PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES OF June 13, 2016 Meeting of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.
Chairman Baden asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Michael Baden, Chairman Patrick Williams
Adam Paddock, Vice Chair Maren Lindstrom
Lawrence DeWitt
John Dawson
Shane Ricks
Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that the Town Board has given the PB a referral that the Board will discuss at the end of the meeting under “Other Matters” regarding Proposed Local Law #3-2016: Amending Chapter 140 of the Town of Rochester Zoning Code regarding solar energy.
TRAININGS:
Chairman Baden noted that the Association of Towns is doing their annual summer trainings. He would be getting the information to Board Members soon. The County will also have another training at some point later in the summer.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Dawson motioned to accept the May 9, 2016 Minutes with the revisions to all of Mr. Rick’s votes to reflect that he was absent. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
2016-02 LLI New Application
Lot Improvement
Matthew Amaral, Lot Line Improvement, Proposes to combine 3 lots into 1.
63 Lisova Lane, Kerhonkson, Tax Map #76.3-3-14, 76.3-3-15, 76.3-3-16, R-2 Zoning District
Chairman Baden stated for the record that he lives near this property, but did not have any personal conflicts with it.
Mr. Amaral was present on behalf of the application. He stated that he wants to build a house in about a year and has 3 contiguous lots and wants to combine them into one.
Chairman Baden noted that this is a private road and each owner owns a portion of it.
Mr. Amaral thought that the combining of these lots would make building and setbacks easier to deal with.
Chairman Baden agreed that this would be better for setback purposes. This does improve the lot standards. They are all about 1 acre now. (The map needs to reflect the pre-existing versus what the total outcome is, but being that they were all the same owners, the Board agreed that it wasn’t necessary). This would bring the lot up to Code as this is a 2 acre district and it would now be just over 3 acres once the lots were combined. Was the property wet at all?
Mr. Amaral noted that he didn’t have any issues. He improved his drainage on the property already.
Chairman Baden noted that there is a filed RMA for the whole subdivision already and it was noted on the map.
Mr. Paddock questioned if the applicant needed to show a proposed house location?
Chairman Baden stated that he didn’t as it was only a lot line adjustment. The Board is only looking at is that the result of the changes meet zoning standards and this actually takes 3 non-conforming lots and makes them conforming.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to accept the Lot Line Improvement, and that it is a Type 2 Action under SEQRA by definition. Mr. Dewitt seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
The applicant will need to get copies and the Mylar to the PB office to be signed and then he will need to file them.
2016-03 SUP Public Hearing
Special Use
Acorn School, Motria Shuhan (applicant) and Joe Esposito (owner)
Proposes change of use of an existing structure for a Private Educational Facility grades N-3
2911 Lucas Tpke., S/B/L 77.1-2-42.31, R-2, AP Overlay, and FD Overlay zoning districts, Located in Ulster County Ag District 3
Mr. Gomes was present on behalf of the application. Mr. Gomes’s daughter attends the school and he was asked to attend the meeting on behalf of the applicant.
Chairman Baden noted that at the last meeting the Board recommended that the applicant hire a consultant to do their drawing. There were questions about the parking areas. Was there anything new to submit?
Mr. Gomes noted that there isn’t anything new at this time, but he did know that Mrs. Shuhan has enlisted the services of Barry Medenbach.
Chairman Baden noted that the Public Hearing had been scheduled for tonight and would open it. However, because they are still waiting on information, and referrals that need to be done once that information is received, the Board will not be able to continue the review of the information until the Board gets that additional info. The Public Hearing will be opened tonight to see if there are any comments and they will hold it open to wait for the new information.
Mr. Dewitt thought that there was an issue regarding the timing of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board couldn’t do any referrals until they had a complete application, and until they get that site plan that the Board is waiting on, they don’t have a complete application.
Mr. Dewitt questioned when the process would be finished at the earliest?
Chairman Baden noted that it was hard to say. If they get the site plan in for the July meeting, and it’s complete enough, the Board would then do the referrals and the County would review it at their August Meeting and they may or may not have a reply back at that point, and the same as the other agencies as they get 30 days to respond back. If the Board has heard back from them all, then in August, the PB can continue the process. If they haven’t heard back from each agency, they have to wait the 30 days so it could potentially be September, and that’s only if everything is up to the Town’s specs. Then they would have to do the work before they can get the C/O. The Board is only giving the approval for the use, not actually saying they could go out and use it. It could potentially be the September meeting or even later.
Mr. Ricks thought back in April they were going to get a new plan.
Chairman Baden noted that they presented a plan in May, but it was still a sketch plan and was still lacking several issues that needed to be addressed. The Board worked with them on parking—finding 10 spaces for day to day use. Also there was discussion regarding parking along Lucas Ave and the driveway because of an event that they had. They were looking for solutions and widening the driveway for fire access. They would need over flow parking. The Ag Data Statement also needed to be revised to reflect that they were actually in an Ag District. It was a minor revision.
At 7:25PM Chairman Baden opened the Hearing to the public.
Mr. Jason Hutchins was present to speak and noted that he submitted a letter to the Board showing where his home was in relation to the property in question. Most of his property borders the school property. They have started farming their property and they submitted a letter saying that they didn’t’ have any problems with the nursery school, but they weren’t sure what the long term plans were or how they worked. They were curious if there would be additional buildings to house additional students to house classes.
Chairman Baden noted that what is being proposed at this time is more of just a change of use rather than an expansion of use. They are going to keep the building as is. This was more for NYS. They wanted to expand into a nursery through 3rd grade.
Mr. Gomes noted that was what was on the application, but that is not correct. It is going to be Nursery through Kindergarten. It will not evolve past the grades. 7 years old would be the oldest and then they would transition into the first grade either at a public school or another Waldorf school. The application would need to be amended to reflect that.
Mr. Gomes noted that Mrs. Shuhan specifically asked that be made clear. Mrs. Shuhan had received some guidance that the application should come in that format of K-3, but that there is no intent.
Chairman Baden noted that she had mentioned that was a long term goal and that’s why she made the application that way based on the State’s recommendation and the State’s requirements. She is not a trained grades teacher. If Mrs. Shuhan could send a letter that that is what is being applied for instead of N-3. There is no need to amend the application, but that letter in the file would be fine.
Mr. Dawson questioned if they decided to do an addition in the future, what would the process be?
Chairman Baden noted that would be up to the Code Enforcement Officer. He would guess that if there was an added structure, then it would get sent to the PB, but that is just a guess.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that at this point, there are no additional structures, it was more fixing how they could get people to come in and park and the expansion of use would be within that same structure.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that part of what this Board is doing is that they are charged with reviewing things in relation to health, safety, and welfare, so while they are reviewing this application, the driveway is too narrow for fire codes, so they are looking to have it widened to meet NYS Fire Codes for a public use. If it were a driveway for a residence, it would be fine. He has a feeling that when this was first built it was a residential use and that’s why the driveway is too narrow. The parking areas are also being addressed to make sure they have adequate parking so that there is no blocking for emergency situations. Really what the PB is reviewing is for health and safety along with general welfare. The use is not really changing that much in that it would still be a relatively small school.
Mr. Paddock believed that they would have a hard time expanding in the future if they ever decided to build additional structures just because of its proximity to the wetlands.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that it’s almost a very self-limiting expansion ability because the entire front section is wetlands. Federal wetlands still have regulations about construction in the wetlands. One of the Board’s referrals will be to the Army Corp of Engineers who is the agency who oversees federal wetlands and the board will see if they have any comments back.
Mr. Hutchins noted that a great portion of their farmland was in the flood plain.
Chairman Baden believed it was a maximum of 24 kids based on the size of the occupancy permit that they have. And 3 staff members.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that this is exactly the size that she has now.
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant stated that the current situation is slightly less than that.
Mr. Hutchins noted that they weren’t objecting to it, but did have some questions that he submitted in his letter.
Mr. Dawson felt that those were addressed and noted that this was why the Board was trying to address the parking and the driveway.
Chairman Baden noted that Lucas Turnpike is a County controlled roadway, and this will be referred to them. They may come back with a notation that says that it does need a school zone sign, but it may not. The PB doesn’t have the authority to say it needs to have signs, only the UCDPW can say that. The application will be sent to them to review and they will come back to the PB with any comments or issues. The question in the letter regarding the property being classified from residential to commercial would be a whole other issue. The Zoning District here is an R-2, which is primarily a residential use. The ‘2’ means that its 2 acres per residence or per use. Every use that is allowed on the property has to have a minimum of 2 acres. If it’s a residential use it has to have a minimum of 2 acres. If 2 residences are sought after in an R-2 Zone, then they would need 4 acres and so on. The total property is 11 acres. Potentially there could be 5 homes, but it’s not likely given the wetlands and flood plains. It’s not really a very buildable lot with the physical constrictions that are on it. The zoning is a residential use and there are a number of limited small commercial uses that are allowed in residential districts, but they are the type of commercial businesses that go along with residential areas. Things like a doctor’s office or something like that.
Mr. Ricks made a motion to continue the Public Hearing pending receipt of the new site plan. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
New Application
Site Plan
Dana McClure (applicant) and Karen McClure (owner)
Proposes expansion of use for Agricultural Tourism Enterprises
579 Samsonville Rd., S/B/L 68.1-1-15.112, AR-3 zoning district
Dana McClure was present on behalf of the application.
The Board commended Ms. McClure on the detail of her application and site plans that she produced herself. This application will be the example for applicants who want to do their own site plans.
The Board reviewed the revised site plan at this time. Chairman Baden noted that the Zoning Requirement chart was there, the lot information, owner in formation, tax map ID #, address, scale, location map, showing bounding owners. Was Samsonville Road that straight in that area there?
Ms. McClure stated yes. This was traced over her mother’s survey map. When Kim Dufresne from UCDPW came to look at the property, he told them that they were lucky because there aren’t any turns.
Chairman Baden noted that this would need to be referred to the UCDPW because it’s on a County Road, they will be pleased because the access and site distance both ways.
Ms. McClure submitted exhibits detailing the access, parking, lighting, and handicap accessibility. They had Kim Dufresne from UCDPW come out and look at the entrance and he said right away that they were lucky that they don’t have to do too much work with the culvert, it’s wide enough. Then after he left, they had Central Hudson come and they were really generous and cut down one of the trees to the ground to increase site distance. The evergreen to the right of the driveway is gone. The evergreen to the left needs to be trimmed back. It opens it up dramatically. They are getting ready to get an excavator to open it up another 6’ to meet the 20’ requirement. They are trying to get the parking lot done before they do that, so once they have a nice fresh driveway it won’t get ruined by bringing in heavy equipment to do the parking area.
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant should show the current line and the proposed line of the driveway.
Ms. McClure noted that she wrote, “14’ driveway widened to 20’”.
Chairman Baden noted that she should use a dotted line or something different to show existing compared to proposed.
Mr. Ricks questioned the driveway that comes in the other side. Did that come over someone else’s land?
Ms. McClure answered yes. It was an easement that comes across the neighbor’s property. It wouldn’t be used as part of this application. She had originally proposed that it would be an exit, but then they got into a bunch of issues with the angle of the entrance. They would block the driveway off right after the parking area. There would be one handicap spot by the barn. It would be a rope that can be removed for fire access.
Ms. Lindstrom drove by the property and noted that the entrance that will not be used is really not visible because of the slope of it. The other one that will be used is the one that is noticeable.
Ms. McClure noted that they didn’t want to have to involve the neighbor in any of this.
Chairman Baden noted that for the residential use they have an easement over the neighbor’s lot to access the entrance that will not be used for the application.
Ms. McClure noted that where she is at for the DPW is that she has the permits sent in, but the next step is that Mr. Dufresne comes out and once he sees the tree trimmed on the other side that they could start the permit process.
Chairman Baden noted that if they have sent a copy of the application to DPW to submit it to the Board as well.
Ms. McClure submitted the copy to the Board.
Chairman Baden suggested that the applicant write up a short narrative based on the meeting with Mr. Dufresne.
Ms. McClure noted that they want to be a business that is seldom open, so they want to keep it very subdued and have her mother’s address number on there and the name of their farm, “Ravenwood” and when they are open as a farm stand or a dinner, the sign will suggest that, so that it’s not like they will advertise it unless they are open. There was a rendering of the sign in her application packet. She will have a solar light that they can stick in the ground to light up the sign. Mr. Dufresne said that it has to be 6’ back from the road and not too big to block visibility, so the actual sign is 6 1/2’ x 10’ wide. The lighting is shown as what exists and what is proposed and it is shielded and downward. The lighting on the barn right now comes on at night in the front. The back ones will go on when they turn them on. The side entrance will have a little cage globe. The side entrance where the ADA entrance will be is the one view of the property that the only neighbor can see, so they don’t want to have a light that is on often there. That will be one that is turned on and off. The solar power LED pathway lights will create a laminated walkway from the parking lot to the barn and also in the back from the barn to where the mobile restroom is going to be. And then they can take them out when events aren’t happening so they can access that farming area a little better.
Chairman Baden questioned what types of trees were in the wooded area?
Ms. McClure noted that it was a pretty young forest. Some Maples, and it’s very dense. It’s what the Catskill Native Nursery has growing. Behind them is entirely wooded as well. She spoke with the Waruch/Stoddards and they are really excited about the application. Mr. Palmese, their closest neighbor may be concerned with how often they are going to have the dinners so she needs to speak with him about that to get him on board. He has a lot of love for the barn because it was his for 30 years and he put a lot of work into it, so they are trying to get them involved and excited about bringing it back to life. They haven’t talked at all to the neighbors across the street because they can’t really see them. For the lights in the parking lot, she looked up some photos for how other parking areas for events have been done and they have all of these commercial grade, LED- globe string lights from their wedding, so she’d like to use those and illuminate the parking lot without some massive lighting scheme. She would get poles to put on the stone wall to put all around the parking lot about human height—tall enough so they wouldn’t walk into them.
Mr. Paddock questioned that since they weren’t downward shielded, but it was dense enough back there, could they get away with that?
Chairman Baden felt that since it was so dense and they were LED’s that they would probably be okay. They were only going to be on when there was an event.
Ms. McClure showed existing lighting that’s already on the property. There are dusk to dawn lights on the garage, a light on the storage shed and a flood light with a motion detector on the front of the house.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if that was out of the scope of the project because that was her residential house?
Chairman Baden noted that it is and it isn’t. In the PB’s review they are looking at the overall lighting of the whole property as it all factors into the review of the whole project. It wasn’t an issue.
Ms. McClure made better specs for the parking lot so you could see that there was a 24’ clearance between the two rows and the spaces are all 10’ x 20’. She would make the parking space whatever the ADA specs called for. The Board believed that they were two 10’ x 20’ spaces together, but she would check on it. Ms. McClure would also show the surface from the parking area to the barn. She noted that Mr. Davis, CEO recommended the entrance to the barn. She would notate the parking spot surface and specs. She would expand on exhibit ‘D’. She also noted that there would be a max of 5 staff members and 30 guests. She would label the parking area for staff. She would use the parking area that is designated for the barn events also for the farm stand. She knows that if she allowed people to park closer to the barn, they would end up using the access that they don’t want used.
Chairman Baden went through the site plan checklist and noted that he didn’t think that noise was going to be an issue. The lighting has been addressed… there would be no air or water pollution…. Signage and parking has been addressed.
Mr. Dawson motioned to refer the application to the County PB pending the receipt of the revisions by June 22nd. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Dawson motioned for an Unlisted Action and Uncoordinated Review under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden motioned to refer the application to the Ulster County Dept. of Public Works, Ulster County Health Dept, Ulster County Planning Board, and Accord Fire Dept. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
New Application
Subdivision
Robert and Nancy Bendell
Propose 2 lot subdivision, 681 Granit Road, Tax Map # 84.2-1-5.200, R2 District
Christopher Zell from Brinnier and Larios was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Zell noted that the Bendell’s own two houses on one lot and they want to sell the front house and retain the rear home with +/-2.006 acres. The subdivision meets all setbacks and zoning requirements. No construction is proposed.
Chairman Baden questioned what the concrete pad was used for?
Mr. Zell noted that the concrete pad had been there for some time now, but he didn’t know the history of it. He wasn’t sure if there was an intended use for it or not. The Bendells had wanted to do this 2 lot subdivision back in 2006 and the concrete pad was there then.
Chairman Baden noted that his concern was that if it was going to be built on then it wouldn’t meet the setbacks.
Mr. Zell noted that there was no structure, it was just a concrete pad, so they weren’t worried about it. He agreed that the concrete pad didn’t meet any setbacks, but it didn’t need to as it was just a concrete pad. If they had to meet the setbacks for the concrete pad, they wouldn’t meet the 2 acres.
Chairman Baden noted that he wanted to make sure that it didn’t become used. He was concerned that someone might say that it was pre-existing and now they created a subdivision that didn’t meet setbacks. The PB could make it a condition that it could not be built on. The subdivision itself meets the zoning standards. The bounding owner information across the street needed to be shown and the right to farm note needed to be added.
Mr. Zell noted that they could put a note on the plans about the concrete pad.
Mr. Paddock questioned if the Board needed to be concerned about the roads?
Chairman Baden noted that they should send this to the Highway Superintendent. He then questioned if the property was in the flood plain?
