HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-17TB 8-17-17
Page 1 of 41
TOWN OF DRYDEN
TOWN BOARD MEETING
August 17, 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
Susan Brock, Town Attorney
Supv Leifer opened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. and board members and audience recited
the pledge of allegiance.
RESOLUTION #108 (2017) – APPROVE MINUTES
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the meeting minutes of July 13 and
July 20, 2017.
2nd Cl Servoss
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Mineah Road Update – Ray Burger said there is an update on that project (Pineridge
Cottages). The developer, Richard Wawak, has indicated he is likely to downsize that project.
It was 16 cottages and he is looking to change it to a 4 cottage proposal. He is acknowledging
the water issues in the neighborhood and feels that is more appropriate sizing. They are
probably 2 bedroom units, so it would be about half the number of occupants.
PUBLIC HEARING
RAIL TRAIL EASEMENTS
Supv Leifer opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Four new easements have been
secured, including the William George Agency. This will be the third time the board has
accepted easements in a group and more are expected.
Bruno Schickel said these four easements were the result of an enormous amount of
hard work by the Rail Trail Task Force and they are making great progress. There will be
additional easements shortly. He purchased property at the back of the Phoenix Book Barn,
including about 800 feet of the trail and he will be giving an easement on that.
There were no more comments and the public hearing was left open at 7:11p.m.
TB 8-17-17
Page 2 of 41
PUBLIC HEARING
SITE PLAN REVIEW & SPECIAL USE PERMIT
SUN8 PDC LLC
LARGE SCALE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
2150 DRYDEN ROAD AND ELLIS TRACT SITES
Supv Leifer opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. B Srinivasan, representing Sun8,
gave a brief presentation. They have submitted two applications for a special use permit for
one project at the Ellis Tract where they are proposing ten community solar projects and one
for 2150 Dryden Road for five. The project is for delivering the energy as credits to ratepayers
in NYSEG Load Zone C, a ten county area surrounding Tompkins County. It’s a pay as you go
model without charging the ratepayers any upfront capital investment. It’s particularly good
for generating clean energy locally. It will provide bill credits for houses with poorly situated
roofs or land and renters who don’t have the right to put something on their rooftops. It also
frees up liquidity for people who don’t want to invest in the system and want to put their funds
in an investment that is a higher value to them. Community solar is a business concept
regulated by the PSC to serve these three objectives. It is not a prescribed size limit upward or
downward for arrays. The PSC has allowed that multiple rays may be co-located.
There are two groups in the Ellis Tract in the Turkey Hill, Stevenson, Dodge Road area.
The north portion has four 2MW projects and one 1MW project. The southern site has four
2MW projects and one 1MW project. The 2150 Dryden Road property has five 2MW projects.
They have participated in four public hearings before the solar law to gain some public input.
Since the application has been submitted many meetings have been attended by Distributed
Sun to gather public input.
They have submitted reviews and initial agency scoping from all the involved agencies,
site plans, full EAFs for both sites, ecological assessment reports for both sites, habitat
assessments on species that the DEC and Fish and Wildlife Service had identified as being
critical, an aquatic resources report that outlined all the wetlands that exist and any impact
proposed on them, a full phase one environmental site assessment, phase 1a and 1b
archeological study and it’s submission to NYSHPO who concurred that the projects were
appropriate, extensive visual impact assessments and landscaping for visual buffer. All the
agencies for which they had initial scoping provided concurrences for either no take or no
adverse impact letter. They’ve provided a very detailed stormwater pollution prevention plan.
At the time of submission for a building permit they will submit and get a permit from the DEC
on the SWPPP. They had a 239 review from the County.
After SEQR was wrapped up, the Planning Board took up site plan review on August 2
and the high level recommendations are summarized. They will provide equipment
specifications at the time of applying for a building permit. The design is subject to change. At
the time of procurement the equipment will be decided and all the specifications will be
provided at the time of the building permit. There are very stringent rules in New York. The
inverters that can be used in the arrays are regulated by the PSC and by NYSEG. The panels
are regulated and have to be approved by NYSERDA. The over-arching requirement is the
National Electric Code which requires certain standards to be complied with across the
country, and New York has adopted the latest National Electric Code version. They will comply
with all of those and it will also be updated in the decommissioning plan. The fire department
and planning department have requested a KNOX box and they do provide that for all their
systems.
After the Planning Board meeting they visited the sites and evaluated the access roads.
They have at least 16’ in width to accommodate the fire trucks. The internal access roads in
the arrays don’t have a fire department requirement under the current New York rules, but
TB 8-17-17
Page 3 of 41
they will have a 12’ wide road capable of providing fire truck access to the critical parts of the
array. Those are on the site plan.
The Planning Board asked what the intended use was for the two buildings at the 2150
Dryden Road property. The landlord currently uses them for personal storage and storage of
other property related to the owner’s business. There is no change in future use and no intent
to rezone or ask for any other approvals at this time.
B Srinivasan said they have reviewed the documents recently put on the web and
substantially they can comply with all of them. There are a few minor clarifications they’d like
so that they are sure they understand, but they are substantially ok with all of what is required
of them.
Public comment:
Peter Davies, 755 Snyder Hill Road, read the following statement:
“It is, I promise, worse than you think.” So wrote David Wallace -Wells in the New York Magazine last month. He
was referring to global warming and its potentially devastating effects on our environment, food production and
civilization itself. I urge you to read the piece.
Recently all the U.S. Government agencies have come forward with the Climate Science Special Report that finds it
is “extremely likely” that more than half of the rise in temperatures over the past four decades has been caused by
human activity.
Even if our efforts here in Dryden are miniscule, repeated over millions of similar actions we CAN act to combat
global warming by replacing fossil fuel energy generation with globally friendly alternatives such as solar. We no t
only can, but we MUST and Dryden should be a leader in this effort.
I have examined the latest documents presented by SUN8 (Distributed Sun) and attended an information meeting. I
consider that the projects are reasonable, appropriately sited, and beneficial to the community and the global
environment. They will provide electricity on a substantial local scale to offset some carbon emissions and counter
global climate change.
I believe that the main objections are to the visual effects, but the simulation photographs provided by the company
indicate that the visual effects will be minimal and the installations will be screened by vegetation hedges. Even the
effect on the horizon will be negligible compared to the current and growing presence of trees. The company has
made every effort to accommodate objections to the visual effects by adding screening vegetation and setbacks of
the installations. In further information provided on July 7 th the company further demonstrates consideration of
requests by citizens, including shorter screening vegetation to avoid obscuring the view, and pollinator -friendly
reseeding. I consider that the company has gone above and beyond the requirements to ensure that th eir installations
are both environmentally and community compatible.
There is no need for further delaying studies given the suitability of the sites, the mitigation efforts by the company,
and the barriers to other locations as a result of a lack of avail ability of grid connections in other locations. I urge the
Town Board to approve both these solar projects for immediate installation.
Thank you.
Tim Resler, 162 Turkey Hill Road, said he is kind of in the middle of all this and is
speaking for Susan Reed as well. If the solar panels go up it will be to the south of his Dad’s
six acres and to the west. He already told Bharath that he could cut down a bunch of trees at
the rear of his property so that they wouldn’t shade his panels and there would be a straight
line. But he thinks the public should have a say as to where the panels should go. So far
nobody has had a say as to where these panels go. In 1971 he drove a tractor for Cornell
University Plant Breeding and they were picking potatoes up on top of Mt Pleasant. If you were
to drive up there now, there are still potatoes growing up there. If you go to where the
observatory is, get out of your car and look around, you’ll see the ideal place to put up a solar
farm, a large scale solar farm. Where you are putting it is not suitable for a large scale solar
farm. Mt Pleasant can house maybe 3 or 4 the panels that we’ve been talking about. Cornell
owns it all. There is no reason not to put a solar farm twice as big as what we’re talking about
on top of Mt Pleasant. He urged the board to go there and take a look around to confirm what
TB 8-17-17
Page 4 of 41
he said is true. There are a lot benefits to going up on Mt Pleasant. It’s enormous. You can
probably put two of what we’re talking about near the observatory. The next hill over is just as
big and empty. Nobody goes up there. The only cars you see up there are either people that
are lost or someone who lives near might use the road once in a while. You’ll have complete
public support. You’ll be able to put up more panels. You’ll be able to keep more glaciers from
melting. There are no trees up there. You don’t have to break out your chain saws and cut
down his trees. You don’t have to put up a fancy fence; no one will care what it looks like even
if you need one. You’ll have to talk Cornell into giving over their potato fields. They’ve been
growing potatoes up there since at least 1971. I’m sure they can plant them so mewhere else.
Bharath told him that Cornell is really happy about bending over backwards to make these
solar projects work. If you go up there you’ll see that this is the ideal place for a large scale
farm. He doesn’t see why it hasn’t been looked into from day one.
Bruce Monger, 120 Etna Road, said he teaches an oceanography class that
incorporates a lot of climate science. With the change in federal government and the
presidential administration, a lot of people say that climate science and actions on climate
change and reducing our CO2 emissions isn’t going to come from the federal government any
time soon. What we have to do is shift our attention to local communities to fight our carbon
emissions and to get our emissions to zero. He urged the board to take that into consideration.
You guys are not the leaders. We don’t have leadership in Washington; we have it locally. You
are our leaders. Ask just about any climate scientist what holds us back from action on
climate change and they will say leadership. We have the technology and we can do it
economically and feasibly. What we don’t have is strong leadership. He encouraged the board
to be strong leaders. He doesn’t live near any of these properties. It’s easy for him to say put
the solar up. He sees the social impacts at global scales. He encouraged the board to be brave
in its decision making, taking into account the people who live near the solar farms. But don’t
shrink back from your courageous responsibility. He often tells his stu dents that every so
often a generation gets called upon to do something extraordinary. This generation is being
called upon to take the planet to zero carbon emissions. It starts with local leaders because we
can’t count on our federal government. It is often cast as Cornell versus the community. But
Cornell is made up of community members. They have kids that attend the local high schools.
It’s not Cornell versus the community. It’s people that happen to work at Cornell in the
community working with other community members.
Jim Shippy, 11 Dodge Road, said the people that have been speaking on this for
months are not against solar. They also call upon the board to use its leadership ability to
make sure that solar can go in, but it needs to go in the right places. He doesn’t think anyone
is arguing against the science of global warming. Too many meetings have been spent talking
about those kinds of things when no one is really debating that. It’s not about screenings and
all that. It’s the simple fact that this is not an allowed use and they are asking for something
that’s special. In order to meet the test, to be granted something that’s special, you have to
meet certain minimum requirements. He thinks if you take the size and magnitude of what
they are going to do to Dodge Road and they already have an enormous high voltage power line
and Cornell has a gas pipeline that they put under the road that crosses that. Now when you
fill Dodge Road with solar panels you have a disproportionate land use problem with an area
that is designed for residential/agricultural and is going to be predominantly commercial in
nature between the electricity, the gas, the power lines and the solar panels. It’s a
disproportion use of the land use. It’s not fair to the residents on Dodge Road. Dryden schools
deserve to get the maximum benefit for what is going to happen with Sun8. You h ad to know
that Sun8 was going to do a great job of filling in all the blanks. There was no doubt in his
mind that they would meet all the requirements to get to where they are today. That was a
given once they were allowed to simply apply. He doesn’t think they should have been allowed
to apply. Dryden won’t see any sch ool tax dollars on the Dodge Road installation because
that’s Ithaca City school district. It’s not even half the loaf of proverbial bread that we’re
talking about. It’s less than half because the school tax is the larger of the two taxes that are
TB 8-17-17
Page 5 of 41
levied on that street. Dryden is giving that free money to Ithaca. Dryden could have the cake
and eat it too by putting this somewhere more appropriate. That might mean that Sun8 has to
dig a little deeper and spend a little more money so they can get their extension cord they keep
talking about to reach where it needs to go. Or maybe Cornell needs to dip in. But it doesn’t
belong on Dodge Road.
Craig Schutt said he wanted to address some of the items in yesterday’s Courier.
There is a lot of misconceptions, half truths and whatever in there. The people of Dryden have
a right to know the truth. First, there is a statement that all the advisory boards had input
before the law. False. Neither the Conservation Board nor the Ag Committee were asked for
any input. They finally had input because they took it upon themselves. They were never
asked for any kind of input, so that’s a false statement. There is a statement that the c all for a
moratorium was all political. No. Some of us just would like to see this done correctly and
take some time and have the input. That’s disrespectful to the people of Dryden and the people
that voted for a moratorium on the boards. It was because people care. Obviously this board
doesn’t care what the rest of us think. You only have one vision and that is to get as many
solar panels as quickly as possible on the landscape without really considering everybody’s
thoughts and concerns. He is really disturbed about those and other comments. He won’t
pretend to speak for the Planning Board, but thinks there is some misrepresentation but that’s
for them to deal with. He is on the Conservation Board and is the liaison from the Conservation
Board to the Ag Committee, so he knows what goes on at those meetings. Neither of them were
ever asked. The law was already in place before they knew about it. The only reason they had
input is because they took the initiative to give input, but were too late.
Joe Osmoloski, 2180 Dryden Road, said he spent two years on the Ag Committee (until
this year when he was appointed to the Conservation Board) and doesn’t recall the Ag
Committee being asked for input for the solar projects. He thanked the board for the letter (i)
for 2150 where they basically used the Verizon resolution to protect those willow trees. He also
wants to remind the board, even though it is nice that they did this, Zoning Law Section
1103(23) for trees that 1’ or more in diameter at breast height. That still needs to be addressed
even if the Verizon resolution is rescinded or expires. He recommends that the whole stream at
2150 Dryden Road be put into a conservation easement. Distributed Sun has submitted a
conservation subdivision plan. According to Conservation Subdivision Law there must be a
conservation easement on that property, meaning property at 2150 Dryden Road will have to
go into a conservation easement, being deeded to an external third party. This would be a good
time for the board to take advantage of the Conservation Board. This is what the Conservation
Board was charged with: protecting our land in Dryden. And the fact that in a conservation
subdivision, if Distributed Sun goes ahead with the Conservation Subdivision, that a
conservation easement should come from recommendations from Conservation Board. The
other boards can also have input, but the Conservation Board should be charged with this.
