Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 08 17 Planning Board Minutes1 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting August 17, 2021 PRESENT: Ed Bergman Scott Davis Kelly Maher Elana Maragni Bruce Richards Jody Scriber (Chair) ABSENT: Kathy Jett OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member) Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Debbie Benson, Ted Crane, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Katharine Hunter, Benjamin Ink, Casey McGrath, Alice Napierski, Kim Nitchman, Russ Nitchman, Norbut Solar team (Austin Goodwin of Passero Associates, Sean Greany, David Norbut, Nathan Vander Wal of Nixon Peabody LLP), Ronda Roaring This meeting was conducted in person with virtual access available through Zoom. The meeting was opened at 7:07pm. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW No items were added to the agenda. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ronda Roaring said, in reference to the subdivision for 204 Nelson Rd., she wanted to hear more about the possible archeological site and also the wetlands as these were mentioned in the application but not described in any way. She felt these were important to the application. 2 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Planner West said the back corner of the parcel has a small wetlands area. He said he would need to research the archeological site as it was automatically pulled. Regarding the Norbut Solar application, Roaring said she would never support the making of solar panels (1) by the Chinese, (2) with coal, (3) that pollutes her own country and makes Americans sick, (4) that uses forced labor, or (5) that can be used as spyware. She said that there are many U.S. manufacturers of solar panels and if Norbut Solar was not willing to buy and install them, she did not want him or his business in Danby. She said she was absolutely opposed to that, and the Town should tell him he needs to by the panels from the U.S. Ted Crane asked if there was a public hearing at this evening’s meeting as it was unclear on the publicly accessible agenda; the answer was yes, for both projects. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the July 20th minutes Moved by Richards, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Maragni, Richards Abstain: Maher, Scriber (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Joel Gagnon (Town Board member) gave the report in place of Leslie Connors: • At the previous Town Board meeting, they began with a public hearing on the community choice aggregation (energy) program enabling law, but the template shared was incomplete, and they will need another public hearing. It looks like the Town and City of Ithaca may play lead on this with other towns being asked to participate subsequent to the initial stage. • The Fire District requested funding for flag poles. No action was taken; it will be discussed again at the next meeting. • They awarded a contract for septic work at the Highway Department. • They will need to discuss a new phone system for the Town as AT&T is discontinuing the landline account. No action has yet been taken. • The fee schedule for solar energy systems has been revised to account for the fact that when the Town passed its solar law, it did not anticipate systems of the size now being proposed. The large systems have an initial fee as well as an escrow account for the Town’s expenses for environmental review and consultant fees. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 3 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES SUB-2021-04 204 Nelson Rd. Subdivision Parcel: 3.-1-13 Applicant: Alice Napierski Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Preliminary and Final Approval Proposal: Subdivide parcel into 2 parts for estate planning Applicant Description The applicant, Alice Napierski, reviewed that she wants to divide her approximately 7-acre parcel so her two sons can inherit. She said she does not know about the archeological site. Regarding the wetlands, she said the Board could come visit if they wanted to see further; they are puddles that are always there in the back corner. Board Questions Ed Bergman asked if the Board could move ahead with the archeological site question flagged (question 12b of SEAF Part I) and asked if anyone knew what was there. Planner West said the checked box yes is automated, and he could not see anything listed on the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) site. He said the Board could proceed with the public hearing and decide how substantial an impact they think it is. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 7:19pm. Ronda Roaring asked if the subdivided properties needed to be five acres or two acres each. Planner West said the minimum lot size is two acres, and the zoning says the average lot size should be five acres or 200’ of road frontage per lot. These are not inadequate because they have the frontage and so do not need five acres per lot. The public hearing was closed at 7:22pm. SEQR Review Planner West read aloud Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) per the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act. It was agreed that the answer was “no or small impact may occur” to all questions. Regarding environmental impact, Scott Davis thought there could be an impact if Parcel B clears the woods and builds a house—he could see erosion as a possibility. He felt this should be mentioned. Bergman pointed out this was just for separating the lots. Planner West noted that, as this was a simple subdivision, the Board could not set any no b uild areas. MOTION: The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts Moved by Bergman, seconded by Maher The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber Abstain: Davis 4 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Preliminary and Final Approval Planner West noted that if the Board granted final approval, there would need to be a contingency that the final plat is titled “Final Plat” and includes the required signature block. MOTION: Grant preliminary and final approval with the contingency described by West Moved by Bergman, seconded by Scriber The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber Abstain: Davis PUD-2021-01 Norbut Solar Farm Parcel: 10.