Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-14 10/14/2020 Dryden Agriculture Advisory Committee October 14, 2020 Members Present: Evan Carpenter (Chair), Brian Magee, Marie McRae, Kim Lamotte Absent: Steve Foote Liaison(s): Craig Schutt (Conservation Board), Loren Sparling (Town Board) Guest(s): Joe Osmeloski The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM. There was talk about who is retiring and who wants to stay on the board and possibly include Austin Beck in the committee. Marie and Kim’s terms are up this year. Kim wants to serve again; Marie will let us know. 2150 Dryden Road: E. Carpenter: I have been sharing with the committee most everything that Craig Anderson has been sending out. Does everyone understand what is going on down there with the solar project and what the concerns are? I understand but what I think is interesting is the 22 feet between the poles and guy-wire and the fact that they left 30 feet at the corner to come into that corner, there’s no room to get in. Do we feel like the poles are a given or are we still working for underground connection? The Planning Board and Conservation Board want it underground. Why does the Ag Committee have a say in this? Why is this on us? It was just asked for you guys to weigh in on your thoughts. There is an ag field behind where they would put the poles and access to that field is needed. So it comes back to Ag. E. Carpenter: Why are we arguing about a 5 acres field? The whole solar project is a 50 acre parcel of ag land that is becoming solar land. Why’re we arguing about the 5 acres that’s left over from that? Is anyone with a 30-foot field cultivator going to get in there and utilize that field? There are other uses for that field and for other parcels around and close to the solar field that the Ag Committee. Had this gotten brought up to the Ag Committee earlier in the process before plans got drawn up, we could have a little more say in it. Maybe this is a wakeup call to pay attention to future projects. 10/14/2020 The reason the Planning Board got so upset is because the project was approved one way and now the company is asking to do a revision of the special use permit. Originally, there was only supposed to be one line going across Virgil Creek and all the interconnections were supposed to be underground until it got to the road and then they would come up and go on the poles. Now they want to put 18 or 20 poles in the field with all of these guy-wires that are about 50 feet tall. The Planning Board is saying that it was approved one way, so lets keep it that way. When I went down there with the Planning Board, I asked the project manager if it could be done underground. His answer was yes but the company won’t do it because it’ll cost so much. It’s all dollars and cents. The original plan showed only one line going across Virgil Creek instead of three so there’s extra poles. There’s also extra cutting along the creek. That’s what made the Planning Board so upset. Will NYSEG let them do it underground? The answer that came from NYSEG is that they don’t stock the material to do it underground. They admitted it can be done but they just don’t have the right equipment. Well, they should get the equipment then. To me, the Town Board is in a position where they can make some demands to this company and NYSEG. They could do a stop work order on the project if they wanted to. They are in the driver’s seat. Craig, do you see the Ag Committees roll in this right now as a help of keeping their feet to the fire? I would certainly support the original plan of underground and keeping it as that, no special use permit. Are we being asked to do a resolution? C Schutt: If you wanted to, that’s what the Conservation Board did. We came up with a resolution saying that we are in support of what the Planning Board is recommending. Can we make use of that Conservation Board resolution? Sure, or you can do a simple resolution saying we are in support of the recommendations of both the Planning Board and Conservation Board. If you are going to say something, it needs to get to the Town Board by tomorrow night. L. Sparling: It will be passed along. As the liaison, I will make sure that the input of the AG Committee is incorporated. I think the Planning Board was involved because of the development and wanted to include the Conservation Board because of Virgil Creek, and the Ag committee because of the farmland so it’s vested interest in all committees. If you wanted to write up a resolution like the Conservation Board did, you can but it’s not required because I will make sure your comments get passed along. Item one of the Planning Board’s recommendations include the overhead interconnection is an unnecessary blemish on the landscape. I find that difficult to say because you can’t see the field from the road. You’ll just see those poles because they’re so tall. 10/14/2020 Well, all of the supporting photographs were taken in the summer and were soon to lose the leaves. After the leaves fall, it’ll be more visible. Evan: Most people drive by and they don’t even notice the field. How much ag land is going to be different between whether the interconnection is above ground or underground? As far as ag land goes, are we gaining anything? I would think you might because there won’t be guy-wires going out into the field. I can’t say that for certain. As far as the equipment for the interconnection that NYSEG doesn’t keep, are they going to have to build a bunker to put that stuff into? What does that involve? Putting all of the switches and meters underground? We don’t know. Questions have been asked and NYSEG or True Green will answer them. M. McRae: Evan, I don’t know what you were trying to get at with your question. If you are looking at getting more land not covered by interconnection, that is great but are you not going to support a resolution if it doesn’t increase farmland? E. Carpenter: I was just asking if we were gaining farmland by putting it underground or will we lose farmland? We still need to have underground room for all of this hardware to go into. They don’t have tall poles in NYC for all interconnections, but they take up a lot for space in the basements. There is heat that is generated by them, will it require ventilation stacks coming up above ground? I’m just asking if we are gaining anything. Who owns the land? Scott Pinney from Lansing. I will say that National Grid does some of their connections underground. Maybe they can loan NYSEG the equipment. I asked them if they could go under Virgil Creek and he said that they could, and it has been done before. I still don’t know why we should be involved in this decision. It’s a tiny little field and the owner probably doesn’t have any interest in farming. So, all we have to worry about is little poles sticking up? J. Osmeloski: If they put all of the poles in there you will lose a ton of Ag land. The way the poles will be arrayed, it’s going to be almost impossible to get into the field with farm equipment. Between the guy-wires that Craig measured at your (Evan) place to be 22 feet in each direction separated by 30 feet that leaves 8 feet to get around those poles. The access to the field would be almost impossible. If it goes underground, you will not lose the amount of Ag land that you will lose if it is above ground. The bottom line is, any prime farmland is to be 10/14/2020 protected. They’ve already taken prime farmland and now we’re looking at them taking more farmland. And if you read Ag and Markets recommendations for solar, any protection of farmland is to be encouraged. Going away from Ag for a minute; as a resident of Dryden, I don’t like being lied to. Bharath originally told us that everything would be underground. We have that on record. The new people are saying that NYSEG can’t put it underground. If they can’t put it underground, Bharath must have known this and lied. If Bharath isn’t lying and it can go underground, then the new group is lying. I don’t like being lied to and will not accept it. I don’t trust this group at all in the environmental factors that will occur when they go over Virgil Creek which is a major trout spawning stream. I know this is the Ag Committee and you’re supposed to be dealing with ag issues. I’m sorry but it is ag land and whether it is being farmed or not, I don’t care. It is still ag land and can be farmed in the future. If these poles go in, it is going to make it hard to farm and you will lose prime farmland. I can’t see why the Ag Committee would not go along with the Planning Board, Conservation Board, and DRAC who handed in a letter saying that they support the underground interconnection. It is unacceptable that we went through three court hearings based on this plan being underground. For this company to come along saying they can’t do it underground, whether it is money related or not, is unacceptable. In my opinion, the Ag Committee should definitely support the two resolutions that passed unanimously. I do not even understand how we got here. If the original plans showed it above ground, I would be fine with it. But that is not the case. B. Magee: I believe they are trying to see how much money that can save. M. McRae: A question I asked Craig Anderson, but didn’t get an answer to, is at the juncture of setting up interconnection, does NYSEG hold all of the cards? Can NYSEG say yes, we get 50 foot poles or no, we go underground? I would like to know the answer to that. If other projects got approved with underground wiring and somehow NYSEG came in and said they can’t do it underground, we have to do poles. Then that seems backwards to me. That is why they came back and asked to have the special use permit changed. It did not match the approval. That’s how the Planning Board got involved with it again. It’s not clear to me if what NYSEG was saying is we have to have this on poles or if it was the company saying we don’t want to pay for underground so let’s go with the poles. E. Carpenter: I was under the impression that it was NYSEG. J. Osmeloski: As someone as cynical as myself, until I see something official from NYSEG saying that either they have to go above ground, underground, or either, I’m not willing to believe anyone. I want to see it officially from NYSEG. L. Sparling: I was going through the documents posted on the Town of Dryden website. Buried in there is a document intitled 2150 Dryden Road Solar NYSEG Utility Requirements, which looks like an email between NYSEG to Noah Siegel of True Green. It says that it is not part of their standard equipment to go underground, however, that’s when nonstandard equipment 10/14/2020 will be used, trained workers, money and time. Then they make a leap forward saying that True Green must do poles. That’s the disconnect. Resolution and recommendations to the Town Board of the Town of Dryden from the Agriculture Advisory Committee on the proposed SUP for the interconnections for the 2150 Dryden Road Solar Project WHEREAS: The Agriculture Advisory Committee has reviewed the interconnect plans for 2150 Dryden Road Solar Project and the resolutions of the Planning Board and Conservation Board with respect to the project, now therefore be it Resolved that the Agriculture Advisory Committee agrees with the findings and recommendations of the Planning Board and Conservation Board and urges the Town Board to take these resolutions into consideration in their deliberations. Moved by M. McRae, seconded by B. Magee E. Carpenter Yes B. Magee Yes M. McRae Yes K. LaMotte Abstained On motion made by K. Lamotte, seconded by M. McRae, the meeting was adjourned at 8:28PM. Respectfully submitted, Emily Banwell Deputy Clerk