Speaking for himself, he would be more than glad to decide what goes into a conservation
easement at 2150 Dryden Road. He would recommend two spots: the whole creek and the
whole flood plain area of Virgil Creek. But please, take advantage of the advisory boards.
Listen to the advisory boards. They are here for a reason. It seems that every time advisory
boards in Dryden make a recommendation to this board, they are ignored. Here is a perfect
opportunity to ask the Conservation Board where the conservation easements at 2150 Dryden
Road should be put.
Sarah Osmeloski thanked the board for sparing the willow trees that are supposed to
be screening the cell tower, but asked that the board take it one step further. She asked the
board to consider including in this that if and/or when special use for the cell tower should
lapse, expire or be revoked, instead of allowing Distributed Sun to take down these willow
trees. These willow trees are really special. They are between 78’ and 85’ high. Some have
trunks greater than 9’ in circumference and 3’ in diameter. They are huge and they’re
beautiful. She would like to see them protected. In exchange allow Distributed Sun to put
TB 8-17-17
Page 6 of 41
panels on the other side where the cell tower is supposed to go. Maybe these trees will shade
some of their panels, but they can add more panels to make up for the difference of lost
electricity. These trees are a very valuable resource to the community.
Claudia Wheatley read the following statement: I live at 60 Hickory Circle in Ellis
Hollow. I'd like to address concerns about the size and appearance of the proposed solar farms.
The first computer occupied about 1,800 square feet and weighed almost 50 tons. My parents' first TV
was black and white and yay big. America's skyline bristled with antennas. No matter how we fiddled
with them, the reception was usually poor. The first electric calculator I saw was the size of a shoebox,
had to be plugged in, and cost 1600 in today's dollars.
And now I have this (iPhone), which does all of those tasks and more, also holds libraries of books and songs, and
fits in my pocket.
Progress like this is possible because innovators put out imperfect products and watch us use them.
They fix problems. They take advantage of new materials. The trend is always toward smaller, cheaper
and more powerful.
Solar technology is still in its infancy. It won't always be necessary to take up entire fields to power a
few thousand homes. But developers need to put the current technology to daily use, so they can figure
out how to make solar farms smaller, cheaper and more powerful .
I urge the board to help move these projects forward. In my experience further delays only harden the
bad feelings a controversial project creates between residents.
Incidentally: Although I read from a script, my words come directly from my heart. Thank you
Susan Ashdown, 12 Forest Lane, said she lives near the intersection of Turkey Hill
Road and Route 366, an area that she treasures. She mourns for the loss of some places that
she loves seeing and driving by, but believes this is something that needs to go forward. We
are trying to decide what is best for a company, yes, maybe the top of Mt Pleasant hill, but
there would be people who would hate that just as much. She would hate that more because
she actually treasures the view around the observatory more than she does the one around
Dodge Road. She treasures them all. Her walk to the bus in the mornings is blessed with the
beautiful agricultural land in combination with distant hill sides. But these are not our right.
They are what we get perhaps for a short time in our life, but it’s unreasonable to expect that
there would be no change in this much loved area in a lifetime. The kinds of change that could
happen would be much more disruptive and distressing and are what made her say, yes, I
want solar panels. I want them there. I want them in a place that I love. Because they will step
lightly on the land, because they will not disrupt wildlife, because they will preserve
agricultural land. She came across the following quote today from Thomas Edison in 1931:
“We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we
should be using Nature’s inexhaustible sources of energy --sun, wind and tide. I’d put my
money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power ! I hope we don’t have to wait until
oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” Let’s not wait. Let’s put this power where it
belongs, near a power line, in a good place, where it will actually preserve that land not destroy
it.
Cor Drost, 10 Hickory Circle, said he is speaking in strong support of these solar
energy projects. Especially when the federal government is taking a very reckless course,
disregarding all of the active scientific evidence and continues to kick the proverbial can of
global warming down on to our children and grandchildren. It is up to grass roots
communities to stay on course with the Paris agreement and do all we can to stop further
global warming. Solar energy is one such evident activity. Every farm engages in solar farming
already. That’s their business. That’s what every field of corn, hay and grass does – convert
solar energy into a commercially viable resource. Environmentally, it does not make sense to
him, no commercial sense at all, to prefer to grown corn, then convert it into alcohol and then
use it to run our cars. Energy that can be farmed by the same farmland through solar panel
farming. He strongly urges the board to approve the plans.
TB 8-17-17
Page 7 of 41
Matt Kozlowski, with Cornell University Facilities Engineering, said he is here to speak
in favor of the projects. He has personally worked with Distributed Sun for over two years on
separate projects, both on rooftop solar on the Cornell Campus as well as the Ledyard and
Harford projects. They have been excellent partners. They have been good and responsive
stewards to the land. He urged the board to approve the special use permits.
Pat Dubin, 2002 Ellis Hollow Road in Caroline, said she supports the project proposed
by Distributed Sun and strongly urged the Town Board to approve the Special Use Permits for
the solar project and pass the recommendations that are before it tonight. So much has gone
into this project already. All the sites have been looked at over and over and over again. Now is
really the time to move forward on it so that we are sure that we can get this project, which is
going to contribute to our community in so many ways that people have mentioned. She was
looking at the statement of purpose related to the town solar law and this project fits entirely
within that stated purpose. The first is taking advantage of a safe, abundant renewable and
non-polluting energy resource, which it does. The second is decreasing the cost of energy to
the owners of commercial and residential properties, which it does. Many people have spoken
before to the board about how it opens up the opportunity for so many people that can’t have
solar on their property to take advantage of clean energy and cheaper rates. The last is
increasing employment and business development in the region by furthering the installation
of solar energy systems. We know that this will also contribute to jobs in the area that haven’t
existed before. She hopes the board will do everything it can to approve the resolutions before
it tonight and move this project to completion so that work can begin on it as soon as possible.
Charles Geisler – 517 Ellis Hollow Creek Road, asked the board to approve the Special
Use Permits before it. They have been reviewed stem to stern on many occasions with many
very positive adjustments. As he has attended meetings over the past year, it seems repeatedly
the issue that has come up most sincerely on the part of the opponents is the scale of the
project. Many refer to as industrial solar. Large scale infrastructure comes with this curse. It’s
large. It’s a change in the landscape. Yet, isn’t it interesting how large roads, power lines,
power generators, dump sites, malls, industrial parks, the personal storage units that are
spreading across the county and the town, disappear and become invisible very, very quickly.
We adjust to them. We accept them as part of our modern life style without trying to hide the
fact that they are a blemish in many ways. That said, he thinks we want to look upon the
proposed project as a real asset for many, many reasons which have been gone over. This is
something to be proud of and which our town can be a leader in and be very, very proud of. He
hopes the board will approve the special use permits.
Brad Perkins, 4 Mill Street, said he represents the Willow Glen Cemetery where there
are in excess of 7500 bodies buried and there are in excess of 2800 lot owners who have
invested in that cemetery. Going back a few months, evidently Distributed Sun sent a letter to
the Town Board asking for a waiver on the build out of infrastructure. You granted that waiver
to them and only them. You essentially planned then to build these projects. And now you feel
like you are handcuffed to that. They state in their letter how much money they’ve already
spent and what the time span is and they also state they had been working on this for three
years. If somebody thinks we’ve only just heard about this in February, that when we heard
about it, was February. But somebody in this town organization heard about this two and half
or three years ago. Now we come to meeting and we find a resolution all neatly crafted, drafted
and on paper and ready to vote on. With the SEQR it was the same way. You voted on your
SEQR without having reviewed all of the submitted data. I know that for fact. All we are
asking for is to back this thing up a little bit. Make it a little smaller. Distributed Sun has
come in here and done a wonderful job presenting it. He’s nowhere as good a salesman as they
are, and he doesn’t think the board is. I also know if he was in Alaska and someone tried to
sell him snowballs, he’d probably say sorry, I don’t need them. He thi nks it is not asking too
much to have them eliminate array 4 and array 5 from the 2150 Dryden Road project. You
would be preserving a natural landscape asset and the view from that asset and he thinks that
TB 8-17-17
Page 8 of 41
is part of the Board’s responsibility. He believes the board is somewhat intimidated by the
letter that was agreed to when the waver was granted because you are afraid that they are
going to sue you. I think you already went into an executive session maybe to discuss
somebody’s pending lawsuit. He thinks they are in this far enough, that they’ve invested
enough time and want this bad enough that if you shrunk it a little bit they would probably
stay the course and build it smaller rather than abandon it. He learned a long time ago if you
don’t have any bread at all, a few slices or half a loaf is a whole lot better than having none.
Sometimes you don’t have to give everybody everything. You’ve given the cemetery essentially
nothing except precluding their view.
Bruno Schickel, 210 Schutt Road, read under Special Use Permits in the Zoning Law
A(1): “In this law some uses are allowed subject to a Special Use Permit being granted by the
Town Board. The purpose of the Special Use Permit review and approval [procedure] is to
assure that the proposed use in harmony with this Law and will not adversely affect the
neighborhood if the requirements of the Law and those conditi ons attached to the Special Use
Permit by the Town Board are met.” The relevant words are not “adversely affect the
neighborhood.” There isn’t a single immediate neighbor who has come forward to his
knowledge and said it won’t affect them. Neighbor after neighbor after neighbor has come
forward and said this adversely affects them, please push it back, make it smaller, limit the
impact, reduce the negative effect on our neighborhood. The question for you folks is are you
going to listen to them? Are you going to follow your own law and listen to the neighbors’
legitimate concerns? They have legitimate concerns and they need to be addressed. Brad
Perkins just spoke and this was not a new proposal to eliminate the arrays up front close to the
cemetery. He made that proposal before. There is opportunity for compromise. It’s n ot too
late. The same thing is true on Dodge Road. People have come forward and said if you push
this back or limit that. No one is saying we don’t want any solar. He isn’t and he hasn’t heard
a single speaker come up and say that. Everyone has said we want it, but let’s reduce the
negative impact on our neighborhood. He supports them in that and thinks it is the right thing
to do. This board has an opportunity to find a win-win situation. The question is are you
willing to take that? Are you willing to step forward and say yes, we want to move forward but
you need to reduce it? You need to push it back; you need to make some accommodations that
will accomplish the goal.
Lisa Kilgore, Ithaca, said she wishes she could have solar in her back yard. She had a
consultation with Renovus and she can’t have solar in her back yard or on her roof. She
supports this project because she would love to be able to use community solar and have
access to it.
Nancy Miller, 501 Midline Road, thanked the town board and staff for all the hard work
that has gone into getting this project this far. She urged the board to issue the needed Special
Use Permits for this project. There has been huge scrutiny of every aspect of this project and
many changes made to address the community concerns. Sun8 has gone above and beyond
what she would expect a commercial company to do to meet the community needs. If this isn’t
approved she can’t imagine another solar or renewable contractor that would want to do big
community solar arrays in Dryden. It just doesn’t make any sense to her if it is going to be so
complicated to do this. Dryden needs to continue to lead the way in environment al protection
and to provide the policy and the support for all renewables, but this project particularly,
especially now when we feel like we can only depend on local governments to protect us. She
thinks this is especially important.
Leslie Appel, 78 Dodge Road, urged the Town Board to please consider approval of the
project with certain revisions. For her and for the neighbors adjacent and very close to these
projects, they all are saying the same thing as Bruno Schickel just mentioned. She knows for
her neighbors on Turkey Hill and Dryden Road, it’s the size and scale of this project. At all of
these meetings she has left so sad and offended that people that are pro-solar are making it
TB 8-17-17
Page 9 of 41
seem like they don’t want solar. They have solar on another one of their properties. Her
husband drives a hybrid car. Of course she wants to save the environment for her children, for
all of our grandchildren. It’s not about that. It’s about the size and the scale of this project in
an agricultural residential area. It really is commercial. She urged the board to make
compromises and not just approve it as is. But she wants solar so she hopes it gets appr oved
with revisions of reducing the scale. One really big thing for the folks on Dodge Road is the
cutting of the spruce trees that she’s heard termed garbage trees. They aren’t garbage trees to
them. They love that woods. They walk on the road. That i s a beautiful woods. The term
NIMBY is offensive. She’s happy for some solar to go in her back yard, but not the commercial
scale that is being proposed. She has nothing against Distributed Sun. Bharath has been
nothing but amazing, coming to them to see how he can mitigate this. But really to mitigate
this so they can accept it, it has to be a reduction in the size so they don’t have to cut down 30
acres of trees and don’t have to take the Spruce woods out. She is not upset with Cornell. She
is a Cornellian. She hopes her children will be Cornellians. But again it’s the size and the scale
and it’s not about wanting solar or not wanting solar. We all want solar. We just want it in a
way that’s going to be acceptable and livable to all of us.
She sees on the agenda there is a Delaware River solar application. When this was first
presented it seemed like this was the one and only way to get solar to Dryden, but there is
another solar project being discussed? She has received postcards from NYSEG and postcards
from Renovus. There are other options for solar and she thinks they’re all great and we should
have more solar, but they just don’t have to be a commercial scale in one location in a
residential area.
Daren Miller said he will be talking mostly about the Ellis Tract, but a lot of what he
says will apply to the Dryden tract, too. Back in February when they first got the yellow cards
the first thing that went through their minds was the large scale, 18MW, and the location, in
their rural neighborhood right in their face. Now we are here six months later. They’ve been to
countless meetings. Many people have stood at this podium and said they don’t like the size or
the location, and yet we’re still looking at a project that is still 18 MW and still in the exact
same location. They are not listening to the residents because they have no power to change
their mind to make it smaller. The board has the power to make them listen and make it
smaller by rejecting the special use permit. That’s the only way they will listen. If you reject
that then all of a sudden a lot of things they said are not possible will suddenly become
possible. Like some of these other people said, h alf a loaf is better than no loaf, and they are
going to come around. But they will not, after six months of hearing the residents speak,
nothing has happened. It’s up to you. It’s on you.