-1-21.122 Applicant: Passero Associates Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Consider Resolution to Town Board on PDZ, Review Tompkins County Planning feedback Proposal: Zoning change, subdivision and site plan to allow 3 parcels each with 5MW of solar on a 111 acre parcel. Applicant Description David Norbut reviewed that they are proposing three 5 MW arrays on Bald Hill Rd. Their intention is to build and develop responsibly, stay away from wetlands, respect buffers, and create as little disturbance as possible. He showed the access road and fencing on a map. He said they heard the concerns of the neighbor, Mr. Ink and family, and plan to install a gate after the neighbor’s driveway so no one can drive back there without them seeing. The same neighbor has a deed restriction that says they are solely responsible for maintaining the road until another house is built , and the parties are working on a mutual agreement regarding road maintenance. Mr. Norbut said the road will be made wider, and they will be leaving it as a brand new road when done with the project; maintenance should be minimal. In response to a question from Kim Nitchman regarding snow plowing, Mr. Norbut said Mr. Ink would continue to plow the driveway as usual. If anyone from the solar team was coming, they would plow to clear up to the panels. However, usually they do not rush out if it goes down in a blizzard. Mr. Norbut also showed on the map an intermittent stream and some wetlands, a tree buffer they will be keeping, and where their landscaping plan will be. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 7:37pm. Members of the Public Ronda Roaring directly asked if Norbut Solar was willing to buy U.S.-made solar panels. Mr. Norbut said he could not commit to that. He said U.S. manufacturers are currently behind in production. He could not say what they will use until they are farther along as they have to see what the supply chain looks like at the time they get approval and can plan construction. Roaring said he would either be using Chinese or 5 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES American solar panels. Norbut thought this was an oversimplification as there are also panels made in India, Cambodia, Japan, and Taiwan. He said that, while many companies are in Asia, their solar projects do not always use Chinese panels. Roaring said China is using coal and forced labor to make their panels. Bergman noted that Ms. Roaring’s concerns were now officially on the record. Ms. Roaring also asked the Board how many members had read the full 200 pages of the submitted application and whether they understood what was going on. She thought if not, the hearing should be postponed. Bergman again noted that her concerns were now on the record. Debbie Benson said she is a neighbor and her property runs along the right of way. She said her fence was tagged, but the property line is actually 6-8’ away from her fence. In terms of widening the road, she wanted to be sure Norbut Solar was clear on where the line actually is and also asked if they are planning to cut the hedgerow. Mr. Norbut said they are not. The stone area of the driveway will get wider and they will put in a more stable, permanent driveway, but there will be minimal cutting of vegetation. Ms. Benson asked about the road’s path once it leaves the current driveway, and Mr. Norbut showed this on the map. Ms. Benson expressed some concern about noise and construction as well as lighting, buzzing and reflection from the panels. Mr. Norbut said the panels would not be reflecting into her house because there are anti coatings on the panels. In terms of noise, the inverters run at ~60 decibels, so even when outside neighbors would be unlikely to hear them as the noise won’t reach beyond the fenced in area. In response to a question from Benson, Norbut showed how the panels will be fenced in and said there are also open spaces for animals to move. The fence will be 7’ agricultural fence with wooden posts. They used to use chain-link, but he feels the ag fence looks nicer and goes better with the environment. Ms. Benson also asked about why a subdivision was needed. Mr. Norbut said their intention is to bring the property back to ag after they are done. The subdivision has to happen because the Public Service Commission (PSC) guidelines have a limitation of 5 MW per parcel. Casey McGrath said she lives next door to Ms. Benson and abuts the property a little in the back. Sh e asked about the timeline including start date and how long it will take. Mr. Norbut said he would love to do it in 2022, but realistically he thinks 2023. With the right crew and weather, it could take 9 –12 months; 12 months is doable even with uncooperative weather. In response to a question about lights, Norbut said there would not be active lights. Ms. McGrath also asked about water runoff with clearing the land and how they would manage that. She wondered how that would affect water flow and neighboring properties. Mr. Norbut thought the impact would be nothing. He said they have other projects operational in a variety of topographies testing this theory. The panels are open on four sides, so they drip and the water goes into the earth and is absorbed by plants. This is also in the SWPPP for the Town Board to review. He said there will not be a lot of ground coverage as there would be in the case of a big building. In between the rows of panels, there will be 10–16’ with grasses established. Ted Crane asked how far the inverters with their 60-decibel hum are from property lines and houses as it would be interesting to have an estimate of the continuous ambient noise emitted. Norbut said he did not have the exact measurements, but he could easily show that. Mr. Crane said that in the proposed PDZ 6 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES language, a 25’ minimum setback on all sides is mentioned, which is less than for surrounding properties. He wondered who asked for this and if it would be a hardship not to have it. He said the issue is the same as with noise, light, and construction in that the question is, how will it impact neighbors? If they feel the visual and other mitigation is sufficient, who cares. Planner West said the setbacks would apply only to the outside, not the inside, property lines; there would also be a taller fence and much less frontage allowed (as compared to the current requirements for the zone). The current setback requirements for the zone are 50’ front and rear and 35’ side. Ms. McGrath said she did not see any setbacks less than 50’ in the project when she looked at the plan; Norbut thought the setback closest to the Nitchman property might be less. Mr. Crane said the point was that, if they did not need smaller setbacks, did they need to have that provision in the proposed PDZ? Nate Vander Wal, an attorney speaking on behalf of Norbut Solar, said the 25’ setback was proposed in the draft as a placeholder. It is a work in progress that will morph to reflect the approved plan. Currently the plan does comply with the current setbacks of the surrounding zone, and if this is the plan that is approved, the PDZ regulations can be modified to reflect that. Mr. Norbut said the setback they are most sensitive about is the northern one as the sun comes from the south and keeping closer to that lot line helps. Board Discussion Planner West said that Tompkins County’s Department of Planning and Sustainability reviewed the packet. In their County 239 review, they asked for the following three things: (1) Require the applicant to maintain a natural, vegetative cover under and around the proposed panel installations in order to help maintain long - term soil health and natural stormwater management; (2) Development on the wetlands on the site should be avoided, but, if unavoidable, should be considered only where wetland hydrologic function can be maintained. All wetlands on the site should be delineated in order to implement this recommendation ; and (3) The proposed project be located outside a 50 -foot buffer of intermittent streams. A 50-foot buffer is provided for a portion of the intermittent stream on the property, but a portion of that stream, as mapped by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), is not shown on the project map nor is it buffered. West said that these are binding recommendations, so to approve without doing these, a board would need a supermajority, which is a majority plus one. Mr. Norbut said, regarding wetlands, they did a full wetland delineation for the site, which is in the SWPPP. They are staying set back from those. He noted that the map the County is looking at regarding point three might be incorrect. West shared what the County thinks is an intermittent stream based on its Natural Resources Inventory (NRI), which did not show up in the Norbut delineation. Mr. Norbut asked about the age of the map. He said they could challenge their engineers, but they were out there 2–3 months ago, and the Army Corps of Engineers discounts maps older than 5 years. Kelly Maher pointed out that it has also been a wet year. Mr. Crane said there was no indication the County had had it surveyed recently. Mr. Norbut added that these maps are often done by satellite imagery, and that is why they won’t let them depend on th at. Planner West said that the Board can close the public hearing or keep it open until the next meeting. After closing it, the Board will have 45 days to draft and adopt a resolution to the Town Board with a 7 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES recommendation on the PDZ for the site. He asked what they would like in the resolution. They can support the PDZ application, support with changes, or not support. The Town Board will be lead agency for SEQR, and they will want feedback from the Planning Board on environmental concerns; the Town Board will also be bringing in outside consultants to look at environmental impacts. Ed Bergman thought leaving the public hearing open would give people the opportunity to put in input. He said he was leaning to support without changes as he was not seeing anything that looked like a problem. He said they talk about being a sustainable town, and this is coming to their back yard. West added that there will also be a public hearing on the site plan and subdivision, and this was only the public hearing on the PDZ. Scott Davis said that two years ago they had a debacle involving a PDZ, and that at the time the sense was they were not a good idea. One big problem was that PDZs could survive past the party that initiated the m. He thought they should be careful in the definition and aware of how they frame it. He said he wanted to see the intermittent stream the County mentioned on a survey map; he doubted it would be a problem but did not want to sluff over it. West thought this was in the SWPPP. Davis asked about walki ng on the site, but Mr. Norbut was concerned about liability and thought best not. Elana Maragni confirmed that the 25’ setback in the draft PDZ language is less restrictive than the current zoning. She said she expected that to match up and thought 25’ was a little short; given that most of their setbacks are more, why not keep in sync with what the Town has in place already? Mr. Norbut said this gives them some maneuverability room on the site if they need to push or pull from one area to another. Mr. Vander Wal reiterated that if the plan presented is approved by the Town Board, the final PDZ language would be updated to reflect those numbers. Maragni asked for the language to be more specific and spell out front, rear, and side setbacks, especially to protect the sides where there is not a huge buffer of woods between the solar farm and houses. West said they could use cardinal directions to describe the setbacks. Maragni also asked about the interconnect facility and the possibility of using a parcel o n 96B. Mr. Norbut said they have not yet proposed or shown that because it is in development and they are looking at multiple ways of making that work. He said they intend to share where the interconnection will go as soon as they can. Maragni said she values the Danby hamlet a lot and it is interesting they do not have a plan for that yet. Mr. Norbut said dealing with the utility can be a lot of engineers and discussion, but he thought they were close. Maragni asked if he thought they would have more information on this in the next month, and Mr. Norbut said yes. Maragni also asked if these rows of big, tall poles were the only way to do it or if there were ways to minimize the visual impact. Mr. Norbut agreed you will see them from the road, there is no getting around that. Maragni suggested the Board could extend the public hearing to review the interconnect infrastructure or propose to the Town Board that they should l ook at this more closely and consider the aesthetic impact. Mr. Crane asked if Maragni was thinking of the picture (of a solar field interconnect facility in the Town of Dryden) in the Planner’s Memo for the meeting, and she said yes, adding she had seen some that were less impactful. West shared the photo, and Mr. Norbut said their 8 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES connection would not be like this. He said because they are not doing storage, they would have 12 fewer poles. Maragni said she was particularly concerned about the poles that would be right at 96B. Mr. Norbut said he hoped next meeting he could show what they were planning and the Board would be pleased. Mr. Norbut asked if they could close the public hearing as there were still multiple hearings to come. West said that the Planning Board’s next public hearing will be on subdivision and site plan, which will give it the opportunity to address things like the interconnection after the rezoning is in process. Maher asked when the Town Board would be reviewing SEQR and when they would have the opportunity to comment. West said the Town Board will start at their next meeting by declaring lead agency , which will open the comment period. When the Town Board takes up the rezoning, they will also adopt a general site plan; the final site plan will be reviewed by the Planning Board. West said, if the Board were to close the hearing, they could tell him what they want in a resolution for next meeting or they could send something now if they wanted to move faster. Bergman thought that once they close the public hearing, they will want to be ready with an opinion on the PDZ rezoning. West said they will have 45 days after closing the public hearing , which will include the Board’s next meeting. Maher said she was not ready to make points in a resolution yet. It was a lot of material to review. Two of her concerns were about the percentage of disturbance and what the access road means for future development. She said it was not clear how “disturbance” was defined, but it did not seem like it took into account the removal of trees and clear cutting for the installation of the array. She wanted to make sure the Town Board reviewed that with accurate numbers. In terms of the access road, the PDZ would be in place perpetually, beyond the use of the solar array. With the hamlet rezoning, the access road could set the area up for future development of properties, but she wondered what the lot lines along the road would mean for this. West said the Town is engaging Tompkins County Soil and Water for SEQR to review the SWPPP. They will be talking to them about the issues with clearing the site. It is complicated because solar panels are not considered to be impervious surfaces. Maher said she agreed with that in the long term but was more concerned about the interim. She also wanted to mak e sure they are legally reviewing it the right way. Russ Nitchman, the current property owner, said there are not that many acres of forest. There are 42 acres of warm-season grasses and 10-acres of food plots. There are some invasive shrubs like honeysuckle. He did not think Norbut Solar would be taking down more than 10 acres of trees. Mr. Norbut added that they take logs for firewood and furniture after cutting. MOTION: Close the public hearing and take some time to work on resolution to the Town Board Moved by Maragni, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor (5): Bergman, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Scriber Against (1): Richards The public hearing was closed at 8:45pm. 9 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES (6) PLANNING GROUP UPDATE – Review/Discuss previous planner recommendations Site Plan Review Committee This committee had not met since the last meeting of the Planning Board and had nothing to report. (7) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary