Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2016-02-10 COC Minutes 2-10-2016 pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of February 10, 2016 6:30 P.M. – 8:32 P.M. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine, Pat Leary, Yvonne Fogarty and Bill King. Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Absent: Chris Balestra and Eva Hoffmann Guests: Raija Bushnell, representative from Renovus Energy 1. Member comments/concerns. Bill G. distributed a letter from Claire Forest, Forest Family Farm, regarding chickens that was given to the Town Board recently, and reminded the committee that the topic would be discussed at a future meeting. 2. Approval of January 13, 2016 COC minutes. Minor changes made to the draft minutes. Moved by Eric, seconded by Pat; unanimous. 3. Review and discussion of February 3, 2016 draft local law titled “A Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 entitled “Zoning” to revise provisions related to solar facilities. Bill G. noted the different colors on the new draft which indicated the following: Susan Brock’s questions in yellow highlight, changes that were already made in red text and questions we didn’t get to last time in teal highlighting. Below is the committee discussion, along with any changes that were made to the draft law: Pg. 1 – Whether to use a table to summarize general requirements in the law. Sue Ritter stated that she had started drafting a table and that she believes there are enough elements to the law that a table will be helpful. Pg. 3 Solar-thermal and whether thermal systems can be ground mounted and should have the same scale restrictions. Susan stated that she did some research and discovered that thermal systems can be ground mounted. Bill K. stated that they are very uncommon in any great size. The representative from Renovus thought it was reasonable to apply the same restrictions. Sue thought allowing them as an accessory use under “E” could cover the thermal systems as well. The Renovus representative asked about the 2.5 megawatt threshold in “F.1) c.”, wondering what the concern was. This started a discussion about 2.5 MW and Susan stated that if larger systems are going to be allowed, there should be more categories for over 2.5 MW systems or the law should state greater than 2.5MW needs - whatever the committee decides. Discussion followed on really large scale solar proposals, their likelihood and how to address them. Bill K. stated that is seems the committee is really concerned with the square footage of installations, not the wattage and as the technology gets better and better, the wattage may be a restriction that isn’t necessary. Sue expressed concern noting that more communities use the wattage figure and she had focused on those, while the area figures were not as well thought out. Discussion followed and the committee understood that concept and agreed that the law should base the system thresholds on size, not power. COC Minutes 2-10-2016 pg. 2 The committee moved to “F. 2).” standards and whether the size limitations listed were for the panels or the entire footprint of all pieces necessary. The committee felt the limitations should consider the entire footprint, including the space between the panels and supports etc. Sue did not understand the term “park set-aside areas” and she didn’t understand the connection to subdivision approval. Some discussion followed. Bill G. marked this seciton with a question mark for the committee to consider later. Pg. 4 - the committee turned to the teal highlighted sections in the law and, under “3).a. Small Scale Photovoltaic Solar Energy System Standards,” removed the term “or ROW” at the end of the sentence. Discussion on “3).b.[1] Medium Scale Photovoltaic Solar Energy System Standards,” allowing them as principal or accessory uses in the various zones. Committee decided add OPC to “ii.” So the medium scale systems would be permitted as principal uses as well as accessory uses in that zone. F.3).b.[2]- setbacks and clarifying what “adjacent zone” means. Sue responded that if the system was in a residential zone, it would require 60-foot side and rear yard setbacks, but if the lot immediately adjacent is in a commercial zone or other non-residential zone, then the required side and rear yard setback would be 30 feet. Susan Brock offered to figure out a way to express the concept more clearly. Under the same item, regarding placement in front yards – again, use front “lot line” and not the road edge, to be consistent with the previous change. F.3).b.[4]ii.- Design standards, Landscape buffer, Medium scale systems – The committee engaged in a very lengthy discussion on whether or not to require any shrubbery or landscaped buffers at all for solar systems and their related fences. The committee understood that the intent of the requirement would be to soften the look of a medium scale system, not necessarily completely conceal it. The Renovus representative advocated for not mandating landscaping and expressed concern that this would impose higher costs creating a potential hardship for nonprofit organizations and municipal projects where funding is limited. They would be forced to move the project back on the lot, beyond the required setback, to avoid the mandate. Through the lengthy conversation, it was noted that the town did not require plantings or landscaping to screen other unattractive fences in the town. The manufacturer or insurance companies are the ones that require the fences around solar systems. The committee was leaning toward not requiring screening of solar systems or fences related to such systems. Sue thought that the biggest concern would be the setback distances. The committee looked at the draft large scale standards and the measurement standard in the setback section of F.3).c.[2] should apply to all system sizes. The Renovus representative was concerned about the requirement of notifying the fire department at the time of site plan, because those details wouldn’t be firm enough to show the Planning Board. Bruce thought the state codes would cover the concerns about the fire department but a call simply alerting them that one is going up as a courtesy would be fine. COC Minutes 2-10-2016 pg. 3 Pg. 5 - F.3).b.[4]i. Design standards, Fencing, Large scale systems -Sue had pictures of animal friendly fencing which includes an opening at the bottom at certain intervals to allow small animals through. This type of fencing would address concerns related to blocking wildlife corridors. Pat suggested rewording from “wildlife ‘friendly’ to “fencing that allows small animal and reptiles”? Leaving this determination up to the Planning Board made sense to the committee. F.3).c.[4]iv. Roads: What is the intent of “material appropriate to the site?” Sue responded the intent is to keep the road as small as possible. Committee decided to remove the line “constructed of a material appropriate to the site and” so the sentence would read: “Roadways within the site shall be designed to minimize….” F.3).c.[5] Areas of Potential Sensitivity – Susan noted that this was not a term that was defined in the Code. Discussion followed. Committee will think about any areas that should be added to the list. F.3).c[6] ii. Decommissioning - Cessation of activity – Make this text consistent with the text noted for the other solar system size sections. The committee ended their review of the draft law. Bill G. requested that staff provide a new draft with all the changes so far incorporated for review at the next COC meeting. 4. Review and discuss draft 2016 COC Work Plan. The committee went through the draft 2016 Work Plan, starting at the top, with the “Regulations in Process” section. Bill G. moved the “Campfire” provisions to the bottom of the list. The rest of the items in this section seemed to be winding up or could be easily finished. Regarding chickens, guineas, and other fowl, Bill G. suggested that the COC and the Town Board take a field trip to some of the properties in the town that currently have roosters and guinea hens to get a perspective on the noise that these animals generated. Bill canvassed the committee to see who would be available for a field trip and when they would be most available. Yvonne stated that she’d be most available every day after work except for Thursdays. No one else from the committee provided their availability for a field trip. Bill G. asked members their opinions on what should be prioritized on the Work Plan. None of the committee members responded, but Bruce thought that the tree preservation law was becoming important. Sue expressed interest in revising some basic elements of the Subdivision Regulations, including the cluster provisions, and thought staff could prepare recommendations in a few months. Bruce also noted that the Knox box regulations under “Amending Provisions in Town Code, Various Chapters” might be an easy one that he could deal with pretty quickly. 5. Other Business. Bill G. stated that he would like to wrap up the solar draft law at the next meeting and also discuss in more detail the Work Plan items the committee should focus on. Next Meeting: April 13, 2016.