Judy Pierpont, 111 Pleasant Hollow Road, said it is the most incredibly beautiful area.
Our whole area is incredibly beautiful. We here haven’t experienced the horrors of climate
change that are already being visited on many places in the world, many of them in this
country. She is feeling the urgency of our country and our communities doing something. It’s
not getting done in this country. There are many reasons for opposition and many of them are
well founded. But we are burning fossil fuels more than ever. We are putting more carbon
dioxide in the environment than in the past. The rate is going up. W e aren’t going to survive
this. Nobody is going to survive this if we don’t do something in this country now. The
urgency is now because waiting any longer, we will miss the window. There will be tipping
points where we can’t go back and the temperatu re will increase. We can’t live, our blood can’t
cool itself at certain temperatures. Already in the world there are already areas where people
can’t live or grow food. There will be lots more climate refugees. Our world will be in turmoil.
We have a really important urgent part to play and we are able to do it here now. She urged
the board to approve the projects which were long in the making and are very close to success.
She looks out her windows and says these species and things she loves will not be here in 50
years.
TB 8-17-17
Page 10 of 41
Sarah Zemanik, Director of Sustainability at Cornell, said she appreciates comments
about climate change. The earth is in danger, essentially intergenerational injustice, if we do
nothing about it. Cornell has a goal of carbon neutrality and 100% renewable energy by 2035.
The county and surrounding communities also have goals. The County’s energy roadmap calls
for hundreds of megawatts of solar farms in order to meet those goals. Interconnection,
capacity, the distribution system is the most significant limitation for where these projects can
be located. It is a long, complicated unpredictable process with NYSEG to work these projects
through. She feels it is incumbent upon all of us, Cornell included, to leverage its resources,
particularly in this case where they control a significant and scarce resource (in this case 2
viable interconnection circuits connected to a viable substation) to contribute to solutions both
for local and global challenges. Cornell has worked with Distributed Sun to examine more
than 50 Cornell owned sites. They found five that have viable interconnection options. They’ve
already built on the other four. The fact is that Mt Pleasant is not a viable interconnect site for
distributed renewables. It just isn’t. The substation has very minimal capacity and none of
the circuits are the right phase or meet other technical requirements. So Cornell’s ability or
willingness in this case to relocate current operations is not a factor on that site. Even if that
site was an ideal location for solar, they are actively looking for additional solar sites, not
alternate solar sites, to achieve both Cornell and community goals. She quoted Kathryn Boor,
Dean of Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences: “There are few institutions in the
world that care more about farmland preservation than Cornell University. Of equal concern
and attention for Cornell in 2017 is climate change and doing a ll we can to enable
sustainability efforts around the world, on our campus, and in the local community to prosper
while also reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.”
David Bravo-Cullen, Village of Dryden, said he looked at the information from Sun8.
They talked about views but their photographs were not good in terms of portraying the views
that Brad Perkins and other people are concerned about near the cemetery. He took a nice
panorama picture of that view on Tuesday and displayed it for the board. He said you can tell
easily the difference between the cemetery land and Pinney property that would be covered
with solar collectors. In zoning there is a concept of coverage. The development covers a
certain percentage of the property. Usually when you’re talking about buildings, the coverage
is less than 50% and yet in this case the coverage is considerably higher. He asked the board
to consider looking at this more like a building in this case.
Janis Graham submitted a statement from her neighbor:
I would like to express my opposition to the planned solar project on Dodge road. I live at the
corner of Dodge and Ellis Hollow and have lived in this beautiful neighborhood for over 6 years.
I would like to share a brief story. A few weeks ago, my 10 year old son and I were driving near
Geneva when we passed a solar array that was in a field, visible from the road. I drew my son's
attention to it and explained that those were the types of solar panels that Cornell wants to fill the
meadows along Dodge Road with. After pondering this for a few minutes he asked me if we can
avoid walking and driving down Dodge Rd from now on because it's "depressing" to think about our
favorite place to walk and ride bikes being made "ugly." I assured him that many of us in the
neighborhood were trying to advocate for the Town of Dryden to reconsider this project and have
them relocate or significantly downsize the array. I also tried to explain the argument that Cornell
and the solar company had given us about why they insist on Dodge Rd.
What occurred to me after discussing this with my son is that the array we had seen in Geneva was a
half-acre large (at most) and still had a significant visual presence. The proposed array for our road
is 400 TIMES as big. Based on simple calculations, the array will be the equivalent of 150 football
fields. ONE HUNDRED FIFTY! That will completely transform the quality and feel of our
neighborhood that we so carefully chose from a place of natural pastoral beauty to an industrial
TB 8-17-17
Page 11 of 41
zone. I am very supportive of solar energy but the scope of this proposed project is absolutely out of
balance for our neighborhood.
I urge those on the Town Board to take this into account when deciding on the fate of this project.
Also, I urge those who will make the decision to approve or disapprove this industrial project to take
a walk down Dodge Rd before you vote, preferably around 7:30 in the evening to experience the
serene beauty that is at stake. You can park in my driveway if you wish.
As for those who would like to write us all off as "NIMBY", please try to imagine the equivalent of
150 football fields of industrial materials being imposed on your favorite local natural area....or your
own back yard.
Thank you for your considering my viewpoint.
Greg Kadlecik
Ellis Hollow Road resident
J Graham thanked board for taking into consideration a vegetative screen in front of
array S1 on Dodge Road. She’d still like to make a plug for saving the spruce forest. She s aw
the Delaware River Solar application. She said everyone has been tortured by this process.
She hopes that it can be done differently next time and really reach out to the citizens first so
that it isn’t coming as a surprise. There must be a better way than what we’ve all been
through in these months with this next application coming down the pike. She urged the
board to try to find that better way for the next one.
Martha Robertson said it bothers her to hear people suggest compromise , when there
has been compromise, as if there haven’t already been many, many modifications in response
to the neighbors and community. It’s kind of unfair to say that. The Tompkins County IDA has
a project in front of them right now for solar in Ulysses. Just in case anybody still thinks that
delay will be a good idea, that project is proposing to pay $4,900 a MW instead of the $8,000
here. That is being justified because of changes in State policy and a reduction in incentives,
and in terms of federal policy where Donald Trump is talking about a tariff on imported solar
panels. The idea there would be maybe to stimulate an American market. On the other hand
she is sure Donald Trump would be happy to see the solar industry just die because that is
kind of what is going to happen when the prices go up. The prices are going up, the incentives
are going down and so the taxes that are proposed to be paid for this new project are almost
half what Distributed Sun has committed to pay. So delay is only going to cost taxpayers on
this. It is ironic when people used to talk about property rights, that an owner should be able
to do what they want with their own property, and here we have l andowners that want to do
something and people think they shouldn’t be allowed t o do that. She knows that we will get
through this and thinks that everybody really has been listening. The board has been listening
hours and hours and Bharath has been listening and she hopes we do all listen to each other
and try to recognize that people have been giving on both sides.
Marie McRae, 710 Irish Settlement Road, read a statement from Ellis & Oscar Schmidt
who live at 8 Genung Circle: As members of the older generation, we think about what we will leave
our children and grandchildren. By choosing solar energy for our town we will be doing right by them
and all of us now and generations to come. We honor our deceased relatives by focusing on making a
livable world for those now alive, those who are growing up and those yet to born.
Mike Pitzrick, 931 Dryden Road, said he is excited to live in community considering
large scale renewable energy and thanked the board for its public service and hard work. He
respectfully requests the board do what it can to move forward with this project.
TB 8-17-17
Page 12 of 41
Attached are statements handed in but not read by Geisler, Osmeloski and Whittemore.
Supv Leifer closed the public hearing on the trail easements at 8:21 p.m.
RESOLUTION #109 (2017) - AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR THE
PURPOSES OF PROVIDING RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE PUBLIC
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the 2005 Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plan and the 2011 Recreation Master
Plan both identified a need for increased outdoor leisure and recreational space; and
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to create a recreational trail (“the Trail”) for non-vehicular use by
the public within abandoned railroad property; and
WHEREAS, the property owners listed in the attachment hereto entitled “Trail Easement
Agreements Town of Dryden” (“the Property List”) wish to grant to the Town easements (“the Trail
Easements”) across those portions of the parcels they own consisting of abandoned railroad property
(“the Easement Areas”) for the Trail; and
WHEREAS, the property owners agreed to grant the easements to the Town for nominal
consideration, and the Town will not have to expend funds to acquire the easements; and
WHEREAS, such property owners executed proposed agreements with the Town (“the Trail
Easement Agreements”); and
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to accept the Trail Easements; and
WHEREAS, §247(3) of the General Municipal Law provides that the acquisition of interests or
rights in real property, including by easement, for the preservation of open spaces is a public purpose
and that such acquisition requires a public hearing subject to due notice; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed acquisition of the Trail Easements was held on
August 17, 2017 at 7:05 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 August 7, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board on December 15, 2016 issued a negative declaration under Article
8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Regulations adopted pursuant thereto by the Depa rtment
of Environmental Conservation of the State (collectively, “SEQR”) with respect to acceptance of the
Trail Easements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that the Town Board finds that the acceptance of the Trail Easements and
execution and recording of the Trail Easement Agreements in the form attached hereto is in the public
interest; and be it further
RESOLVED that the Town Board finds that the Easement Areas are suitable for a recreational
trail; and be it further
TB 8-17-17
Page 13 of 41
RESOLVED that the Town Board approves the Trail Easement Agreements and authorizes the
Town Supervisor to execute them and any and all related documents required for recording of such
Agreements, subject to approval of the attorney for the Town.
Attachment A
Property owners Tax parcel numbers Deed references
1. Brian Stratton 54.-2-3 477812-001
2. Brian Stratton 55.-1-12 437139-001
3. Varna II, LLC 56.-5-19.3 507857-001
4. The William George Agency for 38.-1-1, / 38.-1-23.2, Deed Ref Liber 588 Deeds at
Children's Services, Inc. 39.-1-27 pg. 546, Tompkins Co. Clerk's
office
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Supv Leifer thanked the Rail Trail Task Force for securing these easements and said he
is looking forward to getting the rest of them so we can get the project completed. He thanked
Bob Beck, Bruno Schickel and all involved.
Supv Leifer closed the public hearing on the Sun8 special use permits and site plan
reviews at 8:23 pm.
Ray Burger suggested doing the 2150 Dryden Road application first. He asked that
they reference the site plan review checklist given to the board a few weeks ago. It goes
through the requirements point by point. This is what the Planning Board used and he
forwarded their recommendations to the Town Board. B Srinivasan addressed some of those
pieces in his presentation tonight. The draft resolution runs through the points that the
Planning Board brought up and makes suggested conditions to the site plan approval to
address those concerns.
R Burger read through the “resolveds” for site plan approval one by one.
a) specifications for the solar panels and inverters to ensure compliance with current UL
standards - Cl Cipolla Dennis confirmed that documents would be provided before issuance of a
building permit. We don’t have those documents now because NYSERDA has rules that specify
and control what panels are available when the project is ready to move forward and the specs
can change.
b) complete decommissioning plans for the approved arrays on the five sites, subject to the
approval of the Town Planning Director and Attorney for the Town; after the final decommissioning
plans are submitted, the Town Board shall determine the amount of the financial security bonds or
other forms of financial security to be provided for each site, to assure removal of the systems and
property restoration - when the actual construction plans are put together there will be a
TB 8-17-17
Page 14 of 41
specificity and absolute calculation of decommissioning costs and that will determine th e
amount of the bond.
c) revised drawing showing a turnaround for emergency vehicles in the vicinity of the buildings
on Lot 2 – A driveway goes up the middle of the lot to access a lot of the array fields. There are
two structures remaining on the lot and we want to make sure there is an adequate turn-
around for fire apparatus for the buildings. Fire apparatus access is not being required for all
the array fields because there is an exemption in the Fire Safety Code for solar facilities
specifically. The access plan has been shared with the fire chiefs.
d) addition of a note to the site plans to require a Knox-box or similar system for emergency
gate access to the sites
e) a long-term maintenance plan subject to the approval of the Town Planning Director and
Attorney for the Town for the vegetative screening that is shown on the site plans, with such plan to
define heights at which vegetation will be trimmed for shading purposes, establish time limits for
replacing damaged or dying plantings, and require replacement plantings to be of equal height or
diameter to the initial planting – There is a robust landscaping plan and statements that
replacement will be made if necessary. This will memorialize parameters and benchmarks.
f) revised drawing modifying the size of both the construction sign and the permanent sign so
that neither exceeds 32 square feet, and showing placement is at least 15 feet from the highway line –
this is to ensure that signs are appropriately sized for the project. The construction sign gives
an address for deliveries and contact information for emergencies. The permanent sign has a
slightly different set of information.
g) revised drawing with sufficient detail showing that no panels will be placed within the 100-
year FEMA floodplain – This comes from the County 239 review recommending reconciling what
appeared to be a few arrays close to the Virgil Creek flood plain. The current FEMA map is
poor and the applicant will submit a detail of that array to confirm that it is above the elevation
of the 100 year flood plain.
h) updated site plan drawings, inclusive of planting plans and details, to incorporate all edits and
revisions enumerated in errata sheets submitted on or prior to 7/20/17. Leading up to the SEQR
there was an errata sheet created (on the web) and it captured some of the modifications that
were made – three or four for each project – dealing with modifications and specifying and
locking in more detail. Those will now be carried forward into revised drawings.
i) - revised drawing noting that the trees on Lot 5 along the Willow Glen Creek tributary south
of the “existing crossing and path” marked for non-mechanized removal on Sheet C-105 may be
removed only if and when the Special Use Permit # 04-2017-TSUP issued to Upstate Cellular Network
(Verizon) for a cell tower at 2150 Dryden Road lapses, expires, or is revoked. If not executed, the
special use permit lapses after 18 months. The words “or is voluntarily surrendered” were
added at the end of (i). A comment was made about trees 12” or greater at breast height. R
Burger said there are mature trees along the tributary that are implicated in the special use
permit for the cell tower.
j) - revised drawing showing the trees within the proposed vegetative screen along the east side
of Site 5 will be a minimum of 16 feet tall at planting. R Burger said he has discussed this TG Miller
and was originally to address the situation where the original planting plan along array #5 had
14’ to 16’ trees and it showed that the screening objective was met when they achieved the 16’
level. TG Miller and he suggested putting this in to start from ground zero rather than a few
TB 8-17-17
Page 15 of 41
years in. Now the piece of data is that in reality the ground that was assumed to be perfectly
level with the neighboring property is in fact at an elevation of 6’ to 8’ higher. Indeed, the
original plantings anywhere in the 14’ to 16’ range are meeting the screening objectives that are
at plus 6’ so this isn’t really a necessary condition to put on it. 16’ in height is really pushing it
as far as transplant shock. The present plan calls for a minimum of 14’ and the board
determined that was sufficient. This condition was removed.
k) - revised SWPPP acceptable to the Town Stormwater Management Officer and Town
Engineer that addresses the SWPPP items in the August 10, 2017 letter from T.G. Miller to the Town
Supervisor. R Burger said it is typical to have an ongoing SWPPP review. It is often finalized
after a plan approval. This is making sure to capture that step and put it in the approval.
Those four items will be set forth in the resolution.
B Srinivasan had a question about the flood plain map and after discussion agreed to
provide the requested drawing. With respect to i) they are willing to work with Verizon for an
alternative solution and would like the ability to do so. Cl Cipolla-Dennis said they have to
adhere to the stipulations in the current SUP. If Verizon comes back with a modification for
that SUP, they would basically need to surrender that permit and ask for a new one. That is
covered in the language.
There were no questions from the board with respect to the site plan review checklist.
The Board was previously provided with a Special Use Permit check list and R Burger
asked if there was anything on that list that wasn’t addressed in the conditions. Cl Lamb
asked about conditions with respect to glare for nearby residences, who will define that and
how to address it. R Burger said there is a condition and it will be discussed.
Number 2 in the proposed resolution deals with special use permit and Section 1202 of
zoning law (applied to all special use permits) and 1312 for large scale solar.
a) The proposed use is compatible with the other permitted uses in the district and the
purposes of the district set forth in the Zoning Law since the project areas will include an agricultural use
(livestock grazing); population density will remain low with no increase in noise, traffic, odor or lighting
(after construction); and for the reasons stated in the narrative for the Full Environmental Assessment
Form Part 3 (FEAF P3) Attachment A, including but not limited to Sections 9, 17 and 18 - Board agrees.
b) The proposed use is compatible with adjoining properties and with the natural and
manmade environment due to the extensive vegetative and topographic screening; the panels will not
exceed 8 feet in height; there is no increase in noise, traffic, odor or lighting; and for the reasons stated
in the FEAF P3 Attachment A, including but not limited to Sections 9, 17 and 18 – R Burger clarified
that the panels are not to exceed 8’ in height on level ground. The areas are not being graded
and the panels will follow the natural topography. There will be cases that due to topography,
the high side of the panel mounted on a sloping ground wil l result in greater than 8’. It will be
well within the 20’ limit set in the solar law. After discussion, it was amended to read “not
exceed 8’ in height on level ground with variations due to grades.”
c) Parking, vehicular circulation, and infrastructure for the proposed use, and accessibility for
fire, police, and emergency vehicles are adequate, when the conditions in this resolution are met –
Board agrees.
d) The overall impact on the sites and their surroundings considering the environmental, social
and economic impacts of traffic, noise, dust, odors, release of harmful substances, solid waste disposal,
TB 8-17-17
Page 16 of 41
glare, or any other nuisances has been considered and found to be negligible, based on the information
and reasons in the Full Environmental Assessment Form. While not expected, in the event that glare is
experienced within any residence adjacent to these projects, the applicant shall install additional
vegetative screening of the species and height needed at appropriate line-of–sight locations to intercept
the glare, with such screening subject to approval of the Town Director of Planning – This is
responsive to the TG Miller letter for having a process in place for capturing if there is an
experience of glare. A glare analysis was done, according to industry standards, that points to
no impact or very low impact. There is screening in place, but if that is not covering it, this is a
prudent condition to cover that potentiality. TG Miller had suggest ed to time limit it to five
years. The condition as written does not limit it to that. Cl Cipolla-Dennis doesn’t believe it
should be tied to a time limit, because if there is loss of vegetation in an area and glaring
occurs, you want to have a mechanism in place.
Brad Perkins – Notwithstanding his request that this be amended to remove arrays 4
and 5, the condition says within any residence. There are large gatherings of people at the
cemetery who could be pretty offended by glare. The screening as proposed certainly does not
obscure this from all positions in the cemetery and never will. He asked that the condition also
cover any locations. Cl Cipolla-Dennis said she understands what he is talking about; the
cemetery covers a large area and all that area is important. S Osmeloski said she has a
business adjacent to the project. She trains race horses and has a training track. Glare could
very well affect her ability to train horses because horses react to glare. After discussion the
language was amended to read “While not expected, in the event that glare from the project is
experienced within any residence or home business adjacent to these projects, or within Willow
Glen Cemetery Association lands, the applicant shall install vegetative….”
B Srinivasan said there is one standard model in the entire country used to run a glare
analysis. That is the model they used. They did check for all the vantage points where there
are houses, the building at the cemetery and driving west on Route 13. There wasn’t any
objectionable glare. If they have to replace trees because the trees aren’t doing their job, they
will do that. They would like to clarify that the glare must be from the project because if you
drive west on Route 13 you are looking directly into the sun when it sets. They don’t want to
mitigate stuff that exists that is perceived as coming from the project. This is not designed to
reflect light.
e) Given the proximity to nearby residences the hours of operation during construction are
limited to 7 am to 6 pm on weekdays only unless specific work is approved in writing by the Town Code
Enforcement Officer such as work by public utility companies or work done to avoid impacting roadway
traffic. With this additional restriction, the design of structures or operation of the use necessary either
to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses or to protect the natural or scenic resources of the
Town as described in the FEAF P3, Attachment A have been incorporated into the site plans. This is
stricter than the 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. described in the application. This acknowledges the
residential area and provides extra protection in starting at 7 a.m. The caveat of permission by
the code officer to permit work outside those hours is because there are other parties, like
NYSEG working on this project and the applicant won’t necessarily have control. They may
need to operate during weekend hours at times to accomplish their work or accept deliveries. B
Srinivasan said they don’t have control over work that NYSEG does outside of the site. The
words “on the project sites” were added after hours of operation in the first line.
f) - The projects comply with the requirements for site plan review and conform to the Town’s
Commercial Design Guidelines to the extent applicable. Guidelines for sidewalks are waived since there
are no existing nor anticipated sidewalks in this commercial corridor to which to connect. Things such
as commercial roofing and sidewalks are not applicable in this instance.
TB 8-17-17
Page 17 of 41
g) - The projects comply with the location criteria set forth in Zoning Law §1312 F.2.b and c. Per
§1312 F.2.a, location on prime farmland soils may occur with Town Board approval. The location of
these projects on 35 acres of prime farmland soils is hereby approved since the acreage will be used for
sheep grazing and can be used for cropland if and when the solar panels are removed from the project
sites. To further protect the farmland soil a condition is placed on these projects that trenching for
underground cables or conduits shall follow a procedure where topsoil is preserved by stockpiling it
separately and returning it to the trench as the top layer. R Burger said the checklist references
using an Ag and Markets standard sewer/water pipelines. Those require a depth of greater
than 30” when the actual electrical code requires shallower than 30” and would be a
discrepancy. This is to be protective of the farmland soils where there will be under ground
utilities.
h. This Section 1312 F.3 are standards under the Solar Law
h(i) - Conform with all federal and state laws and all applicable rules and regulations
promulgated by any federal or state agencies having jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NYS
Department of Environmental Conservation, and NYS Department of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation have all written letters concerning their jurisdiction and all conditions have been met.
After the April hearing there was a punch list from TG Miller asking Army Corps and DEC to
weigh in. We’ve also had SHPO weigh in. Army Corps and DEC gave their jurisdictional
determinations. SHPO had two conditions to their approval concerning screening and making
sure it was maintained. Those conditions have been met and thus we can make this statement
in the resolution.
h(ii) - Are designed and will be constructed in a manner which minimizes visual impact to the
extent practical, as described in FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9. This was the part of the SEQR
analysis dealing with aesthetic resources.
h(iii) - Comply with all other requirements of the Town of Dryden Zoning Law, provided the
condition in section 4 below regarding variances for arrays within yard setbacks is met, and comply with
applicable Commercial Design Guidelines, except guidelines for sidewalks are waived for the reasons
stated in section 2.f above. There was a question about emergency vehicles accessing array #5.
They will access via the main driveway and over the tributary (Class C stream). The DEC
reviewed this application with that drive in place and stated there was no permit required. The
existing crossing will be used in the same way the tractors access it. Joe and Sarah Osmeloski
believe that can present a problem and it cannot be accessed a four -wheel drive tractor is used.
The fire departments have seen the plans and said it was fine as long as access through the
gate and a turnaround at the building are provided.
h(iv) - Conform with all adopted plans of the Town of Dryden, including the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan, which allows large-scale solar energy systems within the zoning districts that apply
to the sites. This was an affirmative statement made in the Comp Plan.
h(v) - Comply with a fifty-foot (50) front yard, rear yard, and side yard setback, except to the
extent that the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant an area variance(s) for arrays within a yard setback.
h(vi) - Do not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, as the upper edges of the panels are 8 feet
above grade. This language amended to read “…8 feet above grade on level ground, with
variations due to grade, and in no case may structures exceed 20’ in height.”
TB 8-17-17
Page 18 of 41
h(vii) - Have solar collector surface areas (as measured in the horizontal plane) that, when
combined with the coverage of other structures on the relevant lot, do not exceed twice the maximum
lot coverage as permitted in the underlying zoning district, as lots in the Rural Agricultural District have
less than 50% lot coverage (50% is twice the underlying district’s 25% limit) and the lot in the
Conservation District has less than 30% lot coverage (30% is twice the underlying district’s 15% limit).
i. Per the Special Use Standards in Zoning Law Section 1312F.5:
i(i) - The solar energy systems will have the least visual effect practical on the environment, for
the reasons described in FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9.
i(ii) - Glare produced by the solar arrays will not impair or make unsafe the use of contiguous
structures, any vehicles on or off the road, any airplanes, or uses by other possible impacted entities, as
described in FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9; section 2.d above imposes a condition requiring
additional screening in the event glare is experienced within a residence adjacent to the projects.
Amended to read “…in the event glare is experienced from the projects as described in section
2d above.”
i(iii) - Exterior lighting shall have the least visual effect practical on the contiguous properties,
because permanent exterior lighting will not be installed,
i(iv) - Equipment and vehicles not used in direct support, renovations, additions or repair of the
solar energy systems shall not be stored or parked on the facility sites.
i(v) - The solar energy systems will be enclosed by 7-foot high agricultural fencing (6-foot woven
wire fencing on wood posts with a single string wire on top; no barbed or razor wire) to prevent
unauthorized access, with warning signs with the owner’s name and emergency contact information
placed on access points and perimeters. To avoid adverse aesthetic impacts, systems shall be screened
as described in the site plan materials and FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9.
i(vi) - Lighting will not project off the sites, because no permanent lighting will be installed.
i(vii) - A locked gate located off the public right-of-way will be installed to prevent entry by
unauthorized vehicles.
i(viii) - The solar energy systems are required to be built, operated and maintained to
acceptable industry standards, including those of the Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). B Srinivasan said New York Department of
State describes what the code is to follow and sometimes they end up incorporating standards
from ANSI or sometimes they have modifications of those standards for use in New York. They
don’t have a problem complying with the standards, but there may be a difference between
what New York has and what ANSI and IEEE require. He asked that they be subject to
following all laws in the State of New York. The language was amended to read “…. acceptable
industry standards, including applicable standards of the Institute…”
R Burger read the remainder of the resolution aloud.
In response to a question about conservation easement, S Brock said it is actually a
Planning Board issue not a Town Board issue. If they process it as a conservation easement
and decide there are lands that need to be preserved, then under the subdivision law there are
certain things that happen for protection of that land. That is all done by the Planning Board.
TB 8-17-17
Page 19 of 41
RESOLUTION # 110 (2017) - Approving Site Plans and Granting Special Use Permits for
Five Large-Scale Solar Energy Systems at 2150 Dryden Road
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. SUN8 PDC LLC has applied for five Special Use Permits (SUPs) to construct five large-
scale solar energy systems at 2150 Dryden Road in Dryden, New York, Tax Parcel #38.-
1-3.1 to be subdivided into five lots, and
B. The proposal is to construct five 2 MWac solar photo-voltaic arrays for generation of
energy under the community distributed generation program, and
C. An application, site plan drawings, environmental site assessment, aquatic resources
report, habitat assessment, visual impact statement, storm water pollution prevention
plan (SWPPP), ecological assessment, archaeological report and other materials have
been submitted and some were subsequently revised, with the original application in
February 2017 and revisions provided in April, June and July 2017, and
D. The Town Planning Department considers the application complete and in conformance
with the requirements of Town Zoning Law §501, §600, §1103, §1201 and §1312, and
E. Public hearings were held on March 16, April 12, July 20 and August 17, 2017, with
public comments registered in the meeting minut es and considered by this board, and
F. Written comments have also been received which have been considered by this board,
and
G. The Tompkins County Planning Department has reviewed (letter dated 7/6/17) these
projects as required by NYS Municipal Law §239 –l, -m, and –n and has recommended
approval with one condition to ensure that panels are not placed in the Virgil Creek
floodplain, and
H. The SWPPP has been reviewed by the Town Engineer and found to be substantially in
compliance, with any final issues as outlined in the letter from T.G. Miller to the Town
Supervisor dated 8/10/17 to be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit, and
I. Pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its
implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, the granting of approvals for the
proposed solar energy systems are a Type I Action for which the Town Board of the
Town of Dryden, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to these
systems, has, on July 20, 2017, made a negative determination of environmental
significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental
Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3, and
J. The Town Planning Board reviewed the application per Town Zoning Law §1312 and
made recommendations concerning the site plans, and
K. The Town Board has reviewed this application relative to the considerations and
standards found in Town Zoning Law §1104 and §1312 for site plan review and §1202
and §1312 for Special Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Board, finding that the applicant is in compliance with the provisions of the
Town Zoning Law and other applicable ordinances, approves the site plans for the five
projects at 2150 Dryden Road dated July 2017, conditioned on subm ission to the Planning
Department of the following items prior to issuance of building permits:
a) specifications for the solar panels and inverters to ensure compliance with current
UL standards,
TB 8-17-17
Page 20 of 41
b) complete decommissioning plans for the approved arrays on the five sites, subject to
the approval of the Town Planning Director and Attorney for the Town; after the final
decommissioning plans are submitted, the Town Board shall determine the amount of
the financial security bonds or other forms of financial security to be provided for each
site, to assure removal of the systems and property restoration,
c) revised drawing showing a turnaround for emergency vehicles in the vicinity of the
buildings on Lot 2,
d) addition of a note to the site plans to require a Knox-box or similar system for
emergency gate access to the sites,
e) a long-term maintenance plan subject to the approval of the Town Planning Director
and Attorney for the Town for the vegetative screening that is shown on the site plans,
with such plan to define heights at which vegetation will be trimmed for shading
purposes, establish time limits for replacing damaged or dying plantings, and require
replacement plantings to be of equal height or diameter to t he initial planting,
f) revised drawing modifying the size of both the construction sign and the permanent
sign so that neither exceeds 32 square feet, and showing placement is at least 15 feet
from the highway line,
g) revised drawing with sufficient detail showing that no panels will be placed within the
100-year FEMA floodplain,
h) updated site plan drawings, inclusive of planting plans and details, to incorporate all
edits and revisions enumerated in errata sheets submitted on or prior to 7/20/17,
i) revised drawing noting that the trees on Lot 5 along the Willow Glen Creek tributary
south of the “existing crossing and path” marked for non -mechanized removal on Sheet
C-105 may be removed only if and when the Special Use Permit # 04-2017-TSUP issued
to Upstate Cellular Network (Verizon) for a cell tower at 2150 Dryden Road lapses,
expires, or is revoked, or is voluntarily surrendered, and
j) revised SWPPP acceptable to the Town Stormwater Management Officer and Town
Engineer that addresses the SWPPP items in the August 10, 2017 letter from T.G. Miller
to the Town Supervisor. Those items are:
a. Review land cover types and revise to closely match ecological assessments
prepared for the site. When the predevelopment land use is agriculture, the
curve number for the predeveloped condition shall be taken as “meadow” per
NYSDEC SWDM Section 4.5.
b. Provide inverter pad detail with stone trench.
c. Coordinate the gravel drive detail to be consistent between the site plan
documents, SWPPP narrative and SWPPP plans.
d. Outline the method for de-compaction in areas to be restored or adjust upward
the curve number (CN) values.
2. The Town Board hereby finds that the considerations for approval of the requested
Special Use Permit listed in §1202 and §1312 of the Town of D ryden Zoning Law have been
met or will be met with the conditions noted, specifically that:
TB 8-17-17
Page 21 of 41
a. The proposed use is compatible with the other permitted uses in the district and the
purposes of the district set forth in the Zoning Law since the project areas will include
an agricultural use (livestock grazing); population density will remain low with no
increase in noise, traffic, odor or lighting (after construction); and for the reasons stated
in the narrative for the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 (FEAF P3)
Attachment A, including but not limited to Sections 9, 17 and 18;
b. The proposed use is compatible with adjoining properties and with the natural and
manmade environment due to the extensive vegetative and topographic screening; the
panels will not exceed 8 feet in height on level ground with variations due to grades;
there is no increase in noise, traffic, odor or lighting; and for the reasons stated in the
FEAF P3 Attachment A, including but not limited to Sections 9, 17 and 18;
c. Parking, vehicular circulation, and infrastructure for the proposed use, and
accessibility for fire, police, and emergency vehicles are adequate, when the conditions
in this resolution are met;
d. The overall impact on the sites and their 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 Full
Environmental Assessment Form. While not expected, in the event that glare from th e
project is experienced within any residence or home business adjacent to these projects,
or within Willow Glen Cemetery Association lands, the applicant shall install additional
vegetative screening of the species and height needed at appropriate line-of–sight
locations to intercept the glare, with such screening subject to approval of the Town
Director of Planning;
e. Given the proximity to nearby residences the hours of operation on the project sites
during construction are limited to 7 am to 6 pm on weekdays only unless specific work
is approved in writing by the Town Code Enforcement Officer such as work by public
utility companies or work done to avoid impacting roadway traffic. With this additional
restriction, the design of structures or operation of the use necessary either to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding uses or to protect the natural or scenic resources of
the Town as described in the FEAF P3, Attachment A have been incorporated into the
site plans;
f. The projects comply with the requirements for site plan review and conform to the
Town’s Commercial Design Guidelines to the extent applicable. Guidelines for
sidewalks are waived since there are no existing nor anticipated sidewalks in this
commercial corridor to which to connect;
g. The projects comply with the location criteria set forth in Zoning Law §1312 F.2.b
and c. Per §1312 F.2.a, location on prime farmland soils may occur with Town Board
approval. The location of these projects on 35 acres of prime farmland soils is her eby
approved since the acreage will be used for sheep grazing and can be used for cropland
if and when the solar panels are removed from the project sites. To further protect the
farmland soil a condition is placed on these projects that trenching for underground
cables or conduits shall follow a procedure where topsoil is preserved by stockpiling it
separately and returning it to the trench as the top layer;
h. Per Zoning Law §1312 F.3, the solar energy systems:
i. Conform with all federal and state laws and all applicable rules and
regulations promulgated by any federal or state agencies having jurisdiction. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and NYS
Department of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation have all written letters
concerning their jurisdiction and all conditions have been met,
TB 8-17-17
Page 22 of 41
ii. Are designed and will be constructed in a manner which minimizes visual
impact to the extent practical, as described in FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9,
iii. Comply with all other requirements of the Town of Dryden Zoning Law,
provided the condition in section 4 below regarding variances for arrays within yard
setbacks is met, and comply with applicable Commercial Design Guidelines, except
guidelines for sidewalks are waived for the reasons stated in section 2.f above,
iv. Conform with all adopted plans of the Town of Dryden, including the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan, which allows large-scale solar energy systems within the zoning
districts that apply to the sites,
v. Comply with a fifty-foot (50) front yard, rear yard, and side yard setback,
except to the extent that the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant an area variance(s) for
arrays within a yard setback,
vi. Do not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, as the upper edges of the panels are
8 feet above grade on level ground, with variations due to grade, and in no case may
structures exceed 20’ in height,
vii. Have solar collector surface areas (as measured in the horizontal plane) that,
when combined with the coverage of other structures on the relevant lot, do not exceed
twice the maximum lot coverage as permitted in the underlying zoning district, as lots
in the Rural Agricultural District have less than 50% lot coverage (50% is twice the
underlying district’s 25% limit) and the lot in the Conservation District has less than
30% lot coverage (30% is twice the underlying district’s 15% limit),
i. Per the Special Use Permit Standards in Zoning Law §1312 F.5:
i. The solar energy systems will have the least visual effect practical on the
environment, for the reasons described in FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9,
ii. Glare produced by the solar arrays will not impair or make unsafe the use of
contiguous structures, any vehicles on or off the road, any airplanes, or uses by other
possible impacted entities, as described in FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9; section
2.d above imposes a condition requiring additional screening in the event glare is
experienced from the projects as described in 2d above,
iii. Exterior lighting shall have the least visual effect practical on the contiguous
properties, because permanent exterior lighting will not be installed,
iv. Equipment and vehicles not used in direct support, renovations, additions or
repair of the solar energy systems shall not be stored or parked on the facility sites,
v. The solar energy systems will be enclosed by 7-foot high agricultural fencing
(6-foot woven wire fencing on wood posts with a single string wire on top; no barbed or
razor wire) to prevent unauthorized access, with warning signs with the owner’s name
and emergency contact information placed on access points and perimeters. To avoid
adverse aesthetic impacts, systems shall be screened as described in the site plan
materials and FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9,
vi. Lighting will not project off the sites, because no permanent lighting will be
installed,
vii. A locked gate located off the public right -of-way will be installed to prevent
entry by unauthorized vehicles,
vii. The solar energy systems are required to be built, operated and maintained
to acceptable industry standards, including applicable standards of the Institute of
Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI).
TB 8-17-17
Page 23 of 41
3.The Town Board, finding that the applicant is in compliance with all other provisions of
the Town Zoning Law and other applicable ordinances, approves five Special Use Permits
for the proposed large-scale solar energy systems to be constructed at 2150 Dryden Road,
subject to the conditions and requirements in this resolution, and further subject to the
Town of Dryden Standard Conditions of Approval as amended August 14, 2008.
4. The site plans and Special Use Permits approvals are further conditioned on the
following:
a. Receipt of approval by the Planning Board of the subdivision of Tax Parcel # 38.-1-3.1
into five lots that can house the solar arrays, and
b. For construction of solar arrays that lie within any yard setback, receipt of an area
variance(s) from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
CITIZENS PRIVILEGE – Mineah Road
Chris Kappler, 34 Mineah Road, presented and read a letter from residents of the west
side of Mineah Road (attached). When he bought his house 23 years ago it was zoned as
residential. He asked why was it changed and why wasn’t he notified that it was changed.
There are houses there. There is nothing commercial there. About ten years ago he built a
garage. It was 6” too close to the centerline. All of his neighbors got a letter. They are not
building a 24 unit complex and he didn’t know anything about it until the driveway was being
put in. Does that make any sense?
Debbie Clemente Fortner said when she bought her house she was under the
impression it was residential and finds out it is commercial now. It is next to the cottages. She
was not notified of this project whatsoever. Mineah Road looks really nice driving up it, but
when you get to where he put his second driveway , you’ll hear your transmission change
because the hill gets really, really steep. In the winter she calls the road department all the
time because can see when cars are sliding. They slide all the way down the hill. You can’t
stop. It’s too steep. Where the second driveway is, either somebody living in those apartment
buildings or someone living on the road is going to get killed because it is so steep you can’t
stop unless you have a 4 x 4. Her daughter, used to driving in Manhattan, will not visit in the
winter time because of the street. During rush hour it is hard to pull out onto Route 13. Cars
don’t care and are travelling at a minimum at the speed limit. The public bus stops right
before the street, so you can’t see whether a car is coming out of Mineah Road. Are the
cottages going to be as big as the apartment buildings? They are housing multi families. She
has a lot of concerns and not been notified about anything. She doesn’t want to see anyone
killed. Water is a concern. Her mother had a farm in New Jersey and the neighbors sold their
property to a big church and her mother’s well went dry for six months. She called the town
and asked whether this was a possibility and they said yes, it is, they can’t guarantee anything.
She asked how big the cottages would be and how deep the wells would be and whether they
would affect her property or others.
TB 8-17-17
Page 24 of 41
Ray Burger explained the plan now is to scale back to four 2-bedroom cottages. He
expects they will be about 1800 square feet. They drilled two wells for the Pine Ridge Cottages
project and are getting a lower quantity of water than he would feel secure with doing the
original development, so he is downsizing it. This is a mixed use commercial zone and the use
is permitted by right so notification of neighbors is not required. There is a site plan review
before a regularly scheduled planning board meeting. There is no public hearing requirement.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis asked if the Planning Board should be asked to reconsider the zoning
in that area. The board agrees it should be reviewed and she will bring it up to the Planning
Board.
Robert Fortner, 22 Mineah Road, is right next to the building site. He found out about
it when the driveways went in. When they moved there they were zoned residential. They have
a USDA loan. They will not give you a USDA loan for commercial property so he knows they
were zoned residential at that time. They were never notified they were being rezoned as
commercial. He is disappointed with the town for not notifying its citizens when changes are
made in the laws. He would appreciate representation. It’s been done so this guy can eat up
the mountain. There’s trees and deer and birds and all kinds of streams that run down the
mountain. This guy has cut them all off. The site is disgusting. He has destroyed the
environment and just wants to build more. We need to have it rezoned keep him from building
commercial properties up Mineah Road or he is going to destroy that mountain. It’s one of the
most beautiful places in all of Tompkins County and it is being destroyed. There are a lot of
safety concern. The mountain is steep. He has to park at the bottom and walk up the hill in
the winter time. Someone is going to get hurt there. You can have children coming out of
these places and cars sliding down the road. He doesn’t want to be the one to run over a child.
It needs to be scaled back. They need to be rezoned. People live there, people in houses,
people who work hard and they deserve better.
Shirley Lyon, 29 Mineah Road, said she was there when they had to carry groceries
over a dirt road that had washed away. She was the first one up there and has been there for
37 years. She is a daughter of developer and is not anti-development. This project is the right
development in the wrong place. She said when you deal with a 20% slope you are going to get
into bedrock and a low water yield. But the Planning Board said lets not follow the
Comprehensive Plan and let them dig into a 20% building site and let him put his apartments
in. It’s laughable because if you read the 2005 Comprehensive Plan the Planning Board
wouldn’t have done that. She showed an aerial view of the 22 parking spaces in Pine Ridge
Cottages and said double that because what he is asking for is a total of 44 parking spaces.
What’s happened is that development has found a loophole for apartment complexes. They are
going under the guise of single family homes. That way they don’t need a site plan review, they
don’t need to notify the residents. We need to catch up with these developments. They have
put one or two occupancies in and go this is a single family home, I can build them here, I
don’t have to notify anybody. She came home to a bulldozer on her road and found out there
would be 40 occupants. Being a developer’s daughter (he rented to about 80 students), he said
it’s funny, his occupancy always doubled. After mom and dad go home the boyfriends and
girlfriends move in and more cars came. So when they said 40 cars, I said well that’s going to
be 60 or 65. The hill is dangerous. If the residency had been notified, if they had put these
kinds of developments in a particular category and they’d been notified, they could have helped
Mr. Wawak with a world of information. We wouldn’t be at war with our Planning Board and
wouldn’t have these people wondering why they weren’t notified. We n eed to catch up with
these small apartment complexes that hide under the guise of single family homes. She knows
the board knows this exists. It was read and passed to the Planning Board. Look at those 22
sites. How many of those do you see before single family homes?
The board took a break at 10:00 p.m. and came back into session at 10:12 p.m.
TB 8-17-17
Page 25 of 41
Ellis Tract Site Plan & Special Use Permit Review
Ray Burger said this will be the same process and read the “resolveds” beginning with
the site plan portion. They are many of the same concerns addressed in the 2150 Dryden Road
review.
There were no comments or questions with respect to a), b), or c).
d) addition of a note to the site plans to require Knox-boxes or similar systems for emergency
gate access to the sites – It was noted this was different than the 2150 site in that there is no
additional turnaround for fire apparatus required.
e) No comments or questions.
f) revised drawings modifying the size of both the construction signs and the permanent signs so
that none exceed 32 square feet, and showing placement is at least 15 feet from the highway line –
Here there are multiple access points to the various sites and each one will have a sign.
g) No comments or questions.
h) revised drawing providing for screening along the west side of Array S1 between the fence
and Dodge Road, subject to the approval of the Town Director of Planning – This was added in
response to comments. There was a landscaping plan that shows screening along S3 and S2
that covered the front of residences there. The S1 array to the north where there were no
residences did not have a screening plan. This condition extends that landscaping north
between Dodge Road and the S1 array. It was confirmed that when the lease is executed the
applicant will have control of that portion of property.
i) updated drawings showing additional detail and routes of underground and/or overhead
electric cables or conduits installed through delineated wetlands, subject to the approval of the Town
Director of Planning and Town Engineer - There are wetlands being constructed over so there is
more detail presented.
j) revised SWPPP acceptable to the Town Stormwater Management Officer and Town Engineer
that addresses the SWPPP items in the August 10, 2017 letter from T.G. Miller to the Town Supervisor –
Again, those conditions listed in the letter will be set forth in the resolution.
k) revised drawings for the east side of the S5 site which abuts the perennial stream to note that
the selective tree cutting protocol for the North sites also applies to this site – R Burger said this a bit
redundant. There is some coverage in the errata sheets addressing a protocol for that tree
removal area along the east side of S5. This is just to make it clearer that the more selective
tree removal protocol will be applied to the southern arrays. This is on the Turkey Hill Road
side and deals with a creek that runs down and has some willows.
The Board agrees these site plan conditions are appropriate. The Planning Board
resolution had requested that the town attorney confirm that the subdivisions of the site are
minor subdivisions, not major subdivisions, and that the lot line adjustments do not construe
a precedence to avoid the subdivision process. That has been done. It was confirmed that the
Norway spruce stand will be removed with stumps left in place and the mature overstory will
be lost. Tree removal protocol is being applied. The conditions placed on that include only
seasonal cutting to avoid the northern long eared bat concerns and non-mechanized cutting as
TB 8-17-17
Page 26 of 41
a protection of the archeological site. Additional screening for the travelling public on Dodge
Road was added.
Review continued with #2, considerations for approval of the Special Use Permit.
a. no comments
b. The proposed use is compatible with adjoining properties and with the natural and
manmade environment due to the extensive vegetative and topographic screening; the panels will not
exceed 8 feet in height; there is no increase in noise, traffic, odor or lighting; and for the reasons stated
in the FEAF P3 Attachment A, including but not limited to Sections 9, 17 and 18 – this was amended
with the same language as the 2150 approval to read “not exceed 8’ in height on level ground
with variations due to grades.”
c. no comments
d. The overall impact on the sites and their 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 Full Environmental Assessment Form. While not expected, in the event that glare is
experienced within any residence adjacent to these projects, the applicant shall install additional
vegetative screening of the species and height needed at appropriate line-of–sight locations to intercept
the glare, with such screening subject to approval of the Town Director of Planning – language was
amended to read “While not expected, in the event that glare from the project is experienced
within any residence or home business adjacent to these projects, the applicant shall install
vegetative….”
e. the words “on the project sites” were added after hours of operation.
f. no comments
g. With Town Board approval of location on prime farmland soils and wetlands, the projects
comply with the location criteria set forth in Zoning Law §1312 F.2. The location of these projects on 31
acres of prime farmland soils is hereby approved since the acreage will be used for sheep grazing and
can be used for cropland if and when the solar panels are removed from the project sites. To further
protect the farmland soil a condition is placed on these projects that trenching for underground cables
or conduits shall follow a procedure where topsoil is preserved by stockpiling it separately and returning
it to the trench as the top layer. The location of these projects in wetlands is hereby approved based on
the finding of no significant adverse impact on wetlands and surface waters and the extensive discussion
of that contained in Section 3 of the FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 3 – This is different than the
2150 resolution in that the 2150 project did not have any construction of arrays in wetlands.
There is wetland under the arrays here and thus we are making the appropriate statement.
h. This Section 1312 F.3 are standards under the Solar Law
There were no comments with respect to h(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v).
h(vi) - Do not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, as the upper edges of the panels are 8 feet
above grade. This language amended to read “…8 feet above grade on level ground, with
variations due to grade, and in no case may structures exceed 20’ in height.”
vii. no comment
TB 8-17-17
Page 27 of 41
i. Per the Special Use Standards in Zoning Law Section 1312F.5:
i(i). no comment
i(ii) - Glare produced by the solar arrays will not impair or make unsafe the use of contiguous
structures, any vehicles on or off the road, any airplanes, or uses by other possible impacted entities, as
described in FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9; section 2.d above imposes a condition requiring
additional screening in the event glare is experienced within a residence adjacent to the projects.
Amended to read “…in the event glare is experienced from the projects as described in section
2d above.”
iii. no comment
iv. no comment
v. insert “A” after Attachment.
vi. no comment
vii. no comment
viii. amended as with the 2150 resolution to read “…applicable standards of the
Institute…”
3 and 4 were read aloud and there were no comments.
RESOLUTION #111 (2017) - Approving Site Plans and Granting Special Use Permits for
Ten Large-Scale Solar Energy Systems at Turkey Hill, Stevenson and Dodge Roads
(Collectively Referred to as the Ellis Tract)
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. SUN8 PDC LLC has applied for ten Special Use Permits (SUPs) to construct ten large-
scale solar energy systems at Turkey Hill, Stevenson and Dodge Roads in Dryden, New
York, on land involving Tax Parcels #56.-5-31, Tax Parcel #57.-1-6 to be subdivided into
three lots, Tax Parcel #57.-1-7.1, Tax Parcel #67.-1-3 to be subdivided into three lots,
Tax Parcel #67.-1-4, and Tax Parcel #67.-1-7.2 to be subdivided into two lots, and
B. The proposal is to construct eight 2 MWac solar photo-voltaic arrays and two 1 MWac
solar photo-voltaic arrays for generation of energy under the community distributed
generation program, and
C. An application, site plan drawings, environmental site assessment, aquatic resources
report, habitat assessment, visual impact statement, storm water pollution prevention
plan (SWPPP), ecological assessment, archaeological report and other materials have
been submitted and some were subsequently revised, with the original application in
February 2017 and revisions provided in April, June and July 2017, and
D. The Town Planning Department considers the application complete and in conformance
with the requirements of Town Zoning Law §501, §600, §1103, §1201 and §1312, and
E. Public hearings were held on March 16, April 12, July 20 and August 17, 2017 with
public comments registered in the meeting minutes and considered by this board, and
F. Written comments have also been received which have been considered by this board,
and
TB 8-17-17
Page 28 of 41
G. The Tompkins County Planning Department has reviewed (letter dated 7/6/17) these
projects as required by NYS Municipal Law §239 –l, -m, and –n and has recommended
its approval, and
H. The SWPPP has been reviewed by the Town Engineer and found to be substantially in
compliance, with any final issues as outlined in the letter from T.G. Miller to the Town
Supervisor dated 8/10/17 to be addressed prior to issuance of a buildi ng permit, and
I. Pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its
implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, the granting of approvals for the
proposed solar energy systems are a Type I Action for which the Town Board of the
Town of Dryden, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to these
systems, has, on July 20, 2017, made a negative determination of environmental
significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental
Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3, and
J. The Town Planning Board reviewed the application per Town Zoning Law §1312 and
made recommendations concerning the site plans, and
K. The Town Board has reviewed this application relative to the considerations and
standards found in Town Zoning Law §1104 and §1312 for site plan review and §1202
and §1312 for Special Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Board, finding that the applicant is in compliance with the provisions of the Town
Zoning Law and other applicable ordinances, approves the site plans for the ten projects at the
Ellis Tract dated July 2017, conditioned on submission to the Planning Department of the
following items prior to issuance of building permits:
a) specifications for the solar panels and inverters to ensure compliance with current
UL standards,
b) complete decommissioning plans for the approved arrays on the ten sites, subject to
the approval of the Town Planning Director and Attorney for the Town; after the final
decommissioning plans are submitted, the Town Board shall determine the amount of
the financial security bonds or other forms of financial security to be provided for each
site, to assure removal of the systems and property restoration,
c) geographic coordinates for each of the ten solar arrays,
d) addition of a note to the site plans to require Knox -boxes or similar systems for
emergency gate access to the sites,
e) a long-term maintenance plan subject to the approval of the Town Planning Director
and Attorney for the Town for the vegetative screening that is shown on the site plans,
with such plan to define heights at which vegetation will be trimmed for shading
purposes, establish time limits for replacing damaged or dying plantings, and require
replacement plantings to be of equal height or diameter to the initial planting,
f) revised drawings modifying the size of both the construction signs and the
permanent signs so that none exceed 32 square feet, and showing placement is at least
15 feet from the highway line,
g) updated site plan drawings, inclusive of planting plans and details, to incorporate all
edits and revisions enumerated in errata sheets submitted on or prior to 7/20/17,
h) revised drawing providing for screening along the west side of Array S1 between the
fence and Dodge Road, subject to the approval of the Town Director of Planning,
TB 8-17-17
Page 29 of 41
i) updated drawings showing additional detail and routes of underground and/or
overhead electric cables or conduits installed through delineated wetlands, subject to
the approval of the Town Director of Planning and Town Engineer,
j) revised SWPPP acceptable to the Town Stormwater Management Officer and Town
Engineer that addresses the SWPPP items in the August 10, 2017 letter from T.G. Miller
to the Town Supervisor. Those items are:
a. Review land cover types and revise to closely match ecological assessments prepared
for the site. When the predevelopment land use is agriculture, the curve number for
the predeveloped condition shall be taken as “meadow” per NYSDEC SWDM Section
4.5.
b. Provide inverter pad detail with stone trench.
c. Coordinate the gravel drive detail to be consistent between the site plan documents,
SWPPP narrative and SWPPP plans.
d. Outline the method for de-compaction in areas to be restored or adjust upward the
curve number (CN) values.
e. Provide a detail for timber mats to be used for crossing delineated wetlands.
k) revised drawings for the east side of the S5 site which abuts the perennial stream to
note that the selective tree cutting protocol for the North sites also applies to this site.
2. The Town Board hereby finds that the considerations for approval o f the requested Special
Use Permit listed in §1202 and §1312 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Law have been met or will
be met with the conditions noted, specifically that:
a. The proposed use is compatible with the other permitted uses in the district and t he
purposes of the district set forth in the Zoning Law since the project areas will include
an agricultural use (livestock grazing); population density will remain low with no
increase in noise, traffic odor or lighting (after construction); and for the reasons stated
in the narrative for the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 (FEAF P3)
Attachment A, including but not limited to Sections 9, 17 and 18;
b. The proposed use is compatible with adjoining properties and with the natural and
manmade environment due to the extensive vegetative and topographic screening; the
panels will not exceed 8 feet in height on level ground with variations due to grades;
there is no increase in noise, traffic, odor or lighting; and for the reasons stated in the
FEAF P3 Attachment A, including but not limited to Sections 9, 17 and 18;
c. Parking, vehicular circulation, and infrastructure for the proposed use, and
accessibility for fire, police, and emergency vehicles are adequate, when the conditions
in this resolution are met;
d. The overall impact on the sites and their 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 Full
Environmental Assessment Form. While not expected, in the event that glare from the
project is experienced within any residence or home business adjacent to these projec ts,
the applicant shall install additional vegetative screening of the species and height
needed at appropriate line-of–sight locations to intercept the glare, with such screening
subject to approval of the Town Director of Planning;
TB 8-17-17
Page 30 of 41
e. Given the proximity to nearby residences the hours of operation on the project sites
during construction are limited to 7 am to 6 pm on weekdays only unless specific work
is approved in writing by the Town Code Enforcement Officer such as work by public
utility companies or work done to avoid impacting roadway traffic. With this additional
restriction the design of structures or operation of the use necessary either to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding uses or to protect the natural or scenic resources of
the Town as described in the FEAF P3, Attachment A have been incorporated into the
site plans;
f. The projects comply with the requirements for site plan review and conform to the
Town’s Commercial Design Guidelines to the extent applicable. Guidelines for
sidewalks are waived since there are no existing nor anticipated sidewalks in these
areas to which to connect;
g. With Town Board approval of location on prime farmland soils and wetlands, the
projects comply with the location criteria set forth in Zoning Law §1312 F.2. The
location of these projects on 31 acres of prime farmland soils is hereby approved since
the acreage will be used for sheep grazing and can be used for cropland if and when the
solar panels are removed from the project sites. To further protect the farmland soil a
condition is placed on these projects that trenching for underground cables or conduits
shall follow a procedure where topsoil is preserved by stockpiling it separately and
returning it to the trench as the top layer. The location of these projects in wetlands is
hereby approved based on the finding of no significant adverse impact on wetlands and
surface waters and the extensive discussion of that contained in Section 3 of the FEAF
P3 Attachment A, Section 3;
h. Per Zoning Law §1312 F.3, the solar energy systems:
i. Conform with all federal and state laws and all applicable rules and
regulations promulgated by any federal or state agencies having jurisdiction. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and NYS
Department of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation have all written letters
concerning their jurisdiction and all conditions have been met,
ii. Are designed and will be constructed in a manner which minimizes visual
impact to the extent practical, as described in FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9,
iii. Comply with all other requirements of the Town of Dryden Zoning Law,
provided the condition in section 4 below regarding variances for arrays within yard
setbacks is met, and comply with applicable Commercial Design Guidelines, except
guidelines for sidewalks are waived for the reasons stated in section 2.f above,
iv. Conform with all adopted plans of the Town of Dryden, including the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan, which allows large-scale solar energy systems within the zoning
district that applies to the sites,
v. Comply with a fifty-foot (50) front yard, rear yard, and side yard setback,
except to the extent that the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant an area variance(s) for
arrays within a yard setback,
vi. Do not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, as the upper edges of the panels are
8 feet above grade on level ground, with variations due to grade, and in no case may
structures exceed 20’ in height.
vii. Have solar collector surface areas (as measured in the horizontal plane) that,
when combined with the coverage of other structures on the relevant lot, do not exceed
twice the maximum lot coverage as permitted in the underlying zoning district, as all
lots have less than 50% lot coverage (50% is twice the underlying Rural Agricultural
District’s 25% limit),
TB 8-17-17
Page 31 of 41
i. Per the Special Use Permit Standards in Zoning Law §1312 F.5:
i. The solar energy systems will have the least visual effect practical on the
environment, for the reasons described in FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9,
ii. Glare produced by the solar arrays will not impair or make unsafe the use of
contiguous structures, any vehicles on or off the road, any airplanes, or uses by other
possible impacted entities, as described in FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9; section
2.d above imposes a condition requiring additional screening in the event glare is
experienced within a residence adjacent to the projects,
iii. Exterior lighting shall have the least visual effect practical on the contiguous
properties, because permanent exterior lighting will not be installed,
iv. Equipment and vehicles not used in direct support, renovations, additions or
repair of the solar energy systems shall not be stored or parked on the facility site s,
v. The solar energy systems will be enclosed by 7-foot high agricultural fencing
(6-foot woven wire fencing on wood posts with a single string wire on top; no barbed or
razor wire) to prevent unauthorized access, with warning signs with the owner’s name
and emergency contact information placed on access points and perimeters. To avoid
adverse aesthetic impacts, systems shall be screened as described in the site plan
materials and FEAF P3 Attachment A, Section 9,
vi. Lighting will not project off the sites, because no permanent lighting will be
installed,
vii. Locked gates located off the public right -of-way will be installed to prevent
entry by unauthorized vehicles,
viii. The solar energy systems are required to be built, operated and maintained
to acceptable industry standards, including standards of the Institute of Electric and
Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
3. The Town Board, finding that the applicant is in compliance with all other provisions
of the Town Zoning Law and other applicable ordinances, approves ten Special Use Permits for
the proposed large-scale solar energy systems to be constructed at Turkey Hill, Stevenson and
Dodge Roads, subject to the conditions and requirements in this resolution, and further
subject to the Town of Dryden Standard Conditions of Approval as amended August 14, 2008.
4. The site plans and Special Use Permits approvals are further conditioned on the
following:
a. Receipt of Planning Department approvals for the minor subdivisions of Tax Parcel #57.-
1-6, Tax Parcel #67.-1-3, and Tax Parcel #67.-1-7.2, so that these lots can house the solar
arrays,
b. Receipt of Planning Department approvals for lot line adjustments involving Tax Parcels
#56.-5-31, 57.-1-6, 57.-1-7.1, 67.-1-4, and 67.-1-7.2 as shown on Drawings C-103 and C-
109, and
c. For construction of solar arrays that lie within any yard setback, receipt of an area
variance(s) from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
TB 8-17-17
Page 32 of 41
Supv Leifer said we know there’s an impact, but I think the community benefits overall.
It’s not easy, especially on Dodge Road. I’ve walked that a number of times and have many
pictures from Turkey Hill Road.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis said one of the things that was brought up was about the site of these
projects. She wants to clarify that the Town Board, the Planning Board, the Planning
Department, no one related to the town can choose the site. The site was brought to us and we
have to evaluate the projects that are brought to us. That is part of the free country that we
live in and property rights and the ability of people to bring a project to the town to evaluate.
These projects were brought to us. We did not go look for them and there were many
explanations from the developer as well as Cornell as to why these sites were chosen by them.
She wants to clarify that the town has no control over that. The other thing we don’t have
control over is the newspaper. We can’t control what was printed and statements that have
been made or that sort of thing. She hasn’t had the opportunity to read the article that was
referenced tonight. She’s sure her Dryden Courier is in her mailbox and she will read it but
hasn’t had a chance so can’t respond to that directly.
As far as ignoring advisory boards, we take seriously the comments we get from our
advisory boards. She personally attends all Planning Board meetings and attended every one
through this process except for the month she missed due to cancer treatment. She takes
those comments seriously. The board did receive comments from the ag committee and the
Conservation Board and those comments were also taken seriously.
With respect to the comment that the board has been intimidated by Cornell and
Distributed Sun, she is not intimidated by Cornell or Distributed Sun. They are up there to do
their jobs and have done their jobs and have worked through this process. This was first
brought to us in December of 2016 and she gives Distributed Sun and Bharath a lot of credit
because they did not have to bring it to us that early. They could have gone a lot further down
the road. But they did come to us and they wanted to discuss things, so she would say that it
has been quite the process.
She doesn’t think anyone on this board has ever referred to a tree as a garbage tree.
That is not part of her language and she has not heard it from anyone on this board in
reference. They take seriously the trees and the value that trees bring to Dryden and to our
planet. There are tradeoffs that have to be made and sometimes these tradeoffs are not easy
and we have to make tough decisions. She is very sad to see some of these trees get cut down.
She would be even sadder if our children and grandchildren aren’t able to live on this planet.
We have made tradeoffs and that is one of them.
She has never heard anyone on this board, and she has never said, that t his is the only
option for solar that Dryden had. We have been approached by other companies. We were,
she thinks, approached by Delaware River Solar before we were approached by Distributed Sun
and she believes that is reflected somewhere in the minutes.
Supv Leifer said it is definitely reflected in Conservation Board minutes from June of
2016 because there was a presentation at the fire hall where specifically 2 MW solar systems
were discussed. At that time people were only looking at connecting to 3 phase w ithout
upgrading the grid.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis said every decision that she makes is with climate cha nge in the back
of her mind. Climate change is the most important thing in the world right now. It is going to
affect us in ways that we can’t even imagine yet. So what we have to do as citizens of this
planet is to make changes and take bold action and be leaders to mitigate climate change.
TB 8-17-17
Page 33 of 41
That’s why she thinks these projects are so important. And Dryden has a r eputation as being
a leader and we are going to continue to do that.
Cl Lavine said she agrees with everything Deborah said. For the record, she has gone to
every meeting and listened carefully and really kept an open mind. She has asked a lot of
questions and asked Cornell to convene a meeting that they did with the ag schools and
Bharath was on the phone with them. They answered all of the questions she had, some of
which were mysteries to many of us such as why did they choose that one piece of land of
Cornell’s and not the adjacent one. It became pretty clear to her that there are really some very
tight parameters here because of the need to link up with NYSEG. It would be nice some day
to have logical laws about where you can hook up and proper encouragement for this. As it is
we are faced with both the real climate crisis and an insane climate in Washington that
includes the fear that we won’t be able to be importing Chinese solar panels in the future at a
reasonable rate. And the fact that as a function of collateral damage we ended up with a New
York provision that was going to cost this more if the project didn’t go through. It’s an irony,
having been on this board through all of the fracking things and all of the arguments about
critical environmental areas, it’s been funny to hear suddenly people who previously said we
had no right to consider viewsheds tell us that is entirely within the province of us to say that
we should make sure their viewshed is what it was, despite the fact that they didn’t offer to pay
money and buy the private property adjacent to the cemetery when it was available. They
could have had they cared about their viewshed. That’s how property works. People who have
been complaining about this have long said that they wanted lower price utilities, lower taxes,
more development to bring in more taxes. All of those things are advantages to this system.
Clearly the freedom to develop that land and to follow the laws that say that it is eligible for
this function and that the owner has the right to rent it for that purpose, that again is an irony
since when we went through the fracking battle suddenly everybody had the right to put atomic
bombs on their property as long as it was only on their property and not the neighbors’. A little
hyperbole there but obviously having your land fracked was incredibly relevant to the problems
your neighbors would have as a function of your development. Suddenly the tables were
turned.
This was not an easy decision for any of us. Her hopeful statement is, aside from
everything else, when she looks at utility poles these days and all the wires running down our
rural roads, they are an icon for rural development, an icon of rural beauty and nostalgia.
There was a time when they started building suburbs where everybody had to bury their utility
poles and they were seen to be an eyesore. The new hip cool was to not be able to see them.
The solar panels are something new to most of us, but they are not an eyesore and they quickly
become background the way utility poles have become background. It’s like any time you
rearrange the furniture or paint the room or put a little dent in your car, in the beginning
something about it seems like it is going to obsess you forever and then it disappears. For all
those reasons and taking very seriously the concerns of both the neighbors in Ellis Hollow and
the people with due respect to the cemetery and its wonderful, beautiful, historic function , this
is clearly the right and moral thing to do.
Cl Servoss said she has taken a different approach on this project. In 2010 the census
stated that 32% of the Town of Dryden’s residents were renters that occupied 34.7% of the
houses in the town. Renters really can’t get solar. She is a renter. She couldn’t get solar.
Why should only home owners and property owners be allowed to be privileged enough to have
solar power? She doesn’t get it. Again, along with what Linda said, the Town has been
criticized for not bringing in more businesses or increasing the tax base. These projects will
bring in funding that we would not normally get if the projects were not approved. There is so
much potential with these projects, she don’t see a reason why we should deny.
Cl Lamb said this is a leadership moment for the town. It is our job to look at all sides
of an issue like this and take a big picture and try and sort out whether the benefits of the
TB 8-17-17
Page 34 of 41
project outweigh the costs. We’ve heard a lot of people with different views based on their
perspectives of where they live or what they do and their beliefs about climate change or
economic development and we’ve had to sort through all that. It’s true that t his board is full of
people that care very deeply about climate change and believe that it’s not a hoax and that we
have an existential threat on our hands. He got involved in public policy 25 years ago to fight
climate change and he is still fighting it and his kid will probably be fighting it. With that as a
backdrop, we look at things like this year being the hottest on record, tied with last year being
the hottest in 137 years of record keeping. Sea l evels are rising, 3 inches in the last 25 years,
predicted to rise 7 inches in the next 100 years or by the end of this century. The largest ice
sheet break off in Antarctica this month. Things are happening and they do seep into our
psyche and affect how we approach projects right here locally, especially when we don’t have
leadership at the national level. This is a time when state and local government must step up.
That’s driving us and guides a lot of what we decide to do. Bringing it here more locally, as
Kathy said, is an economic equality issue. Access to solar power is not something that is
shared across the income spectrum. Low income people do have a stake and a place in this
initiative. We want to provide people a way to get solar who might not be able to put up
$25,000 to get solar on the rooftops and wait for those subsidies or rebates to come i n. We
want to give renters an option or people with houses in the woods an option for solar power.
We have 7500 opportunities for participation in community solar. That’s about how many
households we have in Dryden. We are looking out for everybody with this and he hopes that
everybody who would want to subscribe gets in first and gets cheaper power. He is e xcited
about 10% less on electricity bills. When he talks to his constituents about it, that excites
them. The location, wherever we put this there would be reasons, and probably passionate,
well thought out reasons to find another location. That’s just the way development is. We’ve
seen enough projects come before this board in his short time to know that there is always
somebody who wants whatever we are doing put somewhere else. He doesn’t mean to minimize
the passion about the objections to projects, but you have to understand that we hear that a
lot up here and we know that there is always going to be a darn good reason for not putting
something somewhere, but at some point the buck stops and it stops with us and we have say
where we are going to put something.
It was said earlier that the funds shouldn’t be going to the Ithaca City School District.
He took issue with that. He has a kid in the Ithaca City School District. The residents in the
Town of Dryden who have kids going to the Ithaca City School District will benefit from this
and we are all residents that have kids somewhere and the proceeds of this project shouldn’t
just go to one school district where a certain amount of residents have their kids.
This is a windfall for the town when we look at new revenue coming into the town and
we are excited about that. We’ve all talked about the need to expand the tax base and less en
the tax burden. This project really checks those boxes in a way that he thinks is more
generous than potential future projects. The PILOT issue that we are dealing with and the
rates that we’ll get are fairly generous when you look at what is happenin g elsewhere in the
state or in other states. The arrangement that we have through the PILOT program will be very
good for the town of Dryden.
This project is a little larger than people might have expected a solar project to be. It is
broken up in the Ellis Hollow Tract into three and folks still think that that’s too big. But solar
projects are getting bigger and we are going to see more projects like this, this size, throughout
the state. It may seem unusual this year, but it’s not going to seem unusual in a few short
years. We are looking at a response to a large problem and that’s why he personally has
supported this.
Supv Leifer asked B Srinivasan whether there was a plan to offer Dryden residents a
sort of first-come first-served window. B Srinivasan said they can. Normally when they finish
all the approvals and begin the subscription process, they can. Because it takes a while to
TB 8-17-17
Page 35 of 41
build it, they can offer a window of 15 or 30 days when a Dryden resident applies for a
subscription during that window, they will get it. It was agreed the window would be 30 days.
There will need to be some publicity and that will be coordinated.
Supv Leifer said most everything has been said, but this ticks off all the boxes that he
thinks we need in the town. It brings in new business. It doesn’t cost the town government
anything to maintain. We don’t need to maintain any roads for this. It will bring in new
revenue that will allow us to keep our tax rate lower or we can invest in new things like the rail
trail. The folks putting that together are doing a great job, but money doesn’t grow on trees
and they’ll never be able to build something like that without having some funding. Relying on
donations to build that project isn’t necessarily realistic.
Assuming the PILOT is the same and remains $8,000 per MW we will be getting enough
revenue to pay for all the bridge work, including the Dodge Road bridge, that has to occur. It’s
already occurring on Red Mill and Malloryville Roads. This revenue will pay for all that. Until
these projects came to the town we were struggling to figure out how to pay for this necessary
work. Luckily for Freese Road and George Road we got 95% from a grant, but we still have to
pay 5% and that’s not an insignificant amount of money when you are talking about $3.6
million projects.
We’re losing part of the viewshed on Turkey Hill. He’s lived here twelve years and it is
one of the best views looking west in the entire town. But like some folks that live over there
said, they are willing to sacrifice that because climate change is such a real problem.
As far as the involvement of the advisory boards, he has dates when it was discussed.
Even before he was supervisor we were talking about commercial solar in the town o f Dryden.
He ran for Supervisor two years ago and that is one of the things he talked about constantly.
At the Ag Committee they talked about commercial solar 1/13/16. They actually passed a
resolution on it 4/13/16. They talked about it again 6/8/16, 7/13/16, 11/9/16, with a report
from one of the folks here that made a comment on what was going on at the Planning Board.
Then again 2/8/17. Conservation Board talked about the Renovus model of commercial
community solar 1/26/16. Dave Weinstein started reporting on the Planning Board charge
that the Planning Board received from this Town Board at the 2/23/16 meeting. Dave
Weinstein reported again on 3/29/16. They talked about solar again 4/26/2016, 5/31/2016
Dave Weinstein updated them again on the Planning Board’s review of the zoning for solar.
6/28/2016 one of the folks who got up and said we didn’t involve them at all actually said at
the meeting “the Conservation Board may want to think where solar installations want to go.”
They didn’t talk about solar again until 11/29/16 and then 12/27/16. They have been part of
the process. Check the minutes for yourselves.
The Town of Dryden has five school districts that touch it. Ithaca City School District is
in the southwest part of town. The largest school district in the Town is the Dryden Central
School District. The Groton School District cuts down into the top middle of the northern end
of the town. Lansing is in the northwest corner and Cortlandville near the McLean area. But
again, these projects are driven by where they can connect to substations that have
transmission capacity.
We’ll be talking about the Delaware River project. That is actually going to be in the
Dryden Central School District. Curiously enough it is going to be a 4 MW proposal on the
property of the Ag Committee chair’s farm which unanimously voted for a moratorium on
anything above a 2 MW system. That will help out the Dryden Central School District as well.
They aren’t being left behind and this will be another opportunity for folks in Dryden who, if
they can’t get on to the Sun8 subscription, they can go to Delaware Solar. They’re using the
same model as far he knows, where they don’t have to buy panels, so this broadens who can
buy into this. People who are his clients who can’t even afford more than Section 8 housing
TB 8-17-17
Page 36 of 41
can buy solar at a 10% discount of the rate from NYSEG. This democratizes the whole thing.
People want and deserve cheap power.
Don’t forget this property will still remain ag land because of sheep. We talked about
this early on. There aren’t going to be any pesticides used. The land is going to remain clean
so when they are decommissioned it can go back to farming. And after the 20 year PILOT is
up, it’s on the tax roll at full value. So as long as the panels are still producing then it goes to
full value, whatever that is at that time.
Since we are now looking to improve our energy code and we want more developers to
go with solar and wind rather than hooking up to gas, we need projects like this. Basically
we’re walking the walk and talking the talk.
With respect to the property rights side of this, we banned gas drilling because of the
effects it could have outside of someone’s property line. This is a way to make up for that with
folks who wanted to put wells on their land. They can do this if they choose to. But the thing
is no one is forcing anyone to lease their land. We can’t for anyone to do that. There’s no
forced integration. For people who are talking about protecting viewsheds etc, don’t lease your
land. No one’s forcing you to do it.
Cl Lavine said another way to look at is another cost that’s being saved for our citizens
is not being forced to invest in more infrastructure for gas. There’s nothing free about the
utilities that are not the solar. We are forced to pay when they build new pipelines. In the
future presumably those pipelines will become obsolete very quickly. So t his enables us not to
have to worry about whether or not Lansing can build more housing and so on because they do
it with electric and only use the gas for things that absolutely need gas. So we’re saving a lot of
money in not investing in infrastructure.
ADVISORY BOARD UPDATES
Ag Committee – Supv Leifer reported they reviewed the ag plan. Changes they wanted
were actually put in by Cooperative Extension. At their next meeting hopefully they will
approve it, then there will be some public hearings on it and eventually the Town Board will
pass it and accept it.
HIGHWAY/DPW DEPARTMENT
Supv Leifer reported he has already been talking with the Highway Superintendent
about the budget and told him the goal is zero use of fund balance in the A fund.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis asked if there was anything that can be done at Mineah Road
because it sounds like a very dangerous situation . It was suggested that Supv Leifer will send
a letter to the residents letting them know what number to call when they feel the road needs
treatment.
R Burger said the project may be downsized to the point where he subdivides his lot
and just puts these cottages in as permitted by right.
Supv Leifer said the Planning Board needs to look at the neighborhood just like they did
with the Cricket Lane neighborhood. Cl Cipolla-Dennis will bring it to the Planning Board.
MOU with Village of Dryden for Montgomery Park – Supv Leifer is already authorized
to sign this. Cl Lamb said there is one small change and that is saying that we want to hear
back from the Village that they will review our proposals on use no later than the end of March.
The board agrees.
TB 8-17-17
Page 37 of 41
SCLIWC AGREEMENT OF MUNICIPAL COOPERATION
Board members have reviewed the agreement.
Resolution #112 (2017) - Approving the Revised Southern Cavuqa Lake Intermunicipal
Water Commission Agreement and Authorizing the Supervisor to sign a an Act of the
Town Board
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas, the Town entered into an agreement of intermunicipal coopera tion with
several other municipalities creating the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water
Commission and authorizing the construction by such Commission of the Bolton Point water
treatment plant and related transmission and other facilities, which agreement was restated as
of June 5, 1979 and which agreement has been subsequently amended from time to time (such
agreement as so amended being hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”); and
Whereas, the parties to the Agreement wish to revise the Agreement to streamline and
clarify certain sections as well as incorporate the various amendments made over the years;
and
Whereas, a copy of the proposed revised Agreement has been submitted to this Board;
and
Whereas, this Board finds it is in the best interest s of the Town and its citizens to effect
the proposed revisions; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town ofhereby determines, pursuant to Part 617
of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva tion Law
(the State Environmental Quality Review Act [“SEQRA”]), that adoption of said proposed
revisions is a Type II action, constituting “routine or continuing agency administration and
management, not including new programs or major reordering of prior ities that my affect the
environment: and thus may be processed without further regard to SEQRA; and it is further
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby adopts the revised
Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Agreement; and it is furthe r
Resolved, that the Town Board sign such revised agreement as the act of the Town and
the Town Board.
2nd Cl Lavine
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
SCLIWC Billing Structure Change
Board members have reviewed the document. Supv Leifer explained this will change
the minimum to 5,000 gallons and should result in lowering some people’s bills.
RESOLUTION #113 – APPROVE SCLIWC AGREEMENT TO CHANGE WATER
RATE BILLING STRUCTURE
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
TB 8-17-17
Page 38 of 41
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the Southern Cayuga Lake
Intermunicipal Water Commission Bolton Point Water System Agreement to Change Water Rate
Billing Structure.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Move IDA Funds
Supv Leifer explained that in 2012 the State Senate and Assembly passed a bill closing
a number of inactive Industrial Development Agencies across the state. The town has an
account for its IDA at The First National Bank of Dryden that has $750.07 and in order to
move that to the general fund we need a resolution of the board.
RESOLUTION #114 (2017) - Close IDA bank account and transfer remaining funds
Supervisor Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Town was involved in the initial establishment of the Industrial
Development Agency (IDA), and
WHEREAS, town funds were deposited in a separate bank account opened for the IDA
at the First National Bank of Dryden, and
WHEREAS, the IDA was dissolved, leaving this bank account inactive, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the IDA bank account to be cl osed,
and the current balance in the account ($750.07), plus any interest accrued, to be transferred
to the Town’s Money Market account at the First National Bank of Dryden.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Delaware River Solar Application
The Planning Department has received an application and the board needs to pass a
resolution to be the lead agency for SEQR. R Burger explained we have an existing application
for 2 MW. They are migrating that into a 4 MW proposal on a subdivided 14 acre piece of
farmland. They have submitted a full EAF reflective of the new 4 MW proposal and a site plan.
But we are still waiting for another week or two to get the full revised package that will reflect
the 4 MW. That package will be put on the website.
Resolution No. 115 (2017) - Lead Agency – Declaration of Intent, Delaware River Solar,
2243 Dryden Road, Solar Plant Project, Tax Parcel No. 47.-1-7.3,
TB 8-17-17
Page 39 of 41
Rt. 13, East of Irish Settlement Road
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS:
1. The Town of Dryden Town Board, at its meeting on August 17, 2017, considered the
application for the proposed Delaware River Solar 2243 Dryden Road Solar project located on
Dryden Road east of Irish Settlement Road, Town of Dryden Tax Parcel No. 47.-1-7.3 Rural
Agricultural District. The proposal involves a two lot subdivision of the 114 (+/-) acre parcel on Dryden
Road. The project includes clearing and grubbing the parcels, installation of erosion and sediment
controls, installation of gravel access roads and utilities, and the installation of solar panels
resulting in two 2MWac solar arrays. Each array will be fenced. Delaware River Solar, LLC
,Applicant; Evan and Brenda Carpenter, Parcel Owner, and
2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approvals and special permits by the Town Board,
and subdivision approval by the Town of Dryden Planning Director, is a Type I action pursuant
to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617.4. Environmental Quality
Review, because the project will result in the physical alteration of more than 2.5 acres
within an agricultural district (§617.4 (b)(8) .
3. A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, has been submitted by the applicant, along
with application materials dated July and August 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Dryden Town Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the
environmental review of the proposed actions, as described above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Dryden Town Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this
proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Dryden Planning
Department no later than September 18, 2017.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Ray Burger said his department has had phone calls about Mineah Road from people
other than ones who spoke tonight with similar safety concerns. He invited board members to
the Planning Board meeting next week when Delaware Solar will give a brief presentation of
their project. It will be on the September and October town board agendas.
Cl Lamb said he and others believe the Town Board should go on record condemning
the hate speech and things that we’ve been hearing and seeing happen in this country. He
read a proposed resolution aloud. Cl Lavine said would like to wait to pass this because there
is greater eloquence that could be introduced into it. Since it’s purpose is largely symbolic in
the sense that we are not going to change the world instantly, that it ought to be as well
worded as possible. She left the meeting saying she would abstain if she voted.
Cl Lamb said he wanted to do something while the feeling was still strong. Cl Cipolla -
Dennis said she feels it is important to do something tonight because she is hearing from so
TB 8-17-17
Page 40 of 41
many people about the generalized fear and anxiety that people are experiencing right now
because of the incredible lack of leadership at the federal level. Our President is making
statements that are making her hair stand on end. Our Congressional representative, Mr Tom
Reed, is also punting. It is obvious to her that there is a significant gap in the lack of
leadership. She feels strongly we have to do this.
Cl Lamb stated this summarizes a lot of what needs to be said. We could needle the
President directly and have a discussion whether we want to single out Donald Trump for
instigating a lot of unrest or exacerbating.
Supv Leifer said he had relatives who had tattoos from the concentration camps. When
he heard what happened in Charlotte he was disgusted. There is no reason to wait.
Cl Lamb said our constituents need to know that we took this up and take it seriously
and that we affirm a culture composed of multiple cultures. Cl Servoss agrees.
RESOLUTION #116 (2017) – CONDEMNING VIOLENCE AND HATE SPEECH AND
EXPRESSING SOLIDARITY WITH ALL THOSE TARGETED FOR THEIR ETHNICITY, RACE,
RELIGION, GENDER, OR GENDER IDENTIFICATION OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the United States was founded by immigrants, many fleeting religious
persecution, who enshrined freedom of religion as one of our nation’s fundamental legal and
ethical principles; and
WHEREAS, we are deeply saddened and outraged at the recent escalation of hateful
rhetoric against immigrants, all people of color, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, gender
identification, and sexual orientation; and
WHEREAS, we, as elected representatives of the people, have a special responsibility
not to stay silent in the face of hate, violence and discrimination against any of our
constituents or countrymen; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, the Town of Dryden condemns all hateful speech and violent action
directed at any individual or group based on ethnicity, race, religion, gender, gender
identification, or sexual orientation; and be it furt her
RESOLVED, the Town of Dryden commits to pursuing a policy agenda that affirms civil
and human rights, and ensures that those targeted on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion,
gender, gender identification, or immigration status can turn to governme nt without fear of
recrimination, and be it further
RESOLVED, the Town of Dryden reaffirms the value of a pluralistic society, the beauty
of a culture composed of multiple cultures, and the inalienable right of every person to live and
practice their faith without fear, and moves its adoption.
2nd Supv Leifer
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
TB 8-17-17
Page 41 of 41
There being no further business, on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried,
the meeting was adjourned at 11:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bambi L. Avery
Town Clerk