No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-22PB 7-22-21 1 TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 22, 2021 Present: John Kiefer, Chair, Craig Anderson, Tony Salerno, Daniel Bussmann, Joe Wilson, Alice Green (alternate), Simon St Laurent (alternate) Absent: Linda Wagenet Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director Liaisons: Dan Lamb (Town Board), Loren Sparling (Town Board), Craig Schutt (Conservation Board) Chair John Kiefer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Approval Of Minutes Alice Green moved that the minutes of June 24, 2021 be approved, seconded by Daniel Bussmann – all in favor. Coordination with Town Board D Lamb said they had a discussion about the resolution that the Planning Board brought to the Town Board’s attention that was passed in 2019 regarding support to the Planning Department. The board needs to keep them in mind when thinking about the new budget cycle. If anyone has specific recommendations on how to help the Planning Department do their job better, the Town Board would be open to that. Comments: • J Kiefer says it’s not hard to find code violations just driving around town. Even on newer projects. It’s demoralizing for the Planning Board to see this happen. • We need more staffing. • Things will show up at sites that wasn’t on the site plan review. • We are hoping we can develop an inventory of code violations around town so we know how big this nut is that we are trying to crack. • C Anderson says Ray indicated that he doesn’t have any kind of legal backing or support to go after these people that are violating. That is why we thought a reserve fund set aside to pay an attorney to write up a stop work order would be a good idea to help fund Ray going after these people. • D Lamb is wondering if any other municipalities have done this. • We just got rid of a contractor yard on Route 13 and it just moved two miles down the road. • Some of this is our own fault for not following through. • These things need to be done if we are going to try to be progressive and change things. PB 7-22-21 2 • There was an addition made on a house in a very prominent neighborhood and the homeowner said “no one in Dryden gets a building permit”. • When legal questions come up, it is my instinct that it should be answered by the town attorney. I don’t know that there is a protocol in place for this. • In the past, Jason Leifer asked John Kiefer if he thinks he needs the town attorney at the Planning Board meetings, and he didn’t think it was needed. • The Conservation Board is frustrated seeing properties around town where a SWPPP isn’t being followed. We sent a resolution to the Town Board and Ray asking for an accounting on these places. It was never responded to. • To not see the follow through is more than demoralizing it is infuriating for those who care about it deeply. • It’s hard to cover a big town without adequate staffing. • How much would we need to appropriate in this incoming cycle? We could use advice on that. • This is not how a town should be behaving. Circling back to the resolution passed in 2019, we were talking about establishing a legal reserve fund in the budget process to accumulate funds. We would not necessarily capitalize this fund but we could direct the fines into the fund? It could have input as well as output. If the money wasn’t spent, it would sit there until it could be. T Salerno thinks it should come out of our capital expenditures. If you’re going to have laws, you need to enforce them and fine the violators. It’s partially funded with revenue they would get from fines but what you don’t want to create is a quota system in which you have to achieve in order to pay for it. Fines that are collected by the court are distributed based on the law they were written under. There’s going to be a difference on distribution. A Green: It seems like you’re (R Burger) saying that you and your staff don’t have enough time to do the level of enforcement or analysis of what the violations might be around town. Who would do this? We need to do research on what best practices are so we’re not reinventing the wheel. R Burger responded by saying that they prioritize constantly and there are a few appearance tickets that will play out soon. They will get some feedback on this. We have mechanisms in place. C Anderson said that some of this is internal because R Burger knows the rules and he seems to drift from the rules. He gave a temporary use permit for a contractors yard, and we don’t have such a thing. Then he let them keep operating and moved down the street. Those are self-inflicted wounds. He went on to list several code violations in the Town of Dryden. J Wilson: One thing I noticed at the Town Board meeting last Thursday is many people got up very angry to talk about the lack of screening around the solar field at 2150 Dryden Road and that’s not even what they were talking about—they were talking about the Rail Trail. It appears to me that while it may be demoralizing to us to think we set up this plan and it’s not being enforced, but the anger level among the citizens is pretty high. And given that was a controversial installation at the time to not see the follow through just open old wounds. Whoever’s issue it is to do these things, they really do need to PB 7-22-21 3 be done. If we’re going to be progressive and change things, change is difficult for many when it affects us and then not seeing the follow through is infuriating. R Burger says its being followed through, it’s just painfully slow. Do we use bonding? Yes, it’s routine with cell tower permits and solar projects. R Burger is going to think ahead to budget season for what he thinks would be adequate resources to meet the goals we’ve been talking about. The board will discuss this further when it’s budget season and what would be an adequate ask this time around. Rail Trail Bridge C Anderson asked why the Planning Board hasn’t been involved in this. D Lamb says it doesn’t require an application to go through the Planning Board. J Wilson said he was wondering the same thing and reflected on it and thought what would trigger the formal involvement of the Planning Board. C Anderson said he’s not looking for anything formal, he just thinks the Planning Board could have an input on health and safety, or the placement of the trail. He’s interested to see what other people think about it. C Anderson asked why it’s going through the middle of the only industrial park we have in the town. If you put it there and build it out you will slow the build out of the industrial area. D Lamb said nothing can be built on an easement. The town owns the underground rights to the railroad bed so nothing is going to be built on the railroad bed. The feedback from some consultations we’ve had so far is a future business at the Brown Dog location would want the trail for the benefit of their employees. I don’t think I agree with that. C Anderson said so anytime you bring a new business into the park you’re going to have to mitigate a pedestrian trail through there so you’re going to limit some of the truck traffic. That’s my concern. People are going to get off that trail and Hall Road is going to be the perfect spot to go to the gas station and there’s quite a bit of truck traffic through there. I hope you consider that in the plans. 2020 Stretch Code J Kiefer: I think as everyone knows now, the Town Board passed the stretch code then received notice from NYSERDA that a piece of the stretch code could not be authorized through the processed we used with ERVs and offering options for that. In the ensuing dialogue, another piece that was written into the Planning Board’s recommendations to the Town Board stating that we all expected that the stretch code would become part of the 2023 state energy code and that what we were recommending basically would happen anyway just a couple years down the road. NYSERDA is backing away from that. They never intended for that to happen. I hope we can get a handle on this. A Green: I want to start off by saying thank you J Kiefer for the deep dive you did in helping us look at the benefits of the stretch code. When we passed our resolution as a Planning Board I was really influenced by the work that you did demonstrating the benefits of the 2020 stretch code. I wanted to point out that the resolution we passed said substantial elements of the stretch code are PB 7-22-21 4 intended to be incorporated. The slide that came to us said will approximately match. I didn’t take the latest statement from NYSERDA that it won’t be exactly the next iteration of the state stretch code. It will not be exactly 2020 stretch code. In fact I spoke to some people from NYSERDA today and they said right now the usual pattern has been for NYS to adopt the latest addition of the International Energy Conservation Code. They are looking at the International Energy Conservation Code 2021 and stretch 2020. We will be moving forward with recommendations for the general code. Something that is best out of both of those. I don’t feel there is a big contradiction on what is intended next. I was assured by two different people from NYSERDA that they plan and hope that the standards will continue to progress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change in a way that helps all municipalities in NYS to meet the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. It’s not the case that there will be any diminution in the performance standards in the next cycle of NYS energy code. On the matter of the mechanical ventilation unit that was required in the iteration of stretch that we passed, the history folks have heard is recently a couple municipalities who passed stretch code earlier than we did went to the Department of State to make their filings and the Department of State identified this discrepancy between uniform code and stretch code. Department of State was involved on the committee who developed stretch so it was apparently an error on the department of state’s side to not point out the discrepancy. Their job was to identify that and they didn’t. I was thinking about that mistake and the way things operated in terms of communication throughout the pandemic. A lot of mistakes happened. I can understand that no agencies were operating at their best capacity during this period of time. What I want to say today is I still believe all the things we said in our resolution about the benefits of NY stretch. Even minus the mechanical ventilation requirements, it still will operate to help us have better and more efficient buildings in our town. That means more comfort for our residents, healthier situations for our residents to live and work in and without that ventilation requirement, which was the most expensive, the cost benefit analysis is better for stretch because it will cost less to achieve the goals of stretch than it did before. Although this is an unfortunate discrepancy that got identified I still think the overall spirit of stretch is one we should be proud of to recommend to the town board. I would like to make a motion recommending on behalf of the Planning Board to the Town Board we should sever the mechanical ventilation requirement from NYS stretch 2020 and the town should proceed with enacting the provisions that were already approved. J Wilson-2nd. Comments C Anderson’s sources say the violations in the stretch code came from private business calling out the stretch code. The state didn’t point out the discrepancies. You can adopt a code and someone will challenge it. They’ll say it’s in violation of mechanical code. I understand there’s more than one in the stretch code in violations. An example would be the electrical code. They’re requiring a conduit from the panel to the parking lot has nothing to do with saving energy at the house. That’s an electrical code issue which is easily challenged in the residential code. If we take the stance well probably go down the rabbit hole again and 3 months from now they’re going to say it’s still a violation. And who knows what in the commercial code because that was never talked about. My head is going why repeal this thing? Give it to the state with a nice note from a lawyer saying we did everything we were supposed to do, we adopted this code, you guys find mistakes and bring it back to us and well cancel it. Meanwhile we want our grants and we want to participate in the climate smart program. I don’t think this is the only issue that’s wrong with the code. Until we get that we will continue to this. By next July we could adopt the 2021 code. The stretch code would get voided anyway. My recommendation to the Town Board would be to not resend this. By adopting the stretch code, you’re entitled to the grants now. I would also tell PB 7-22-21 5 Ray not to enforce these because who knows what else is in there is a discrepancy they haven’t caught yet. A Green says she didn’t know we had the luxury of what you’re saying. I thought we had to pass it and file it with the state. And we wouldn’t be eligible for the grant unless we did so. They didn’t turn us down. They just sent us back the next steps we should take. C Anderson: Dryden doesn’t have a lot of money to hire a code specialist. We should let other municipalities find out first so were not the first. S St Laurent: We were just talking about how we don’t have an attorney. I think what we’re recommending is not so much the legal details but the yes we think this is a good idea. It’s cool and might be great. Attorneys might think it’s great but from my perspective that’s not our problem. J Wilson: Pass it but don’t enforce it? That’s a problem with me. I’ve been reading and have been on more than one call with NYSERDA. There’s apparently an ongoing analysis. Something called errata identification and publication. I got from that that this is an ongoing dialog partly between the State Department and NYSERDA but also between the staff and the code enforcement officers that as problems arise, code enforcement officers who are enforcing a code that it needs to change. This happens all the time. It wouldn’t be any different for codes to pass at a state level or municipal level and then this dialogue goes on about what can be enforced. So it makes me uncomfortable with the notion of saying let’s recommend adoption of a code, but not enforce it. C Anderson reminded him that it has already been adopted. J Wilson: I think that what the state agencies are saying to us is one option is to sever the air exchange requirement then go forward with it. For the benefits we’ve identified, we shouldn’t be in a place where we tell contractors that this is what’s now in place, but this is what we enforce. And by the way you don’t have to insert the air handler which was such a focal point in our discussions. Its too expensive, it changes the cost benefit analysis. Now it could be gone. That’s an expectation of the way a municipality should respond. That’s why I seconded the motion. T Salerno: The overview letter NYSERDA sent was less than helpful. It really didn’t go into detail what the conflicts were. My concern is they found one conflict, are there more? I’m not as worried now about what will be rolled into the 2021 code because I didn’t think everything would be adopted. They did make it sound like the vast majority would. The question I have is because they kicked it back to us does that mean we can pick and choose what we can enforce, or can we not enforce it at all? We cannot enforce it all, which is the thing I like about the severability option. Assuming it’s the only thing that needs to be severed, it allows you to enforce parts of it, not the things in conflict. I question if we have a clear view about what’s in conflict, is it just the ERV HRV piece or is there more? A Green: I wasn’t satisfied with that letter, but I wanted to pass it on to folks because I want to be transparent. What I was hearing today from the second person I talked to, was that they are still preparing their guidance. They were surprised that they hadn’t heard more direction from the Department of State sooner that this was a conflict. The person I talked to from the statewide manager for energy code office they said if you wish to wait for more guidance, go ahead. From her point of view the severability that is severing the mechanical ventilation is probably going to do it, but no one is making that promise. She gave me examples of errors that are found every time these energy codes are reconciled. There will always be some error or technology that’s found. As far as I can tell the main issue PB 7-22-21 6 is the mechanical ventilation unit. This is a new process offering municipalities to move faster on greenhouse gas reduction. J Kiefer: I was angry when I read the initial email. I thought “you guys are supposed to be the experts”. We don’t have the tools to figure this stuff out. This board has spent an enormous amount of time on this. We look to NYSERDA who are supposed to be the experts and quite frankly, we see incompetence. Maybe not deceit but definitely incompetence. My first thought was to just quit. I didn’t want anything more to do with this, its ridiculous, you’ve wasted our time, and I’m angry. I calmed down and started thinking so I looked at the requirements for different things and revisited my thought process back then and thought these things are not that difficult to do. One thing that was troubling to me had to do with the energy recovery ventilator which I thought made sense in a big building or house but I never thought it made sense in a small house. I sure wish NYSERDA would get their act together. If there’s some way Dryden could make this make sense, then we should do it. By embracing this solution, we continue to let NYSERDA be incompetent. They will continue behaving the same way. As it stands right now, nothing in it can be enforced. We have two choices, sever or petition to keep the ERV’s. If we kicked this to the Town Board it would be taken up as soon as possible. We could call for it at the August meeting and have the public hearing at the September meeting. T Salerno thanked A Green for all the work she has done, he just has a lot of questions and didn’t think NYSERDA answers them well. If the adoption happens in September, we could possibly start implementing by November. Green-Yes Wilson-Yes Anderson-No Bussmann-Yes Salerno-Yes St Laurent-Yes Kiefer-Yes Comp Plan Update Draft #2 was distributed last Monday. The intent was all the comments sent, were going to be updated. As we discussed last month, EDR would like comments from us by August 4th. Then we have a steering committee meeting on August 11th where they would have processed our comments and our goal is to leave the meeting with a draft that we’re ready to put on the streets. C Anderson: Some of my comments didn’t make it in the draft even as a suggestion. Some of them are valid such as they list a green building code. There isn’t such thing as a green building code in the state of New York. Another suggestion I made was they reference the stretch energy code saying that it proved 10% savings. I said to delete the 10% savings because every time the stretch code comes up its going to be a different percentage. Many comments I made got ignored. What’s the process of this? Who’s getting ahold of this and making the changes? Should we meet prior to the meeting to discuss these changes that aren’t being addressed? The board set a meeting for August 4 at 7 PM in the PB 7-22-21 7 Barbara Caldwell Room. Changes that have been made, conflicts on comments, and more will be discussed. Getting the correct text and formatting should be a top priority. The board members are going to send out a list of their personal comments and recommendations on the draft by August 1st so they are prepared for the August 4th special meeting. At that special meeting they will put together a list of comments to have prepared for the August 11th meeting. Solar Field Fires C Anderson asked R Burger if he knew the cause of the two fires that broke out at two different solar fields. R Burger does not know the cause of the fire but will try to contact the electricians to get some answers. The electrician on Stevens Road told C Anderson it was probably stray voltage. Two feet of gravel would ensure vegetation doesn’t grow around the pole. That way if we have another fire, it won’t turn into a brush fire and take off like that last one did. Mill Creek Subdivision Mill Creek subdivision has a lot at end of Sherbore Drive that had a very tight building envelope near the road. The owner found a good site toward the back where there is a dry spot, and our intent was to protect the wetlands. They would like to bring back a plat amendment. R Burger sees it as running through a sketch preliminary and final with this board. He doesn’t know how quickly they will get an application in but will forward it once he gets it. NYSEG Greenhouse The lease has run out and now NYSEG is forcing them to move off the property, so they are trying to find a place to relocate. We have a cannabis industry that’s getting new regs. Some communities are embracing this, some are taking different positions. R Burger is asking everyone to think of where the greenhouse can go to. The entire greenhouse as a structure would get moved. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Transcribed by Emily Banwell From: Sgroi, Christopher V (NYSERDA) <Christopher.Sgroi@nyserda.ny.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 4:14 PM To: Alice Green <AGreen@dryden.ny.us> Cc: Dryden Town Supervisor Jason Leifer <supervisor@dryden.ny.us>; Ray Burger <rburger@dryden.ny.us>; John Kiefer <jak14@cornell.edu>; Deputy Supervisor, Dan Lamb <danlamb1989@gmail.com>; Joe Wilson <wilson.joe79@gmail.com> Subject: RE: List for NYSERDA communications and question All, I am happy to provide any assistance I can, so please keep my posted as needed. With respect to your question, I can say that there are no plans to recommend the Code Council adopt NYStretch-2020 as the state energy code at any point in the future. To follow-up on my to-do list from today: • Representatives from Dryden that Lou has included on at least some to date communications: Alice Green, Joe Wilson, Bambi Avery, Shelley Knickerbocker. I will ensure this group is on all communications going forward. • Other municipalities in Tompkins County considering adoption (that we are aware of): Town of Caroline, City of Ithaca, Town of Newfield. Municipalities we’ve worked with but do not appear interested in adoption: Town of Enfield, Village of Lansing, Town of Ulysses. • For those that haven’t seen it, this is our messaging on the mechanical ventilation conflict that exists between NYStretch-2020 and the Residential Code of New York State: Article 18 of the Executive Law provides that the provisions of the Uniform Code supersede any other provision of a general, special or local law, ordinance, administrative code, rule or regulation that is inconsistent or in conflict with the Uniform Code. Therefore, any provision in the NYStretch-2020 supplement that is inconsistent or in conflict with any provision in the Uniform Code is superseded by the provision in the Uniform Code. Conflicting requirements between changes to the Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State-2020 (ECCCNYS-2020) made by the NYStretch Energy Code-2020 (NYStretch-2020) supplement and the corresponding standard for construction in the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (Uniform Code) have come to the attention of NYSERDA and NYS Department of State staff. For example, NYStretch-2020, Section R403.6.2 requires the use of an HRV or ERV system in Climate Zones 5 and 6, and any balanced ventilation solution in Climate Zone 4, to satisfy mechanical ventilation requirements in new construction. However, the 2020 Residential Code of New York State (2020 RCNYS), Section M1505.4.1, allows for ventilation to be provided through the use of either exhaust only, supply only, or a balanced combination of the two. Please be advised, in addition to filing local energy codes with the State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council (the Code Council) pursuant to Energy Law §11-109, adopting more restrictive local standards for construction to the Uniform Code (MRLS) are subject to a Notice and Petition for approval by the Code Council pursuant to Executive Law §379. For more information, and the requisite forms to file with the Code Council, see https://dos.ny.gov/state- fire-prevention-and-building-code-council/#more-restrictive-local-standards. Municipalities that adopted the NYStretch-2020 supplement, or are considering its adoption, should consult with their municipal attorney on filing a Notice and Petition for approval by the Code Council with respect to NYStretch-2020, Section R403.6.2, as it conflicts with the 2020 RCNYS, Section M1505.4.1. Alternatively, municipalities may sever Section R403.6.2 from local adoption of NYStretch-2020, while still retaining eligibility for the Clean Energy Communities Leadership Round, NYStretch Energy Code High Impact Action. Ultimately, the Authority Having Jurisdiction determines the enforceability of the local law. Municipalities should consult with their municipal attorney when adopting local laws and ordinances and with their code enforcement officials with respect to the Uniform Code and NYS Energy Conservation Construction Code. Chris