HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-06-20-07CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
MEETING OF JUNE 20, 2007 – 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Member Comments/Concerns.
2. Approval of Minutes of May 16, 2007 Meeting.
3. Review of Draft Local Law Regarding Regulation of Small Wind Energy Facilities.
4. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Comments Received on Draft Stream Setback Law.
5. Other Business.
6. Next Meeting Date and Agenda: Tentatively Wednesday, July 18, 2007.
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
June 13, 2007
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 20, 2007
PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Cathy Valentino, 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.
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 May 16, 2007 Meeting:
A correction was noted on page 1 under Agenda Item No. 2, 5th line, deleting the words “in
diameter”, so that the sentence should read “Esther explained that that a typical residential blade
radius is 23 feet, and was suggesting that sufficient length be allowed in the law.” Subject to the
above correction on page 1, the Committee unanimously approved the Minutes of the May 16, 2007
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Review of Draft Law Regarding Regulation of Small Wind Energy
Facilities:
Herb referred to the June 13, 2007 draft local law that had been distributed, and suggested
addressing the questions that had been highlighted in boldface. The following are the highlights of
the discussion.
Page 2, Section C: Should the reference to “with excess power net -metered to the public utility
system” be left in the law? Kirk and Diane preferred not including this wording to keep the
facilities as small-scale as possible. Pat liked mentioning the excess power so that it is clear that the
Town is not prohibiting it. Herb added that the blade size and height of a tower limit the amount of
energy that can be produced, and that the recently adopted solar collector provisions allow the
excess energy to be net-metered to the utility system. After further discussion, the Committee
agreed to leave in the reference to excess power net-metered to the public utility system.
Page 2, Section B: Eva asked to go back to Section B, and whether the reference to “small -scale”
should be left in the law. Susan indicated that it might be good to distinguish between small and
large-scale facilities if the Town decides to also allow large-scale facilities some day. The
Committee agreed.
Page 2, Section C: Should the wind energy facilities provisions apply to the EcoVillage and other
Planned Development Zones (PDZ’s)? It was decided that there are so many different types of
PDZ’s that it might be better to address each one separately. Jonathan mentioned that EcoVillage
may be requesting further amendments to their PDZ regarding bed and breakfast establishments,
2
and that the EcoVillage PDZ could be amended at that time to address wind energy facilities. The
Committee agreed to leave out PDZ’s at this point.
Page 3, Section C (1) – Fall zone: Should occupied and/or unoccupied buildings be prohibited
within the required fall zone? Eva suggested that allowing buildings within a fall zone might open
the Town up to liability. Susan did not think that this would be a liability issue for the Town. The
Committee agreed that for safety reasons, it would be appropriate to prohibit occupied buildings in
the fall zone. In regard to unoccupied buildings, Eva asked how do you determine if a building is
occupied. Kirk responded that this is based on Building Code classifications, which depend on the
use of a building. Eva was concerned that build-up of ice on a blade could be thrown a long
distance and hit a building. Herb indicated that the NYSERDA requirements for funding wind
energy facilities recommend a minimum distance of 15 feet from the base of a wind tower to any
unoccupied building, and that the Committee could use that reference as justification for including a
minimum distance of 15 feet from the base of a tower to any unoccupied building. The Committee
agreed.
Page 3, Section C (7): In answer to the question whether rotors can be turned off easily so ambient
noise levels can be determined, Esther had checked with installers, and the answer is yes, they can
be turned off easily. Susan mentioned that Esther had also found out that it can be dangerous to
turn off rotors when wind speeds are over 30 mph, and that another possibility is to measure the
ambient noise level before the facility is installed. However, the Committee was more comfortable
with measuring noise levels after the facility has been installed because ambient noise levels change
according to weather and other conditions.
Page 4, Section C (8): In regard to whether there should be a limit to the number of roof-mounted
facilities, Eva suggested that more than one would be appropriate because those smaller facilities do
not produce much energy. Susan suggested allowing one tower per lot plus as many roof-mounted
facilities as the owner wants. The Committee agreed.
Page 4, Section C (10): In regard to whether setbacks for towers should match at least that of the
fall zone, the Committee agreed to add wording to the effect that in no event shall the setback from
an adjacent property line be less than 50 feet. Kirk indicated that a fall zone agreement has to be in
effect in order for an owner of a tower to extend his fall zone into the neighboring property because
this arrangement would affect what the neighbor could place in the fall zone on his property.
Page 4, Section C (11): In regard to whether solar panels or other similar fixtures should be allowed
on a wind tower, Herb pointed out that Esther had heard from installers that they do not recommend
placing solar panels on wind towers. Kirk indicated that some solar panels are large and can be
visually obtrusive. Pat asked whether the wording allowing co-location of other facilities on a
tower should remain in the law. The Committee felt there was some benefit to having only one
tower on a lot, so that co-locating other facilities on a wind tower would make sense if allowed by
special approval. After further discussion, the Committee agreed that placing solar panels on a
wind tower should be allowed if the owner wants to do that, but that it should be controlled by
special approval by the ZBA, and that such panels should be subject to the same regulations that
were recently adopted regulating solar panels.
Page 7, (after Section 2): In regard to whether wind energy facilities should be allowed as principal
or accessory structures, and in which zones they should be allowed, Susan explained the difference
3
between principal and accessory structures, and the Committee agreed that wind energy facilities
should be allowed as both principal and accessory uses in all zones [with the exception of PDZ’s,
which will be addressed as needed]. The reason the Committee decided to allow them as principal
permitted uses is so that an owner could install a facility on an adjacent vacant lot if conditions
require that kind of setup.
In regard to follow-up information about the potential impact of wind energy facilities on bird or bat
populations, Jonathan indicated that Esther had collected some research examples, but that there is
no definitive conclusion on this subject, and that he did not think that collecting more information at
this time would yield any more definitive answers. Herb suggested moving ahead with the law
based on the information we have. Herb added that perhaps some wording could be added to the
law that if a proposed facility would be located in an important bird habitat or a migratory bird path,
that a special permit from the Planning Board would be required so that there could be a more in -
depth review process. Susan wondered how such location could be determined, and that perhaps it
would be better to draft the law, and circulate it to organizations such as the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology and the Cayuga Bird Club to obtain their comments and suggestions. The Committee
agreed. Pat asked whether we would want to prohibit wind energy facilities along Cayuga Lake,
adding that the Lake is probably a good location for wind. Kirk responded that most of the lots on
the lakeshore are probably too small and too close together to accommodate towers. Eva added that
lakefront lots are more likely to have roof-mounted wind facilities, if any.
Page 1, Section 1: In regard to the definition of “Qualified Wind Installer”, Eva asked how one
determines whether an installer is “eligible”, as stated in the definition. Susan responded that the
language was taken from the solar collector law, which was recommended by the Code
Enforcement Officers. Installers are listed as eligible; they are not certified. Herb added that this
was discussed thoroughly in regard to the solar collector law, and installers do have to have training
to be listed as “eligible”. Eva suggested adding the word “safely” in the sentence that requires that
such training shall include the skills and techniques necessary to safely install wind energy
components. The Committee agreed.
Page 5, Section D (4): In regard to interference with electromagnetic communications, Herb
mentioned that the materials provided in the meeting packet indicated that metal blades are not
usually used any more. The Committee suggested flagging the question of potential interference
and blade materials when the draft is sent around for comments.
Jonathan reported that the Ithaca Journal had filed a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request to
obtain a copy of the draft wind energy facilities law. Jonathan added that in the past, the Town has
considered preliminary draft laws under discussion by the Committee that are subject to substantial
change as intra-agency communications that are not subject to FOIL if they do not contain statistical
or factual information, etc. Herb mentioned that he had seen an article in the Association of Towns
newsletter that an opinion from the Committee on Open Government had indicated that draft
materials should be considered as materials that should be made available under FOIL. Susan said
that might depend on what type of draft material the Committee on Open Government was referring
to. Herb said that he would check the reference that he saw. Jonathan added that since the June 13,
2007 draft of the law, which included many questions that have now been addressed by the
Committee, would be revised based on the feedback from the Committee, it would make more sense
to provide the Journal with a revised draft because the June 13th draft will no longer be relevant.
4
The Committee agreed that Susan should revise the draft law based on the Committee’s feedback,
and then provide the Journal with the revised draft.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continuation of Discussion Regarding Comments Received on Draft
Stream Setback Law:
Herb asked Sue to highlight the comments that had been received regarding the draft stream setback
law. Sue referred to the memo and attached material (dated April 12, 2007) that had been
previously distributed to the Committee. The following are highlights of major subjects that were
covered.
Measurement of setback and definition of “bankfull”: Sue indicated that Deb Carocco, T.G. Miller
Engineering, had commented that it can be difficult to measure stream setback using bankfull as the
basis, and suggested using the centerline of streams instead. Sue agreed that identifying bankfull
can be problematic on some streams, and had found some samples of measurement methods used
by other communities, including use of centerline. Sue emphasized that it is important to use a
method of defining setbacks that is easily understandable and able to be documented for both code
enforcement officers and residents. Sue indicated that she has some ideas on how to follow up on
this issue. She obtained information on a setback method used in Vermont. Sue visited Coy Glen
Creek and took photos. From her visit, it was obvious on one side of the creek where bankfull was
located. On the other side, it was more like a floodplain and not clear where bankfull is located.
The Vermont document includes graphic illustrations to help identify different scenarios (Sue
handed out “Appendix C. Site-Specific Considerations in Determining Riparian Buffer Zone
Width” and a sheet with photos of Coy Glen near Five Mile Drive – dated 6/20/07). Sue likened the
illustration of Scenario 2 on page 16 of the Vermont handout to the Coy Glen situation she
described, and thought that the Vermont method might be helpful. Sue suggested that she use the
Vermont material and visit more sample stream locations to see how it would apply to Town of
Ithaca situations. Then she would contact Deb Carocco to see what her thoughts are and get the
code officers out in the field to observe some of the stream scenarios and look at the Vermont
methodology.
Sue mentioned that it might be appropriate to use the centerline of streams to measure setbacks for
small streams, perhaps using the watershed area calculations she has been working on to define
which small streams might be appropriate for use of centerline. Kirk asked how one determines
where the centerline of a stream is located for measurement purposes. Sue responded that you look
at the water in the streambed if there is running water, or you look at the rocky bottom if there is no
water. Kirk indicated that this is still somewhat subjective. Eva asked whether streams change over
time. Sue responded that some streams change at higher elevations over long periods of time, but
most streams do not change much over short periods of time.
The Committee liked Sue’s suggested approach, and Sue said that she would report back to the
Committee when she has had a chance to get out and look at more stream scenarios. Pat added that
she likes Deb Carocco’s suggestion of using field indicators of bankfull depth, such as rodent
burrows and presence of permanent vegetation.
Streamside wetlands: Sue mentioned that Deb Carocco had commented that the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) has a buffer requirement for their regulated wetlands, and that
the Town may want to distinguish between DEC’s 100 foot wetland buffer and buffer for smaller
5
wetlands. Sue suggested that the Town’s law could say that the stream buffer is not in addition to
any DEC wetland buffer because that may restrict too large an area. Sue added that other than DEC
designated wetlands, most other wetlands are not delineated. Sue suggested that the law could
require that any potential wetlands, based on staff observation of wetland indicators, adjoining a
stream be delineated when an applicant propose altering a streamside area. Kirk thought that this
would be a good approach. The Committee concurred.
Steep slopes: Sue indicated that Deb Carocco had recommended using 2-foot contour intervals to
measure steep slope areas. Sue added that although this is a good idea, we generally do not have
better topographic information than the 10-foot USGS contours. Sue suggested that the law could
indicate that if the applicant does not agree with the Town’s determination based on the contour
information we have available, then the applicant can submit more detailed survey information.
Alternatively, Town engineering staff has survey equipment that can be used to determine slopes
perhaps for smaller landowners. Jonathan indicated that we have to be aware of fairness and should
be treating all applicants equally, and that it might not be equitable to require a developer to pay for
surveying services to produce detailed contour information, but for the Town to provide such
service to small landowners. Susan said we need to think about this issue further. Sue added that
Deb Carocco had suggested that the law should prohibit construction on slopes greater than 25
percent, regardless of setback from a stream. Sue suggested that we may need to revisit the slope
issue. The Committee agreed to leave the slope provisions as they are in the current draft, and
revisit this later.
Permissible activities: Sue indicated that the Conservation Board has had additional discussions
regarding permissible activities in streamside buffers. Deb Carocco had suggested allowing
composting in Zone 2 of the setback area. Diane clarified that this should apply only to household
composting, not agricultural composting. The Committee agreed.
Sue indicated that the issue of allowing stormwater outlets in stream setback areas had been raised
by several commenters, including Deb Carocco and John Anderson. Sue agreed that many
stormwater connections do flow into streams, and that it is an acceptable practice as long as runoff
is properly filtered before flowing into a stream. Diane suggested that stormwater facilities such as
ponds should be allowed in Zone 2. Herb mentioned that the law could require that connections
could be allowed subject to best management practices for stormwater treatment. Sue reiterated that
stormwater facilities have to be accommodated to meet the Phase 2 DEC stormwater regulations.
Herb suggested that direct stormwater connections to streams should only allowed as a last resort.
Sue mentioned that sheet flow for runoff is not always possible, such as from a large pond, where
overflow volumes may be too high to sheet flow into a stream. Susan suggested allowing outlets in
Zones 1 and 2 where sheet flow is not practicable. Herb reiterated that this should only be as a last
resort. Kirk indicated that in some cases, it may be better to channel the runoff flow, and it needs to
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The Committee decided to flag this issue for further
consideration.
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, July 18, 2007. Kirk and Diane indicated
that they would not be able to attend this meeting. Proposed agenda items include continuation of
6
review of draft local law regarding small wind energy facilities, 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 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning