Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC 2023-08-09AAC 2023-08 -09 Approved Page 1 of 4 AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE August 09, 2023 In-Person Approved November 08, 2023 Present: Evan Carpenter (chair), Steve Foote, Kim LaMotte, Brian Magee Absent: Austin Beck Liaisons: Jason Leifer (Town Board) Staff: Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) The meeting was called to order at 7.40 p.m. Review and Approval of Minutes from July 12, 2023 On motion made by Steve Foote, seconded by Brian Magee, the minutes of July 12, 2023 were unanimously approved as written. Fires at Solar Sites E Carpenter asked J Leifer if any issues have been brought up to the Town Board regarding the solar projects that have been put in. J Leifer responded that the Town Board was notified by email of fires (three over two days) that occurred at the site on Stevenson Rd; Ray Burger is investigating. E Carpenter surmised that the cause of these fires may be an inverter box blowing up. J Leifer identified the ultimate cause of these fires as there not being ways for the fire department to get in, so that’s something that they have got to figure out. Thus far, this is a one-off, as the County Fire Coordinator has not heard of any other solar fires that have occurred in Tompkins County. There are also no NYS courses that have been developed to handle solar farm fires, whereas there are for residential solar fires. Last year, the Stevenson Rd site was sold to another company (Altus), which purchased all the solar sites that were operated by True Green . The Committee identified a lack of communication between these companies and the Town (to update its contacts) as another issue. J Leifer mentioned that the Town has had problems with the landscaping of these solar sites when they were owned by True Green, specifically that the trees that were planted did not take, as was the case at the Turkey Hill site. He added that the County is looking at its old dump as another potential solar site, but he doesn’t know at what stage they are at with that. Of interest to E Carpenter personally is landscaping. He questioned the reasoning behind putting blue spruce around a cell tower that is 200 ft tall; it will hide the fencing around the cell tower, but not the cell tower itself. Even so, blue spruce is placed around cell towers throughout the state. He related that the fires that he has been involved with have stemmed from issues with the inverter box. On his George Rd site, he dug out all the vegetation and put down fabric and wash stone in a 10 ft square beneath the box, so that if a buzzard gets electrocuted and comes down burning, it is not going to burn the pole up. If the vegetation is maintained (i.e., dry vegetation is removed), there should not be an issue. But access in there is another issue altogether. At the cemetery site, there are five different padlocks on the chain; NYSEG has one, the cell tower company has one, the owner of the property has one, E Carpenter has one, the solar company has one, and a landscaping outfit that uses the backside as a dump for its rubble has one. Whoever comes from the fire AAC 2023-08 -09 Approved Page 2 of 4 department will also need to have keys or combinations for any locks. E Carpenter noted that on another of his properties, he maintains two access roads. Discussion of Permitted Uses At the last meeting, the Committee discussed how the zoning laws have not been updated to match State Ag + Markets. This month, we were going to talk about the permitted uses by zoning district, as written on pages 34 -37 of Dryden’s Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan. Some members were perplexed as to why the consultant responsible for the Plan tied in automotive junkyards and towing services to ag (these are permitted in Rural Agricultural [RA] zones with a SUP). Did the consultant think that these were going to be, or had they been an issue in Dryden? Car washes are a permitted use in RA zones, but with water being an issue, it does not make any sense why you would put one in a place that goes off well water. Contractor yards are permitted in RA zones with a SUP. J Leifer knows that contractor yards will be discussed, as it is not in the current zoning and there has always been a problem when people want to bring things to those spots. Junkyards (permitted in RA zones with a SUP) are also problematic because of possible contamination through dripping oil. These are supposed to be regulated, but whether they are or not is another ballgame. It is unknown how many people actually inspect these yards. Page 34 of the Plan states: “These uses are industrial uses with the potential for soil and groundwater contamination. They can utilize large parcels of land better suited to agriculture. They should be removed as permitted uses in the RA and CV zoning districts, and limited to LIO and LIO-A light industrial zoning districts.” K LaMotte raised the question of whether the Committee wants to approach this through what to exclude or what could be included . What concerns E Carpenter is that the reasoning the Plan gives for some activities (e.g., car washes) is that it competes with agriculture for land use. Yet so does housing, and housing is permitted. Should we be getting involved in making rules about what we don’t want in the neighborhood or what we do want in the neighborhood. J Leifer responded that the Committee should state both what they want and what they don’t want, with accompanying reasons; otherwise, it will be just the Planning Board that will make all the calls. K LaMotte emphasized that everything could compete with agricultural land. Horse boarding is not listed as a permitted use, and obviously that needs to change. Farm market is not listed as a permitted use, and that needs to change. Another issue with regard to permitted uses is that there is no provision to allow for agricultural tourism in the Town. Farmworker housing is also missing. The Committee then began its review of the permitted land uses from Table 1, page 36, of the Plan. J Leifer clarified that if the group did not want something in ag, then they should say so by not permitting it (N). If they did want something or did not care, they should permit it fully (Y) or permit with a SUP (SUP). Auto salvage – SUP (unchanged). J Leifer noted that storage of vehicles is a separate issue. A way to regulate this would be through hours of operation. Boarding house – SUP (unchanged). A boarding house, according to Dryden zoning law, is defined as “any dwelling in which more than three persons, either individually or as families, are housed or lodged for hire with or without meals. A rooming house or a furnished rooming AAC 2023-08 -09 Approved Page 3 of 4 house shall be deemed a boarding house.” This is currently special use, as long as we can differentiate it from “farmworker housing.” Boards might apply “boarding house” to AirBnBs, but even so, people would have to register them with the Town. Campground – SUP (unchanged). J Leifer commented that there are state regulations around this. For example, one needs a permit to have a temporary campground. Car Wash – Y (unchanged) Contractor’s Yard – SUP (unchanged) Day Care Center – SUP (unchanged) Light Industry – SUP. S Foote offered that there is a lot of ag- or small businesses that would qualify as light industry, and so the current “N” status should be changed to “SUP.” The Plan states that “not permitting some form of light manufacturing in the RA zoning district may preclude small food processing and other types of light manufacturing that can boost farm viability. This issue could be addressed by adding a new land use category - Industry/Agriculture, defined in a manner to limit such enterprises in scale and types of products.” E Carpenter wondered whether Milk and Honey on Johnson Rd is considered light industry, as they are not processing their own milk, or an ag-related business. What exactly is the definition of “light industry?” Inn – SUP (unchanged). What the Town does not have is an agritourism category; once created, the “inn” would fall under that classification. Nursery/Greenhouse – Y (unchanged), with site plan approval, as these are considered to be on-farm buildings. Restaurant – SUP (unchanged), but this should be placed under Agritourism when that category is created. Service business – SUP (unchanged). Would a hairdresser on a side porch be considered a service business? What about someone doing books for the farm and for the neighbor as well? J Leifer responded that this requires an SUP because of how many people come in and out, which usually is not an issue at all. If someone wanted to locate such a business on a road that dead ends, residents would be most concerned about the volume of traffic that passes by. Dwelling, Multi -Family – SUP (unchanged). The big developments are going to go where there is water/sewer. Farmland adjacent to these development sites may be affected. Everything else is pretty much by special use permit, as it should be, until you look at anything that might be considered agritourism. The Committee agreed that what they have to tackle is Industry/Agriculture and Agritourism. J Leifer reported that the Town Board told the Planning Board to talk about cannabis because a lot of non-dispensary uses (e.g., processing) fall under ag use. A lot of cannabis is grown indoors, in “clean houses” that require a lot more lighting than what our zoning allows, so he would keep that in mind. The Rural Water Association report has also collected well water data from across the Town, so you know how good the well water is, how much is available in places, and that should be informative for development and zoning; you can’t do anything if you don’t have water. Next month, horse boarding down to farmworker housing will be discussed. AAC 2023-08 -09 Approved Page 4 of 4 There being no further business, on motion made by K LaMotte and seconded by B Magee, the meeting was adjourned at 9.04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparlin g Deputy Town Clerk