact. Kirk said that if we allow wind turbines, then we should allow them to
function as they are designed to function. Susan suggested using 10 decibels above ambient noise levels
as the noise threshold in the law, and send this proposal to wind turbine experts to see what they think.
Esther mentioned that NYSERDA has new incentives for wind turbines, based in part on the height of
the tower, in the form of a rebate/grant, which is sent after the facility is installed. Esther also said that
she did a visual simulation on several photos of a 120-foot high tower. She also talked to installers and
found out that tower sections often come in 20-foot sections. Esther added that a Bergey 10 kilowatt
tower comes in 10-foot sections, with additional length of the rotor. Based on this information, Esther
thought that a maximum total height of 120 feet for the tower and turbine may not be enough. Kirk
suggested that the law could include a maximum tower height of 120 feet, and not worry about how
high above that the blades would go, and then require a minimum fall zone equal to the height of the
tower plus the highest reach of the blade. Herb added that with the NYSERDA incentives, people may
want to put up higher towers. Herb asked the Committee how many towers/facilities per lot should be
allowed. Pat said that the law should lean toward being permissive to encourage these facilities. Kirk
asked if there are multiple facilities on a lot, would each one have to have its own fall zone, and would
their fall zones overlap. Herb suggested that perhaps one tower per lot is sufficient for residential
purposes. Kirk added that a homeowner could probably get more energy generation by building one
higher tower, rather than several smaller ones. Herb proposed that the law allow one facility per lot, and
that any more than one would require a variance.
Herb then asked about roof-mounted turbines. Esther said that she had done some research, and as far
as she could tell, roof-mounted turbines do not seem to be worth pursuing because they are low and
have to deal with wind turbulence, create vibrations on the roof, and apparently do not have the same
incentives from NYSERDA for installation. They also do not generate very much energy. Herb
suggested that the draft law could allow roof -mounted turbines not to exceed 10 feet in height, with a
minimum distance between each roof-mounted turbine if more than one. Herb also suggested that a
roof-mounted turbine be installed by a certified installer or registered engineer. Susan said that the solar
collector and amateur radio tower laws allow roof-mounted structures, so it would make sense to also
allow roof-mounted wind turbines.
Herb said that the Committee had gone through the outline of issues that Esther had prepared, and asked
the Committee if it is ready to move this law ahead. Susan asked for confirmation about maximum
height of wind turbines – should we use Kirk’s recommendation? Esther re-iterated that a maximum
height for a tower could be set at 120 feet, and then perhaps establish a maximum length of a blade
above that. Esther added that a typical blade for a residential installation is 23 feet in diameter or 11.5
feet radius. Eva wondered if the Town should allow very large turbines that could sell back energy to
the grid. Pat said that would benefit everyone. Eva added that the Town must look at other impacts,
such as on views and neighborhood character – these are things that the Planning Board would normally
look at. Kirk said that the goal of the solar and wind energy regulations should be to allow the facility to
produce what would normally be use by a household. Pat thought it might be better not to specify a
maximum length of a blade. Susan thought that a very large blade could be visually intrusive. Kirk said
that once a facility is over 100 feet high, the size of the blade does not really matter. Herb suggested
leaving the tower height at 120 feet maximum, not have a limit on the length of the blade, and require a
fall zone. Esther further recommended allowing a blade radius of at least 20 feet above the height of the
6
tower itself (or 40 feet in diameter), referring back to the NYSERDA incentive program. The
Committee agreed.
Herb asked staff to begin drafting a local law based on the Committee’s discussions on wind energy
facilities. Esther indicated that she would begin drafting the basics of a law, and then get together with
Susan to refine a law to bring back to the Committee.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Other Business:
Eva handed out material that she had picked up at the walkable communities conference she recently
attended, entitled “Sharing the Road Safely”. Pat indicated that she had also gotten a report at the
conference regarding pedestrian and bicycle friendly communities, and asked Jonathan if he would copy
the report and distribute it to Town Board and Transportation Committee members. Jonathan said he
would.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 16, 2007. Proposed agenda items
include continuation of discussion regarding proposed wind energy facility regulations, and continuation
of discussion 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 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning