HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - Sept. 21, 20211
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
September 21, 2021
PRESENT:
Ed Bergman
Scott Davis
Kelly Maher
Elana Maragni
Jody Scriber (Chair)
ABSENT:
Kathy Jett
Bruce Richards (resigned)
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner David West
Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member)
Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers
Public Colleen Cowan, Ted Crane, Danny Eastman, Lynn Eastman, Joel Gagnon (Town
Supervisor), Katharine Hunter, Norbut Solar team (Austin Goodwin of Passero
Associates, Sean Greany, David Norbut, Nathan Vander Wal of Nixon Peabody
LLP), Ronda Roaring, Robert
This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform.
The meeting was opened at 7:04pm.
(1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW
No items were added to the agenda.
(2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Ronda Roaring said there is a huge solar array going up along Route 318 in Seneca Falls. She had
mentioned this to Supervisor Gagnon and Planner West and suggested they publicize it so people ,
including the Planning Board and neighbors of the proposed array in Danby, could take a look at it.
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Danny Eastman, a neighbor of the proposed solar project, said their attorneys are reviewing the paperwork
Norbut Solar sent them about an agreement regarding the road/right of way that is their driveway. He said
they just found out Norbut Solar would have to change the road configuration, which will mean cutting down
some major trees. He had not seen the landscape plan, but it should be a permanent one, which needs to
be maintained if trees die. He said he read (in the minutes from last meeting) a comment that the panels
should not be Chinese and he agreed with that. He said he still had concerns about the company working
at the site six days a week and to quite late hours.
(3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Scott Davis said that on page eight of the minutes, a comment by Maher sa id, “In terms of the access road,
the PDZ would be in place perpetually.” He said he was not clear on that, and he asked for an explanation
of what perpetually meant in this context. Maher said that once the planned development zone (PDZ) is in
place, it does not go away when the solar farm goes away, which was the intent of her comment. Davis
said his understanding was that the Board was concerned about this and the PDZ would go away if the
solar farm went away. It was clarified that it does not. There was brief discussion of whether it could be set
up so the PDZ goes away after the use; it was decided to return to this topic later in the meeting. The words
“beyond the use of the solar array” were added at the end of the sentence in question for clarity.
MOTION: Approve the August 17th minutes
Moved by Maragni, seconded by Maher
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Scriber
(4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
Leslie Connors (Town Board member) shared the following information:
The first Town Board meeting of the month was cancelled due to a power outage.
They have begun budget workshops to develop a budget for 2022. Historically, the Town Board
has worked hard to stay under the tax cap; the last time they did not stay under it was 2016. They
may not be able to this year, but they are beginning the process.
She encouraged everyone to read through the draft Zoning Ordinance. She said the Town Board
is committed to adopting an updated ordinance by the end of December and rescinding the
moratorium. The County will have to review it, so they really need to be done by the beginning of
December. Feedback soon would be helpful.
(5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PUD-2021-01 Norbut Solar Farm
Parcel:10.-1-21.122
3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Applicant: Passero Associates
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Consider Resolution to Town Board on PDZ, Review
Tompkins County Soil and Water District feedback, and TG Miller feedback (if available), Schedule
Public Hearing on Subdivision and Site Plan.
Proposal: Zoning change, subdivision, and site plan to allow 3 parcels each with 5MW of
solar on a 111 acre parcel.
New Documents: Staff memo has been updated, Sound Impacts Study, Visualizations, Wetland
Delineation Report, Memo from Tompkins County Soil and Water
*All documents related to this project are posted on the Town’s new webpage at
https://danby.ny.gov/norbut-solar-farm-proposal*
Applicant’s Description
David Norbut updated the Board that his team had made several new submissions. Since their June
submission, they did move the access road to the north and have wrapped it around to avoid some of the
trees Mr. Eastman mentioned (during privilege of the floor). They were asked by another neighbor to
preserve some honeysuckle bushes, which they have accommodated. They are receptive to anyone who
wants to talk to them.
Austin Goodwin noted that they revised the environmental assessment form (EAF) in section E.2.n,
whether the site contains a designated significant natural community. He said the EAF mapper website
automatically marked this yes, but the answer is actually no. The website automatically marks yes if you fall
within the adjacency area of a significant natural community, and the “rich hemlock-hardwood peat swamp”
is a half mile away, just south of the project, but not on the site.
Mr. Goodwin added that they are now showing the point of interconnection (POI) for the array, where the
power will connect to the main grid. The Norbut Solar team has signed a contract with the Roe family,
whose property is right along the highway.
Visualizations
Mr. Goodwin said they have now submitted visualizations. He thought the se would help people understand
what can and cannot be seen of the solar field. He explained how the visualizations were created and
views of the site were screenshared. They included overhead drone shots and views from five vantage
points at a variety of heights. The five points were as follows: two on Bald Hill Rd., one at the intersection of
Bald Hill and 96B by the church, one from Town Hall, and one by the Roe family property that will have th e
POI. From Bald Hill Rd. and the intersection, the thick foliage means you cannot see the solar field from
street level at any of the first four points. Point number 5, where the POI will connect, you see stone access
drives and the set of power poles that will allow them to connect to the power grid. Mr. Goodwin thought the
power poles would not look any different than the typical power poles that follow roads in 99% of America’s
towns; they are not big, hulking, main power lines.
West said that in the photo of the POI, a row of power lines was cut off. Mr. Goodwin said
he could provide something showing that so people could see what it would like for people driving
4
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
down 96B. The Norbut team said they had done that visualization, but it was just completed that
day and had not yet been submitted. They were able to share it via screensharing.
Ms. Roaring asked how this would connect to the boxes by the array, specifically if there
would be poles all the way back. Mr. Norbut said that once it hits the farthest pole back, it goes
underground all the way back to the array. Ted Crane asked if it was a requirement to have three
poles near the road rather than just one. Mr. Norbut said that work is done by the public utility, so
they do not have control over it and they cannot go underground.
Mr. Eastman pointed out that there were no drone pictures showing what his family would
or would not see from 54 Bald Hill Rd. Mr. Norbut thought this was shown in one of the pictures.
Mr. Eastman confirmed with Mr. Norbut that he would be able to see the array from one side of his
property. He asked if there was a plan to put in any landscaping there, and Mr. Norbut responded
that they do have a landscaping plan. Mr. Norbut also said they had alleviated Mr. Eastman’s
concern about cutting certain trees by moving the road. It seemed that there had been some
communication difficulties, and it was agreed that Mr. Norbut would get the Eastmans contact info
(as opposed to that of their son-in-law).
Mr. Crane asked about a view from Lieb Rd. or from Comfort Rd. near Lieb, and Mr.
Goodwin showed this and what trees and forestry would be remaining.
Process Summary
Planner West reviewed with the Board that tonight they were sending a resolution to the Town Board
regarding the PDZ as well as the site plan in general. They could recommend the Town Board adopt the
PDZ, adopt it with changes, or deny it. Doing this does not permit anything to happen other than the Town
Board to take up their discussion and analysis. After this, the application will go to the Town Board, who will
start environmental review of the project. They will consider the Planning Board’s recommendation
regarding the PDZ, and they will review and approve or deny a general site plan. If the Town Board accepts
the zoning change, the Planning Board then will have final approval on subdivision and site plan. West
reminded the Board that this is an allowed use under the current zoning, but the zoning change is being
requested to enable the subdivision—the applicant wants to create three lots instead of one lot and cannot
do that because they do not have the frontage. As compared to the current zoning, they also need taller
fencing, a change in the lot coverage requirement so that it averages over the whole lot, and the ability to
build on slopes steeper than 15% grade in a few spots. He drew the Board’s attention to a very basic draft
resolution that had been included with a number of possible options. He said the Board would also need to
schedule a public hearing on the subdivision and site plan.
MOTION: Schedule a public hearing on subdivision and site plan for the following meeting
Moved by Davis, seconded by Bergman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Scriber
PDZ Draft Language
Slopes
5
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Ed Bergman said, regarding building on an incline, he wondered if the Town has a standard for solar arrays
versus habitable structures; this would only be a pole holding up the array. He wondered if there was
anything to guide them related directly to solar. Mr. Norbut said Danby’s zoning law says 15 degrees, but
they have built on 25-degree slopes other places. He said that in this case it is just small areas that are
greater than 15, and they can build over them easily. They did not want to get bulldozers in to cut and fill
the areas as they felt that would be more destructive. Chair Scriber asked what percentage of the whole
project is over 15 degrees, and Mr. Norbut said only a couple percent. Kelly Maher said she understood
they want to comply with the rules, but she personally finds solar arrays with more contour and engineering
to be more interesting. Planner West showed the spots with greater than 15 percent slope on the map; he
said they were relatively infrequent. He noted that this was in the solar law when it was written, so the
applicant is clearly requesting a difference.
Fencing
Chair Scriber asked about the reason for 7’ fencing, and Mr. Norbut explained that it is required for high
voltage. He mentioned deer. Scriber asked about drawbacks as it did not seem like a big issue. Planner
West said a quirk in Danby’s zoning code says it does not apply to fences 6’ and shorter, but it does not
mention anything about those over 6’. Maher asked if the PDZ wording would allow any fencing after the
solar array is done—i.e., could a residential neighborhood there then put up any kind of fence. West said
solar facilities are the only allowed use in the proposed PDZ. At the end of the solar array’s life span, the
owner would have to apply for a rezoning to do anything else.
Perpetuity of PDZ
Scott Davis said West’s comment that the zoning will require that the lots can only be used for a solar array
addressed his concerns. He wondered if someone could then farm if a solar array was the only allowed
use; West thought they would need a rezoning. Davis thought they should get this nailed down because
they had a mess in the past. He asked if the PDZ could terminate upon termination of the use. West said it
could; the Planning Board could recommend that, upon decommissioning, the area revert to underlying
zoning. However, he noted that the zoning is in the process of being updated, so it is hard to say exactly
what it will be. Maher suggested leaving the wording more general so that it would revert to whatever is on
the zoning map without specifying what that is. Davis said he would be more comfortable with that than a
PDZ staying there. Ted Crane commented that people in the neighborhood might prefer something other
than the hamlet zoning as a reversion.
Maher expressed some concern over how the lot lines would be left (after the solar array’s life) due to the
narrow access to the site. If it remains three separate properties, they would be splitting the roadway for
~200 yards, and she wondered if that would create issues for the Town or future landowners.
Bergman pointed out that if they leave the PDZ language of solar only, then the owner would definitely
have to come to the Town with a proposal. He asked which gave the Town more control at the end of it
being a solar farm. West said that, the way it is proposed, the owner would have to come to the Town to do
anything other than solar in the future. If it reverted to underlying zoning, when the solar farm was removed,
6
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
they would have the right to do whatever is allowed in that zone on each of the three parcels. It would be
possible to sell the three parcels to different people, but he thought it more likely to get a project that looks
at the whole lot as a development. The total piece is 111 acres. Scriber confirmed that someone could later
propose a cottage development.
Mr. Norbut thought there would be a repower of the solar array at some point. He said either way was fine
with him (in terms of whether the PDZ terminates) as he would likely be coming back before the Town
either way. Mr. Vander Wal pointed out that this is a required subdivision, and Mr. Norbut confirmed the
Public Service Commission (PSC) requires it. Mr. Norbut added that the decommissioning plan includes
removing panels and fencing. Scriber said they have a pretty extensive plan for cleaning up at the end.
Bergman said, if the Town likes renewable energy and solar panels, maybe they would want to keep the
PDZ there to indicate that we as a town want to produce solar energy here and that is what we want it
designated for. There would be ways of changing that later if needed.
Elana Maragni said she liked including language about decommissioning in the PDZ. The Town board can
then make up their own minds, but the Board seemed to be in agreement that there needs to be a plan for
afterwards. She said she was in favor of the zoning reverting, but regardless of the action, there would be a
process, so they could also leave it as is. Either way was fine with her. Davis said he thought they were
covered both ways.
Katharine Hunter asked what would happen if Norbut decides to sell before the end of life of the solar farm.
West said it could continue to be a solar field, but it could not be anything else until the property was
rezoned. Ted Crane pointed out that what is a solar application today might not be what is considered a
solar application in 25 years—the same name might be applied to something else.
Davis said they should look at how the decommissioning could go wrong. For example, the money might
not be enough. Mr. Norbut thought it definitely would be because the decommissioning plan does not count
scrap value. Davis thought that at about 50,000 panels and $500,000, the decommissioning would be at
$10 per panel. He said they do not know what the technology will be, what the value of the solar panels will
be, and trucks will need to come to get the concrete out, break it up, truck it away and decompact the soil.
He thought chances were the Norbut team was right, but the consequences if something goes badly are
large, so he would feel better if the Town hired their own estimate of what the decommissioning should be.
Mr. Norbut said he was supportive if that is what the Town wanted to do. Planner West said that the Town’s
engineer, T.G. Miller, is reviewing the full application. Some of this review has already been shared. They
have not yet finished a full review of the decommissioning plan, but that is on their agenda before the Town
Board completes its environmental review. Mr. Vander Wal added that the solar facility is still subject to the
solar facilities ordinance of the Town, which includes details about a decommissioning plan and financial
surety.
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Maher proposed leaving it at that if the next use is not a solar array, the owner would have to go back to the
Town, i.e., solar is the only allowed use. All Board members agreed with this.
Changes to Draft Resolution
Delete “whereas” number 7, “Whereas the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability
requested the following modifications through GML 339 -l, -m, -n review…”
This was suggested by Mr. Vander Wal, the attorney for Mr. Norbut. Mr. Vander Wal
felt it made a definitive statement about the recommendations set out by Tompkins County
Planning, and he did not want anything triggered if the ultimate site plan does not comply with the
County’s initial identification of intermittent streams on the property.
Under, the new number 7, the Planning Board chose to “approve with changes.”
The Board added the following changes after discussion on each amongst themselves and with the
applicant:
1. Section D, 1 of the Draft PDZ should be modified to reflect actual proposed setbacks up to a
maximum of 50 ft for each property boundary segment.
The wording of the PDZ previously said 25’ setbacks. Planner West explained to the
applicant that this was added to tighten it up and make it closer to the site plan. This
change would mean there will be 50’ setbacks except for where less is needed as shown
by Norbut’s site plan. This only was referring to the outside lot lines of the full parcel.
2. Draft Site Plan should be amended, if necessary, to include buffers for the full length of the
intermittent stream to be determined in Site Plan Review.
Planner West said the County required this as a mandatory modification (which is possible
to bypass with a supermajority vote), but the Norbut team is in discussion with them about
their actual delineation. It was the Norbut team’s preference to account for potential
changes, since they believe the County delineation is out of date and their engineer’s will
be shown to be correct. They Board thought this was reasonable and “if necessary” was
added to account for this.
3. Any and all changes requested by Tompkins County Soil and Water District, Tompkins County
Department of Planning and Sustainability, and other jurisdictional agencies should be
incorporated into the General Site Plan.
4. General site plan approval should be contingent on acceptance and implementation of a
Vegetative Management plan sufficient to maintain a natural, vegetative cover under and around
the proposed panel installations in order to help maintain long-term soil health and the natural
stormwater management.
The Board felt this made a lot of sense. The Norbut team added that a big part of their
SWPPP includes making sure the soil under the panels is maintained and pervious.
5. General site plan approval should include temporary and permanent stormwater infrastructure, if
necessary, to adequately protect the watershed and neighboring properties during construction and
afterwards.
The Norbut team asked to add “if necessary” because they do not want to do anything
permanent that is not necessary based on the engineering drawings and review. Planner
8
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
West added that the Town has its own stormwater law as well. Maher asked about post-
construction reporting regarding the erosion control, and the answer was that it was
commonly checked yearly or longer after construction is complete. West said it was his
understanding that as proposed there would not be any permanent infrastructure because
the project is designated under two acres of disturbance. The Norbut team said its solar
fields are built to be minimally invasive using track machines and an access drive that is
the only DEC-approved pervious design. Water pours off as sheet flow and enters the
natural, vegetative cover underneath the next set of panels. West said he had received
questions about what they would be doing with the stumps from the trees they cut. Mr.
Norbut said they either cut and grind or they pull, and it has not been decided yet for this
site; they have done it both ways in the past.
6. The Town Board should consider available mitigations for impacts of the interconnect facility to
historic properties and hamlet character when reviewing the general site plan.
Planner West said this is an opportunity to make sure things are headed in the right
direction, i.e., careful and low impact. The Town has not yet gotten a report analyzing the
historic resources within a half mile of the project, but along 96B there are several
properties eligible for designation. As an example, he said one suggestion from T.G. Miller
is that some poles are moved further back with only one line coming towards the street.
Mr. Norbut emphasized that these are not their poles, they are the public utility’s. Maragni
said, given that, are they sure this is the style of poles that will be used? Mr. Norbut said
he was 90% confident in that because all other projects to date have this type of poles.
Maher asked when they will initiate with the public utility so they know exactly what they
will be putting out there. Mr. Norbut said they will be putting a required deposit down, but
they are a year to eighteen months out from the interconnect being installed.
MOTION: Approve the resolution that the Planning Board worked on (Res. 9 of 2021)
Moved by Maragni, seconded by Bergman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Maher, Maragni, Scriber
Absent: Davis
(6) PLANNING GROUP UPDATE – Review/Discuss previous planner recommendations
It was decided to address this agenda item at the following meeting.
(7) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
___________________________________________
9
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary
Town of Danby
Planning Board Resolution Number 9 of 2021
Sept 21, 2021
Sending Planned Development Zone Application to Town Board
1. Whereas an application has been submitted for review and approval by the Town of Danby
Planning Board for a Planned Development Zone on Bald Hill Road tax parcel 710.‐1‐
21.122 by Passero Associates; and
2. Whereas the Applicant proposes Zoning changes, subdivision plat, and site plans that allow
3 parcels, each with 5MW of solar on a 111 acre parcel.
3. Whereas the parcel is in the Medium Density Residential Zone and the proposed plan does
not meet the requirement of the MD Zone; and
4. Whereas legal notice of Public Hearing was published and adjacent property owners within
500 feet notified in accordance with the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance; and
5. Whereas the Planning Board held and closed the required Public Hearing on August 17,
2021; and
6. Whereas the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Board Review
applications for Planned Development Zones and make a recommendation to the Town
Board who has the authority to adopt or deny the application; and
7. Now Therefore, be it Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board does hereby
recommend that the Town Board approve the application for a Planned Development Zone
at Bald Hill Road tax parcel 710.‐1‐21.122 with the following changes:
1. Section D, 1 of the Draft PDZ should be modified to reflect actual proposed setbacks up to a
maximum of 50 ft for each property boundary segment.
2. Draft Site Plan should be amended, if necessary, to include buffers for the full length of the
intermittent stream to be determined in Site Plan Review.
3. Any and all changes requested by Tompkins County Soil and Water District, Tompkins County
Department of Planning and Sustainability, and other jurisdictional agencies should be
incorporated into the General Site Plan
4. General site plan approval should be contingent on acceptance and implementation of a
Vegetative Management plan sufficient to maintain a natural, vegetative cover under and
around the proposed panel installations in order to help maintain long‐term soil health and
natural stormwater management.
5. General site plan approval should include temporary and permanent stormwater infrastructure
if necessary to adequately protect the watershed and neighboring properties during
construction and afterwards.
6. The Town Board should consider available mitigations for impacts of the interconnect facility to
historic properties and hamlet character when reviewing the general site plan.
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
________________________________________
Jody Scriber, Chairperson