HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-20TB 7-20-17
Page 1 of 34
TOWN OF DRYDEN
TOWN BOARD MEETING
July 20, 2017
Present: Supervisor Jason Leifer, Cl Daniel Lamb, Cl Linda Lavine,
Cl Deborah Cipolla-Dennis, Cl Kathrin Servoss
Elected Officials: Bambi L. Avery, Town Clerk
Other Town Staff: Ray Burger, Director of Planning
Supv Leifer opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and board members and attendees recited
the pledge of allegiance.
TOWN CLERK
RESOLUTION #96 (2017) – APPROVE MINUTES
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adopt ion:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the meeting minutes of June 8 and
June 15, 2017.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
PUBLIC HEARING
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1624 ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD
Supv Leifer opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Ray Burger explained there is a 5 lot
subdivision near 124 Ellis Hollow Road that involves an 11.4 acre conservation area along
Cascadilla Creek. To secure the conservation easement, the action tonight is for the board to
accept it. All the documentation is on the website and the board will review the short SEQR.
The action is taking an 11.4 acre lot and dedicating it to open space through a conservation
easement. The impacts are evaluated in part two and all are no or small impact.
There was no public comment and no comments from the board. Board members have
the SEQR document. The hearing was left open.
PUBLIC HEARING
DRYDEN BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION/EXPANSION
138 VIRGIL ROAD
Supv Leifer opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Ray Burger explained a 4700
square foot addition is planned. David Bravo–Cullen is present representing applicant if there
are questions. All the documents are on the website. D Bravo-Cullen explained this is an
addition of a new fellowship hall behind the church. It won’t be very visible from road. The
TB 7-20-17
Page 2 of 34
expansion will allow for activities such as funeral dinners, and more classroom. It enhances
the activities of the church and promotes more community building. They are changing the
entrance from two driveways to one wider drive. There were no questions from the public. In
response to a question from the board it was noted there would be some increase in parking
area. There were no further questions and the hearing was left open.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Supv Leifer closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
RESOLUTION #97 (2017) – NEG SEQR DEC – Acceptance of conservation easement on
portion of Tax Parcel 66.-1-12.1
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The proposed action involves accepting a conservation easement on an 11.4 acre portion of
Tax Parcel 66.-1-12.1 located near 1624 Ellis Hollow Road, and
B. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden considers this an unlisted action pursuant to the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is the lead agency for the
purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with acceptance of this
conservation easement by the Town, and
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 SEQRA,
(i) thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form (“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
EAF, Part 2;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) i ts thorough review of the EAF, Part I,
and 2, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed
action and future construction activities, and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review
of 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) its completion of the EAF, Part 3, including the reasons noted
thereon (which reasons are incorporated herein as if set 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 an Environmental
Impact Statement will not 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 EAF and determination of
significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
TB 7-20-17
Page 3 of 34
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
RESOLUTION #98 (2017) - APPROVING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON TOWN OF DRYDEN TAX PARCEL NUMBER 66.-1-12.1 AND AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO THE TOWN OF DRYDEN
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden Planning Board granted final subdivision plat approval
for a five-lot subdivision (“the Project”) of a parcel of real estate located on Town of Dryden
Tax Parcel Number 66.-1-12.1 (“the Property”) and owned by Tiny Timber, LLC (“Tiny
Timber”), by resolution adopted on April 27, 2017, and granted site plan approval for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of site plan approval, Tiny Timber is required to preser ve a
portion of the subdivision as open space by means of a conservation easement; and
WHEREAS, a proposed Deed of Conservation Easement (“the Easement”) grants the
Town a conservation easement on the portion of the Property described in the Easement; and
WHEREAS, the Town has the authority to acquire an interest in land (including an
easement) for the purpose of preserving open space, pursuant to General Municipal Law
(“GML”) §247, and may acquire such interest by gift, subject to a public hearing an d due
notice; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed acquisition of the Easement was held on
July 20, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Hall of the Town of Dryden, 93 East Main Street,
Dryden, New York 13053, and notice of such public hearing was duly given by posting at the
Town Hall and publication in The Ithaca Journal on July 10, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board on July 20, 2017 issued a negative declaration of
environmental impact under Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Regulations
adopted pursuant thereto by the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State
(collectively, “SEQR”) with respect to the Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that the Town Board approves and accepts a conservation easement for
the area described in the proposed Deed of Conservation Easement, which is attached hereto
and made a part hereof; and it is further
RESOLVED that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute the Deed of Conservation
Easement and all other necessary documents to complete the grant of the Easement to the
Town and the recording thereof in the Tompkins County Clerk’s Office.
2nd Cl Servoss
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
TB 7-20-17
Page 4 of 34
DRYDEN BAPTIST CHURCH
Supv Leifer closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. The board has reviewed the SEQR
documents. It is an unlisted action. The project is for a 4700 square foot fellowship hall
connected to the existing building and a new 720 square foot entrance. The board had no
questions on the completed Part 2. All questions were answered no or small impact. There
was note of a temporary increase of noise and traffic during construction.
RESOLUTION #99 (2017) – NEG SEQR DEC – Dryden Baptist Church Addition/Expansion
Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The proposed action involves the construction of a 4700 square foot addition, a 7 20 square
foot new main entrance to the existing 9235 square foot church building, and includes
widening and reconfiguring a driveway, adding 35 new parking spaces, and eliminating one
road cut on the 13.66 acre parcel at 138 Virgil Road in Dryden, New York, Tax Parcel # 48.-1-
66.1, and
B. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden considers this an unlisted action pursuant to the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is the lead agency for the
purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with site plan and special use
permit approval by the Town, and
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 SEQRA,
(i) thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form (“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
EAF, Part 2;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of the EAF, Part I,
and 2, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed
action and future construction activities, and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review
of 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) its completion of the EAF, Part 3, including the reasons noted
thereon (which reasons are incorporated herein as if set 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 an Environmental
Impact Statement will not 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 EAF and determination of
significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution.
2nd Cl
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
TB 7-20-17
Page 5 of 34
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
The Planning Department has not recommended any conditions for approval , however
there is a provision for a landscaping plan.
RESOLUTION #100 (2017) - Approving Site Plan and Granting Special Use Permit for the
Dryden Baptist Church at 138 Virgil Road, Tax Parcel #48.-1-66.1
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The Dryden Baptist Church has applied for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to expand its
building with a fellowship hall and new main entrance at 138 Virgil Road in Dryden, New
York, Tax parcel #48.-1-66.1, and
B. The proposal is to construct a 4700 SF addition connected to the existing church by a
720 SF new main entrance on the 13.66 acre site, and
C. The proposal includes adding 35 parking spaces, eliminating one point of ingress/egress
and widening and reconfiguring a portion of the driveway, and
D. An application, sketch plan, short EAF, and Ground Disturbance Tally Form have been
submitted, and
E. The Town Planning Department considers the application complete and in conformance
with the requirements of Town Zoning Law §501, §600, §1103 and §1201, and
F. A public hearing was held on July 20, 2017 with public comments registered in the
meeting minutes and considered by this board, and
G. The Tompkins County Planning Department has reviewed (letter dated 6/28/17) this
project as required by NYS Municipal Law §239 –l, -m, and –n and has determined that the
project will have no negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts, and
H. The Ground Disturbance Tally Form has been reviewed by the Town Stormwater
Management Officer and it was determined that the project falls under the threshold
necessitating a Simple Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and that an Erosion
and Sediment Controls (E&SC) plan would be adequate, and
I. The Town Board has reviewed this application relative to the considerations and
standards found in Town Zoning Law §1104 for site plan review and §1202 for Spe cial Use
Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Board approves the sketch plan as site plan for 138 Virgil Road dated June 8,
2017, conditioned on submission of the following prior to issuance of building permits:
i) a landscaping plan, satisfactory to the Director of Planning, indicating the types
of plants to be utilized.
1. The Town Board hereby finds that the considerations for approval of the requested
Special Use Permit listed in Section 1202 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Law have been met,
specifically that:
A. No new use is proposed. The current use is compatible with the other permitted uses in
the district and the purposes of the district set forth in the Zoning Law, as the project is
an addition to a use that has existed at138 Dr yden Road, now in the Rural Residential
Zoning District, for more than 30 years and is an allowed use in that district.
B. The use, as demonstrated for over 30 years, is compatible with adjoining properties and
with the natural and manmade environment. This parcel has residential and
agricultural uses adjacent to or in its immediate vicinity. The proposed addition is on
TB 7-20-17
Page 6 of 34
the south side of the existing building, approximately two hundred feet from the closest
residence to the west. An existing hedgerow, the existing church and existing out
buildings on the residential property will screen that residence from the proposed
addition. The residences to the north and east will be screened from the project by the
existing church. The E&SC Plan will adequately address stormwater from the parcel
during construction;
C. Parking, vehicular circulation, and infrastructure for the proposed use is adequate;
D. The overall impact on the site and its surroundings considering the environmental,
social and economic impacts of traffic, noise, dust, odors, release of harmful
substances, solid waste disposal, glare, or any other nuisances has been considered
and found to be negligible, based on the information and reasons in the Short
Environmental Assessment Form;
E. As no new use of the property is proposed, no restrictions and/or conditions on design
of structures or operation of the use (including hours of operation) are deemed
necessary to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses or to protect the natural or
scenic resources of the Town
F. The project complies with the requirements for site plan review and conforms to the
Town’s Commercial Design Guidelines to the maximum extent practicable in that: the
exterior of the proposed addition will match the existing structure, one road cut is being
eliminated, and additional plantings are proposed, and
The Town Board, finding that the applicant is in compliance with all other provisions of the
Town Zoning Law and other applicable ordinances, approves a Special Use Permit for the
proposed addition/expansion of the Dryden Baptist Church, 138 Dryden Road with the
Town of Dryden Standard Conditions of Approval as amended August 14, 2008.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
SUN8 SEQR REVIEW
Supv Leifer announced the board would do a SEQR review for the Sun8 special use
permit application. The site plan and special use permit will have a separate public hearing
after the Planning Board takes action. There apparently was some concern about the public
notice of this hearing. In consulting with the attorney there is no requirement for a public
hearing on SEQR so there was no defect. The notice given was proper and we have the affidavit
of publication ten days before the hearing. The board doesn’t believe there is any confusion.
There have been many public meetings about these two sites. Tonight the board will only deal
with the environmental quality review.
Presentation from applicant. Bharath Srinivasan of Distributed Sun, the parent
company of Distributed Sun, said they are the applicant for both the 2150 Dryden Road project
and the Ellis Tract project. Since the last time they were here they have done a substantial
amount of additional work and provided a lot more information for review. This presentation is
a summary of that. They are proposing community solar arrays in Dryden. Those are arrays
that can be installed in a remote location and the energy can be credited on to residential
subscribers’ bills in same utility load zone (NYSEG Load Zone C here). They are offering a pay
as you go model. There is no upfront investment required by anyone. Community solar is
useful to generate local clean energy and provides energy for rent ers and those with homes that
don’t have a suitable roof or land and frees up liquidity because people don’t have to invest in
panels on their roof.
TB 7-20-17
Page 7 of 34
Community solar in New York refers to the regulatory framework that the Public Service
Commission (PSC) has set up. The Commission does not prescribe the size. There is a
regulation in New York that each array that is connected to the grid can’t be over 2 MW. All of
the arrays comply with the regulations set up by the PSC.
They are proposing arrays in three groups in two clusters. The first cluster is called the
Ellis Tract and is in the general area between Dodge Road, Turkey Hill Road, and Stevenson
Road. They are divided into two groups: Ellis Tract North which is north of Stevenson Road
and Ellis Tract South which is the area south of Stevenson Road between Dodge Road and
Turkey Hill Road. There are five 2MW proposed at the 2150 Dryden Road property.
