Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-05TB 10 -5 -06 TOWN OF DRYDEN SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING October S, 2006 Present: Supv Steven Trumbull, Cl Stephen Stelick, Jr, Cl Martin Christofferson, Cl Daniel Tier III, Cl Mary Ann Sumner Elected Officials: Bambi L. Hollenbeck, Town Clerk Other Town Staff: Mahlon R. Perkins, Town Attorney Henry Slater, Zoning Officer Dan Kwasnowski, Environmental Planner Supv Trumbull opened the meeting and public hearing at 7:00 p.m. and led board members and audience in the pledge of allegiance. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING THE RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES LAW OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN Environmental Planner Dan Kwasnowski provided board members with packets that included the correspondence and comments received in the course of developing the proposed local law, together with pertinent minutes from the Conservation and Planning Boards. The entire process covered about one year with six months of active policy development. During the process there were meetings of various boards, a public workshop and numerous articles appeared in the local newspapers. There were two tours of local residential wind turbines and solar installations and involved all three boards. He said this public hearing is a cuhnination of a very significant: public participation effort. In addition to soliciting comment on the law, they wanted to provide information for people who wanted to do this. The Town Board has been committed to pursuing a law that allows residential wind installations. He said he felt this was a very pluralistic process and he believes it turned out pretty well balanced for the Town for a start. The idea is to get some installed so that people can see what the real impacts are or aren't. Simon St Laurent, 1259 Dryden Road, said he was surprised to find out when Cornell University wanted to install wind turbines on Mt Pleasant that the Town of Dryden considered 0 all wind mills and renewable energy sources to be illegal. For a wide variety of reasons he thought that was unreasonable, though he shares concerns about industrial wind farms. He said he thinks this law is a big first step and it addresses the concerns he had and said it is reasonable to allow small turbines for household use. He congratulated the board on their efforts to balance the concerns that were expressed over the past couple of years with the large - scale wind farm with the very rational desire for people to have their own self- sufficient energy so u rce. Ron Szymanski, resident of the Town of Dryden and President of a group called Town of Dryden Faces for Wind, said he is an advocate for wind power in the town, New York State Community Wind Project developer and a farmer. He presented a letter to the Board (attached to these minutes). ' R Szymanski said there is a wind resource in the Town of Dryden that would support large turbines. An acre of land on Mt Pleasant would support a turbine as much as 1500 lcw. The Town's proposed law only allows a 1.0 kw turbine and he said that is less than 1% of the Page 1 of 21 1C13 10 -5 -06 opportunity and limits the available potential. The NYSERDA program gives farmers the ® opportunity for 70% funding of a 125 kwF project under the small wind turbine standards and the law as proposed prohibits him from taking advantage of that opportunity. This puts agriculture in the town at a disadvantage and without access to available funds. If the law is passed it will cause damages to him and the business plan that he has developed. He said he is a developer and knows the industry. The projects won't get built without a developer involved. He challenges anyone who supports the lace to bring in a developer that would develop wind turbines. There is one person in the town who has already invested some money that will build one turbine, and he wonders whether anyone else will. He said 10 kw will barely support enough power to power a home. He said this is not substantial and to argue that this is a law that promotes wind turbines is an exaggeration. This law will restrict wind turbines and renewable energy and his experience is that there may be a handful of turbines constructed. He estimates there may be as much as 30 to 50 megawatts of potential in the town and much less than one percent of that will be developed if the law is passed. R Szymanski said there are people who want no development and people like himself who would like to take advantage of economic and environment opportunities and develop them to the greatest extent. There is a lot of entrepreneurship in this Town and this energy industry could mean a great deal of economics. The 30 to 50 megawatt potential could mean a capital investment in the'i'own of 45 million dollars because the projects are capitally intensive. Developers will not come with this law in place. NYSERDA will not fund a project: without a developer. He offered his services in developing an alternative law that will meet the needs of people who are interested in developing the industry. Steve Crawford said he has been a resident for .11 years and has been involved in the home building industry for seven years and with the green building initiative for sir years, ® working specifically with NYSERDA on some projects. He said there are excellent opportunities through small scale wind, medium scale wind and small scale hydro electric projects in the Town to generate enough power to where we are not funding overseas and can do something about that. He appreciates the efforts of the board and is in support of the individual being able to put up wind turbines or other methods of generating electricity. He said if there is a choice between a limiting document and one that provides guidance and direction as far as what is important for the Town and in keeping the Town quaint and the value that it currently has, he would prefer the latter. There is funding available from investors, and he said he doesn't think anyone wants to see the town 20 years from now with 75 or 1,000 turbines in the downtown area, but there is a resource in the hills (both wind and wager). He said from a green building standpoint it is extremely important to provide opportunity to people, and we would do a dis- service to put something in place that would be a limiting action. The long -term detriments would outweigh the benefits in trying to keep control. There should be guidance, focus and a clear vision from the Town. He said a restrictive law would cut into the ability for each individual to make a difference. Tim Woods, 118 Johnson Road, member of the Conservation Board said he has been involved in this project for a long time and is representing himself and two other members of the Conservation }hoard. They have collectively put in over 100 man -hours reviewing several documents including the proposed local law. They have prepared a "viable compromise" which he distributed to board members. He said one thing he teaches his students at TC3 is to not make long term environmental decisions based on innuendo, bad feelings and emotion. Decisions should be made as scientifically and as logically as possibly. T Woods, Craig Schutt and Nancy Munckenbeck took the document and revised it to make it: as technically correct and as logical possible. He said they want to help and offer this compromise in a constructive way, promoting simplicity, clarity, compatibility with other legislation at the State and Federal level, and offer technical and legal accuracy. They have tried to standardize the terms and usage of those terms in the document. They want inclusiveness of all the projects that could 1 >age 2 of 21 TB IO -5 -Ofi be built within the Town using state and local legislation. They want consistency in the document and they want to make sure that all the monies available and all the protection offered by NYS Agriculture and Markets for agricultural operations is maximized in the legislation, and to eliminate any agricultural restriction. They offer the document as compromising corrections. Mr Woods then reviewed their document with the Town board making explanation of the changes. That document is attached to these minutes. T Woods said that he had received a copy of a letter from NYS Department of Agriculture 8a Markets addressed to Dan Kwasnowski (not received as of the date of this meeting) that: essentially says that as the ordinance is currently written there is a high probability that it would be in conflict with and place too much restriction on local agriculture. He said many of the changes they propose in the town's ordinance are intended to make it easier for farmers and enable them to apply for funding. They want to make it as simple and direct as possible for the farmers with a minimal financial impact. He said the Town's place at the State and Fed, standards written for each by the Town so the WECS standards, document does not mention any of the standards that are already in Aral level for these projects. There have been exhaustive studies and of the technologies, so they included a paragraph for a simple review or RECS would be constructed according to State or Federal T Woods said they felt the penalties imposed under the ordinance were extreme. ZO Slater said they were consistent with the Town's Zoning Ordinance, as are the fees associated with an application under the proposed local laws. T Woods said the Conservation Board in its discussions decided they wanted to limit • the size of the generating capacity of the windmill to 20 kw and limit the total height to 150'. He said you can easily get a 20 kwt wind generator built: through NYSERDA at this point in time, but as fast as technology is changing you'll be able to have the same size windmill in a few years and have t%vrice the capacity. They decided to double the capacity from 10 to 20 kw. They decided on 1.50' for the maximum full extension of the tower and the blade because about the highest tower you can purchase through NYS ERDA for this size of windmill (highest tower and largest blade) is still less than 150', but close to that. They believe this is very reasonable. They recommend taking out the requirement of only one REC per lot because a person may want: to use two complementing RECS. T Woods said they believe their changes simplify the ordinance and make it more user friendly and complies more directly with State and Federal regulations, Jim Krebs, member of Village of Freeville Planning Board, said he has learned you need to be able to be flexible and see both sides of the issue. He believes this ordinance is overly restrictive to the larger renewable energy sources, and said the Board needs to concentrate on the concerns of the people opposed to the larger windmills. He said one of those concerns may be the unsightliness of a large windmill and that should be addressed. Common sense rules could be applied saying the size would depend on the location. A tower should not closer to a boundary line or building than the tower is high. That would allow larger structures in areas where they make sense. Deborah Dennis said there is no definition of "lot:" in the document. She said the comments she heard were good and the comments and modifications offered by Mr Wood were reasonable. She does support restrictions in the document and noted anyone could ask for an exception to the rule and that would be looked at on a case -by -case basis. Restrictions are ® necessary for safety- and care of the environment, and we need to look at more than the visual Page 3 of 21 TB 10 -5 -06 impact. The bird and bat. population needs to be considered. She said she supports the ® restrictions and the modifications. Paul Lut%vak said that his initial feeling about Cornell's proposal for a wind farm is that Dryden missed an opportunity to have somebody do some research and build up this area. He said he was concerned that he would need to have a special permit to install a wood stove under this ordin:wice, and was told that was not the case. He said the law should be more general and not so restrictive because we have no idea what the t:echnologv is going to be. Syracuse University has taken a wind turbine from NYSCRDA, added two blades and got another 10% out of it. Being so specific limits the possibilities. He said he is also concerned about the one per lot restriction and that language should be clarified. Cl Sumner said there is also an exception in the same paragraph. Mahlon R. Perkins, speaking personally and not as Town Attorney, said any regulation that is adopted by nature is a balancing of individual property rights against: the good of the whole community. Whatever the Town does, it is important to keep in mind to try yid avoid undesirable impacts in the Towm of Dryden. He asked the Board to move slowly and deliberately because it will be decades before any undesirable impact or result will be undone. The life of these structures are sometimes 20 or 30 years. He said he would look hard at putting a windmill up if it were economically feasible, and the grants and credits will soon dry up. It is a relatively simplistic solution to a very complex energy problem. M Perkins said he was surprised to leans that the local law that was introduced was not submitted to Jeff Kirby, the Town's tower consultant. He understands this local law was modeled after the Town of Malone local law, and he is sorry to see that there are two parts of that: local laws that were left out, though he had lobbied for their inclusion. One was a height ® restriction and he believes that 140' tower height is unreasonable and said there is no justification for it being that tall. He understands the 140' comes from the cell tower ordinance, which has a totally different approach and background. There are local laws that have restrictions on the height based on the parcel size and he suggested a maximum height of 80' based on parcel size. M Perkins said the visibility of wind mills is unavoidable and everybody is going to see them and he proposes the board restrict where they could be placed and not allow them on any ridge lines or within 100 feet of any ridgelines. The Town's Comprehensive Plan talks about the scenic views in Dryden and he doesn't want it to look like Scranton and Wilkes - Barre. He reminded everyone that when the board makes something allowed by special use permit, there is a presumption in the law that the use is compai:ible with the neighborhood and other allowed uses. Allowing these in all zoning districts may not be the right way to go when they are doing it by special use permit. He has read the recommendations by the County Planning Department and said he thinks they make some good recommendations and he encouraged the board to consider those. Carol Schmoock, 381 Mt Pleasant Road, said she is a little concerned about the $250 special use fee and was surprised that her project, if it qualifies under the proposed ordinance, will have to go for public hearing, though it has already been approved by NYSIRDA and they have a certified consultant installing it. She said since it takes about 2 months to get to the public hearing stage and a decision can take up to 2 months, they may not be able to do the project this fall as they had hoped. She supports the request: for fewer restrictions and the idea of farmers being able to have windmills and turbines. She also supports the changes suggested by 'r Woods and R Szymanski, Ken Miller thanked the Conservation Board for their efforts in this matter and said he supports their good recommendations. He explained that the reason the turbine in Lansing Page 4 of 21 TI3 10 -5 -06 lost its blades is because there are more changes in wind direction at the surface of the earth and that turbine was not built high enough to accommodate those directional changes. He would not recommend lowering the height, but keep it at the height: suggested by the Conservation Board. S St Laurent suggested the word mechanical be stricken from the ordinance (mechanical wind generators less than 50') because there are also vertical turbines that don't generate a lot of power and are shorter. T Woods said their version significantly changed paragraph 7(D) because as it was written it only allowed exemptions for three examples, where in the previous description of RECS it said "may include but is not limited to" three types of RECS. They also changed mechanical windmills from 50' to 80' because the largest mechanical windmills used primarily for agriculture (the largest tower combined with the largest blades) is 76'. They feel the height is justified because it allows the farmer to maximize the height of the tower and length of the blades to get: the most out of it to do whatever mechanical work he is trying to do. Bill Openshaw reminded the board that in 2005 over 400 Tompkins County residents (most of them Dryden residents) petitioned the board to amend the zoning law to prohibit wind turbines in the Town of Dryden. They suggested the legislation be crafted so it would not prohibit individual homeowners from constructing small windmills on their own property to satisfy their own energy needs. This carne about because of the wind farm proposed by Cornell University for Mt Pleasant. The neighbors there did much research about commercial wind turbines that raised many doubts in their minds. Recent research indicates there are considerable impacts from turbines on close and not -so -close neighbors including turbine noise at various distances under various conditions (both audible and infrasonic), visual impacts of the towers, strobing effects caused by spinning blades, night -time flashing required by FAA mandated lights, potential disruption and drainage of wells, impacts on recreation and tourism, decline in property values and other threats to the tax base and economy of the Town and County, along with bird and bat mortality and other impacts on animals both wild and domestic. Neighbors located near industrial wind farms report that the effects of the turbines ruined the quality of their lives. The persistent grinding and thumping noise is distressing; the blades cause strobing and flashing effects at certain times of day, and many people report they suffer from sleep deprivation and headaches, dizziness, and depression, as well as other illnesses. Many report that their property values plummet. The new ordinance proposed tonight isn't: perfect, but comes close to what the 400 residents wanted the board to do —allow residents the option of a small wind turbine for their own personal use. He said the bottom line is that commercial wind turbines don't belong in areas close to people. They should be situated many miles away from civilization and he said the Town of Dryden is not the place for them. Charlie Smith, member of the Conservation Board and '1 "own resident: for 35 years said he is a naturalist, educator and conservationist employed as a senior research associate at Cornell University for the past: 30 years. He grew up in an area more rural than Dryden and didn't have electricity. The pollution he perceives from high wind turbines (in excess of those in the proposed ordinance) is visual pollution. The Town's cell tower ordinance has gone a long way toward keeping at a minimum the visual pollution in the Town of Dryden. One of the reasons he's stayed here is the landscape is pleasing, and not interrupted by cell towers on the ridgeline or transmission towers on the ridgeline by and large, and is pleasing to view. To that that: extent the proposed law is somewhat consistent with the existing cell tower ordinance. He said you can't support all energy sources all the time. A corporation called 'Prue Wind has a website that maps the energy potential for all of New York State at fairly course resolution and for tower heights of only 150' or greater. Except for high elevations like Mt Pleasant where visual pollution would be the greatest and some other high elevations in the Page 5 of 21 "I "B 10 -5 -06 Town, the lower elevations are mapped at marginal commercial level, but are suitable for ® residential energy production. i-ie; asked people to examine that site. He said he is skeptical of all statistics and mathematicians and math itself, and when he hears a projection of future outcomes from current conditions expressed as averages he wants to know what the plus and minus values are, and then he thinks he can make an informed decision. Increasing the height of towers could advantage special commercial interests at the expense of visual pollution for other Town of Dryden citizens. He said he doesn't know of any way to insure that energy generated here commercially at the expense of our Town is going to stay here. C Smith said the current: proposed legislation is a beginning, not an end and subject to future review and amendment. He encouraged the Town Board and other citizens to proceed with due caution and deliberation, to be curious, ask questions, seek answers, be skeptical of those answers no matter where they come from, and finally make informed decisions that. are fiscally responsible, ethically sound and environmentally balanced. He said he is impressed with the quality of the commentary tonight as a member of the Conservation Advisory Board and that it makes him proud to be a citizen of the Town. Joanne Cippola asked whether any developer had approached the 'fowl-► and offered services with respect to the new Town Hall or the school. When they purchased their property it was their intent: to put solar and /or wind power in their house, and if it was still a law that they could not do it, they would sell the property. She said it is our obligation to continue to change the way people use and get energy. Ci Stelick said that the new Town Hall will use geothermal for heating and cooling. Solar panels have been installed on the high school R Symanski there are four educational institutions in the Town that could use wind power for long -term energy benefits to the taxpayer. There is an opportunity to develop these resources and they need to be rationally discussed. There has to be a compromise position and the siting issues can be mitigated. Craig Schutt, Chair of the Conservation Board, said three members of the Conservation Board made the changes in the ordinance suggested tonight. It should be clear that the Conservation Board as a whole never endorsed it because they just finished last night, but they did try to stay in the spirit of what was discussed at the Conservation Board meetings. D Kwasnowsk.i said the comments received tonight were excellent. He also cautioned that once something is built it is hard to get it removed. You've got to be careful and this law is being careful. Some citizens in the town are cautious and wary of this type of technology and you have to respect that. He said he believes this is a. great first step and the Town of Dryden does not have a history of not amending its laws. He encouraged the Town Board to pass the law as it is and get it moving. This is a workable law and amendments can be made in the future. Cl Stelick said there has been a lot of time and effort: put into this and the public comment tonight is appreciated. The time has come to make a decision and move forward. Cl Sumner has put a lot of time into this, and he feels comfortable with it as it is. The Town is progressive and will make changes as necessary. Supv Trumbull read an e-mail received from Marty Hatch and said it is kind of the way the Town Board is feeling right now. It says essentially that he feels the proposed legislation is a step forward for the community. Page 6 of 21 'rB 10 -5 -06 Tim Woods provided the board with a copy of letter from Agriculture & Markets addressed to Dan Kwasnowski, and ZO Slated stated Dan Kwasnowski had not received that letter. Cl Christofferson said he felt the law was a step in the right direction and he was a little concerned about the changing technology. He can also see points for each of the heights suggested. If we can allow for technology changes in the same framework, maybe that: should be done if possible. D Kwasnowski said there is relief ability within the law and then if it becomes a regular part of the equipment, the law can be amended. CI Christofferson said he understands you have to go high to get better wind, but he also understands that people don't like to look at the structures. He said he is totally in favor of building wind turbines and going forward with this as soon as possible, but there were a of couple of issues raised tonight that should perhaps be addressed. This is a good start. Cl Sumner noted that Tompkins County Planning in their letter said the development standards for Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems are well thought out and provide reasonable guidance to allow such installations. She said a lot of good points have been raised tonight: and if this laws is passed, in no way should that let up the pressure on continuing to develop standards for further development of renewable energy resources. There is a good group of people in place with a lot: of energy and knowledge at the moment and to let that dissipate would be a shame. R Szymanski said there is no opportunity to promote surplus energy and was told he could seek relief for that. Cl Sumner said wind energy in this area is not: practical year round and so you are producing excess energy in one season and have a deficiency in the other season. R Szymanski asked why the Town had an objection to someone selling surplus energy, and Cl Sumner said because they have not looked into it thoroughly enough yet. C Smith said he wasn't terribly excited about wind turbines in the beginning, but his enthusiasm has changed a bit and learning about a technology called plug -in hybrid energy vehicles. They can be plugged into a wind turbine or some other source will recharge overnight and give you a capacity of up to 40 or SO miles. T Woods asked if the board passes the proposed law what kind of exemptions and proposals the board has in order to make it as easy as possible for farmers in the area to do what the letter from Ag & Markets says. What kind of exemptions and special considerations they will get. D Kwasnowski said he had spoken with Matt Brower from Ag & Markets. Ag & Markets reviews local ordinances that may or may not restrict farm operations. It is their opinion that a special permit is too restrictive for agriculture and also feel they should not be charged a fee. This is consistent with other state laws. He said we were not aware of the details of the Ag & Markets Law when the law was drafted, however, he cannot see what: the difference is between a farm and residence. We do everything in this town by laws and policy to advance farming. The major concern is visual impact and the impact on the community is the same, so why would they be exempt from a permitting policy to protect a community resource (visual impact). He said he couldn't come up with any reason why they should be exempt. The ramification of permit and be denied. If a they could complain to Ag review. They have never Ic human welfare, then their passing the law is that a farmer could come to the Town for a special farmer were denied a special use permit, which is highly unlikely, & Markets and Ag & Markets would take it to Supreme Court for Est a case. The only exception to their lawn is if it protects health and review doesn't count. Page 7of21 TB 10 -5 -06 R Szymanski was told again that if he can prove that he needs in excess of 10 kwr for his farm operation, then he can ask for relief from the board. He said he wants to use if for more than his own needs, and to put power back on the grid. D Kwasnowski explained the intent of the law is for power to be generated and used on site. T Woods asked what kind of special treatment could agriculture farmers in this community expect if the law is passed as it. Cl Sumner said nothing different; than what is offered to every other applicant. D Kwasnowski said T Woods version still requires a special use permit and Ag & Markets exempts every farm in New York State, every lot: in an agriculture district, whether or not they actually farm. T Woods said there is a major problem. Cl Sumner said they offer exceptions to a number of regulations, the opportunity, for the Board to exercise judgment in regard to a number of the regulations. T Woods said it would be a problem. D Kwasnowski said the reason the Town chose the special permit was because it was most flexible. Site plan review is way too cumbersome. People need to understand that the Zoning Office bends over backwards to try and accommodate people within the law and in the best interests of the Town. Their office is here to help. Cl Stelick asked ZO Slater how many farmers in the last five years have come to him asking about the possibility of renewable energy and he said none. R Szymanski said that the Renewable Portfolio Standard Policy just. became law in 2005 and its implementation through NYSCR_DA is recent. If you don't know what the Renewable Portfolio Standard is in New York State, it: is a problem. Cl Christofferson said he understands the expectation is we may get more requests. Stan Marcus, Conservation Board member, said people on the Conservation Board have spent incredible amounts of time on this, and it seems to him that the version proposed by 'rim Woods tonight seems cleaner. He thinks it would be a better one to pass because it is consistent and the terms are correct. Atty Perkins said that version is in violation of some state laws and he appreciates the efforts. There are parts of it that should be looked at, but there are some provisions in it that are contrary to state law. Cl Sumner said some parts of it are contrary to the intent of the board. S Marcus suggested then perhaps nothing should be passed tonight and said the board should look at it for a few more weeks and resolve the issues. With a little more work they could come up with a document that would not have to be modified right: away. Supv Trumbull asked Charlie Smith whether he was comfortable with the version introduced by the town board and he said he was. Atty Perkins said 'rim Woods had made some good points, but some of them run contrary to the intent of the local law. There are some things that could be cleaned up and made consistent with the intent of Cl Sumner's version and not: be inconsistent with it, but make it a better law. He said the version being considered by the board could be improved. He has not seen the letter from NYS Agriculture and ,Markets. There is a program where you can write to Ag & Markets and they will give you their opinion. He would like to take a look at what: their specific concerns are, look at the cases and the Ag & Markets law. Cl Christofferson asked if the board wanted to make a change to the law whether they would need to go through the whole process again, and Atty Perkins said that would depend on the nature of the change. Significant changes (changing from 10 kw to 20 kw) would require Page 8 of 21 TB 10 -5 -06 another public hearing. Cl Christofferson said he is happy with where we are headed wii:h this, but he would like to see it revised to accommodate changes in technology. Cl Sumner said time spent trying to improve this laws, takes time away from moving on to the next step of working on a law that will incorporate the larger concepts. Cl Tier said some of the changes are pretty minor. This process has been going on for months and tonight they have been inundated with more material. The idea of the ordinance is as much to protect one group as try and help another group. The document is probably not perfect, but in the time he's been on the board he's been pleased at the board's ability to make changes. This is a starting point.. R Szymanski said he doesn't think anyone will develop anything under this law. No developer will come to this town and do more than a handful of structures. Cl Christofferson said none of the developers at the presentation done by the town were intimidated by the town's intent. ZO Slater said there are two potential applicants now. Deborah Dennis said they have had a person evaluate their property this week and intend to put up a windmill. This law is fine for residential use and opens an avenue for people who want more than that. They can come before the board like any other commercial applicant. She asked the board to pass it. Cl Sumner said this law is only intended to address on site use. The board is not taking the position that they are against selling excess energy. R Szymanski said he wants to make an application to generate surplus energy. The board told him he would have to submit an application and Cl Sumner said that is the next thing the board will be working on. Martin Hatch said that a farmer who is putting up 1.25 kw in order to generate industry is not a farmer, but an industrialist, and he thinks a new law should be designed around that, but this particular law is satisfactory for what it is trying to accomplish. Craig Schutt said the Conservation Board spent most of the summer on this issue and a draft ordinance was drawn up from their comments and it: was somehow changed considerably. Cl Sumner said the version presented took into account every detail the Conservation Board worked on. Atty Perkins explained that the 'rowvn Board is the legislative body, and the comments should be addressed to the version introduced by them. R Szymanski said he would like to build a 1.25 kw on his faun and Cl Sumner said if he expects to use 125 kw on site the exception can be made, He asked what if he wanted to increase his business and sell surplus energy, and Cl Sumner said they can only develop a wind energy conversion system up to the limit the business expects to use on site. R Szymanski said that does not allow the opportunity available to him under NYSERDA. Cl Sumner said the board would move on to discuss that in the future. T Woods cautioned the board to move slowly and look at the recommendations of the Conservation Board, R Szymanski asked the board to review the Renewable Energy Portfolio. D Kwasnowski said he doesn't think R Szymanski understands the tradition of home rule at the local level. He has reviewed the version presented by Cl Sumner and said he didn't find anything incredibly contrary to what the Conservation Board wanted. He said the board has to think about what: is best for the town, and he would like to see people get applications in and start building. One of the things not discussed tonight is sustainability, balancing social, Page 9 of 21 TB 10 -5 -06 economic, environmental, and ecological issues. We need to move forward at a pace we are comfortable with. R Szymanski said this law provides for no development,. ZO Slater said this law was to allow the individual to provide energy conservation for himself, not to make money selling it back to the grid. He said R Szymanski wants to make money and develop systems that make money, and that is not what this is about. Cl Christofferson said he appreciates the efforts of the Conservation Board and doesn't see any major differences between the documents. There may be a few differences, but the Town doesn't have anything in place for this now, and we are moving in the right: direction. We can sit down with some of the technical concerns later, but there are no substantive differences and he doesn't think we are that far apart. He doesn't want to minimize the effort of the Conservation Board, but doesn't think we should wait to move forward. S Marcus said it is very important to have as clean a document as possible; something that people can understand and is consistent with the laws and does what it is intended to do. R Szymanski said he will suffer damages under this law if it passed, and he will challenge it. Supv Trumbull closed the public hearing at. 8:45 p.m. The board then reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form. RESOLUTION #150 - NEG SEQR DEC - RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES LAW OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN Cl .Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, A. The proposed action involves the adoption of a proposed local law entitled "Renewable Energy Facilities Law of the Town of Dryden, New York." B. The proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with approval by the Town. C. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, in performing the lead agency function for its independent: and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act "(SEQR), (i) thoroughly reviewed the long Environmental Assessment Form (the "Long EAF"), Part I, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) completed the Long EAR, Part 11; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOi,LOWS: 1. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of the Long EAF, Part 1, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review of the potential relevant Page 10 of 21 T13 10 -5 -06 areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant ® adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) its completion of the Long EAF, Part II, including the findings noted thereon (which findings are incorporated herein as if sett forth at length), hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance ( "Negative Declaration") in accordance with SEQR for the above referenced proposed action, and determines that neither a full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement %vill be required, and 2. The Responsible Officer of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized and directed to complete and sign as required the determination of significance, confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed Long EAF and determination of significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution. 2nd Cl Stelick Roll Call Vote Cl Christofferson Yes Cl Tier Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Stelick Yes Cl Sumner Yes Atty Perkins pointed out that in Section 11(B)(1) there are two inadvertent underlines under "$1,000" and "day" so those should be eliminated from the finally adopted version. Making those changes will not cause another public hearing. ® RESOLUTION #151 - ADOPT LOCAL LAW #5 OF 2005 - RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES LAW OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN Cl Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby adopts the proposed law referred to as the "Renewable Energy Facilities Law of the Town of Dryden" as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I — General 10 Title... ................................................................................................... .............................12 2. Purpose................................................................................................ .............................12 3. Authority............................................................................................. .............................12 4. Findings.. ............................................................................................. .............................12 5. Definitions........................................................................................... .............................13 6. 7. $. Permits Required. ................ 'IF, ....... ............................. .................. Applicabilih'............ ........................................................................... .............................14 Abandonment of Use. ....................................................................... ............................... 14 15 90 100 11. 12. 13. Hearing Required............................................................................. ..............................# Fees,,,,,, ......... 04, .... V,008444 ............... W,04 ......... do,, .... ... ..... ,,,I ...... I'll, ....... 0004, .... Enforcement; Penalties and Remedies for Violations. ............ ............................... Scverabilityr ........................................................................................ .............................16 Effective Date. ................................................................................. ............................... 15 15 15 16 Page 1 I of 21 alaB 10 -5 -06 ARTICLE Il - Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) The supe.rcession authority of New York ® 14. Intent... ................................................................................................ .............................16 as it 15. Permitted Areas... .... 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 1 0 & a a , I . . . . . I I I 1 1 6 . . . q , V , a a , 16 16. Applications..",,.." than under Town Law X274 -b, 17. Development Standards.",,, ......... *a . 0* ... VON&@* ........ I I I I I I I . . . . I , F 0 0 a , , 6 4 4 1 a I I I 1 4 6 6 0 . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . l7 ARTICLE III - Small Renewable Energy Conversion Systems (RECS) 180 Intent, am ........... 4*4&664 .... qq,pp ........ I I I I I 1 0 1 1 1 1 . . . . 9 , r 9 a 4 a A . . . . 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 . . . 0 0 a 4 t 0 a 4 4 0 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . . . . . a a a , a , . . . . . . . . . . 18 19. Permitted Areas..... ........................................................................... ............................... 19 20. Small RECS Not Regulated, .... ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . I I I . . . . . . . . . 4 0 a a a . . . 4 . . . . 19 21. Applications. .. ..... 411,110, ........ *100,04 . . . I I I I I I I I . A * a a 0 0 a 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . . . . . . 0 a 0 a a 4 4 . . . . q 4 , P P d A . . . 19 22. Development Standards.................................... ............................... ...11.11....................... 19 ARTICLE I General 1. Title. This local law may be cited as the "Renewable Energy Facilities Law of the Town of Dryden, New York." 2. Pu impose. The Town Board of the Town o ryden adopts this local law to promote the effective and efficient use of the Town's renewable nun - polluting energy resources through renewable energy conversion systems (RECS) and wind energy conversion systems (WECS), without harming public health and safety, and to avoid jeopardizing the welfare of the residents. 3. Authority. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden enacts this local law under the authority granted by: New York State Constitution, Article IX, §2(c)(6) and (10). 2. New York Statute of Local Governments, § 10 (1), (6), and (7)_ 3. New York Municipal Home Rule Law, S 10 (1)(i) and (ii) and $10 (1 )(a)(6), (I 1), (12), and (14). 4. The supe.rcession authority of New York Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10 (2)(dK3), specifically as it relates to determining which body shall have power to grant special use permits under this local law, to the extent such grant of power is different than under Town Law X274 -b, 5. New York 'Town Law, Article 16 (Zoning). 6. New York 'Town Law 5130(l)(Building Code), (3)(Electrical Code), (-5)(hire Prevention), (7)(Use of streets and highways), (7- a)(L.ocation of Driveways), (I O(Peace, good order and safety), (15)(Promotion of public welfare): (15- a)(Excavated Lands), (16)(Unsafe buildings), (19)(Trespass), and (25)(Building lines). 7. New York Town Law §64(17- a)(protection of aesthetic interests), (23)(General powers), 4. Findings. OThe Town Board of the Town of Dryden finds and declares that: Page 12 of 21 I B 10 -5 -06 A, Residents of the Town of Dryden may face energy shortages and increasing energy priers and the local generation of electricity and promotion of alternative home heating resources can provide the community with clean and reliable electricity and home heating, contribute to local and state -wide energy self reliance and diversify and strengthen the local economy. B. I. The generation of electricity from properly sited small wind turbines and other renewable energy sources can be a cost effective mechanism for reducing on -site electric costs with a minimum of environmental impacts. 2. Large -scale multiple -tower Wind Energy Facilities may present significant potential impacts on viewsheds, wildlife and neighboring properties because of their large size, lighting, shadow flicker effects and noise level. C. The use of other small -scale renewable energy conversion systems (other than small wind turbines) can reduce reliance on petroleum based home heating products and electricity generated fi•om fossil fuels, thereby decreasing the air and water pollution that results from the use of conventional energy sources and contributing to the long term health of global ecosystems. D. Permitting and regulating the use of renewable, nonpolluting energy and regulating the location and installation of small wind turbines and other renewable energy conversion systems is necessary to protect and promote the safety and welfare of town residents. 5. Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: EAF — means the Environmental Assessment Form used in the implementation of the SEQRA as that term is defined in Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. MECHANICAL WIND TURBINE — means a Wind Energy Conversion System that converts wind energy to mechanical power. RENEWABLE ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM (RECS) — means a Renewable Energy Conversion System other than a WECS and includes but is not limited to solar panels, geothermal heat pumps; wood, wood pellet, hay and other t }apes of biomass stoves. RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITY — means a Small Wind Energy Conversion System or a Small Renewable Energy Conversion System as those terms are defined herein. SEQRA — means the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and its implementing regulations in Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, Part 617. SITE — means the parcel of land where the WECS or RECS is to be placed. The Site could be publicly or privately owned by an individual or a group of individuals controlling single or adjacent properties. Where multiple lots are in joint ownership, the combined lots shall be considered as one for purposes of applying setback requirements. SMALL RENEWABLE ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM ( "Small RECS") — means a Renewable Energy Conversion System designed for on -site home, farm, or commercial use primarily to reduce on -sitc consumption of public utility energy. SMALL WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM ( "Small WECS") — means a Wind Energy Conversion System consisting of a wind turbine, a tower, and associated control or conversion electronics, which is intended to primarily reduce on -site consumption of utility power. 0 TOTAL HEIGHT — means the height of the tower and the furthest vertical extension of the WECS or RECS. Page 13 of21 '1'13 10 -5 -06 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM ( "WECS ") — means a machine that converts the kinetic energy in the wind into electrical or mechanical energy (commonly known as a "wind turbine" or "windmill"). WIND ENERGY FACILITY - Any Wind Energy Conversion System, Small Wind Energy Conversion System, or Wind Measurement Tower, including all related infrastructure, electrical lines and substations, access roads and accessory structures. WIND MEASUREMENT 'POWER — a tower used for the measurement of meteorological data such as temperature, wind speed and wind direction. Temporary (no more titan 2 years) towers may be allowed as part of a Small WECS application, where the requested tower meets all height, setback and other requirements of this local law. 6. Permits Required. A. No Renewable Energy Facility shall be cimsta-ucted, reconstructed, modified, or operated in the Town of Dryden except in compliance with this local law. B. 1. No WECS other than a Small WECS shall be constructed, reconstructed, modified, or operated in the Town of Dryden. No Wind Measurement Tower shall be constructed, reconstructed, modified, or operated in the Town of Dryden, except in conjunction with and as part ofan application fora Small WECS, 2. No RECS other than a Small RECS shall be constructed, reconstructed, modified, or operated in the Town of Dryden. C. No Small WECS shall be constructed, reconstructed, modified, or operated in the Town of Dryden except pursuant to a Special Use Permit issued pursuant to this local law. operated, modified, or constructed D. No Small RECS shall be constructed, reconstructed, modified, or operated in the Town of Dryden except pursuant to a Special Use Permit issued pursuant to this local law. L. This local law shall apply to the area of the Town of Dryden outside the Village of Dryden and the Village of Freeville. F. No transfer of the real property on which a Small WECS or Small RECS is situated shall eliminate the liability of the owner of such property from compliance with this local law and the conditions of the Special Use Pennit issued for such WECS or RECS. G. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Section, replacement in kind or modification of a Small WECS or Small RECS may occur without Town Board approval when (1) there will no increase in Total Height; (2) no change in the location of the Small WECS; (3) no additional lighting or change in facility color; and (4) no increase in noise produced by the Small WECS, 7, Applicability, A. The requirements of this local law shall apply to all Renewable Energy Facilities proposed, operated, modified, or constructed after the effective date of this local law. B. Renewable Lncrgy Facilities constructed and placed in operation prior to the effective date of this local law, shall not be required to meet the requirements of this local law; provided, however, that no modification or alteration to an existing Renewable Energy Facility shall be allowed without full compliance with this local law. C. Renewable Energy Facilities are allowed as accessory uses. Renewable Energy Facilities constructed and installed in accordance with this local law shall not be deemed expansions of a nonconforming use or structure. ® D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this local law, no Special Use Permit shall be required for mechanical wind turbines less than 50 feet tall; solar panels mounted to the building being served; tower, pole or Page 14 of 21 TB 10 -5 -06 other independently structurally mounted RECS with a total height less than the structure served, or for geothermal heal pumps, wood, wood pellet, hay and other types of biomass stoves. 86 Abandonment of Use. A Small WFCS or Small RFCS which is not used to produce electricity for 12 successive months shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismantled and removed from the property at the expense of the property owner within 24 months after notice from the Town Board. Failure to comply with this section or with any and all condition; that may be attached to a Special Use Permit shall constitute grounds for the revocation of the permit by the Town of Dryden, after notice and a hearing before the Town Board, 9, Dearing Required. A. Public hearing and decision on Special Use Permits. The Town Board shall conduct a public hearing within sixty -hvo days from the day a complete application is received. Public notice of said hearing shall be printed in the official newspaper at least five days prior to the date thereof. The Town Board shall decide the application within sixty-two days after the close of the public hearing. The time within which the Town Board must render its decision may be extended by mutual consent of the applicant and the board. The decision of the Town Board on the application after the holding of the public hearing shall be tiled in the office of the town clerk within five business days after such decision is rendered, and a copy thereof mailed to the applicant. B. Notice to applicant, county planning agency and adjacent owners. At least ten days before such hearing, the Town Board shall mail notices thereof to the applicant and to the county planning agency, as required by town law section two hundred seventy-four-lb and general municipal law section two hundred thirty-nine -m, which notice shall be accompanied by a full statement of such proposed action. The Town Board shall also mail notice of such application and public hearing to the owners of all property adjacent to the proposed tower Site and /or within 500 feet of the proposed tower Site. C. Compliance with SEQRA. The Town Board shall comply with the provisions of the state environmental quality review act under article eight of the environmental conservation law and its implementing regulations. U, Conditions attached to the issuance of special use permits. The Town Board shall have the authority to impose such reasonable conditions and restrictions as are directly related to and incidental to the proposed Special Use Permit. Upon its granting of said Special Use Permit. any such conditions must be met in connection with the issuance of any other required permits to be issued by the town. 10. Fees. A non - refundable Application Fee of $250 shall be paid to the Town of Dryden when the application for Special Use Permit is submitted. I. Enforcement; Penalties and Remedies for Violations. A_ The Town Board shall by resolution appoint such Town employees, including the code enforcement officers, to enforce this local law. Such appointees shall have the authority to issue appearance tickets pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law. B. I. Any person owning, controlling or managing any building, structure. or land who shall undertake a wind energy facility in violation of this local law or in noncompliance with the terms and conditions of any permit issued pursuant to this local law, or any order of the enforcement officer, and any person who shall assist in so doing, shall be guilty of an offense and subject to a tine of not more than $1.000 or to imprisonment for a period of not more than six months, or subject to both such line and imprisonment. eEvery such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each day such violation shall continue. Page 15 of 21 T13 10 -5 -06 2. The Town may also institute a civil proceeding to collect civil penalties in the amount of $350 for each violation. Each week said violation continues shall be deemed a separate violation. C. In case of any violation or threatened violation of the terms and conditions imposed by any special use permit other remedies and penalties herein provided, the Town may prevent such unlawful erection, structural alteration, reconstri or abate such violation, or to prevent any illegal act. 12. Severability. any of the provisions of this local law, including issued pursuant to this local law, in addition to institute any appropriate action or proceeding to fiction, moving and,`or use, and to restrain, correct Should any provision of this local law be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of this local law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. 13. Effective Date. This local law shall be effective upon its tiling with the Secretary of State in accordance with the Municipal Home Rule Law. ARTICLE 11 Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) 14. Intent, This Article regulates and provides standards for Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) designed for on- site home, farm, and commercial use, and that are primarily used to reduce on -site consumption of public utility generated and distributed electricity. The intent of this Article is to encourage the development of small wind ener ry systems and to protect the public health, safety, and community welthre, 15. Permitted Areas, Small WECS may be permitted upon issuance of a Special Use Permit on any parcel meeting the standards of this local law in any zoning district. 16. Applications. Applications for Small WECS Special Use Permits shall include: I. Name, address, telephone number of the applicant. If the applicant will be represented by an agent, the name, address and telephone number of the agent, as well as an original signature of the applicant authorizing the agent to represent the applicant is required. 2. (a) Maine, address, telephone number of the property owner. if the property owner is not the applicant, the application shall include a letter or other written permission signed by the property owner (i) confirming that the property owner is familiar with the proposed applications and (ii) authorizing the submission of the application. (b) The names and mailing addresses of all owners of all property adjacent to the proposed tower Site and/or within 500 feet of the proposed tower Site. 3. Address of each proposed tower Site, including tax map parcel number. ® 4. Evidence that the proposed tower height does not exceed the height recommended by the manufacturer or distributor of the system. Page 16 of 21 TB 10 -5-06 5. (a) A completed Short EAF and a Visual EAF Addendum. ® (b) The Board may require submission of a more detailed visual analysis based on the results of the Visual EAF Addendum including a computerized photographic simulation, demonstrating the visual impacts from nearby strategic vantage points. The visual analysis shall also indicate the color treatment of the system's components and any visual screening incorporated into the project that is intended to lessen the system's visual prominence. (c) Applicants must have a pre- application conference with the Town Code Eniorcentent Officer to address the scope of the required visual assessment. 176 Development Standards, All Small V1'ECS shall comply with the following standards. Such systems shall also comply with all the requirements established by other sections of this Article that are not in conflict with the requirements contained in this section. I. Only one Small WECS (or, where authorized, a temporary wind measurement tower) per lot shall be allowed. Adjoining lots shall be treated as one lot for purposes of this limitation. More than one Small WECS per lot may be allowed if the applicant adequately demonstrates that the electrical or mechanical power needs �f the individual user exceed the power generation capability of one WECS. 2. Small WECS shall be used primarily to reduce the on -site consumption of public utility - provided electricity, or as a primary source of electricity when the applicant is not connected to the electricity grid. i. Tower heights shall be limited to a maximum of 140 feet. 4. The allowed height shall be reduced if necessary to comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Requirements, including Subpart B (commencing with Section 77.11) of Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding installations close to airports. 5. The maximum turbine power output is limited to 10 kW unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the `I'owa Board that a larger turbine is necessary to meet the historical and,/or projected energy needs of the applicant. The applicant shall submit documentation supporting the increased turbine size including copies of electrical bills, an energy audit or electrical power requirements of any new or proposed equipment. 6. The system's tower and components shall be painted a non - reflective, unobtrusive color that blends the system and its components into the surrounding landscape to the greatest extent possible and incorporate non - reflective surfaces to minimize any visual disruption. 7. The system shall be designed and located in such a manner to minimize adverse visual impacts from public viewing areas (e.g., public parks, roads, trails) and from adjacent properties. A. Exterior lighting on an;• structure associated with the system shall not be allowed except that which is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration. 9. All on -site electrical wires associated with the system shall be installed underground except for "tie -ins" to a public utility company and public utility company transmission poles, towers and lines. This standard may be modified by the Town hoard if the project terrain is determined to be unsuitable due to reasons of excessive grading, biological impacts, or similar factors. 10. The system shall be operated such that no disruptive electromagnetic interference is caused. If it has been demonstrated that a system is causing harmful interference, the system operator shall promptly mitigate the harmful interference or cease operation of the system. e Page 17 of 21 TI3 10-5-06 11, At least one si&m shall be posted on the tower at a height of five feet warning of electrical shock or high voltage and harm therefrom. No brand names, logo or advertising shall be placed or painted on the tower or components where it would be visible from the ground, except that a system or tower's manufacturer's logo may be displayed on a system housing in an unobtrusive manner_ 12. Towers shall be consu-ucted to provide one of the following means of access control, or other appropriate method of access: a. 'Power- climbing apparatus located no closer than 12 feet from the ground. b. A locked anti - climb device installed on the tower. c. A locked, protective fence at least six feet in height that encloses the tower. 13. Anchor points for any guy wires for a system tower shall be located within the property that the system is located on and not on or across any above - ground electric transmission or distribution lines. The point of attachment for the guy wires shall be enclosed by a fence six feet high or sheathed in bright orange or yellow covering from three to eight feet above the ground. 14. The minimum height above the ground of the lowest part of the wind turbine. blade shall be at least 15 feet. 15. All Small RECS tower structures shall be designed and constnucted to be in compliance with applicable provisions of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention Building Code, National Electric Code and generally accepted engineering practices. 16. All Small WECS shall be equipped with manual and automatic over -speed controls. The conformance of rotor and over -speed control design and fabrication with good engineering practices shall be certified by the manufacturer. 17. No WECS shall be so constructed or operated so as to create artificial habitat for raptors or raptor prey. Electrical boxes, perching opportunities, etc., shall to the maximum extent practicable be minimized. 18. A Small WECS shall not be located closer to any adjacent property's line, right of way, easement, public highway or power line than the Total Height of the facility plus ten feet. 19. Small WECS shall be set back at least 1,000 feet from any Important Bird Area as identified by New York Audubon and from State - listed wetlands. The Town Board may consider applications for Small WECS within 1,000 feet of an Important Bird Area or State - listed wetland upon a recommendation from the Conservation Board. 20. All Small WECS shall be maintained in good condition and in accordance with all requirements of this section. ARTICLE 111 Small Renewable Energy Conversion Systems (RECS) 18. Intent. This Article regulates and provides standards for Small RECS, designed for on -site home, farm, and small commercial use, and that are primarily used to reduce oil -site consumption of public utility generated and distributed electricity. The intent of this Article is to encourage the development of such renewable energy systems and to protect the public health, safety, and community welfare. 19. Permitted Areas. Small RECS may be permitted upon issuance of a Special Use Permit on any parcel meeting the standards of this ® local law in any zoning district.. Page 18 of 21 TB I U -5 -06 20, Small RECS Not Regulated. Small RECS mounted on the structure being served, are not regulated under this local law. Small RECS mounted on a tower, pole or structure other than the structure being served, and whose total elevation is not higher than the highest elevation of the structure served are not regulated under this local law. 214 Applications. Applications for Small RECS Special Use Permits shall include: I. (a) Name, address, telephone number of the applicant. If the applicant will be represented by an agent, the name, address and telephone number of the agent, as well as an original signature of the applicant authorizing the agent to represent the applicant is required. (b) The names and mailing addresses of all owners of all property adjacent to the Site and/or within 500 feet of the proposed Site. 2. Name, address, telephone number of the property owner. If the property owner is not the applicant, the application shall include a letter or other written permission signed by the property owner (i) confirming that the property owner is familiar with the proposed applications and (ii) authorizing the submission of the application. 3. Address of the proposed Small RECS Site, including tax trap parcel number. 4. If proposed structure will exceed the height of the roofline of the building being served, application must be accompanied by an engineer's drawing. 5. (a) A completed Short EAF and a Visual 1. Addendum. (b) The Board may require submission of a more detailed visual analysis based on the results of the Visual EAF Addendum including computerized photographic simulation, demonstrating the visual impacts from nearby strategic vantage points. The visual analysis shall also indicate the color treatment of the system's components and any visual screening incorporated into the project that is intended to lessen the system's visual prominence. (c) Applicants must have a pike- application conference with the Town Code Enforcement Officer to address the scope of the required visual assessment. 22. Development Standards. All Small RECS shall comply with the following standards. Such systems shall also comply with all the requirements established by other sections of this Article that are not in conflict with the requirements contained in this section. 1. Only one Small RECS per lot shall be allowed. Adjoining lots shall be treated as one lot for purposes of this limitation. More than one Small RECS may be allowed if the applicant adequately demonstrates that the electrical or mechanical power needs of the individual user exceed the power generation capability of one RECS. 2. Small RECS shall be used primarily to reduce the on -site consumption of public utility- provided electricity or as a primary source of electricity when the applicant is not connected to the. electricity grid. 3. Pole height shall be limited to a maximum filteen (15) feet. 4. The allowed height shall be reduced if necessary to comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Requirements, including Subpart R (commencing with Section 77.11) of Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding installations close to airports. Page 19 of 21 TB 10 -5 -06 5. The system's structure and components shall be painted a non - reflective, unobtrusive color that blends the system and its components into the surrounding landscape to the greatest extent possible.. and incorporate non - reflective surfaces to minimize any visual disruption. 6. The system shall be designed and located in such a manner to minimize adverse visual impacts from public viewing areas (e.g., public parks, roads, trails) and from adjacent properties. 7. Exterior lighting on any structure associated with the system shall riot be allowed except that which is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration. 8. All on -site electrical wires associated with the RECS shall be installed underground except for "tie -ins" to a public utility company and public utility company transmission poles, towers and lines. This standard may be modified by the Town Board if the project terrain is determined to be unsuitable due. to reasons of excessive grading, biological impacts, or similar factors. 9. At least one sign shall be posted on the tower at a height of five feet warning of electrical shock or high voltage and harms therefrom. No brand names, logo or advertising shall be placed or painted on the tower or components where it would be visible from the ground, except that a system or towers manufacturer's logo may be displayed on a system housing in an unobtrusive manner. 10, Towers shall be constructed to provide one of the following means of access control, or other appropriate method of access: a. Tower - climbing apparatus located no closer than 12 feet from the ground. b. A locked anti -climb device installed on the tower. c. A locked, protective fence at least six feet in height that encloses the tower, Anchor points for any guy wires for a system tower shall be located within the property that the system is WW located on and not on or across any above- ground electric transmission or distribution lines. The point of attachment for the guy wires shall be enclosed by a fence six feet high or sheathed in bright orange or yellow covering from three to eight feet above the ground. 12. All Small RECS tower structures shall be designed and constructed to be in compliance with applicable provisions of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention Building Code, National Electric Code and generally accepted engineering practices. 13. A Small RECS shall not be located closer to any adjacent property's line, right of way, easement, public highway or power line than the Total Height of the facility plus ten feet. 14. All Small RECS shall be maintained in good condition and in accordance with all requirements of this section. The Town Clerk is hereby directed to file the same with the Secretary of State of the State of New York. 2°Iu Supv Trumbull Roll Call Vote C1 Christofferson Yes Cl Tier Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Stelick Yes Cl Sumner Yes The board discussed moving the gravel driveway between the old town hall and the new town hall to a location directly behind the houses in between the two sites. This will make it 10 easier for installation and maintenance of the sewer line. There "till be a buffer area between the drive and the homes. Page 20 of 21 TB 10 -5-06 0 There being no further business to come before the board, on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried the meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ambi L. Hollenbeck Town Clerk I I Page 21 of 21