No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-03TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals Oct. 3, 2017 Members Present: Jeff Fearn (Chair), Ben Curtis, Gene German, Mike Ward, Henry Slater Absent: 0 Others Present: Ray Burger Director of Planning, Joy Foster, Recording Secretary, ZBA Attorney for the town, Khandikile Mvunga Sokoni (Khandi) from True, Walsh & Sokoni, LLP Attendees: Susan Reed, Art Berkey, Chris & Cathy Dilger, Susan LaCefte, Sarah Zemimk, Sarah & Joseph Osmeloski, Jane S. Reed, Janis Graham, J. Brad Whittemore, S.F. Riley, Elliot Wells, Amanda Hersey, Carrie Brindisi, Matthew Kozlewski, Chet Feldmann, Bharath Srinivasan, Holly Austin (spelling of names from sign -in sheet as can be read, some not written clearly) Auenda: area variances to enable it to construct large-scale solar energy systems within the 50 foot yard setback Meeting called to order at 7:08 PM The ZBA Board members,(Jeff, Ben, Gene, Mike & Henry) along with Ray & Joy left the room to go into executive session with town attorney. 7:29 PM ZBA Board re-entered the room to begin the hearing 7:30 PM Fearn reads the legal and opens the hearing PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of SUNS PDC LLC (c/o Distributed Sun LLQ for area variances to enable it to construct large-scale solar energv systems within the 50 foot yard setback required by Town Zoning Law Section 1312 F. 3. e. There are a total of 5 large-scale solar energv systems being constructed at 2150 Drvden Road and another 10 at Turkev Hill, Stevenson and Dodge Roads (collectively referred to as the Ellis Tract). Relief of up to 50 feet is being sought on portions of all lots. This action involves Tax parcels #38.-1-3.1, 56.-5-31. 57.-1-6, 57.-1-7.1, 67.4-3, 67.4-4, and 67.-1-7.2 SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesdav, October 3, 2017 at 7:00 pm prevailing time at the Dryden Town Hall, 93 East Main St. Dryden NY, at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The application for these variances is available for inspection at the Dryden Town Hall, 93 East Main St. Dryden NY. Individuals with visual, hearing or manual impairments and requiring assistance should contact the Town of Dryden at 607-844-8888 x 216 at least 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. d11 Town of Dryden Zoning Board Meeting Oct. 3, 2017 2150 Druden Rd & Ellis Tract- 7PM Name - {Please Print} S OL 7 a �l Hero►,," co, Address 7urkzwtl�,u la0-5--�r'Ilis Pa. Ald 6k eo it e. e; Loot S Cu"L�-r;- sfi.I I:+hcecq v (p \� U3, Wk--;-,C-t3 44W4, S5 Svv-d c (Ul it 1�4. 3qul '10V -Ke kAu Q I Town of Dryden Zoning Board Meeting Oct. 3, 2017 2150 Druden Rd & Ellis Tract- 7PM Name - {Please Print} Ll I (�j t 1 l/ / «� �,/ c,ir , ./q fir, , Address Fearn motions: that in light of the pending litigation that the board not to proceed with the public hearing on the application of the 2150 Dryden Road until the ligation is resolved and only to hear the requests for Ellis Tract. Second: Curtis All in favor - Yes 7:33 PM Opening for Ellis Tract: Applicant: Bharath shows a power point presentation, speaks about project. 8:07 PM Fearn motions: to open the public hearing Second: Curtis All in favor - Yes Comments from the audience: Joe Osmaloski, 2180 Dryden Rd., it's nice to see different faces this is my 11th time addressing public hearings mostly with the Planning and Town Board, nice to see a different group nice to talk to a different group. I want to start with its interesting to hear the representative for Distributed Sun talk about all the agencies that have signed off on this project, DEC, Army Corp of Engineers, Shippo etc... that's good but the most important group that has not signed off on this is the public, all the people that are right here tonight, they didn't sign off on it, every person that will be directly affected by these projects have come out against these projects. Frankly with this presentation tonight I did not hear one reason, not one good reason why this area variance should be granted. I think they are trying to say that it was "Hardship" . I think Distributed Sun has to claim some hardship to get these area variances and you know that's laughable for a multi-million dollar company to claim hardship, you want to hear what hardship is, hardship is if any of the people in this audience that their property values drop because of these projects, that's a hardship, if these people have trouble selling their properties because of these projects, that's a hardship, if Mrs. Reeds recognized view in Dryden if that disappears, that's a hardship. Those are the hardships we should be concerned with you should be concerned with the citizens hardships. Because you know what, in Dryden the citizens matter, not some multi-million dollar company that comes in and so far has steam rolled the Town Board and somewhat steamrolled the Planning Board. So you know if they are claiming hardship, I don't really care. I care about the citizens of Dryden the people whose property value will drop and they will have trouble selling their properties if this project comes in. Like I said I didn't hear one reason why you should grant these zoning variances. So Please don't do it. Thank you. Art Berkey, 1205 Ellis Hollow Rd. , good evening, I have lived here 27 years. The planning process that Bharath talks about has been a long time in the process. From the beginning they knew about the 50'setback The planning should of been done in the context of that. I will not repeat all of the things Joe just said, that I agree with. So given all that, there is no reason not to plan accordingly. I ask that you