Mr. Zell would have to check it out and if there was they would put a notation on the map.
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the public hearing for the July meeting. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Dawson motioned for an Unlisted Action and an Uncoordinated review under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. DeWitt. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Dawson motioned to forward the application to the UCPB if it was discovered that the property was in the flood plain and if it did not meet the exception agreement. Seconded by DeWitt. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
OTHER MATTERS
• Town Board Referral:
PB Advisory report on Proposed Local Law #3-2016: Amending Chapter 140 of the Town of Rochester Zoning Code regarding solar energy.
Chairman Baden stated that he is on the ZRC that is reviewing the Town’s Zoning Code. He is the PB’s representative and had a hand in writing this proposed law. He’s sort of the Secretary of the committee. He did the actual typing of it, but the Code itself was a product of the entire committee so he didn’t feel like he had to recuse himself, but if anyone thinks he should, he was happy to. The PB was making their referral to the Town Board with their opinions as to how it will impact Zoning in the Town.
Mr. Dawson noted that every time they get a referral from the Town Board because of when their respective meetings fall, they really don’t give enough time to review things. With the referral from the PB, if they are going to do it collectively, it always ends up if someone has a comment that they should do it on their own because they don’t, as a Board, have a chance to digest it, meet and then talk about it. He’s brought it up several times and it happens every time.
Chairman Baden noted that if the PB wants to hold a special meeting to discuss it prior to the July 7th Public Hearing.
Mr. Dawson questioned if they could review it on their own and all communicate via email?
Chairman Baden noted that they could do that—or they could each review it on their own and email comments back to the secretary and collaborate them in one response back to the TB, but it’s still not really the PB’s recommendation, it’s still each individual member’s input.
Mr. Dawson noted that he would like to go in as the Board. Was there anyway that they could do that without physically having a special meeting?
Chairman Baden noted that if they were going to send a report back from the PB, the PB needed to be together to do that.
Mr. Ricks noted that this addressed all the small scale—was that correct?
Chairman Baden agreed. What the TB decided was that the larger scale should be separated out. Larger scale meaning the number of acres.
Mr. Dawson noted that he didn’t have any objections. He was good with it, but for other things, he wished they’d send it with enough time for the them to review it.
Mr. Dewitt agreed with the lack of time to review it. He also noted that the more controversial part may be yet to come—so he was definitely in agreement with the Board being able to review the materials and then discuss it at a meeting.
Chairman Baden noted that the State was putting together a model for the larger scale, and they did come out with that at the end of May. The TB is aware of it. The larger scale doesn’t just cover large scale, it covers small and large, but it’s more geared toward large scale. It is a solar energy law, so if a Town were to pass that it would cover all aspects of solar energy. It is available online. One of his personal comments is with the large scale out now, maybe the best thing to do instead of pass a small scale law and then a month later pass a large scale law would be to hold this current proposed law the TB has in front of them. The downside is that if they don’t pass this now, the town is bound to the unified solar permit, which only allows residential use- rooftop mount up to 12kw. There is discussion to change it to 25kw, but it has not happened yet.
Mr. Dewitt questioned what the status was of the application that the Town received for the larger scale?
Chairman Baden believed that the applicant chose to ask the TB not to consider it until they resolve the local law situation. It’s on hold.
Sherry Chachkin, Town Board member and PB Liaison was present and offered that the company—Sun Creek Solar, would be appearing at the TBs workshop meeting in June to give a presentation and answer questions.
Chairman Baden noted that the meeting was at 5pm on the 30th of June.
Ms. Lindstrom thought that the non-residential small scale was a little “loosey goosey” as the subdivision guys don’t have clear setbacks and things like that. It’s a lot of stuff that gets dumped on the PB for each individual. For non-residential small scale could still be pretty big. If the company went out of business then there were a bunch of solar panels just sitting there and they leave.
Chairman Baden noted that how this was put together was the upper limit, rather than basing it on acreage, was based on the net metering level for that type of use. The net metering right now—anything up to 25kw— this is for a use on the property. This is not for being generated to sell, primarily. With the net metering they can sell excess that is why they based it on the net metering level. For the residential it’s up to 25kw and you can just do it with a building permit. Above 25kw you would need a site plan. If you were going above the net metering, the question was, why are you going above the net metering. The same with a farm use.
Ms. Lindstrom was fine with that and the farm use, it just seemed a little lighter on the non-residential small scale.
