A Special Meeting was held on April 21, 2016 at 5:30pm regarding the proposed Solar Energy Code at the Town of Rochester Town Hall.

PRESENT:

Supervisor Chipman Councilwoman Chachkin Councilwoman Fornino
Councilman Drabkin Councilman Spano Attorney Christiana

ABSENT:

Town Clerk Gundberg

PLEDGE:

Supervisor Chipman opened the meeting and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

CANCEL THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SOLAR ENERGY:
Resolution # 82 -2016:

A Motion was made by Councilman Drabkin to cancel the public hearing scheduled for April 28, 2016 at 5:00pm regarding the Solar Energy until the Board works on the Law.

Seconded by: Councilman Spano

DISCUSSION:

Councilwoman Chachkin stated, “I am puzzled by the cancelling of the public hearing. There is no precedent for it. For all the years serving and reporting on the Board it has concurrently held public hearings and amongst its self both discussed the public hearing, what we heard, what we want to do about it and as a Board have found out, discussed, and decided what we wanted to do about it. The law can stay the same, we can change it, the public hearing can stay open for as long as the Board wants it to and this can go back and forth until the board is satisfied, until we heard all the public comments & the Board educated itself as far as they need to and made the changes that they feel we need. After the Board closes the public hearing as I recall back in 2009 and I recall this stuff better then when I sit on the board because when your writing about it, it sticks in your memory, there were 5 public hearing sessions during the 2009 public hearing proposal. And during that time the Town Board was discussing the comments, made changes and this was a concurrent process and finally when everything was over when the public hearing was complete with no additional comments then the Board was ready to act on the law. There is no need to cancel, the public hearing is not a question and answer session. The public hearing is a time we listen to what the public has to say, we say thank you and take it under consideration. I remind you with the fracking law the Board itself went back and forth several times during this period. I don’t recall how many public hearings there were but the Board changed their mind a couple times about what to include. I remember Former Councilman Cilenti had changed his mind about something he originally opposed. It was the inclusion of petroleum in the law because he spoke to Steven Fernetto and Steve convinced him that it wasn’t something he would want to oppose. There are a lot of things like that from the past. How many months did the fracking law take before the board was satisfied? It was awhile. With the 2013 revision proposal Councilman Drabkin and I worked many many months and days and consulted with Attorney Christiana as to what we were going to do about the proposal and what recommendations we were going to make to the full Board. It took a while to put together we gave it to the Board as I recall we didn’t discuss it much as a Board and we started public hearings and we got a lot of comments mostly written at that point. We got them from the County Planning Board and Town Planning Board, 3 residents & Agriculture and Markets. Councilman Drabkin and I spent hours after, discussing with Attorney Christiana going over every last public comment. We made a number of revisions to our original recommendations to the Board based on the comments and recommendations we received from public comments. This is a process that can be concurrent, the public gives information to the Board as to what it might want to do, which gives this Board more information. Councilman Drabkin and I consulted with Becky, Brenda & Jerry about sticky provisions we weren’t sure about. They gave insight why they wanted those provisions or why they thought the revisions needed more work. So I don’t really understand, there is no rush on this and the draft that’s up has been sent out. It has been sent to County Planning who doesn’t meet until the day after our May meeting so we can’t move on anything until after we hear from them anyway. And we want to have those comments. I think we need to consider also our delay in the process of this law as we speak is holding up 3 applications at the Code Enforcement Office. At the choice of the applicants they’ve decided to hold off until we have a law. One of them is a 20 acre net farm on Pompey’s Cave Road the other 2 are smaller. Then there is another one that came in from a Solar Energy company in New Paltz for residential rooftop array on Lucas Turnpike, however they sent it in as a unified solar application but its 19.8 kilowatts which is more than the maximum we have. Brenda informed the applicant that they couldn’t do it that way because we don’t have a law on the books allowing it so that application would have to come to the Board directly. They don’t want to wait. Under our zoning law section 140 -8A if one of these applications comes directly to the Town Board and the Town Board says ok to the application it goes to the Planning Board which then reviews it under the special use permit and under current density law. The real issue is if this particular applicant came through it is in an AR3 district and according to section 140-8 that is the only district in this town that solar use would be allowed.”

Supervisor Chipman said the company is checking into some other way of filing this.
Supervisor Chipman asked Attorney Christiana what would happen if the application was for R5?

Attorney Christiana stated, “If it is already allowed and the Board said ok to the AR3 then it goes into our use table as allowed in an AR3 and if something is allowed in one zone in Town they can’t come back to this Board. It can only be done by the Board amending the law. The applicant can apply for a use variance but that will be tough to get.”

Councilwoman Chachkin stated, “These are the considerations that I throw out against cancelling the public hearing, I think we should go forward and do what we have to do, hear from the public make changes from the public comments and do our own research. The Board can make a decision from the back and forth process and decide then what we want in the law.”

Supervisor Chipman stated, “From what I have heard the process was flawed in the first place. There is an understanding that the process was closed in the first place because there was a closed group that put the law in place & I was a part of that group. I was proud of that law but other people didn’t take it that way. Some of the people that are affected by this law weren’t part of the decision making, so what they feel what’s presented is wrong because they weren’t part of the creation of the law. That’s a problem.”

Councilman Drabkin stated, “To add to that the process that Councilwoman Chachkin and I worked on with the revisions was the result of a group of citizens of the Town. The task force included various people in the Town, and we just took part of that, that wasn’t controversial.”

Councilwoman Chachkin stated, “Councilman Drabkin and I worked on the whole thing. The 2013 report from the zoning citizen’s revision was not completed as far as I’m concerned and let’s not compare it to the ZCM task force of 2008-2009. I attended every meeting of the 15 months that the task force met and I wrote about it. That consensus that Chairman O’Halloran talked about was true. They kept at it until they felt everyone on the task force of 2008-2009 could live with it. If they couldn’t get a consensus they would come back to it. They had a professional consultant Tom Shepstone who was with them every step of the way advising them giving them modeled language; they didn’t have that at all in 2013.”
Councilwoman Chachkin discussed the events leading up from 2008-2009 task force and the 2013 task force. She gave examples of the compost & mulch processing facilities and committees requesting more information from the CEO.

Councilman Drabkin asked if this was necessary?

Councilwoman Chachkin stated, “You’re stalling the virtues of having a citizens task force and I’m telling you why it didn’t work.” She continued with other examples of recommendations and/or comments from boards, the public & committees referring to the zoning revision changes.

Councilwoman Chachkin stated, “I spent hours conforming what was in the substance of the law that we were recommending. I don’t think that a group of lay citizens without a consultant, without other experts, the CZM in 2008-2009 had Brenda and Becky who weighed in at several time, they had Kristen Marcel for environmental consultations. In 2013 there was a similar issue regarding the revisions. The Board stated that people felt it is not fair that the revisions were done by people who administer the law. What the bias is I don’t know because these happen to be the same people who work with this law, know what’s needed, know what is and isn’t working, what may need to be changed. As Lynn Archer said when it came up at the 2013 board meeting regarding the revisions that’s what the public hearing is for, that’s when our citizens can weigh in and tell us what they think about the proposed law. And I would think 2 or 3 times before you dare to impugn the integrity of the people of the current zoning review commission. I don’t believe anybody on that commission has a personal agenda, they are concerned with having a zoning law that makes sense that they can administer. I’m sure the Board received the
e-mail from Becky and Brenda today, this is their work they need the guidance, we heard this from them when Councilman Drabkin and I were working on the provisions. They want this because they need to say look this is the law. There is nobody on that committee with a personal agenda, everybody is committed to doing what we feel is the best for all residents in this town, to secure the health and safety and quality of life of everyone, not just property rights there are no unfettered rights in this country. Every Constitutional right is a balance, so don’t talk about property rights. There would be no zoning law at all if property rights were all we focused on and they couldn’t be limited or restricted in any way.”

Councilman Drabkin stated, “I just want to say several people here tonight were on that committee. Our citizens worked diligently on our zoning laws. Whether it was something they were interested in or had vested interest in it, one way or another I just want to thank them. I feel their participation, what they did accomplish and what they felt gave us the blue print for what we did, which was to revise the zoning revisions.”

Councilwoman Chachkin stated “I will not do that again, I will not clean up that kind of mess again.”

Councilman Drabkin asked Supervisor Chipman to call the question again;

Supervisor Chipman stated, “It’s a difficult situation, I spent a ½ hour today with the Company that wants to put in the roof mount solar that is 19.8 kilowatts which is over and above what the unified solar permit is and there is nothing in our law that allows it right now. What happens? We allow that and shut everyone else out here? It’s not a great position to be in, at the same time I realize that and I do agree with the intent of zoning revisions committee but I will admit I didn’t have the point of view of the farmer or major land owner. Not one of us had that and it is a different point of view and when we make a law about something and it affects those people, we want to have the input of those people. Now the input can be at a public hearing but when you’re drafting a document it would be nice to have that input while you’re drafting it.”

Councilwoman Chachkin stated, “What she just said was they are concurrent just because we have a proposal on the table doesn’t mean we can’t change it from what we hear from the public that’s why it’s important to have these things going on concurrently. A farmer may have a point of view, they can express it at a public hearing, we’ve had it happen with the CZM, the fracking law, 2013 proposal but a farmer doesn’t have the overall perspective to craft this law.”

Supervisor Chipman stated, “That he didn’t mean solely a farmer or major land owner but at least having the input. I’m still stuck with the thought of having applicants waiting. If we say yes to one it will shut out other zones and that’s not fair to anybody.”

Councilman Drabkin stated, “That we certainly need to work on altering the law.”

Supervisor Chipman stated, “There’s a lot to be done on this law. I think the 12 kilowatts should go up to 25 kilowatt, I would get rid of the 20 acre maximum. I still think we should continue with the public hearing and invite landowners to the zoning meeting scheduled for 1pm on 4/22/16. I want them sitting at the table for input while we go through this process. I will not vote for a law unless it was vetted properly. But at the same time we can’t afford to let all the citizens in the town to go without either. The pressure is on for solar right now. I want to get solar through, the process was flawed and we make mistakes. My vote is to hold the public hearing but I will not pass a law that is not vetted correctly & we can get a consensus. I want people at the table.”

Councilwoman Chachkin asked if this is something the ZRC has to approve?

Attorney Christiana stated “It’s a public meeting usually people don’t talk, that’s what the public hearing is for, but the Board can allow what they want.

Supervisor Chipman stated, “We want to start working on the law we are under time restraints.”

Councilman Spano stated, “I sat on this Board and heard the same argument when the town passed the building moratorium. I’ve sat on this Board with the fracking law, when we don’t even sit on top of the shale and we argued and argued and argued and now we have one law and it is very restrictive. This is a discussion we should be having and sending it back to be revised. Going to a public hearing and having the public review a law when we as a board are not satisfied with it is wrong. The job is not done. It is almost like there is no reason for some of these requirements, if there are laws and state guidelines in place then we should follow them. There is some wording in this proposed law about needing to follow building and fire codes. If it has to follow the code and it’s a structure and is deemed a structure then fine it follows the code, but there’s already state laws in place regarding solar so we are just making it very very restrictive. We heard about the application on Pompey’s Cave road so I called Brenda to do due diligence, I asked where they want to put the solar panels? She said no site plan was sent in only a check. It was 97 acres now subdivided and they want to use 20 acres for a solar plot. We’ve been holding on to the check for over a month. The person who owns the property owns 97 acres and they want to use 20 acres for the solar plot. Why is it an issue? In the law it is restrictive, you can only have certain kilowatts.”

Attorney Christiana stated, “That some people said that even though the state law is in place we want the Town to have a law in place so it would be clearer.”

Councilman Spano stated, “It is restrictive in the kilowatts. If there is no law on it why are we putting such restrictions in our law? If someone owns a piece of property and meets the setbacks, they should be allowed to put what they want to put on it. There is no rush here. I don’t know the rumors going around Town but I want to see facts show me the applicants bring it to the Board. The process now would go before the Town Board then the Planning Board.”

Councilman Drabkin stated, “That we lived as a country without solar power since our inception now due to Government subsides this has become a hot thing, there is no reason why we can’t wait. If they have to wait 6 months or a year they will get their solar lets do the law right.”

Councilwoman Chachkin stated, “There was a lot of work put in researching this. I understand you’re not privy to the background on how this draft law came about. I have all the NY Town examples of solar regulations but we looked at planning and zoning solar energy from the American Planning Association, model zoning of solar energies from Massachusetts, from Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, all these laws have the same kind of requirements because solar is different, it is accepted. We looked for solar resource guides for New York State. New York State has a whole program for incentives for solar. New York is one of the top ten US solar markets. In 2015 New York installed 241 megawatts of solar energy capacity is ranked nationally. Right now there is enough solar in New York State to power 108,000 homes. 733 million dollars was invested in solar installations. 63% increase over 2014. We looked at past laws and model ordinances. I can give the Board copies and you can see what the standards are. The ZRC have educated ourselves, if you want to look through the examples of zoning laws from other NY jurisdictions. When solar is used as a principal use increase zoning precautions should be taken such as height and setbacks, minimum lots sizes, if and when fences are needed. Councilwoman Chachkin stated that these are just some of the examples in the samples. Towns that require bonding decided that they don’t want to depend solely on a tax lien when the solar farm is no longer usable. We have samples to see how they are structured. We do need special setbacks to protect everybody, which is what our zoning laws are suppose to do. If you look at some of these model ordinances and ordinances passed in other states they are all pretty much the same, the same concern.”

Supervisor Chipman stated, “There is also a financial concern. People who wish to put up these solar farms get a 15 years tax exemptions part 427 of the state law. That tax exemption is a local property tax. That means your neighbor is paying for that tax exemption. I’m in favor of solar I would like to see it, but realize your neighbor has a vested interest too. People have to realize it. I would like to see this happen, I would like to see input from those affected by it. Lets work together on this. I would love to say we don’t need a law in place but if we don’t you’re going to find out that there isn’t going to be any solar except in one zone. All it takes is to pass one thing through. I want us to see it work through in an intelligent manner.”

ROLL CALL VOTE:

Councilwoman Chachkin nay
Councilwoman Fornino aye
Councilman Drabkin aye
Councilman Spano aye
Supervisor Chipman abstain 3-1-1, motion carried

The Public Hearing on proposed Local Law #3-2016 regarding solar energy has been cancelled.

ADJOURNMENT:

A Motion was made by Councilman Drabkin to adjourn the meeting at 6:30pm .

Seconded by: Councilwoman Fornino 5-0 aye, motion carried