Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-21-PB-FINALTOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, February 21, 2017 Approved: March 7, 2017 Present: Chair David Blake, and board members Rebecca Schneider, David Tyler, John Wertis, Sara Worden and board alternate Benjamin LeWalter; Environmental Planner Darby Kiley. Public in Attendance: none Call to Order: 7:01 p.m. Agenda Review; Minutes Review (2/08/2017) Mr. Blake MADE the MOTION to accept the February 8, 2017 meeting minutes, and Mr. Wertis SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was carried, 4-0, with Ms. Schneider abstaining from the vote. Discussion on Solar Regulations Discussion began with Board members reviewing aspects of the solar law that may need revisions. Ms. Schneider cited two key concerns: where to restrict solar development and what sizes to restrict. She identified the Town's Unique Natural Areas (UNAs), steep slopes and state - recognized prime soils as areas to prohibit solar farms. Mr. Wertis commented that the State's maps of prime soils are oftentimes painted with a wide brush, meaning some areas deemed prime soils on a map may not be workable soils in reality. He cautioned against a blanket prohibition of solar farms on prime soils for this reason. Viewsheds were also cited as a key Town characteristic worth protecting from solar development. Ms. Kiley said the County has a viewshed report, and former Planning Board member Rod Hawkes compiled his own Town viewshed report several years ago. After a brief discussion, Mr. Blake and Ms. Schneider felt Mr. Hawkes's report would be beneficial for the Board to review. Ms. Kiley circulated electronic copies of Mr. Hawkes's report to Board members. After more general discussion about the scope of the solar -law revisions, the Planning Board turned to the Sustainability Advisory Committee's memo and zoning revision recommendations, beginning with the definition of glare. Board members centered first on the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool — or SGHAT — which is considered the industry standard for measuring potential glare at solar sites. Ms. Schneider noted the Planning Board and Sustainability Advisory Committee are basing their understanding of solar glare and the SGHAT on the word of Brice Smith, a local expert who is a member of the Sustainability Advisory Committee and is married to a former Renovus representative. He is the one and only expert advising the Town on solar glare. Mr. Tyler said he was not entirely clear on what the SGHAT is attempting to do. Ms. Schneider also questioned if the SGHAT tool gives an accurate estimate of glare. She pointed to Mr. LeWalter's concerns from the previous Jacksonville Road installation — that glare estimates Planning Board 2 February 21, 2017 did not take into account the uneven topography of the land, which places the panels at angles; the SGHAT tool assumes flat topography, and there could be greater impact of glare when the panels follow the contours of the land, she said. Mr. LeWalter added, for larger installations, it is cheaper and more cost effective to install solar panels in line with the land's contours rather than purchase additional materials to position all panels on an even, uniform plane. Board members discussed including additional language in the solar law to ensure that, if the project site in question were not a flat field, several SGHAT readings would be taken at various points on the property. Mr. LeWalter reported having reached out to several state municipalities to ask about their own solar laws. In the Town of Menden, the planning code officer reported that the Town is reworking their solar law to require a minimum of 50 acres on any solar field, a 200 -foot setback and a height restriction of 20 feet. The Town of Pittsford is also in the process of reworking its solar law, Mr. LeWalter said. The Planning Board then returned to the subject of glare and to whether or not Board members were comfortable using the SGHAT. It was still unclear if the SGHAT takes into account land topography as part of the glare analysis, and Ms. Kiley suggested asking Mr. Smith. In its suggested revisions, the Sustainability Advisory Committee recommended a 32 -foot maximum height for major solar panels, an increase from the current 20 -foot maximum. The Planning Board reached a consensus to retain the 20 -foot maximum height. In point 3 of the Sustainability Advisory Committee's memo, the group suggested additional language to state that the use of impermeable surfaces like concrete footers should be kept at an absolute minimum. The Planning Board reached consensus agreement on this point. In point 4, in regard to more detail about the presentation of glare analysis data, Mr. Blake said the Planning Board could incorporate the Committee's language. Point 5 suggested specifically identifying prohibited areas for solar sites, including designated Unique Natural Areas (UNAs) and wetlands. It was noted that UNAs, wetlands, and soils of state-wide importance are already included on the current solar law, however the language as written lists these as considerations when reviewing solar projects as opposed to outright restrictions. The Planning Board discussed changing the language to prohibit large-scale solar development on UNAs, wetlands, soils of state-wide important and steep slopes. Next, Board members reviewed a clarification question put forth from the Sustainability Advisory Committee concerning landscaping buffers, specifically Solar Law Section 212-139.2 Standards for Major Solar Collections Systems, item B, number 1, c. The Committee wanted to know how landscaped buffers are to be maintained and on what types of topography such landscaped buffers would be required. Ms. Worden noted buffers are used for both glare mitigation and for aesthetics. There should be differences in buffer classifications, she said, since some people might not be concerned with the visual impact of solar sites. A discussion ensued regarding the potential for glare at the proposed solar site beside the Renovus headquarters. Mr. Blake asked Board members if they would like to set a minimum and maximum size — for instance, a 5 -acre minimum and no more than 50 acres. Ms. Worden favored an either/or option: a 200 foot setback or a landscaped buffer, giving the applicant the option to weigh costs between Planning Board 3 February 21, 2017 the two. Ms. Kiley pointed to the most recently proposed solar project at Renovus and said the project would be located further up the hill — thus carving into nearby farmland and increasing the potential for glare — if a 200 -foot setback were required. Mr. Tyler felt a vegetative buffer is likely the best standard, adding there may be times when the Planning Board opts for a larger setback — but not as large as 200 feet — instead of a vegetative buffer. Mr. LeWalter felt the 200 - foot setback worked well for the 50 -acre minimum or more. Responding to Ms. Worden's question, Ms. Kiley said there are few developable solar sites in Town that would meet the 50 - acre minimum. Visual impact of solar sites was briefly discussed. Lessening the visual impact of solar sites would be a challenge, Ms. Kiley suggested, because the Town's major transmission lines follow high -traffic roadways. The Planning Board will meet next on Tuesday, March 7. The agenda includes the public hearing and SEQR for the Renovus project, Ms. Kiley said. Mr. Blake MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Ms. Worden SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro II on February 28, 2017.