Chairman Baden noted that the metering on the non-residential small scale was 2mw, which is what the State’s limitation is right now.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that could d be a hell of a lot of panels. She doesn’t agree with that.
Chairman Baden noted that was why they said that all non-residential ground mounted had to go for site plan review—even if you meet the net metering levels. At least that way the PB has some standards to go by. They don’t have specific standards for solar alone, but they can at least hold the applicant to site plan standards.
Ms. Lindstrom’s worry there would be if someone came in with that and the PB gave them original setbacks, natural vegetation and they wanted them to bond decomitioning, they could take the PB to court.
Chairman Baden noted that the extra setbacks and stuff did give the Board power to. On page 10, 4G. They can increase if its contiguous to a residential use for setbacks for the specific parcel.
Ms. Lindstrom agreed, but questioned if it was contiguous to an Ag use—then no. Then the visual scape next to a farm is compromised. Everyone goes to farms, that’s how we make our money here in tourism and they could put this up and they couldn’t do anything.
Chairman Baden noted that under SEQRA review it would be an unlisted action—but something of that large of size would be classified as a Type 1 Action. Under SEQRA review the Board does have the ability to review those specific situations and then they can increase things like setbacks under SEQRA. SEQRA is kind of the fall back in that case.
Ms. Lindstrom could see some really long evenings on non-residential small scale.
Chairman Baden didn’t disagree and noted that this is before the large scale model came out. If you read the large scale model, they were even more lenient than this is. But the booklet is about a 60 page booklet and only 4 pages of it are of the actual law. The rest is all the discussion on how they arrived at that and a lot of it gives other options of things local agencies might want to consider when writing their own version of the law. His suspicion is that they wrote the bare bones version as the model law and then gave all other things to think about. Some of this is probably politics. Solar is the Governor’s baby and he wants NY to lead the way in solar. There was probably some pressure put for the model law to reflect that.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that the idea was good- she agreed. Solar was fantastic, but right now in Arizona they are changing the laws because they can’t afford the people who are left and don’t have solar have too much of an electric burden and net metering is changing there. It makes the whole thing uneconomical.
Mr. Ricks noted that then you look at the life of the panels…
Chairman Baden noted that the life of the panel is about 20 years.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that all these companies that are putting these in are using private tax equity partnerships because they can depreciate it with bonus depreciation, 50% the first year. After 6 year its fine and they flip that tax benefit to someone like her—the big banks. This is the subprime all over again. It’s great if it’s on your house and you are doing it for that, but the big scale stuff is a big financial scam.
Chairman Baden noted that under the current tax laws he believed it was for the first 16 years, your valuation of the your property can’t be raised, the following year it can be raised, however approximate life of the panel is 20 years and a lot of these contracts are after 20 years, they become the property of the owner, and now the owner is stuck with the removal, but he didn’t know if you could legislate that type of thing because it is a private contract.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that on federal lands you have to post a decommissioning bond, so she didn’t have an objection, if part of the price of the whole financial gimmick was you posted a bond with the Town. Then the Town has the money.
Chairman Baden noted that they do recommend a decommissioning plan and that is included in the Town’s proposed law. That’s just a plan, it doesn’t say how you are going to pay for it.
The Board agreed that there wasn’t enough comments to go back to the TB to have a special meeting, but they were going to respond to the TB that they would like more than just one PB meeting to come up with a referral.
Mr. Dawson agreed and noted that everything that they brought up tonight, now members wanted to go home and research it and that’s what happens. He didn’t think they should have to hold special meetings.
Chairman Baden noted that under the law, they have to give 30 days, but they will definitely put the request in for 2 months’ notice to be able to respond back. Did the Board want to say the concerns of the non-residential?
Ms. Lindstrom would definitely like to augment 4(g)(b) to be “contiguous to all uses” that the PB should be able to consider increased setbacks, etc.… as opposed to just —
Chairman Baden noted that they could say that the PB shall be allowed to have increased consideration for mitigating impacts to neighboring uses. If everyone is comfortable with that, they will make that recommendation and support the rest of the document as written. Also- in the farm section, the way it is broken out the way it is is because a farm operation in an Ag District and farm operation review is different—the State says it should have some review, but it’s an expedited review.
Councilwoman Chachkin noted that there was a good chance that the public hearing would not be closed, so if the Board wanted to do additional research and have additional comments at their July meeting there would still probably be time to submit them.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Dawson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Dewitt. No discussion. All Members present, in favor.
As there was no further business, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 9:30 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary