Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-05-16-07TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 MEETING OF MAY 16, 2007 – 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Member Comments/Concerns. 2. Approval of Minutes of April 18, 2007 Meeting. 3. Brief Update Regarding Lakefront Residential Zone Amendments. 4. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy Facilities. 5. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Comments Received on Draft Stream Setback Law. 6. Other Business. 7. Next Meeting Date and Agenda: Tentatively Wednesday, June 20, 2007. Town of Ithaca Planning Department May 10, 2007 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY MAY 16, 2007 PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Cathy Valentino, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Kirk Sigel. OTHERS: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock (Susan), Attorney for the Town; Sue Ritter (Sue), Assistant Director of Planning; Esther Blodau-Konick, Planner. Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Esther mentioned that this would be her last meeting with the Committee. She will be leaving the Town in a couple of weeks, and will be enrolling at Harvard School of Design. The Committee expressed its appreciation for Esther’s work with the Committee. Agenda Item No. 2 – Approval of Minutes of April 18, 2007 Meeting: Eva requested adding a further explanation of her comments on page 1 regarding her concerns about locating amateur radio facilities as principal structures on commercial and industrial zones, and provided suggested revisions to Jonathan. Pat referred to the last sentence on page 5 in which Esther further recommended allowing a blade radius of at least 20 feet, and asked whether Esther meant “no more than” 20 feet. Esther explained that a typical residential blade radius is 23 feet, and was suggesting that sufficient length be allowed in the law. The Committee agreed to leave that wording on page 5 as drafted. Subject to the above addition on page 1, the Committee unanimously approved the Minutes of the April 18, 2007 meeting. Agenda Item No. 3 – Update Regarding Lakefront Residential Zone Amendments: Jonathan reported that Susan had prepared a revised draft law amending the dock and other shoreline regulations in the Lakefront Residential Zone, based on Committee review and discussions, and that Chris Balestra is preparing a cover letter to send with the draft law to the West Shore Homeowners’ Association, Water Resources Council, Environmental Management Council, dock builders, and others, to get preliminary comments. Staff will then report to the Committee on comments received, and the Committee can then decide on the next steps for the amendments. Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Regulation of Wind Energy Facilities: Herb referred to the outline prepared by Esther summarizing points to address in a draft wind energy facilities law and what the Committee had appeared to agree to at this point (RE-Wind Turbines, COC May 2007 meeting). The following is a summary of points discussed and agreed to by the Committee: Should the regulations be part of the Zoning Code: Susan indicated that if a separate law, all of the enforcement provisions would have to be stated in the law itself. If part of the Zoning Code, 2 enforcement provisions are already incorporated in the Code. The Committee decided that it should be incorporated into the Zoning Code. Fall Zone: The first question had to do with where the fall zone should be measured from. It was agreed that it should be measured from the center of the base of the tower. The Committee liked the diagram on page 2 of the summary. Susan asked whether occupied buildings should be allowed within the required fall zone. The Committee felt that several things needed to be considered to decide this, including our code officers’ opinion of whether the weight of rotors or hub falling on an occupied structure could be a safety problem, what the weight of the blades and hub are, and what the State laws allow. It was also suggested that an installer (e.g., Renovus) should be invited to a future meeting to discuss technical aspects like this. Height: The Committee agreed that the maximum hub height should be 125 feet, and the maximum blade length should be 20 feet. Noise: It was agreed that the maximum permitted noise level should be 10 decibels above ambient noise levels. A question remaining to be answered is how easy is it to turn off the turbine rotors so ambient noise levels can be determined. Yard location: The Committee decided to add a requirement that where small wind energy facilities are allowed as accessory uses, they should be located on the roof of a building or in a side or rear yard only, and should meet all applicable setback and buffer requirements of the zone in which they are located. Should other types of facilities (e.g., radio antennae) be allowed to be co -located on a small wind energy tower? The Committee decided no. Interference with electromagnetic communications devices: In regard to item no. D.4 on page 4 of the outline relating to interference with electromagnetic communications, it was indicated that it would be important for wind facilities to located so as not to cause interference with the County’s emergency communications system or other communications such as radio, television, or telephone. It was agreed that this should tentatively be included in the law, and that further discussions need to be held with technical experts to see what interference potential wind towers/facilities could have. Bird collisions: The issue of night-time bird collisions with wind energy facilities was discussed, and it was agreed that lighting is a concern, and that all on-site lighting should conform to the Town’s outdoor lighting law. The Committee also requested additional information regarding the impact of wind energy facilities on bird and bat populations, and in particular, where are important bird and bat habitats. Roof-mounted facilities: It was indicated that roof-mounted wind energy systems do not generate significant amounts of energy, but that they should be allowed, and that the hub height of roof- mounted systems should not exceed 10 feet from the base of the tower. In which zones should wind energy facilities be allowed: The Committee agreed that small wind energy facilities should be allowed in all zones in the Town as accessory structures providing power primarily to structures on the same lot, and as principal structures providing power primarily to structures on an adjacent lot. 3 Should wind energy facilities be allowed by right or by special permit: Several opinions were expressed. While some felt that there should be some additional regulation through special permit and site plan approval, the majority of the Committee agreed that wind energy facilities should be allowed by right if they meet all of the applicable requirements in the law, and that variances would have to be obtained for anything differing from the law. Some of the reasons suggested for requiring site plan review and approval included visual impact assessment, location of the facility on a site, and proximity of facility to important bird habitats. However, the majority of the Committee felt that the Town should be encouraging wind energy facilities with minimal bureaucracy, and that as long as a facility meets all of the standards in the law, it should be allowed by right, just needing a building permit. 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, June 20, 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