Since last time the applicant was here they have submitted 1000 plus pages of
information on each project proposed. They have asked all agencies what they needed for
environmental review, including NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, US Army
Corp of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Service, NY Historic Preservation Program, and the State
Historic Preservation Office. In response Tetratech reviewed the environmental studies and
prepared reports. The applicant then filed site plans and environmental assessment forms.
They did a full ecological assessment; one survey was done in April and one was done in June.
There was an aquatic resources report that delineated all the wetlands and other surface water
related features on the properties. LaBella Associates prepared a phase 1 environmental site
assessment that goes back multiple decades to find out if any hazardous substances exist on
the properties. After consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office, Tetratech prepared
a Phase 1 and a 1b. They conducted over 900 shovel pit tests on both the properties and
determined that the project the way it was structured was not affecting any cultural or
archeological resources. LaBella and Trowbridge prepared extensive visual impact
assessments which included detailed landscaping plans and buffers to be provided on multiple
sites of the projects. All this information was then submitted to the State and Federal agencies
and each of them concurred the projects did not create any adverse environmental impact; that
they were not creating a “take” of any endangered or threatened species, and they would not
require permits for the work to be performed. They hired a civil engineer who prepared a very
detailed stormwater pollution prevention plan. The town had requested a construction level
plan and they have provided a detailed plan. They also have 239(l) and (m) reviews from
Tompkins County on both the projects.
Modifications and mitigations based on the feedback received from the town, the public
and various agencies: Distributed Sun will not indiscriminately clear trees. They have agreed
on a protocol to selectively cut and clear trees after making a determination on which trees
pose either shading hazard or a fall hazard. As a general practice, Distributed Sun has never
indiscriminately cleared tree cover. They are happy to put that in writing and will make the
determination at the time they go for the construction permits. They are removing some trees
on the Ellis Tract within wetland areas. They are not proposing any clearing at the 2150
Dryden Road property within wetlands. Where they work within wetlands if they use any
heavy machinery they have agreed to use best management practices to prevent any damage to
the soil and the vegetation. There is a definition for what non-mechanized clearing is and the
Army Corps has let developers use that in the past and Distributed Sun has accepted that
stipulation. Wherever possible existing vegetation in the form of brush and trees will be
maintained. If trees and brush don’t have to be removed, they will not remove them.
After the construction process is complete, as a part of the SWPPP, they have agreed to
reseed with a pollinator friendly mix that the Cornell Botanical Gardens has recommended.
They have also agreed to commit to a study with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
that is gearing up to study how native grasses in a local area impact the pollinator population.
They have agreed to let them do testing within the solar array footprint along with other control
TB 7-20-17
Page 8 of 34
areas outside to determine if solar arrays have an impact in Ne w York. Research in the
southwest indicates there isn’t an impact and this is an opportunity to study it in New York.
They have provided large amounts of setbacks to integrate the solar arrays with the
neighboring surroundings and added visual barriers and screen where necessary to provide a
level of buffer to the neighbors and passersby. They have agreed to and stated several times to
use native plantings. In New York, the DEC defines those as non-invasive species that have
nativized and adapted to the New York area. They have also made a commitment in general to
procure any plantings. They have been in contact with a number of different nurseries. The
landscaping plans provided use input in what can be procured locally.
They have added two additional wildlife corridors since the last time the plans were
displayed. One is in conjunction with an existing hedgerow that they have agreed to preserve.
They have avoided wetlands as much as possible. There is very little encroachment of the solar
arrays into the wetlands. Any clearing in the wetland areas will not include stump removal.
They have generally proposed an agricultural fence around the arrays and are not using the
standard chain link fence. They never proposed razor wire at all.
Agency Concurrence: Because the size of the application prevents it from being
emailed, they provide hard copies to all agencies. Before the official copy reached any of the
agencies, some residents sent it to the agencies, so they were prepared when it was submitted.
They took a month to review the materials submitted and e ach agency agreed the project would
have no adverse environmental impact and the applicant can proceed unregulated with no
permits necessary. They have had extensive field visits for ecological and habitat assessments
and professional wetland delineation has been done on both sites. All information was
provided to the US Army and NYS DEC. US Fish and Wildlife Service offers a three criteria
exemption from a permit. The northern long eared bat was identified was identified as a
species of concern. The concern is not because their habitat is threatened. It is because
they’ve developed a fungal disease. Tree clearing would be not allowed in June and July and
the applicant has agreed to not clear from May to August as a more conservative window.
NYSHPO has reviewed the reports of over 900 shovel pit tests on both sites. They have
written that no impact to cultural or archeological resources were perceived at the Ellis Tract.
The applicant offered to do non-mechanized clearing on top of one particular site that was
identified underground. They reviewed the protocol and determined that it would not disturb
the eligibility for that particular site to be placed on the National Historic Register of Places.
For 2150 Dryden Road they came back with the same opinion. Applicant voluntarily sent them
the visual impact statement for SHPO to review the visual barriers intended to be provided.
SHPO provided a letter stating they had reviewed the visual barrier in the context of the
neighboring cemetery property line and found that the visual barrier was appropriate. They
had two conditions which were that the visual barrier actually went in and was in existence
and that the solar arrays were removed at the end of their life, both of which have been agreed
to.
Visual barriers – Applicant has provided setbacks from all neighboring property lines as
much as they can. They have provided adequate buffering at the ground level from a vantage
point, but retaining the vista view as much as possible. At the Ellis Tract they have provided a
visual barrier along Turkey Hill Road that starts out at a shorter planting height that won’t
grow tall enough to impact the vista view. Along Dodge Road they are proposing shrubbery
that won’t affect the shade and will provide the right amount of visual barrier for the homes
and passersby. They have also agreed to preserve two existing hedgerows. Any tree in those
taller than 20’ will be trimmed or removed. If trees are removed the gap will be filled with
shrubbery. That was a constructive suggestion and accepted by the applicant.
TB 7-20-17
Page 9 of 34
At 2150 Dryden Road they are proposing a double track row of trees and shrubs
immediately behind the yellow building. They have provided a contour landscaping plan where
they are providing shrubs instead of trees so that the vista view is not impacted. They have
provided new trees at the edge of Route 13 and the cemetery boundary line and new shrubbery
between Route 13 and array #5. A row of trees will be provided along the property line of 2180
Dryden Road to help screen the arrays and impact from removing the existing hedgerow.
Impact on soil and water quality – The applicant has provided a very detailed SWPPP
that lays out the best management practices. DEC has very strict regulations that govern
runoff water and runoff water quality from stormwater. Under that and based on feedback
received, they have minimized the total area of access roads overall. They have minimized the
impact to wetlands and water bodies. There are no roads that cross wetlands. Any machinery
across wetlands during construction will have best management practices, like timber mats to
cover and protect the wetlands. They are not proposing any concrete for solar array
foundations. These are helical screws that can be driven into the ground and can be driven
into rock. The only concrete proposed is for the concrete pads that house the transformers.
Those are 300 sq feet per 2MW array. It is not a substantial contribution to the project in
terms of impervious area. Those pads are placed on crushed stone and can be lifted out at any
time after the equipment is removed. Before construction begins the applicant will have to
secure a building permit and along with that they will file Notice of Intent with the DEC and
seek a general permit for stormwater control. The SWPPP will be under the review of a
professional engineer. They are required to inspect the site periodically and within 24 hours
after a rainfall event. When construction is complete and the soil is stabilized they w ill file a
Notice of Termination and the professional engineer that oversees the SWPPP will certify that
erosion and sediment controls proposed have been completed. All of the best management
practices recommended to protect surface water, protect sensitive areas and cause minimal
impact will be followed.
Public Comment:
Joe Wilson, Hunt Hill Road said his understanding is that the SEQR law and the town
law apply to the application (displaying each). We have had enough study of the environmental
impacts. It’s time to move to the next step of the process. (He displayed hard copy reports on
the two areas where the solar arrays will go.) We h ave had eight months to look at
environmental impacts. We have had hundreds and hundreds of comments written and
spoken to this Board, the [Planning] Board, the Conservation Board and the Agricultural
Advisory Board. Sun8 has made multiple modifications in response to questions and
comments as has just been presented again in some reform and as outlined herein in these
documents (displayed). The town has hired, at Sun8’s expense, an engineering firm that has
guided them and summarized all of the technical information that has been presented. The
County, the State and the Federal Government and their various agencies that have some say
in these projects have all been consulted. They have come to the conclusion that it is time to
move on. There are no further adverse impacts to be pro bed or studied and there are,
ultimately, no adverse impacts because of the mitigations and alterations which the company
has made in response to the public.
Jim Skaley, 940 Dryden Road, said he served for 11 years as the County
Environmental Planner and it was his responsibility during that time to review environmental
assessment forms and impact statements and so forth. He has reviewed this particular EAS
for this project. It appears to be a very clean project. The only significant component had to do
with the threatened species of the northern long-eared bat. Looking it up, there isn’t any
identified location of that in either area, but the potential habitat exists. As was indicated
earlier, the threat to the species is more of a disease threat than a habitat threat. If he were
reviewing this project at the county, he would endorse what they have apparently already done
TB 7-20-17
Page 10 of 34
and say the project would have absolutely no negative impact. He urged town to move forward
and approve this project post haste.
Art Berkey, 1205 Ellis Hollow Road, read a portion of and handed in the attached
statement.
Craig Schutt, 69 Schutt Road, said he would like to address the board on the issue of
the proposed moratorium that three advisory boards all discussed and voted on. Collectively
the vote was 16 to 6 in favor of a moratorium. We don’t hear anything about that proposal in
front of the Town Board. As an advisory board member on the Conservation Board, it is our
responsibility to advise the board, but apparently the board doesn’t care. At the last
Conservation Board meeting when he was simply trying to ask a question of one of the board
members broke into a tirade and jumped out of their seat and started screaming in his face
and wouldn’t let him finish the question. Everyone else on the board was saying to sit down
and be quiet. She then got upset, threw up her hands and stormed out of the room. She
didn’t listen to the rest of the conversation. Even the Conservation Board, a board that
strongly favors this project. He doesn’t disfavor it, but the way it was done. The vote at the
Conservation Board was 4 to 4. Doesn’t that show you something about where this town
stands and how divided the subject is bringing this town. Let’s see some positive action from
this board and listen to what is being said to you besides just…. Move forward. All we are
asking for is a time out so we can study it. As far as stormwater goes, you can have a great
SWPPP and all that. Go to the Harford site and see all the runoff there’s been there done by
Sun8.
Leslie Appel, 78 Dodge Road, said her property is directly across from Dodge R oad site.
She still has the same sadness and concerns formerly expressed. She is really sad that this
has become a polarizing issue with people that are pro-solar against people that are opposed to
the project. She speaks for everyone opposed to the project in saying they all are pro -solar.
What they don’t like the commercial massive aspect of this project. She has another property
in Tompkins County and installed solar on the roof. She wants solar. What is not acceptable
and not okay to her is the massive scale of this, changing the entire neighborhood from a nice
rural agricultural field to a commercial field. There are many 2MW projects going up all over
Tompkins County. Renovus had a few meetings where they sent out postcards and invited
people and there are several 2MW projects. This has been presented as if it doesn’t go forward
there is no solar coming to Dryden. She doesn’t think that is the case. A special use permit
says it should not be disruptive to neighboring properties, and as a direct neighbor, the current
form of this project even with the mitigation is still extremely disruptive to them.
Janis Graham said she feels that this board couldn’t have found a citizenry more open
to having solar in their backyard than all of the people who live in the Ellis Tract. Many of the
neighbors already have solar in the backyard. Instead of making them partners with the town
in this development, so many of them are angry and disappointed and feeling disenfr anchised
either by this project or by this convoluted process which she really hopes the board will
explain. Now the board is doing SEQR and then there will be site plan. This is the third public
hearing. She asked the board to take a moment to explain the process because it would really
help. She keeps thinking she understands it and the game changes. She d oesn’t undervalue
Sun8’s efforts to make adjustments from the plans first iteration with its chain link fencing and
disregard of wetlands. It really has come a long way in the improvements and she lauds those
efforts. She also lauds Bharath’s tireless outreach to a lot of residents. Ultimately, she feels
like you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. She feels that the complicated mitigations
can’t change the fact that this installation is just too big for the footprint that it was allotted by
the co-developer Cornell. She says co-developer because it is a farce to say that Cornell isn’t
one. Bringing adjacent fields into play could have eased a multitude of objections. She asked
the board to speak to residents directly. They’ve talked and talked but haven’t really had a
conversation with board. She feels like the board never really reached out to them to talk to
TB 7-20-17
Page 11 of 34
them about it and she would like the board to share its thoughts, explanations, reasoning, and
we’ve gotten to this point, what kind of negotiations have gone on. The S EQR appears to be
done through TG Miller. The other question is about the maintenance of all the vegetation and
she wonders if that’s been taken care of.
Norma Goldberg, 1167 Ellis Hollow Road, read a statement by Joleen Multan – I am
disappointed with the town board that they did not take action to impose a six month
moratorium on large scale solar projects, especially given the large public outcry against these
projects and after the Planning Board, Conservation Board and many taxpaying residents have
recommended that they do so. At one Planning Board meeting the Town of Dryden lawyer said
that it was completely within the legal rights for the Town Board to establish the moratorium,
but only prior to formal review of the SEQR form. I think the town owes its citizens an
explanation of why they didn’t have a public discussion of the moratorium. I am a very
enthusiastic supporter of solar energy. I plan to put it in my back yard. This is n ot about
being for or against solar. It is about doing the right thing for our community. It’s about
taking the time to make plans and write laws to deal with the future of solar in the Town of
Dryden. We have not done this yet. If we allow this project t o go forward, we will not able to go
back. This is poor planning and could have any number of damaging effects on our
community in the future. I see a bright future for true community solar projects in the Town of
Dryden. I have been at meetings and seen emails that have offered their own parcels of land
for community solar. Other residents have done research about land owned by the town that
would be acceptable for community solar projects. All these in areas it seems no one would
object to. These things need to be considered as an option that is more acceptable for our
town.
Cl Lavine stated it seems important to note that the Conservation Board did not vote in
favor of a moratorium. It was a 4 to 4 vote.
Marie McRae, 710 Irish Settlement Road, presented written statements from David
Ritchie and Ann Leonard (attached) who could not be here. She said it’s time to go forward.
All of the reports are in. All of the law is complied with. It’s time to do solar.
Buzz Lavine, Ringwood Road, said the board has heard his views on this project before
and they have only been reinforced by what has gone on up to this point. The presentation
tonight made it clear that there has been a huge amount of review that’s gone on and all boxes
have been checked in terms of the SEQR. He sees no reason why we shouldn’t go with what
the professional reviewers and all the municipal and regional and state reviewers have all said.
Everything is ready to go. He thinks we should g o. He was a county planner for ten years in
Tompkins County. He served on the town’s Planning Board for 20 years. From his point of
view, the planning on this has been very, very good; very through and has been long range. As
soon as there was a project to speak about of any significance, it was spoken about and it’s
been reviewed many, many times in public hearings as well. At this point he would end by
saying the only reason anyone can give for not approving what is being proposed is if there are
special interests that take precedence over the future of our world and certainly the future of
our children.
Jan Shea, Ringwood Road, thanked the board for the time taken to learn and listen and
to deliberate on this tough issue when good people feel very differently. She loves this small
world we live in. She’s been here for over 50 years and has travelled Mt Pleasant Road and
Stevenson Road every week many times and enjoys it every time. When you learn about
climate change it is absolutely overarching all other issues. She urged the board to accept the
solar project.
Sara Osmeloski, 2180 Dryden Road, has received gotten six notices in the mail
regarding hearings for these projects. She is talking specifically about the Distributed Sun
TB 7-20-17
Page 12 of 34
projects, not Dryden solar in general. In all of the meetings and hearings she has gone to she
has not heard one person who lives close enough to these projects to receive these cards talk
out in support of these projects. Not one. She asks that the town take this into account when
making a decision on these projects. We all support solar, but not as it is laid out here with
the arrays that are so close to our homes and places of sanctuary that they are going to
interfere with what we see every day, 24 hours a day. This isn’t just a commuting thing that
you briefly see. They have to live with these. These projects are the largest solar projects
proposed in New York State. No one else in New York State has been asked to live beside such
massive solar farms. Frankly, for her, the thought of living beside one of these massive solar
farms is unsettling. It’s a feeling that’s really hard to describe and she isn’t sure if these are
installed if she can continue to live in her home. It’s a weird sort of feeling to know that there
is a silent, unmoving manmade environment just outside your door. She realizes that many
may think that sacrificing a few residents for the good of many is a good idea. But she wants
you to remember this. This is just the start. Your backyard could be next. And then you will
know how she feels.
Joe Osmeloski, 2180 Dryden Road, read a list of names: Myers, Armstrong, Brindisi,
Plotkin, Ressler, Frost, Reed, Swart, Habecker, Keene, Graham, Miller, Appel, Price, Fox,
Petrillose, Cole-Jones, Willow Glen Cemetery, Cornelius, Adams, Osmeloski. Who are these
people? We’ve heard from some of them tonight. These are the people that the town has
forgotten or ignored or doesn’t care about, or all of the above. These are the people that for
purposes of the rest of his presentation are going to be affected directly by these projects. They
either live across the street from these projects or their land abuts the projects. Since the
Town has done nothing for these people, he is proposing that as part of the special use permit
the Town put in three conditions for these people. If the assessed value (as determined by
Tompkins County Assessment) on any property just mentioned goes down, that Distributed
Sun makes up the difference on a yearly basis. If Mr Miller’s house drops by $5,000, they
make that up on a yearly basis. Second, any property that is on the market for more than a
year at fair market value and does not sell, will be bought by Distributed Sun and they can try
to sell it. Third, any property or business that loses a percentage of their business (if plot sales
at the cemetery go down) those revenues are made up by Distributed Sun. You’ve got to
compensate the people of Dryden and not compensate some million dollar project.
Spring Buck, Sunny Slope Road, said she lives less than a mile from the project and is
very much in support of the project.
Lisa Kilgore said she lives in Ithaca but the outreach for this event encouraged people
from Tompkins County to show their support. She supports the project and would welcome it
in her backyard.
John Berger, 1686 Hanshaw Road, said he finds it troubling hearing the difference
between people saying they are for it and people who feel like they are being oppressed by it.
Previously we had a situation with fracking and we talked about not believing what the DEC
said and now we’re saying what the DEC said is fine. He is in favor of solar and thinks he is in
favor of the project, but is finding himself torn. He wants to understand better. He asked
where the alternative sites were. He’s heard from the developer that these are viable sites in
the sense that so far we haven’t seen any sign of adverse impact. They can be connected to the
grid. Even though there’s a site, it may not be viable in that sense. The o wners of that land
think it is a proper use. He asked what makes these sites viable. How difficult is it to find
sites and why this size? The size makes it industrial. A smaller site is not so industrial. Why
these sites and the size? It would be nice to hear something discussed about the size. When
people talk about biodiversity and scale, he’s glad to hear about mitigation plans, but we think
about not doing projects like this. The los s of biodiversity due to extinction; the havoc that’s
being wreaked on our planet. It’s a very complicated issue and he feels we do need to be
sensitive.
TB 7-20-17
Page 13 of 34
Pat Fitzgibbons said for those who think that these solar installations are going to save
the environment, he’d like to make some points. Currently most of the power in this area is
hydroelectric. The 29 MW of solar generation cannot be assumed to offset only carbon
generated electricity. It may offset the hydroelectric. The CO2 emissions reductions will have
an immeasurable effect on global warming, especially with the offsets referred to before.
However, the impact to Dryden’s scenic beauty with its long and open vistas will be great and
undeniable. Another point he wants to make is the apparent hypocrisies of at least a subset of
the county legislators. He believes in 2012 they passed a law forbidding tax breaks for solar
and wind installations. It has since been repealed. He was told by a legislator that it was to
prevent a wind farm from coming. A pparently green is not green. Maybe it’s a west vs east
Dryden thing as to whose vistas should be compromised. Sun8 one more time said co-location
of these installations is not prevented by law. If co-locations are acceptable, why do you need
subdivisions? And why do you need subdivisions that create landlocked parcels? The two don’t
jibe. There’s either a 2 MW limit, or there’s not. These subdivisions are skirting the state law.
Darren Miller said Town of Dryden special use permits state they are for allowed uses
so long as they are not disrupting neighboring properties. Clearly this project in its current
form is disruptive to neighboring properties. On t his basis alone it could and should be
dismissed. The reason it is disruptive is its size and siting; two issues we’ve talked about from
day one. Distributed Sun and Cornell have been adamant that they will not change the site or
the size. He went to all the neighbors directly affected at the Ellis site and they came up with a
plan of their own based on what they can live with without being unduly disrupted. (attached)
Conspicuously absent from the long list of distinguished agencies that they contacted early on
in this project was the people of the neighborhoods to be affected. It was almost hidden from
them that it even existed. Residents should have been one of the first instead of one of the last
steps in this project.
Fred Balfour, Scofield Road on the Dryden side, said they just moved in last month.
Early this year he went to Google and asked what the life expectancy is for a 76 year old white
male. The answer is 11 years, so if his grandfather was still alive he would say do you really
have a dog in this hunt. But his five grandchildren do have a dog in this hunt. A previous
speaker mentioned the overarching issue of climate change. While his family is newcomers
here and they don’t live next to it, they urge approval of this project.
Dave Weinstein, 51 Freese Road - The decision on these projects should be based on a
careful consideration of what is best for our community, not based on a count of how many
letters received or petition names you’ve received. But because you have received so many it
would useful to have an accounting of where people have stated that they stand. Marty Hatch
did an analysis. D Weinstein said M Hatch did try to determine whether a signer was a
resident of Dryden, although these decisions affect everyone in our count y and if a neighboring
town was going to make a decision that would raise the utility rate for our town, we would want
to have a say in it.
Ellis Tract- (288 opinions stated)
Opinions in support of project: _81_% (233 of 288)
Opinions against project: _________ 19% (55 of 288)
Opinions from Dryden residents in support of project: _________________ 68 __ % (108 of 159)
Opinions from Dryden residents against project: _______________ 32_% (51 of 159)
2150 Dryden Road- (336 opinions stated)
Opinions in support of project: 70% (233 of 336)
Opinions against project: _________ 30% (103 of 336)
Opinions from Dryden residents in support of project: _59_% (108 of 184)
Opinions from Dryden residents against project: _______________ 41_% (76 of 184)
TB 7-20-17
Page 14 of 34
Nancy Miller, 501 Midline Road, said she has written many times and spoken at
several public hearings about this already so she won’t reiterate what she has said previously.
She is very much in favor of this project. It is time to move on and get it into production. She
urged the Town Board to vote for a negative declaration on this and move it on to the Planning
Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals and get this into production.
Charles Geisler, Dryden, thanked the board, planning and whoever else has made
these documents available to residents and putting them around the town. It was wonderful to
have access to them. He has spent considerable time in recent weeks circulating in the county
distributing signs in favor of solar. The sign says “It’s Time” and he believes it is time to
approve community in solar in our town. There are three reasons. The first is that it is
practical and loaded with common sense. There should be not one resident in the T own of
Dryden who does not have access to solar electricity if they want it. It is not an entitlement for
well-off homeowners who can afford it. It’s time. Secondly, within the last two weeks we had
the collapse of a major ice shelf in Antarctica creating what is probably the largest iceberg in
memory and in history. Every jurisdiction on the planet, in light of what’s goin g on around us,
should not only encourage the development of alternative energy, including solar, but
encourage the scaling up so every member of society has access if they want it.
Robert Watros, Village of Dryden, said he is opposed to the proposal in its current form
for many reasons stated in his letter. The primary reason is the scheme is flawed in that it
uses a number of 2MW facilities to make what we consider to be a large generation facility.
Letter submitted (attached).
Brad Perkins said when Sully Sullenberger landed an airplane on the Hudson and
saved 145 or so lives, he then was examined by the NTSB. They did some empirical things
about “well if he had made his decision to go back to the airport, there was time to do it” and
they made their big presentation a lot like this solar presentation has been very empirical. And
then he said “But you forgot one thing; you forgot the human factor. I was the captain of the
airplane. I needed a few seconds, maybe four, to decide what was the best thing to do. To add
those four seconds to your empirical data and you can’t get the airplane back to the airport. I
put it in the Hudson River and I saved some lives”. B Perkins said his point in telling that story
is that now it is time for our five elected town board members to look at the human side of this.
To say what’s really the right thing? Do we need the whole loaf of bread, or can we pare off a
couple of slices and make the people in Ellis Hollow more satisfied, more livable with it? Can
we pare off Section 5 of Willow Glen and still make this a palatable, profitable thing for Sun8 so
that they can have what they need and our community can have it? We’ve elected you and put
our trust in every one of you that you will be honest, that you will be forthright, tha t you will be
considerate and that you will make Dryden a better place in all ways during your term of office.
That’s what I’m asking you to do. (information submitted attached)
Claudia Wheatley, formerly Claudia Montague, said she was a reporter for many years
starting in 1980 and attended many public meetings like this one, and heard the same
remarks over and over. Read portions of statement submitted (attached). If not here, where?
If not now, when?
Don Scutt, Dryden, said he normally speaks about taxes but tonight will talk about
what is going on here. The scale and scope of these current projects is somewhat dividing the
town. There was a very vocal majority here tonight on one side, a minority on the other side.
We all live in here Dryden. We should try to come up with some sort of resolution of the
problems we have here. This board has been deadly silent. He thinks the board has made a
mistsake in not advising or speaking out what it plans to do here. There has to be some sort of
compromise. He can’t understand why any civil board would want to not make a decision for
the town’s people that elected you. You are elected to make decisions for Dryden. He read a
TB 7-20-17
Page 15 of 34
statement “Think globally. Power local.” The board is elected to think for Dryden. If the board
approves these projects the way they are you are taking Wall Street corporate cronyism over
the Dryden people. That is not what you were elected for. There has to be some sort of
compromise in these developments.
Tom Ruttledge, Ellis Hollow, said he has never been here before. He is an avid cyclist
and has solar power at his house that was generously subsidized by the State of New York and
the Federal government. But not everyone can afford to do solar. He is fortunate and can
afford to do it. His house now generates in excess of what he uses. We have to be sensitive to
the members of the community that don’t have that ability, either for siting or for financial
outlet. He had to pay $14,000 in order to put the solar on his roof bef ore he got rebates and
tax credits back. That’s an incredible financial outlay that a lot people can’t make at the
outset. Alternative energy is wonderful and he thinks everybody does support it, but it’s not
within reach of a lot of people. If this put s it within reach, that’s wonderful. He added that he
works for Cornell. He’s not always a fan of his employer’s policies, but they generate a lot of
jobs for the community. They also use a lot of energy. He thinks Cornell is trying to be
thoughtful in mitigating that. He bikes by their large solar farm out by the airport. This is the
future and we have to think of the kids that are 20 years old. He’s 53 and he’ll be gone before
all of this really is bad, but they’re not.
Bruno Schickel, 210 Schutt Road, said it seems like Distributed Sun in the their
presentation talked about of lot of things and a lot of impacts that weren’t happening. But they
didn’t talk about the one impact. The fundamental question before us is the visual impact.
That really is it. And they really didn’t talk much about that. The problem is it is the visual
impact and how that visual impact changes the character of the communities that these are
going into. Brad Perkins and the folks in Ellis Hollow have talked about thi s. From day one
everybody has been asking the board to scale it back. By W illow Glen cemetery if you take
about a quarter of the arrays in the front out, nobody would have a problem. Everyone would
be supportive of it. We would not have a problem with it. TC3 put in ten acres and everybody
is fine with it. There are solar arrays out by the airport and everybody is fine with it. The
reason is they have very, very little visual impact and the impact on the neighborhood is very,
very low. He encouraged the board to use the power that it has. The board can say to the
developer you have to scale it back. It has to be smaller. We have to find a compromise that
will mitigate the impact on the neighborhood because the impact is here. He reminded the
board that it turned down a special use permit for a retired couple that wanted to open a little
business of repairing a few cars in their garage on a dead end road that needed a special use
permit. The board turned them down because it was too much of an impact on the
neighborhood.
Matt Kozlowski said he works for Cornell and formerly lived on Irish Settlement Road
and feels connected with the community. He thanked the town board members and
community members as a whole for a thorough assessment of the sol ar projects. It has been
an exhaustive journey. He hopes they can find something that everyone is satisfied with in the
end. He personally feels this is an important step in the necessary energy transition that we
need to address climate change today. He believes this benefits not only the University and
environment, but the community as a whole.
Gry Wildenstein, Dryden resident, urged the Town Board to approve the solar farms.
We hear a lot about negative things and how it may impact people to in the community
visually, maybe property values. A lot of those are assumptions. Maybe, just imagine, that
people will go crazy to move here because they can get solar. She wants everybody to have
access to that. She’s lucky to have a solar unit and they are able produce all their own
electricity. It’s great; it’s clean. Everyone should have the opportunity to get that. She feels we
have a responsibility to our earth, to respect our natural resources, to diminish our carbon
footprint. We owe it to our future generations. We often agree about that. We also owe it to
TB 7-20-17
Page 16 of 34
our past. Think about our forefathers. They came here to this land and came to live off the
land. They would surely be proud of us if they knew that their future offspring actually had
the foresight to help preserve our precious resources and the land around us. She knows the
Town Board is in a tough position and asked that they try to work with the residents of the
town and try to help unite the community instead of dividing it and vote in f avor of the
proposal.
Kathy McHugh, 127 Yellow Barn Road, said our planet is in trouble. She is very
worried for our future, our children and our grandchildren. We cannot afford to wait on this
project. It is way too important. People have been putting all kinds of obstacles ahead of
renewable energy for far too long. She personally cannot install solar where she lives and
many others can’t. Community solar is a wonderful option for our world. She urged the board
to move this forward as soon as possible.
Martha Robertson, County Legislator that represents the west of the Town including
the Ellis Tract, speaking for herself, said Pat Fitzgibbons either completely misunderstood what
she said about wind exemption or deliberately twisted it. We have a quality, responsive
developer here. Solar won’t work at her house and she can’t wait to be part of Dryden
Community Solar. She is puzzled by the characterization of the cemetery as a pristine sight.
(She displayed pictures of the front of the cemeter y along Route 13.) NYS DOT does traffic
counts every three years and it is 18,000 or more cars a day on Dryden Road. It is the third
busiest road in Tompkins County. The only busier tracts are Elmira Road and the Fulton
Meadow area downtown. It’s amazing that this is considered a pristine site. The solar panels
aren’t going to smell and aren’t going to make any noise. She encouraged the cemetery to put
up shrubbery like Bharath is going to do along the front of the cemetery. If trees and shrubs
had been built ten, thirteen, fifteen years ago, you’d actually have privacy and solitude at least
visually from Route 13, the third busiest road in Tompkins County. She knows this has b een
difficult, it’s a political issue, but she is hopeful the Town Board will believe in the future and
support these projects.
Dave Bradley, Village of Dryden, said one of the few rights people have in NYS is to
choose the source of their electricity. Less than 100,000 currently do that. You can actually
choose your electricity source if you wish. But most people don’t seem to know that because
most people don’t really know much at all about energy and how it is paid for and how it is
subsidized or anything else like that. At least people do understand that renewable ener gy
doesn’t cause CO2 pollution and the recent huge thunderstorms that we had which washed
out a big part of Dryden lake creek – that’s a warning of what is going to happen if we don’t
stop all this CO2 pollution of the atmosphere. That being said, what we really seem to have
here is a group of Republicans who have whipped themselves into frenzy over what they
consider is to be their right to see things. They only want to see certain things and they are
absolutely sure that they don’t that to see solar panels, but if it was wind turbines there, they
wouldn’t want to see those either. They think they own the right to see the photons and the
shape of them that come into their eyes. It’s kind of ridiculous. And they whip themselves up
into this and Edgar (?) who is the father of modern advertising would be totally proud of this
amazing propaganda effort. So people have just whipped themselves up into that and you can’t
really have a good discussion over how much subsidies to give, or what kind of energy tha t you
are going to choose if all you are doing is just conjuring up bizarre fantasies about your viewing
certain shapes and whether or not they are good for you and whether or not your ancient
relatives would be upset with them. (statement attached)
Kay Wagner, 1665 Ellis Hollow Road, said she focuses on a few things. Most important
is when she thinks of her children and grandchildren. She cares about the world they will
have and they way we are headed now, who knows if they can even survive the way climate
change is going. We really have to move now. We can’t sit back and twiddle our thumbs and
hope that problems will go away. A very detailed environmental review has already been done.
TB 7-20-17
Page 17 of 34
They’ve gone past the SEQR requirements. It’s time to move on. People are talking about other
sites that exist. She doesn’t know how many other sites exist, but we have to use every site
there is. We can’t just say put it over there and then we’ll never have to use the places
proposed now. We are going to have to use every single site that exists if we are going to save
the planet.
Judy Pierpont, 111 Pleasant Hollow Road, said she supports Dryden’s proposed
installation of 29 MW of solar arrays. The environmental effect we should be most concerned
about is fast accelerating climate change which will have a negative impact on all species,
including us. It’s urgent that we do this now; that the county, state and country move quickly
to install renewable energy to stop putting carbon into the atmosphere. We might just have
time to stem the effects of climate change. She understands also that the board has had really
hard deliberations and has considered in these deliberations whether there are other sites that
are possible and found that there are not good grid connections. These are the best grid
connections they can find and in the future we’ll probably have to use less good ones or maybe
not be able to not connect at all. She also understands that the board has had to deliberate on
whether or not to push ahead with this now. She understands that state regulation of net
metering is fast changing and that we can’t really know whether we would be able to install
this kind of solar array in the future. It’s difficult to know how the finances of net metering are
going to affect solar installations in the future, so we have to take advantage of this
opportunity. That’s one reason she understands we have to push forward.
Martha Ferger, said she moved to Dryden Village 62 years ago. She fears more than
anything else climate change that will affect the whole planet so badly. She is in favor of
anything that will help us avoid climate change as long as possible. The more solar the better.
Jim Shippey, 11 Dodge Road, said he thinks the people painting them as anti solar are
wrong about that. Everybody on Dodge Road is for solar. He thinks w hat we are talking about
is this urge that people are promoting to rush to get this done. He gets it. Climate change is
real and dramatic but the world is built on rules. The town works on rules. All the boards
have rules. That is what we are really talking about. That project on Dodge Roa d does not fit
inside the rules. It’s just too big. That’s what we’re saying. We aren’t saying we aren’t for
solar. There were a lot of great comments from everyone tonight; some a little stranger than
others, but a lot of great constructive comments. This is just too big for Dodge Road. To carve
up the land and daisy chain it together is circumventing the rules. He would dare say that if
he came before the board and was obviously circumventing the rules he’d be shot down on his
request. Sun8 said this was going to cause financial hardship in their letter to the board when
they applied for the waiver, but he doesn’t believe they provided any proof of this hardship. So
if they are going to be granted this based on hardship, then every business person that wants
to come in the town and have a venture, if it’s hardship, that cannot be a rule. You can’t set a
precedent for that. This does not fit on Dodge Road.
Linda Mix, 626 Caswell Road, said she is in favor of a moratorium to look at the
concerns that citizens have. It just shows respect for the people that opposed and to their
views and opinions. A lot of good points were brought up here today. Martha Robertson
showed pictures of the cemetery and since this has started, she w ent to cemetery and walked
around and took pictures toward the back side. It’s a beautiful site and you don’t hear the
road noise anywhere near the way she tries to portray that. I just wanted to bring that up as a
point.
Kathy Zahler, 639 Midline Road, said she is lucky enough to have solar panels on her
roof. She can afford them and paid for them. Her next door neighbor lives in the deeps woods
and would love to have solar panels and can’t have them because of the siting. Her neighbor
down the driveway can’t afford them but would love to have. She is so grateful to this board for
working out a deal through which Dryden residents can have first dibs for affordable solar
TB 7-20-17
Page 18 of 34
energy. She is also extremely pleased with the way they managed to get more money for the
town and money for the schools; money on sites that were previously not taxed. She thanked
the board for what it has done and hopes this gets done soon. She doesn’t believe that people
think it has gone too fast. She thinks it’s been really a sloth.
Pat Dubin, 2002 Ellis Hollow Rd in the town of Caroline, said she strongly supports the
project and read a letter from Jerelyn Smith (attached). She said this about future generations
and what is going to be left for them if we don’t start building large solar now.
Bert Bland, Associate Vice President of Energy & Sustainability at Cornell University,
said he has been at a few of these meetings and gone over a lot of details and Cornell’s
positions. Cornell selected Distributed Sun five solar projects ago. They performed as they
said they would. He’s happy they selected them in the competitive process. They h ave hung in
there through TG Miller’s requests which were appropriate and rigorous and all the agency
requests. He thinks they’ve done a great job. He doesn’t think they would have found many
solar developers that would have hung in through all, producing 1,000s of pages. He t hanked
Distributed Sun for that. He specifically thanked Bharath for walking the land with all the
neighbors. He is very happy and thankful that Cornell can stand behind the developer in this
development.
Also attached are statements handed in the meeting from Laurence Heller, Michael
Pitzrick, Jane Meader and Jon Erickson.
Supv Leifer gave an overview of the process. In 2016 the Town Board charged the
Planning Board with developing a law to amend our zoning to allow community solar projects.
That law was adopted in February of 2017. At that same meeting Distributed Sun was granted
a waiver of the existing moratorium to submit an application. Prior to that, at board meetings,
the company had talked about these potential projects at the end of 2016. It has been about
six months since the application was submitted. Since he has been on the board (ten years)
this is probably the most transparent process special use process he has experienced. He can’t
think of one that lasted six months like this, and we stil l aren’t done. The board is only voting
on the environmental review tonight. It will go back to the Planning Board then back to the
Town Board for the actual site plan review approval and special use permit approval. Everyone
will have another opportunity to voice an opinion on what comes out of the Planning Board. It
will go to the Planning Board next Thursday. With respect to s ite selection, the Town Board
does not select sites. If that happened, it would amount to asking g overnment to locate the
correct places. What you need to make this process work at all is a willing land owner who
wants to lease their property and a company that needs to find the best interconnection for
what they want to connect. If you don’t have those two elements, you don’t have a project.
They still need to comply with the town zoning law, so when the board takes up review of the
actual site plan it will likely address some of the things addressed tonight again before a vote is
taken.
There were questions raised tonight about site selection, maintenance of vegetation, co-
location and why they can put 2MW systems next to each other, and it seems that people want
to see the visual simulations.
Cl Lamb said there were a number of comments that the board hasn’t been
communicative enough. The board wanted to hear from people on this. It has been very
informative for everyone to hear the comments. The board has been taking notes and wants to
steer the project with public input as much as possible before voting on it, not try to dictate the
process. He hopes that people get the sense that the board has been transparent. All the
known information is on the website so people can review it. They held a number of public
sessions. He doesn’t believe the board has done anything without being fully open about it.
The board did not select these sites. The statement that they’d been working for three years is
TB 7-20-17
Page 19 of 34
on this is incorrect. This is process where a business and a property owner had an idea and
brought it to us. The board’s job is to look at all sides of something and see if it is in the best
interests of what this town should have. They’ve been doing their best to do that.
Bharath Srinivasan – In response to comments about being in a hurry, he said before
the town had a zoning law for this project, they voluntarily came here to two Town Board
meetings and two Planning Board meetings. They gave a presentation and showed the layouts.
This was the best place to gather feedback. They were here before submitting an appli cation in
hopes that people would have looked at what they said they were proposing and give feedback.
At the first meeting they came prepared with a lot of information. Anyone who requested a
one-on-one conversation had that opportunity. They organized public meetings at the Ellis
Hollow Community Center and one at Neptune Fire Hall. Whatever mitigation they could
include they have included. They came back in April after several meetings with folks and
presented another detailed review of everything that has gone on. The truth of the matter is
the one who has gotten most rich in this entire affair is a company called Data Flow in Ithaca
and the FedEx office. They have printed so much of the information to hand out to people.
They found out that the town charges $.25 per page to provide copies. They provided the town
with 15 copies of the application so they could be distributed at community centers and
handed out to people. They have gone out of their way to provide information to people, even
those who have openly spoken against the project. When they call and ask for information, it
has been provided. They have always been willing to set down and have a conversation.
With respect to the three year approach, there are several data points that are being
added cumulatively into a wrong fact. What they did three years ago was ask NYSEG if they
could do something with the circuit on Mt Pleasant. It was when they started telling the public
how long it has taken them to work with NYSEG to come up w ith a viable option. The process
is to submit an application and fee to NYSEG and they come back with an answer. There isn’t
even a constructive dialogue. Distributed Sun was asked for an analysis of why they chose the
site. At the Ellis Hollow Community Center they did show a comparative analysis across the
state where they had surveyed 575 properties from leads that came in to them. Nearly 85% of
those sites did not work for interconnection purposes. Last summer there were 6,000 MW of
applications in the State of New York between the different utility companies. As of July 15
there are only 300 MW pending in the state and it not certain that those will move forward.
That is even more of a reduction than they anticipated. He also presented at that meeting an
analysis across the state of where they found viable circuits. The reasons they have not
provided that data recently is because they received a call from a competitor that th e screen
shot had been shared. We have to be careful of that because it can end up in the wrong hands.
Distributed Sun predicted what would happen interconnection wise in New York and it did
happen.
Co-location of arrays – The rule that has to do with 2 MW is a very archaic rule under a
regulation called 66j in New York. It’s a regulation that the Public Service Commission set up
for technologies to use with respect to net metering. At the time that they came up with the
limit, 2 MW was a very big limit for solar or wind technology. When solar expanded several
developers petitioned the PSC to raise that limit because it makes no practical, electrical,
physical, monetary sense for that 2 MW limit to apply anymore. The PSC did not say no. They
deferred the decision to look at it and the part of the process when the en tire way the grid is
operating is being remade. There is currently a solicitation from the PSC inviting comments on
what it would mean to increase that 2MW limit to 5 MW. The interconnection limit, not the net
metering eligibility limit has already been increased to 5 MW in the state of New York. That
was done over a year ago. They are still forced to comply with the 2 MW limit because of the
archaic laws.
Town council asked Distributed Sun to defend how they complied with the Brookhaven
ruling. The Brookhaven ruling was a result of a petition by two petitioners, the Town of
TB 7-20-17
Page 20 of 34
Brookhaven and a firm called American Capital Energy from Massachusetts. B Srinivasan
wrote that petition to the PSC to have verification on how to determine if sites were indeed
separate. That ruling was granted in their favor. That ruling was subsequently adopted by the
PSC as the rule to determine if two 2MW, one next to another, can be treated as separate
projects. There is a three-part criterion. The PSC basically needs to know that the systems
can operate independent of each other and that the parcels are located on their own subdivided
land, including several citations along with other towns in the state of New York that approved
co-located projects. In that particular Commission order, they not only say this is the process
on how you can co-locate systems, they actually recommend that they be subdivided in
separate parcels. The notion of having one service for each parcel is something that every state
follows because the first service is provided at that taxpayer expense. It makes no sense for
that rule to apply for solar energy facilities, because unlike residences, the cost of providing
service is born by the project. Commercial installations in New York have to be responsible for
100% of the cost of delivering service. That cost of delivering service is really what makes a
project work or break.
When Distributed Sun approached NYSEG in 2016 there was a moratorium in place.
That moratorium expires today. They had to seek a waiver from the town because otherwise
there was no application. The town does have a zoning law specifically for solar, and before
they finalized the law, Distributed Sun gave all of their design to the Planning Board. It’s not
like they wrote the law in a vacuum thinking something like this may not happen. They were
fully informed. There was no hiding any of this. They have other data on how they compare
with other conventional sources of issue, and he would be happy to that with peop le on an
individual basis.
Vegetation maintenance – The approach in all projects in New York (35 projects in New
York and this is the only one yet to be approved) is to use sheep for vegetation control and
maintenance. They are trying to do that across the country, but are limited to who actually
has sheep within a reasonable distance. This area tends to have more sheep than other areas.
Herbicides are not used as a standard practice. In past four years they have not used a drop of
chemical on existing projects.
Why can’t this be scaled down and/or put smaller ones elsewhere? B Srinivasan it
really has to do with how much money NYSEG requires the developer to front them in order to
be able to upgrade the service back to the site. That cost needs to be defrayed over the 30
years the system is operating. The system size proposed is based on being able to defray that
cost.
Why did Distributed Sun say this had to start by July/August and now will be clearing
trees September through April? B Srinivasan said when the Trump Administration came into
power the first concern was tax overhaul. They were uncertain what the regulatory
environment would be. After the first meeting in Dryden, there was no intention to rush this
process. They did want to start sooner and complete the project this year. Now it really
depends on what NYSEG does or doesn’t do for service. NYSEG won’t commit now until they
have permits. They chose a September through April window for tree clearing because the Fish
& Wildlife Service recommends no clearing in June and July. They added another month each
way to reduce the risk of endangering the habitat of the northern long eared bat. They could
begin construction and defer the clearing until that time passes.
How will you address the issues of vista/long view with installation of shrubs to block
close views? B Srinivasan displayed the view behind cemetery with no screening and with
shrubs planted. At maturity they don’t affect the vista view. On Dodge Road they will use
trees where the panels would be visible from the second floor and shrubs in other places.
TB 7-20-17
Page 21 of 34
There was a comment from someone who was born in a house on Turkey Hill Road that
used to be a sheep farm. She is thrilled that the view from there will now include solar panels.
Joe Osmeloski said this board passed a resolution to also allow a cell tower at the
2150 Dryden Road site. There was wording in that resolution about specific trees remaining
that would block the view of the cell tower. That is important for the cemetery and for him and
for anyone coming up Route 13. He asked if Verizon has identified to Distributed Sun the trees
they plan to use to block the cell tower. Have they identified the trees along Route 13 that were
specified in the resolution to block the cell tower? Do you plan to take any of those trees down
that by resolution have to stay to block the view of the cell tower? B Srinivasan said he is
aware of trees along the creek that could be trees referred to block the view. They drove the
sight to see what that area would look like and did some analysis and provided an equivalent
buffer between 2150 and 2180 Dryden Road. Screening will be better than what exists.
S Osmeloski said the existing trees would provide a better buffer. J Osmeloski said he
is specifically concerned that trees that were to stay by resolution will be removed. B
Srinivasan said they are asking for permission to take down those trees in return for providing
an equivalent or better screen at the property line. J Osmeloski asked whether Verizon had
been asked what trees they planned to use their cell tower. B Srinivasan said they asked
Verizon to share information but Verizon has been slow to respond. J Leifer said this will be
dealt with during the site plan and special use permit process. The board is aware of the issue
and it is not being addressed tonight.
B Srinivasan displayed the screening plan from the Osmeloski property at various
stages of maturity. In their analysis and looking at the County’s LIDAR data the proposed
buffer will be 6-8’ higher. With two more feet it produces the same coverage as the willow trees
today. Over the life of the new hedgerow it offers additional coverage that is currently not
provided by the willow hedge row. S Osmeloski said she does not agree with the analysis.
Someone asked for a description of a view along Dodge Road and the monoculture of
spruce. B Srinivasan said they are primarily concerned about shade. They may top off some of
the trees, but not take them out entirely. On the east side of the northern arrays they worked
out a plan of what needed to be cut according to elevation. They are not indiscriminately
cutting trees, but removing the ones that pose a shade or fall hazard issue.
Holly Austin, attorney for Distributed Sun, said the visual of the box of documents
displayed earlier was compelling. She has been doing SEQR work for a lot of years. This is the
most comprehensive set of review documents she has ever seen associated with an EAF. It is
essentially all the reviews and surveys that would be included in an environmental impact
statement. A tremendous amount of work has gone into this. The board has a lot of
information at its disposal. Things that she doesn’t typically see include: visual impact
statements, aquatic resources report, ecological assessment, habitat assessment, agricultural
data statement, and the archeological study. The agencies that have weighed in on this are
state, local and national agencies. We’ve had DEC, Army Corps of Engineers, NY Natural
Heritage Program, US Fish & Wildlife, NY Historic Preservation Office, Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation, Tompkins County Planning and all of the town agencies
that are involved. There is a tremendous amount of information here. It’s easy to do a full
analysis of the environmental impacts of this because of all the work that has gone into it. All
of the questions that have been asked have been addressed. There have been a lot of changes
made to the project to minimize potential impacts. She asked that the board actually go
through Parts 2 and 3 so we have the analysis on the record in an open meeting so it’s clear
that everyone on the board understands the analysis and is engaged in it actively tonight .
Supv Leifer closed the public comments on the SEQR. The board took a b reak at 9:31
p.m. and came back in session 9:47 p.m.
TB 7-20-17
Page 22 of 34
SEQR review for 2150 Dryden Road – David Herrick of TG Miller explained they had
been asked by the Town to assist with the technical review of the environmental information
that was provided by the applicant. Part 1 is disclosure of project information, the extent and
nature of the project, the character of the surrounding area and has been completed by
applicant and submitted to the town with the special use permit application. There isn’t a lot
of information to review at this point, and just one correction to be made in Part 1. In the brief
description of the action there has been a loss of a 1MW facility that was proposed along Virgil
Creek on George Road. On the Part 1 are numerous clouds. Those are all in response to
reviews that TG Miller or the Planning Department completed and were subsequently modified
by the applicant. Other than the one correction, TG Miller did not ta ke exception with the
information provided in Part 1. He asked the board if there were any questions or concerns on
Part 1. There were none.
D Herrick led the board through review of Part 2 which is the identification of the
potential project of impacts. It is a list of 18 concerns relative to environmental resources and
asks the lead agency to determine which of the possible impacts from the project are of a small
nature or not applicable at all or those that may be a moderate to large impact. He suggested
the board review this and see if they agree with the assessment as prepared. All of the
information made available, either digitally or in paper format, is here and can be accessed if
necessary. Part 3 is a detailed critique, determinations and recommendations on adverse
impacts. It advises with respect to the answers on Part 2. Part 3 was reviewed concurrently
with Part 2.
Impacts on Land – There will be some. Sections (a) through (g) are marked as no or
small impact. 20% of the site contains slopes between 10% and 15% based on the existing site
plan drawing. It is now active agricultural fields. There was a fenced meadow for the tree
nursery. There is no significant grading proposed. There would be five transformer inverter
concrete pads over gravel so they can be removed. There will be some trench excavation for
buried electric cable, about 14,500 feet. There will be no concrete used to anchor arrays. Soil
disturbance is primarily removal of tree stumps and construction of a 12 ’ wide access drive.
Impacts on Geological Features – There are no potential impacts applicable to the
project.
Impacts on Surface Water – (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) were deemed to be
of no impact. With respect to (d) that was considered to be of a small impact because of minor
disturbances near Virgil Creek and the overhead wires that will be placed over a protected body
of water.
Impacts on Ground Water – Given the nature of the project there are no relevant
impacts.
Impacts on Flooding – This is no evidence there will be any impact on flooding. There
has been input from Tompkins County Planning on avoiding any flood plains that adjoin Virgil
Creek, and the information provided by the applicant does not show work encroaching into t he
500 year flood plain.
Impacts on Air – There are no impacts.
Impacts on Plants and Animals – A small impact was found for (b) because of the
information about the northern long eared bat and its habitat. On h they did not break the
TB 7-20-17
Page 23 of 34
threshold of ten acres, but because 7.6 acres of forested or treed area will be converted to
meadow, it warranted a small impact designation .
Impacts on Agricultural Resources – A potential small impact was identified in (a)
because the proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the
NYS Land Classification System. A small impact was identified in (d) because the project is
located within an ag district. There was discussion about whether the use as a solar farm was
“irreversible” and that the reduction in farmland because of this project town wide is less than
half a percent. It was decided that because we don’t know if it will in fact convert back to ag
use or when, there was a potential small impact.
Impacts on Aesthetic Resources – A moderate to large impact was found in (c) because
it will be visible from publicly accessible vantage points either seasonally or year round. There
is also a moderate large impact in (d). There was some discussion about whether the project
was visible year round. There will be elements of the project that can be seen year round and
are not able to be screened entirely from Route 13 or the adjacent properties. Cl Lamb
acknowledged all the work the applicant has done in trying to screen the project a nd there has
been considerable mitigation. Despite those efforts the project will be visible from certain
vantage impacts, but the mitigations make that an impact that is not considered significant. It
was noted there were no simulations provided from distant views. Neither the town’s
Comprehensive Plan nor its Open Space Inventory designates the site as a scenic resource. It
is also not listed in the County’s Scenic Resource’s Inventory. The responses on Part 2 were
not changed.
Impacts on Historical and Archeological Resources – (a) and (b) are no impact. (c) is a
small impact because there is a nearby site that has been inventoried previously. It was
documented by the applicant and SHPO has weighed in on the lack of impacts of this project
on that resource as well as the cemetery.
Impact on Open Space and Recreation – (b), (c), and (d) are no impact. (a) is a small
impact because of the agricultural fence that will be used. Also noted in this section is the
existence of Jim Shug trail.
Impact on Critical Environmental Areas – Not applicable. There are no critical
environmental areas in the town. The site does not include a unique natural area.
Impact on Transportation – There is no impact.
Impact on Energy – There is no impact. It was noted the project will generate 10 MW of
renewable energy.
Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light – There will be a noise during construction (6 months)
so (f) is identified a small impact. (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are no impact. D Herrick noted he
has witnessed the hum from the inverters and it is similar to a household refrigerator or a car
idling. There is no noise from the panels themselves.
Impact on Human Health – no impact. There are no criteria applicable to this project.
Consistency with Community Plans – (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) were identified as no impact.
In (a) the proposed action’s land use components may be different from or in sharp contrast to
surrounding land use patterns and it is identified as a moderate to large impact. Solar panels
present and represent a different structure and architecture than is currently in the
surrounding neighborhood of mixed commercial, residential and agricultural uses. Item (c)
was identified as a small impact because of setback variances to be heard by the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
TB 7-20-17
Page 24 of 34
Consistency with Community Character – (a), (b), (c) and (d) were identified as no
impact, while (d) and (f) are marked moderate impact. Again the architecture and scale are
different than the surrounding sites.
Part 3 has been read and reviewed along with Part 2. Part 3 details justification of the
answers in Part 2 and no significant adverse impacts. The board is satisfied with Part 3. D
Herrick reviewed Attachment A with the board for the record .
Attachment A describes the impacts identified as being a Yes in Part 2, followed by
information taken from the applicant’s material and a description of why we don’t believe there
will be a significant negative impact.
Impact on Land – The slopes of the property are described as being between 10 and
15% and there is no impact from that. The arrays are installed with ground screws and will
follow the contour of the land and natural grade. There is no significant grading proposed to
take place. There will be excavation of soil for constructing the gravel drives and installation of
underground electrical cables. There is a stormwater pollution prevention plan which will have
to be approved and permitted and will mitigate any effects of erosion that could happen with
temporary control measures. The conclusion is there are no significant adverse impacts to
land.
Impacts on Surface Water – Applicant has completed an aquatic resources report that
identifies and delineates a large acreage of wetlands on the property and they are not proposing
to extend the project into those wetlands. The Army Corps and DEC have both said they would
have no jurisdiction over the wetlands and no permits will be required. The conclusion is there
are no significant adverse impacts to surface water.
Impacts on Plants and Animals – The applicant through Tetratech developed an
ecological assessment report that identified seven ecological communities. NY Natural Heritage
Program has no record of rare or state-listed animals or plants or significant natural
communities at the project site or its immediate vicinity. Possible habitat for the federally -
threatened northern long eared bat was a concern. There was a follow up survey in June to
insure that the site was evaluated in the heart of the growing season and identify any
additional significant changes or analysis due to the change of seasons. There were some
additional species, namely songbirds that were here in June, and those were documented in
the addendum. None were listed as being threatened or endangered. With respect to tree
clearing, the applicant has volunteered they will use selective protocols in the clearing. Because
of the avoidance of work in swamps and marsh communities and the calendar restrictions for
benefit of the northern long eared bat, it was determined there was no significant adverse
impact.
Impact on Agricultural Resources – Applicant has clarified there are roughly 35 acres of
soils that would be considered highly productive that exist on the property within the fenced
areas. Soils will not be removed though some will be lost in construction of the access drives.
Given that the soils will remain and there is the opportunity to decommission the facility and
restore the use, there is no significant adverse impact on agricultural resources.
Impacts on Aesthetic Resources – There was a considerable effort to provide, through
the visual impact statement, rendered views of how the application of mitigation strategies
would reduce the visual presence of the project. There is a proposed variation in the use of
vegetative screening. Special attention has been given to the area behind cemetery. Mitigation
efforts are sufficient to reduce the visual presence of this project so that there are no significant
adverse impacts on aesthetic resources.
TB 7-20-17
Page 25 of 34
Impacts on Historic and Archeological Resources – There is a late woodland
archeological site in the neighborhood of the project known as the Plus Site. The applicant did
prepare a phase one a and b investigation which required a large number of shovel tests in the
areas likely to have soil disturbance. It was submitted to the Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation and the responses from SHPO that there would be no effect on cultural or
historic resources and would not be a negative impact to the cemetery. Given those opinions it
was determined there were no significant adverse impacts on historic and archeological
resources.
Impacts on Open Space & Recreation – The site is not within or adjacent to a designated
UNA and is not listed as an open space asset within the town’s comprehensive plan. The
Dryden Freeville trail is proposed to be routed along Virgil Creek and the project will make
provisions to allow for that corridor and the arrays will n ot impose any restrictions to that
future trail.
Impacts on Plants and Animals – An agricultural fence used to secure the sites. It is a
6’ tall agricultural style with another strand of wire at the top, no barbed wire or razor wire or
chain link. There is the ability for small animals to move through that. Larger animals may
travel through the corridors, or in the case of white tail deer jump over the fence. The wooded
corridor along Virgil Creek will remain with the exception of the cut for the overhead electric
line. For those reasons there is no significant adverse impact on plants and animals.
Impact on Noise Odor & Light – There will be construction noise from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. for about six months. The equipment used for this work is relatively consistent with other
construction site equipment. The tools are common and not unusual for setting whether
residential or agricultural. The temporary construction noises will not create a significant
adverse impact.
Consistency with Community Plans – Town zoning law permits the ground mounted
solar energy systems subject to special use permits and site plan approval. The proposed
layout of solar panels relative to the proposed subdivision parcel lines will not conform to the
50’ front, rear and side yard setbacks and will require a variance by the town Zoning Board of
Appeals. There are separations distances between the fence lines of the sites and the adjacent
properties (cemetery and Osmeloski). Those distances are all in excess of the 50’ set back
requirements. Given the setbacks and mitigations proposed with vegetation, it was concluded
there are no significant adverse impacts on the community plans.
Consistency with Community Character – It is acknowledged that the proposed project
introduces architectural components inconsistent with the character of the existing
architectural and natural landscape. There are many design features and mitigation strategies
that will be implemented by the applicant to lessen the visual impacts of the project. Once the
project is operational there is no traffic, noise, light or other impacts that accompany many of
the existing surrounding land uses. Because of the design features and mitigation strategies,
there are no significant adverse impacts to community character as a result of the action.
Cl Lamb said it was interesting that there are about 13,500 active acres of farmland
and an additional 3500 unfarmed. There has been some concern raised in the community
about loss of farmland and it has been calculated as a loss of .5% of potential farmland in
Dryden. That is helpful information.
Ray Burger described briefly the proposed resolution declaring lead agency and making
a negative declaration. Supv Leifer read the “resolved” portions for the public. Board members
confirmed they had read the content of the resolution.
TB 7-20-17
Page 26 of 34
RESOLUTION #101 - (2017) – Lead Agency Designation and Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance – 2150 Dryden Road Community Solar Project
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The proposed action involves the construction of five 2 MW solar photo-voltaic (PV) arrays
for generation of energy and sale under the community distributed generation program. Solar
arrays consist of PV modules mounted on metal racks anchored using helical ground screws.
The arrays will be fenced in and gravel access drives will be constructed to access each site.
Each site will contain an electric transformer mounted on a cement pad. The f ive fenced arrays
will encompass approximately 51 acres of the total of approximately 158 acre Tax Parcel 38.-1-
3.1 at the address 2150 Dryden Road. The owner of the parcel is Scott Pinney and the
applicant is SUN8 PDC LLC, and
B. The proposed project, which requires Special Use Permits and site plan approvals from the
Town Board of the Town of Dryden; subdivision approval from the Town Planning Board; and
an area variance or area variances from the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, is a Type 1 action
pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), 6 NYCRR Part
617, and
C. A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 was submitted by the applicant, along with
application materials, and
D. The Town Planning Department, on behalf of the Town Board, distributed a Lead Agency
concurrence letter to potential involved and interested agencies on March 17, 2017, and
received no objections to the Town of Dryden Town Board serving as Lead Agency on this
matter, and
E. The Town Board has reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, revised and
dated 7-9-2017, prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by town’s consultant
TG Miller and Planning staff, and
F. A public hearing having been held on July 20, 2017
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town of Dryden Town Board hereby establishes itself as lead agency to coordinate the
environmental review of the proposed actions, as described above, and
2. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of the EAF, Part
1 and 2, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this
proposed action and future construction activities, and its environmental review, (ii) its
thorough review of 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) its review of the EAF, Part 3, including the
reasons noted thereon (which reasons are incorporated herein as if set 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 an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and
3. 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
TB 7-20-17
Page 27 of 34
foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed EAF and determination of
significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Supv Leifer said next Thursday the Planning Board will be able to start the subdivision
review.
Ellis Tract – Dave Herrick explained the applicant provided the information for Part 1
and on review some corrections were made and shown in clouds on Part 1. Under government
approvals other local agencies it was checked for minor subdivision by the Director of Planning.
Part 2 review – D Herrick explained on each of the 18 criteria they made a
determination on whether there were thresholds exceeded or criteria that, based on the
characteristics of the project, would trigger a no, small or moderate or large impact.
Impact on Land – The response is yes for similar reasons as the other project. There
will be the construction of access drives and there will be a disturbance of soil that is mitigated
with erosion and sediment practices. They acknowledged a small impact because of the
construction access drive. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) were deemed to be of no impact.
Impacts on Geological Features – There was no criteria applicable and it was marked
no.
Impacts on Surface Waters – This was identified as a moderate to large impact (d). All
other criteria were identified as no impact. The reason for the determination is that there will
be encroachments into delineated wetland on some of the sites, specifically the S5 site. Work
for tree clearing will occur within forested wetlands on the N1, N2 and N3 sites. There are
mitigation strategies that reduce that, but it was identified as a moderate to large impact.
Impact on Ground Water – No criteria or thresholds were exceeded. No impact.
Impact on Flooding – No criteria or thresholds were exceeded. No impact
Impact on Air – No criteria or thresholds were exceeded. No impact.
Impact on Plants and Animals – There could be a small impact on (b). (a), (c), (d), (e), (f),
(g), and (i) were determined to be of no impact. The northern long eared bat and possible
habitat is a concern on this site as well. That will be mitigated by a voluntary commitment to
no tree clearing when they may be roosting in the summer months. The ecological assessment
was done in March/April and a follow up investigation was done in June. Trillium was noted
by residents as being known to exist in the Dodge Road area and considered. It is not rare,
threatened or endangered according to the Natural Heritage Program, but they are susceptible
to being violated with inappropriate picking. There was a list of animals identified through
public comment that were considered and none are rare, threatened or endangered. There is
no known bald eagle nesting site. A moderate impact was identified on item (h) because the
proposed action requires conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other
regionally or locally important habitat. There will be 29.8 acres of tree clearing for this project
that will be converted to meadow or shrubland.
TB 7-20-17
Page 28 of 34
Impact on Agricultural Resources - No impact was determined for (b), (c), (e), (f) and
(g). There would be a small impact on (a) in that the proposed action may impact soil classified
within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System and a small impact for (d)
in that the proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.
The project site is not within an ag district. The project is covering highly productive soils with
solar arrays. They are not being irreversibly committed to non-agricultural purposes. In this
case all of the lands being utilized for the solar arrays are owned by Cornell and of different
uses, some pasture, some cropland and some agricultural research plots.
Impact on Aesthetic Resources – Yes was checked and there will be potentially moderate
to large impacts on items (c) and (d). The proposed action may be visible from publicly
accessible vantage points during routine travel or recreational or tourism based activities.
There are proposed mitigation strategies using setbacks and vegetative screening. The N5 and
N4 sites will be on a slope and routinely visible from Turkey Hill Road and Stevenson Roads
even with use of the vegetative screening. Site N5 falls within one of the noteworthy views in
the Tompkins County Inventory of Aesthetic Resources and across the whole frame of that
noted view. There is no impact on (a), (b), (e) and (f).
Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources – That was marked yes given there is a
former historic site. The Lamkin Historic Site is along Dodge Road and the project will be
clearing trees for shade reduction in that area that has grown up with hardwoods and/or the
evergreen plantation. Because of the presence of that site a small impact has been found for
(c), and it is mitigated by clearing of trees with hand tools and non-mechanistic measures. No
or small impact was marked for (a), (b) and (c).
Impacts on Open Space and Recreation – This has been marked yes. There could be a
small impact for (a). No impact for (b), (c) and (d).
Impacts on Critical Environmental Areas – There are no critical environmental areas in
the vicinity of the project so it was marked no.
Impact on Transportation – None of the thresholds or criteria are applicable to the
project so it was marked no.
Impact on Energy – There is no impact. A note was added that the project would add
18 MW of renewable energy.
Impact on Noise, Odor and Light – Was checked yes. There will be construction noise for
about six months from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The i nverters are set back at distances of at
least 450 feet from property lines. The nearest residence on Dodge Road is approximately 500
feet from any inverter pads.
Impact on Human Health – is checked yes. Based on information from the applicant,
there have been some spill incidents on Cornell’s property mainly in proximity to the old turkey
farm on Turkey Hill Road. Applicant has provided information on the status of those spill
incidents and they are either closed or inactive. There will be no impact to the adjacent project
site (S5) and further to the west. While it is considered a small impact, it won’t have an impact
on the project at all.
Consistency with Community Plans – A moderate to large impact for (a) is
acknowledged. The proposed action’s land use components may be different from, or in sharp
contrast to, current surrounding land use patterns. This is a structural system and
architectural style that is not customary to the neighborhood. There are a lot of other facilities
and buildings of different conditions, configurations and materials, but the solar pa nels will
TB 7-20-17
Page 29 of 34
certainly be different from those. The land use components may be different from or in sharp
contrast to current surrounding land use patterns. The mitigation strategies proposed by the
applicant are helpful in reducing the visual presence of the arrays. Some of those, however,
with the mitigation, will still be visible, mainly from Stevenson Road and Turkey Hill Road.
There could be a visual impact, but it will not be significant or adverse.
Consistency with Community Character – a moderate to large impact would occur given
that the proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and
character. The proposed action is inconsistent with the character of existing natural
landscape. While the impacts may be significant, they are not adverse to the community
character and will be mitigated with setbacks and vegetative screening.
Part 3 was reviewed for the record.
Impacts on Land - The Ellis Tract is made up of two sections, north and south. The
land characteristics are different; slopes are different. The proposed construction methods will
be consistent with installation of gravel access roads and trenching for the electrical system.
The stormwater pollution prevention plan will address the needs for temporary erosion and
sediment control measures. The majority of soil disturbance comes from removal of tree
stumps. Given that the SWPPP will address erosion control measures, it was determined there
would be no significant adverse impacts to land as a result of the project.
Impacts on Surface Water – There will be some minor disturbance as shown in the
plans in the wetlands delineated by the applicant. To avoid impacts to the wetlands, any
construction activity will utilize mats so that heavier equipment does not negatively impact the
soil and vegetative cover in those wetlands. The wetland areas were displayed. In the forested
wetlands east of N1, N2 and N3 the applicant will be selective about tree removal. Tiered
removal will be implemented to avoid clear cutting. This is a change from the last submission.
In S5 an existing building will be removed and some delineated wetlands will be covered by
arrays. The corridor will be cleared between S2 and S4 through a forested wetland. DEC and
Army Corps require no permits because of the applicant’s use of timber mats and proper
protocol. There is no trenching or filling or grading within the wetlands. It was determined
there is no significant adverse impact. Because DEC and Army Corps will not require permits
and because of the applicant’s construction mitigation approaches, it was determined there
would be no significant impact on surface water.
Impacts on Plants and Animals – Qualified biologists walked the sites in March and
June. The NY Natural Heritage has no concerns in the vicinity. US Fish & Wildlife Service has
indicated the northern long eared bat could occur within the boundary of the site and could be
affected. No bald eagle nests or records were identified in the vicinity. Based on the additional
work in June by the biologist there was an added list of flora and fauna that were observed
based on that time of the year. None of the species identified in the subsequent June visit were
identified as rare, endangered or threatened.
These sites will also be secured with the 7’ tall agricultural fence and in addition to the
ability for animals to move through the fenced material, the applicant has proposed a 45’ wide
wildlife corridor between the N3 and N4 sites. There is an existing hedgerow there that can
remain (selective tree clearing will apply) and is already an existing buffer. A recent inclusion
is an evergreen hedgerow between N4 and N5 that will remain other than selective tree removal
within that hedgerow for shading.
Tree clearing on this site is 29.8 acres and dispersed between the north and south
groups. S4 and S5 will have removal of 3.2 acres of white ash. In S4 approximately 6.4 acres
of shrub land will be removed. Species in the shrub land are generally dogwood, honeysuckle,
European buckthorn and multiflora rose. The applicant will only clear trees deemed
TB 7-20-17
Page 30 of 34
necessary for fall hazard or pose a shading concern. In the existing hedgerow along a
perennial stream to the east of S5 they will also the apply selective clearing protocol. That will
help maintain a visual buffer along the stream. Keeping as many trees as possible along the
stream corridor will benefit the stream as well as visual screening from Turkey Hill Road.
Given the selective tree cutting, the reduction of impacts of tree removal for the forested
wetlands, voluntary commitments for the tree clearing and calendar restrictions for the benefit
of the bats, it was determined the impacts on plants and animals are anticipated to be s mall
and not significant.
Impacts on Agricultural Resources – The site contains 30.4 acres of highly productive
soils will fall within the fenced areas of the arrays. Soils will not be removed. There will be a
relatively small impact from construction of the access drives which would remove some top
soil. Included in the documentation is a letter from the Dean of Agriculture and Life Sciences
which explains Cornell’s approach to considering the sites for use by solar arrays. The lands
proposed to be used are not in an ag district or in the any of the County’s six agricultural focus
areas. Solar farms can be readily converted to traditional agriculture and can support current
grazing activity. During the site selection process more than 50 Cornell sites were analyzed and
a number were eliminated due to the distance from an interconnection point. Other options
were eliminated because they support active funded research or for other research reasons.
Given that the systems can possibly be decommissioned in the future and that the underly ing
land can revert to agricultural use without having a loss of highly productive soils, it was
determined that there would be no significant adverse impacts on agricultural resources.
Impacts on Aesthetic Resources – The Town’s Comprehensive Plan does not include or
designate any scenic or aesthetic resources that incorporate the group N or group S sights.
Neither does the 2001 Open Space Inventory. The N5 site will be within the Tompkins County
Noteworthy Viewshed #12 from Turkey Hill Road. The mitigation being proposed along Turkey
Hill Road includes multiple rows of vegetation planted to reduce the near view from Turkey Hill
Road. The noteworthy view #12 is a distant view that takes in the valley below and distant
hills. The negative screening will block the terminal ends of the arrays and fence, but the
selection of the plant materials will reach a height that, while it partially blocks the view of the
panels, it won’t interrupt the distant horizon view. The Turkey Hill Road and Dodge Road
visual simulations were displayed (at differing stages of vegetative screening growth), reviewed
and explained. The length of the frontage on Dodge Road will be screened. The screening will
also wrap around the south end of S3 and that will mitigate views from the property at 15
Dodge Road. On the S5 site, in addition to maintaining the vegetation through the selective
tree clearing protocols, they propose to have a vegetative buffer between the fence and the
perennial stream. Setbacks proposed will exceed what is required by the solar law. The
determination is that there will be visual impacts, but they are not considered to be significant
due to the mitigation efforts.
Impacts on Archeological Resources – The Lamkin historic site is located within a
portion of the hardwoods and evergreen plantation that will be removed for screening purposes.
The Phase 1 Archeological Investigation report was submitted to the Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation and in consultation with SHPO in the areas that were tested by
shovel excavation nothing significant was revealed. NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation agreed there would be no impact to the cultural resources in or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. There was a caveat that tree removal
in that portion be conducted with hand tools in order to minimize impacts to the site. Given
the opinion of the State, it was determined that archeological resources would not be adversely
impacted.
Impacts on Open Space and Recreation – It is noted that the N group site does include a
future trail that would go along the west of the N2 and N1 sites and the footprint of the
TB 7-20-17
Page 31 of 34
proposed project will not interfere with that future trail planning. The Town’s Comprehensive
Plan does acknowledge that the Cornell lands in this location are utilized for agriculture and
field crops, experimental plots and field laboratories and some areas are woodland tracts.
There are no UNAs or CEAs. A wildlife corridor proposed between the N3 and N4 sites will
encompass the existing east-west hedgerow. Within the S group sites are two wildlife corridors
15 feet wide located between the S1 and S2 and S2 and S3 sites. The tree removal plan
incorporates selective tree clearing. There will be no significant adverse impacts as a result of
the action.
Impacts on Noise, Odor and Light – Construction of this project requires equipment
consistent with agricultural practices and other residential and commercial construction
practices for six months from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The construction methods and noise
generated from associated equipment is not inconsistent with rural or residential settings and
therefore there is no significant adverse impact. That there is no proposed outdoor lighting for
this project.
Impacts on Human Health – The applicant has completed assessments of two spill
incidents on record with DEC at the former turkey farm. Those incidents are closed or inactive
and there is no expectation of significant adverse effects on this project from those. There is no
significant adverse impact on human health as a result of the project.
Consistency with Community Plans – The town’s Comprehensive Plan states that while
some small scale solar energy generation exists on some small private lots, there is a desire to
provide options for solar energy generation. Large scale solar energy installations should be
mitigated carefully through siting and adequate buffering. The plan recommends that to
diversity the electrical supply, large scale solar installations should be allowed in the town with
careful siting and adequate buffering provided to mitigate adverse impacts. The town Zoning
Law permits the ground mounted solar energy systems subject to the issuance of special use
permit and site plan approval. There are no parking lots proposed for the project. There will be
three new curb cuts or access points proposed on Dodge Road and additional vegetative
screening will be planted along Turkey Hill Road and Dodge Road. Tompkins County Planning
Department has noted in their §239(l) and (m) review that the proposed project has been
adjusted in a way that better accommodates the natural features of the site and goes a long
way in supporting the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan policy to increase the use of local
and regional renewable energy sources and technologies.
Town Zoning Law permits ground mounted large scale solar energy systems. The
proposed layout of solar panels relative to the proposed subdivision parcel lines will not
conform with the 50’ front yard, rear yard, or side yard setbacks and needs an variance from
Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals. It is noted in the drawings that separation distances between
the fence line of site 5 is 211’ from the north property and across the other sites the separation
distances to the fences are all well in excess of the 50’ minimum.
The solar panels do present a visual contrast to surrounding land uses. However the
vast majority of the land beneath the arrays will be maintained in a vegetative condition.
Physical mitigation measures the applicant is utilizing will result in no significant adverse
impacts.
Consistency with Community Character – The architectural and landscape
characteristics of current usage in the immediate vicinity of the property include rural
residential, agriculture and agricultural research. Agriculture is predominant. In addition to
the surrounding fields and fenced pastures, the Stevenson Road corridor is bounded by
numerous agricultural buildings and structures including silos, grain bins, metal clad pole
barns, Quonset shelters, concrete block buildings and a remnant farm house. There are
similar types of uses along Turkey Hill Road. Along Dodge Road the residential structures
TB 7-20-17
Page 32 of 34
reflect a mix of old farm house and more recent colonial style. By virtue of the structural
characteristics of the solar arrays, the project does introduce architectural components
inconsistent with the character of the existing architecture, material and natural landscape.
There are many design features and mitigation strategies to be implemented by the applicant
that will lessen the visual impacts of this project. Once the project is operational, there will be
no traffic, noise, light or other impacts that accompany many of the existing surrounding land
uses. The design features and mitigation strategies lessen the visual impacts, together with
the lack of impacts that often accompany other types of development, and mitigate the impact
caused by the fact that the solar energy facility is different from the current broad spectrum of
surrounding uses. As a result it was determined there are no significant adverse impacts.
There were no comments or questions by the board. Supv Leifer reviewed the proposed
resolution for lead agency designation and negative declaration of environmental significance.
RESOLUTION #102 (2017) – Lead Agency Designation and Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance – Ellis Tract Community Solar Project
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The proposed action involves the construction of eight 2 MW and two 1MW solar photo-
voltaic (PV) arrays for generation of energy and sale under the community distributed
generation program. Solar arrays consist of PV modules mounted on metal racks anchored
using helical ground screws. The arrays will be fenced in and gravel access drives will be
constructed to access each site. Each site will contain an electric transformer mounted on a
cement pad. The 10 fenced arrays will encompass approximately 110 acres of the total of
approximately 294 acre that are contained in Tax Parcels 56.-5-19.2, 56.-5-31, 57.-1-6, 57.-1-
7.1, 67.-1-3, 67.-1-7.2, 67.-1-4 located along Turkey Hill, Stevenson and Dodge Roads. The
owner of the parcels is Cornell University and the applicant is SUN8 PDC LLC, and
B. The proposed project, which requires Special Use Permits and site plan approvals from the
Town Board of the Town of Dryden; subdivision approvals from the Town Planning Director;
and an area variance or area variances from the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, is a Type 1
action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), 6 NYCRR
Part 617, and
C. A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 was submitted by the applicant, along with
application materials, and
D. The Town Planning Department, on behalf of the Town Board, distributed a Lead Agency
concurrence letter to potential involved and interested agencies on March 17, 2017, and
received no objections to the Town of Dryden Town Board serving as Lead Agency on this
matter, and
E. The Town Board has reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 prepared by
the applicant, revised and dated 7-9-2017, as amended by 7-17-17 errata tracking sheet to
include Planning Director’s subdivision approval in Section B.d., and Parts 2 and 3, prepared
by town’s consultant TG Miller and Planning staff,
F. A public hearing having been held on July 20, 2017
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
TB 7-20-17
Page 33 of 34
1. The Town of Dryden Town Board hereby establishes itself as lead agency to coordinate the
environmental review of the proposed actions, as described above, and
2. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review o f the EAF, Part
1 and 2, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this
proposed action and future construction activities, and its environmental review, (ii) its
thorough review of 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) its review of the EAF, Part 3, including the
reasons noted thereon (which reasons are incorporated herein as if set 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 an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and
3. 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 EAF and determination of
significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Updated Employee Review Form – Supv Leifer said he would like to use this form in
August for performance reviews in anticipation of budget preparation. Board members have
reviewed the form and proposed resolution.
RESOLUTION #103 (2017) – ADOPTING UPDATED PERFORMANCE REVIEW FORM
AND PROCEDURE
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden has 13 full-time and 7 part-time non-elected, non-union
employees; and
WHEREAS, the Personnel and Finance Committee is charged with reviewing policies and
procedures related to the management of these employees; and
WHEREAS, best practices in personnel management state that providing meaningful feedback
in a constructive manner on a regular basis will improve morale and job per formance1; and
WHEREAS, best practices in personnel management also state that relating salary increases to
job performance increases motivation and productivity2; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden seeks to create a standardized, fair, and respectful proce ss of
providing feedback and evaluating the job performance of its employees, now therefore be it
1 Mone E. M. and London M., 2010, Taylor and Francis Group, Employee Engagement Through
Effective Performance Management: A Practical Guide for Managers
2 Belle, N., December 2012, Public Administration Review, Vol. 73, Issue 1, Pages 143-145, Experimental
Evidence on the Relationship between Public Service Motivation and Job Performance
TB 7-20-17
Page 34 of 34
RESOLVED that Town Board of Dryden adopts the updated Employee Performance Review
Form and procedure as outlined on the Town of Dryden Employee Performance Review
Cover Page dated July 2017.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Intermunicipal Agreement with Village of Dryden – The town and village need an
agreement for the improvements to be made on Lake Road for their water system. It appears
that the respective attorneys have come to an agreement on the language and some confusion
about what version the Village may have voted on. There was a question about whether SEQR
review was necessary for this action.
CITIZENS PRIVILEGE
Marty Moseley, Planning Board Chair, said the Town Board had previously talked
about the utility moratorium and specifically the related local law the Planning Board has been
working on. The last time they discussed it was in February and then they were occupied with
solar and other items. The Planning Board is not ignoring it and trying to bring it back to
table. He is currently working with town counsel to determine what is legal and not legal as far
as comments from committees. As soon as they itemize that, it will be brought to the Planning
Board with associated comments for discussion. They may be able to move forward with the
utilities matter in August.
There being no further business, on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried,
the meeting was adjourned 12:21 a.m. (7/21/17)
Respectfully submitted,
Bambi L. Avery
Town Clerk