NOT grant the variances. Thank you. Susan Reed, 212 Turkey Hill Rd it's on the corner of Turkey Hill and Stevenson Rd., so when my father passed we owed tons of money for taxes so that left us to sell this piece of property that is where this project wants to go. So when I see where it says no adverse effector impact would occur. I say hmmm? Because when we had this land for sale the whole entire community was stopping at my house wondering who was going to be the buyer, because they loved that area, it's beautiful, we have glorious sunsets, we have over 100 bikers, we have over 100 joggers that go thru there, we have on an average 20-30 people who stop to take a picture of the sunset. So when I told the community that Cornell was the buyer, all were happy because it was going to be kept beautiful. Our biggest concern is if you do grant the 50 foot variance the fence is going to be right up there on the road. We have deer, we have turkeys, we have coyotes and they cross all the time. If you put that fence, the (shows) road is here it slopes down and it comes zip to a level field, if you put that fence on the top there will be no more view of the sunset, if you keep it back 200 feet you are still maintaining some beauty of the area and like Joe said, that whole view is a noted spot in Dryden. It's an emotional and mental impact, you are taking away a great reason to live in that area. Of course I worry about what it will do to my property value, be nice if I got a tax incentive but that's not going to be. So I really worry, I really worry, so please think about the community aspect and how it will affect our value. German: can you idents the area of where the problem with the fence would be? Ms. Reed shows on map where she is talking about. Bharath: shows Ms. Reed that the area offence around her house and road is more than 50' of setback, that's not the location we are asking for. The board says they recognize that and she is addressing the Board. Sarah Osmeloski: can you put up the Dodge Rd. map, Hi I'm Sarah Osmeloski and I'm here tonight to represent my parents Neil and Sally they live at 1171 Ellis Hollow Rd which is kitty corner to the junction of Dodge Rd and Ellis Hollow Rds, they have lived therefor 56 years they raised a family at that house and Dodge Rd has been an important part of their lives. They are dismayed by the industrial solar that is being purposed on Dodge Rd however they are willing to accept it. There is a proposal to cut down a bunch of trees along Dodge Rd there is a row of Norway Spruce that my parents dearly love. They understand that this company would like a variance to put solar panels within the 50'setbacks , they feel that would be ok as long as they were re -locating the proposed panels that would be interfered. If Distributed Sun was willing to take some panels from SI which would require the removal of these trees and put in within the 50'setback variance they would be happy with that. If the variance was granted because of just so Disturbed Sun could produce more than the allowed 2 -MW that is required by law, I just feel like that is Corporate Greed. So I'm asking the Zoning Board to consider saying OK if you remove some of the panels from this area here (shows on map) which is where the trees are that would shade the panels here , take those panels and move them up here so that these trees can remain as they are and not be cut down and left as stomps then they understand the reason for asking for a variance but if the variance is just for GREED, they ask that the Zoning Board deny the variances. Thank you. Hi my name is Carrie Brindisi and I live at 344 Turkey Hill Rd so my house is just to the south of S5 spot is. (shows on map) we are right here we are the only house that is directly adjacent to the S5 plot. You can see there is a little cut out there, so we actually met with Distributed Sun multiple times during the planning process they were very responsive to our requests and they pushed their boundary and put in that little cut out, because Bharath stood in my kitchen and looked when there were no leaves on the trees and saw that the 50 feet would come right up against our property line and so they pushed everything back. So I understand very clearly this variance pushing the edges of the internal edges of the plots is directly because they made some adjustments for land owners like myself and they made some movement for others boundaries as well. And I really appreciate it, I personally have, this has been a long process and a little bit painful for everybody, but after some hiccups we understand how valuable this project is and I personally am happy to see those boundaries in-between those internal boundaries making them tighter so that its pushed from land owners. So I'm in support of granting this. I don't see how it would impact anyone except for Sun8, I certainly don't understand everything but we have looked at the documents and we have no problem. That's all I have to say, Thank you. I'm Janis Graham and I live at 1150 Ellis Hollow and our land is on Dodge Rd as well we are on the corner. My 1st thing is that I really want to hear you guys discuss what the implementations of this variance would be, I don't know what they are but 1 just wonder if you could set a bar of fairness with this ruling and how would it apply elsewhere because 50 feet as Carrie realized is pretty close to your house so if you make a variance I would certainly hate to see someone's house have a array say 30 feet from their property. So myself and many of my neighbors on Dodge Rd. We have resisted this project in its entirely at first, but we came to accept that its likely to be sited there, I think a lot of us are still having a hard time making peace with all the trees that will be going and the designs are inconsistent with in some places its insufficient setback. Given that I wish the variance between the subdivided parcels were even smaller then maybe that would allow the whole project to be moved further from the road and result in fewer trees being cut down. I know this is a pipedream at this stage as I have been at all these hearings. So I'm not here to make up reasons why this variance regarding internal lot lines will produce a undesirable change to the neighborhood because I don't, given I have issues with the project but I feel this variance is not the issue. That being said I have sat here and I have a little hard time hearing the narrative about why they need it because if you look at the original site plan seems like even the very first , back in Feb. they never were planning on having 50 foot setbacks in the internal lot line, they always knew since back in 2014 when Cornell petitioned the public service commission that they always knew that they were going to have to have 3 separate parcels with 2 -MW on each they also always knew there were going to be 7 foot fences. So I just think that their argument is weak and maybe a little dissembling. I think they could of designed it to comply with the rules. I really have 2 minds like make it smaller to save more trees and push it back but at the same time they knew the rules. Sarah Zemimvk Director of Campus Sustainability at Cornell I would ask that you do grant the variance we believe this is the logical and optimal way out and minimize the footprint . Allows for larger setback I want to make sure you have received our letter of support from our Senior Director for Real Estate Department. (Board has letter and will be inserted) States that we agree to the layout and we have no objection to the modules, also just for a little background, she reads a quote from Dean ? (she fades in and out hard to hear all the time) "there are few institutions in the world that care more about farmland preservation then Cornell University. Cornell equal concern for 2017 is climate change and doing all that they can to enable sustainability on campus and communities. By 2035 they have a goal to be carbon mutual hope to have 100% of electricity needs from solar, the County and others have similar goals. (she is speaking too fast and too low to understand all she is saying)..... again I encourage you to grant the variance, Thank you. Ward to Sarah: does Cornell get credit for this solar program, meaning not buying but when you say. Sarah: Cornell is not purchasing any of the towers so we wouldn't get equality that way, we would be able to say we helped contribute to fuel generation. Fearn asks is there anyone else who would like to comment? (Insert Cornell letter next page) V 11 PJ J7 ®® Cornell University -i Real Estate Department September 27, 2017 Zoning Officer Town of Dryden 93 East Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 15 Thornwood Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 T.607.266.7866. F.607.266.7876 www.ipp.cornell.edu /real-estate RE: Area variance application for the Ellis Tract Community Solar Projects by Sun8 PDC, LLC Dear Mr. Burger, Cornell University agrees with the layout of the modules and fencing on the affected Cornell lands proposed in the application for 10 variance requests. Subject to easements. Cornell has no objection to the area variance being sought from other Cornell owned parcels that abut the parcels on which the solar arrays are proposed as shown in the Drawings Z101, Z-102, Z-103, & Z104 of the application. Sun8 PDC is aware of and has designed the proposed facilities around pre-existing easements on Cornell lands. Our proposed arrangements with Sun8 PDC for the property it will use are, of course, subject to easements of record and are unaffected by the variance relief sought. Sincer , �i ere y E. Thomas Se >ior Director Real Estate Department Diversity and Inclusion are a part of Cornell University's heritage. We are a recognized employer and educator valuing AA/EEO, Protected Veterans, and Individuals with Disabilities. Curtis motions to close the public part of the hearing 8:34 PM Second: Fern- Yes All in favor - Yes Fearn notes we have a letter from the County Planning dated Sept. 14, 2017 saying they have reviewed and determined that it has no negative inter -community or county -wide impacts. (Letter to be inserted next page ) Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ANIS SUST'AINABILI°TY 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Katherine Borgella, AICP Telephone (607) 274-5560 Interim Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability September 14, 2017 Mr. David Sprout, Code Enforcement Officer Town of Dryden 93 East Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 —1, -m and —n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Area Variances for proposed Ellis Tract large scale solar system, Town of Dryden Tax Parcel Nos, 56.-5-31, 57.4-6, 57.4-7.1, 67.4-3, 67.4-4,67.4-7.2, Cornell University, Owner; Sun8 PDC LLC, Appellant. Dear Mr. Sprout: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 —1, -m and —n of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter -community, or county -wide impacts. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Interim Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability Inclusion through Diversity Fearn to Director of Planning for Town of Dryden, Ray, is there any other comments or letters to add. There are none. Board to discuss German: I have one clarification in the presentation from the firm he mentions something about included with the lot line variances was a request for fence variances. I'm not clear. Do we have something, I don't recall seeing anything about this? Burger: The supplemental letters there are charts for each project area and one dealt with relief for the structures for the array path and the other was a chart for relief for the other, so it's broken down for specific relief for one for the larger solar structures and the second for the fences. Fearn : so if I counted correctly there are 18 variance requests for the varies modules NI - SS and there are 18 different requests for various fence locations. Slater to Burger: Is this an all or nothing, either we approve all or we approve none of them? Burger: no they are actually 10 different variance requests dealing with each specific lot. Slater: so we need to act on each lot individually? Twice? Burger: so the request for the arrays are broken down configured the way on each lot. If you want to look at the request you are looking at the charts for the number of relief requested and going along lot by lot. Slater: why did we only have one public hearing notice? Usually there is a notice for each and every request. Burger: so all the different parcels involved were laid out in the hearing notice so to keep the consistency these projects have always been processed as a group as in the Site Plan Review processed as a group, but there were 10 Special Use Permits issued for the Ellis Tract. There are 10 variance requests for the Ellis Tract. Curtis: that being said there is no reason we can't go thrir the 5 questions on a general basis. I don't think we need to go thru those questions twice. Khandi: because of the subdivision aspect of this these will be stand alone lots and arguably variance runs with the land so if one of those lots were to be sold off each of those lots needs to have a variance that is attached to that lot so those deliberations needs to go thru for each lot. Curtis: for instance Id ask you the one question where it asks is this self created? A question like that I think applies to the lots All, and another question is is the benefits to be achieved substantial? Now that may have different answers for different lots but its, I'd feel like an idiot going thru saying is this self created and then doing that 10 times. Khandi: I understand your concern on repetition but if there ever were to be a challenge on say just one lot, the court needs a finding for each lot. Slater: one last question can these variance be conditioned on this project only or do they have to remain in place for ever, if we grant them for each of these lots? Khandi: variances run with the land. Slater: so that setback is always going to be what we approve today, no matter what the use in the future? Burger: It can be specified as a setback for a solar structure, a solar company could come in and use the variance and you could restrict it to that type of structure. Slater: I want her opinion because she is the legal person. Khandi: Any variance can have conditions attached, so you certainly can attach conditions, but I do want you to understand that if you approve the variance for any of the lots it runs with the land. Slater: so if somebody wants to build two warehouses back to back against each lot in the future they could do that because they have a zero setback on that common lot? Ward & Curtis: no we have to designate that it's just for this project and just for this solar. Board has a discussion on the zoning always being this way, the setback is from the Solar law not the general buildings. Look in the 600 Section, board are all discussing back and forth. Slater disagrees. Board is all looking in the copy of the law. Ward to Fearn: so the applicant has applied specifically for this project, correct, the 10 lots. Fearn : they listed each specific lot for the Ellis Tract, whether north, south, east, or west. Lots of chatter form all the Board members talking to each other on different items. Can not follow all their conservations. Khandi: I just want to make sure the Board is clear that you can condition each for just solar. Fearn lets move along to see how this goes with the first question. A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Slater we should look at what the State says because I have it with me, Slater reads section on Zoning variance says that if an undesirable change to the neighborhood, the board must consider whether the conventional alteration being proposed will result in a structure or a configuration that will be serious out of place in the neighborhood. This is a case study vs. the appeals of the town of Hempstead, the appeals upheld a area variance that would of reduced the minimum lot size from 6000 feet to 4000 feet and would of reduced the required frontage from 55 to 40 feet the court held that the board of appeals could reasonably conclude the proposal would serious compromise the character of the neighborhood in which consistently overwhelming of the parcels met the minimum requirement. So in this case we should probably be looking at do all the other properties meet the minimum requirements for setbacks where there are owners of record I guess. Curtis: I think this is the only large scale solar in that neighborhood. Slater: well it's not the only use in that neighborhood. Curtis: the variance applies only to the section on large scale solar. Slater: mentions that the next one coming up on the agenda is the Carpenter Farm where they will be asking for the same relief. Fearn: let's just stick to this case now, and move on. Slater: well its important because we are going to set the standard for this. Curtis : I would take some issue with the idea that the applicant is trying to rational internal lot lines and other lot lines of adjacent properties. I thought as I looked at that ocean of solar arrays on A 38 that what it might look like if it were broken up in pieces where there were an extra 100 feet between arrays with 50 feet on either side, i thought that might differently change the appearance of it going beyond that to the other question on internal lot lines it's a strange idea that if I owned 4 lots along the road and I wanted to put up some rental duplexes and make some money that I could come in and say, don't pay any attention to the lot lines in-between because I own the property, only worry about the external lot lines, I don't think that's a line of reasoning I would like to see this board go down., to make a distinction between internal and external lot lines. I think there would be an undesirable change in drawing these arrays tightly together and creating this array of ground mounted units as opposed to having them with spaces in-between. Khandi: I just want to remind the board that the lead agency here is to the extent that you are worried about, concerning visual impact. The lead agency which is the Town Board has already made it a Neg. Dec.. Curtis: is that the same resolution that said this is contingent on our granting of the variances? Khandi: Yes and to the extent that you are concerned about visual impact that has been determined by lead agency the Town Board by which this Zoning Board is bound. Ward: well this is unused land and now we are going to put basically however many of acres of mirrors in that unused land, it's going to be different from its existing, so by definition it is undesirable for the land it may not be undesirable for the applicant but it's a huge change for that piece of land. Khandi: all I'm reminding you about is that the lead agency that is the Town Board they made a NEG DEC. and that's controlling. Curtis: questions if they (Zoning Board) is an involved agency ? He didn't think they were, wants to know what the coordination procedure was with the lead agent, how did they coordinate with the other involved agencies ? No one really has an answer for Curtis. Curtis: there should be coordination between involved agencies where you have a lead agent opposed to one, what I'm saying is that there were no coordination here, our board was never privy to any of that? Curtis is concerned that the Zoning board should not be cut off from deciding the detriment to the neighborhood by the lead agency when they (Zoning Board) was never included, feels like you are trying to lead the Zoning Board. German to Fearn: one of the things we need to consider the impact of allowing that variance, for example in the North group the way the lots are laid out it's not like we are pushing it all together for example between N3 and N4 their not asking for a variance and only a partial variance between N4 and N5 and if you look at the south there are only a few and the way its spread out the impact of the variance is almost insufficient. Board all talk about the ocean of solar panels vs. breaking it down into pieces with 100 foot spaces in-between. Visually there is a difference. Some undesirable change from granting the variance not from the solar array. Slater says the fire dept. thinks its a huge difference because they could never get any equipment in. Only could fit a pickup truck or Gator in, no ambulance if someone is hurt. N1 Array and Fence Some detrimental impact on the character of the neizhborhood, thouzh in this case of this lot NI that it would not be treat visuallv impacted by the additional solar arrays. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Slater All in favor - Yes Applicant: talks about the code for the fence, explains to board what the electrical code requires. Shows on PowerPoint. N1 Fence Move that the fence variance does not create an undesirable chanze to the character of the neikhborhood or detriment to nearbv properties, because fence is 6 feet tall and would not require setback at all and the additional 1 _foot is sim_vl_v a strand of wire above the fence and the visual impact of that is nezative. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Fearn All in favor - yes B. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Clearly there are other ways to achieve this outcome either by not subdividink the land at all or the applicant could acauire additional land or reduce the number ofnanels. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater- Yes All in favor - Yes The Fence Clearly there are other ways to achieve this outcome either by not subdividinjz the land at all or the applicant could acauire additional land or reduce the number of panels. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater- Yes All in favor - Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: YES, because at minimal its 33% and at max. its 100%. This is decision for Arrav and Fence. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater - Yes All in favor - Yes D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Slater: I talked to the Fire department as to what the environmental impacts could be and one was the emergency services. Former Chief Bell and Current Chief Hall says they were assured by the Dryden Code Officer that these were consistent with existing fire codes. But that is only true for the existing building on the property but if they had to respond internally anywhere to one of those existing buildings there would be no way to even get an ambulance in there, they could get their Gator or maybe a pickup truck between the fences and the arrays in some case. I asked if they had access to this and they said not that they are aware of,. So not sure how the planning has been on this for emergency response. Burger: there is an exception to the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code , that solar arrays are exempt from the building codes . The codes are for the buildings not where there are array fields. So there is access thru gates there will be lock boxes. Slater: says the Fire Dept. accepts it but they don't feel it's the best solution. Motion is for Array and Fence: By zrantin2 the variance you are zettin2 more denser solar arrays then you would having that 50 foot around boarder. Minor adverse, visual impact In havinjz the max. build out of arrays is not the most desirable situation -for emer-aenc_v services response, leaves little of no room to move about. Motion made by: Slater - Yes Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Motion is for Array and Fence Yes because bare land, town rules were known, and proiect was laid out and there were numbers of ways applicant could of taken to bring proposal into compliance. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater- Yes All in favor - Yes Board talks about SEAR, they have questions about it was granted that individual lot lines and setbacks are Type II exempt. What does individual lot line setbacks mean? The fact that this is a Type 1 have any impact on this determination? Are we an involved party or not? Is a SEAR even involved with us since its already been addressed by the lead agency? This is a coordinated process which it clearly was not coordinated. Fearn: this area variance is SEOR exempt type II action part 617.5c- 12 Motion made by: Fearn Second: Slater- Yes All in favor -German Yes Ward - Yes Curtis - Abstain Call for motion for NI Array and Fence decision Motion made by: Slater: based on finding noted above 1-5 which all seem to have a neeative responses I would move that we denv the variance. Discussion: Slater: I find it hard to approve and support poor planning from the get -go, rules were known and if this site wasn't going to work they had the option of looking for another site but instead decided to go forth with this site and hope that we would support it. German: I have a different position than Henry because I guess I would focus more on the issue of the specific variances that we are looking at, I don't necessarily agree that all of the activities that have taken place, but I think if we look at our responses on these different points, and I don't disagree with those but in my estimation there fairly minimal and I guess I would not vote in favor of this motion. Fearn: I look at it a little different, I'm sort of in-between, I had some thought for this and a couple of speakers did touch on it, if you look at the inter lot lines between NI and 2 and I sort of see where trying to minimize that distant might of been in reducing the impact on the land, but my issue is the lot lines that don't share common border like top ofN] or the East or West sides of certain lines that's where I feel the lines may of gotten too far and would be pushed out too much even though it may be Cornell property being used for grazing or something but we don't know what's planned for that in the future. The non common lots is where i see the issue with pushing the extent of the boundaries beyond 50 foot. Curtis: I understand Genes point and I agree that's what our finding are, there is some detriment and visual impact, not large but minimal. But I come back to the question of is there another way and is it self created, and that's giving me real problems. To me if you start with a blank ground and you know all the rules and then you come up with something that is deficient it doesn't meet the zoning law , I find it hard to juste and granting a variance in this case, just seems to me that there are other ways. Fearn to Burger: does the Town have plans to change any of these setbacks for solars ? Burger: there is a recognized need to amend the solar law, Town Board is in active discussion to that and a punch list to amend the solar law to reducing that 50 foot setback, following internal lot lines Curtis: in cluster subdivision one limitations is that you don't increase the density and what they want to do in this case is exactly that increase the number of arrays. Applicant: speaking too fast can't catch all, he is defending all the findings to the board. Fearn: we need to move on with this. Slater: poor planning German: you keep criticizing the planning I think you have to realize where we are in the process now and take that into consideration . What we are being asked to do is review a variance for these internal lot lines and not necessary criticize what happened before, this is what we are looking at, we have heard from the public lots of negative comments on the project, so I would argue with that. Curtis: the issue if self created, is really hard for me to get past. Just seems to be lots of other options. Motion: Slater - Yes Second: Ward- Yes Curtis -Yes German - No Fearn - No Fearn: so we have the Vote 3 - 2 to denv variance Applicant: with the motion to deny the variance, at this time we would like to withdraw our other requests. 10:12 PM Motion made by: Fearn to adjourn the meeting Second: Ward- Yes All in favor -German Yes Ward - Yes Curtis - Yes Respectfully submitted, Joy Foster, Recording Secretary 10-10-17 jmf