Solar Law. The Board discussed what possible changes could/should be made to the current law for large scale ground mounted systems, aka solar farms, before the second moratorium ends at the end of March. Much of the discussion focused on whether to continue to permit solar farms in residential neighborhoods. (The law doesn’t allow them as the primary use in commercially zoned property.) Councilmen Esposito, Haughwout and Siegel supported the change, although Councilman Esposito had no problem with the solar farms on agricultural sites (which are zoned residential) and Councilwoman Siegel suggested the Board consider a “floating zone” whereby the Board could review applications on a case by case basis and allow solar farms on residential properties if they met a series of other criteria.
The Board was also concerned about how the panels would be disposed of when the facility was decommissioned after 25 years; there appeared to be agreement that the bond should cover the cost of their removal.
The controversial issue of screening was briefly addressed with the comment made that no facility could ever be fully screened.
Councilwoman Siegel also wanted to see language added that would require the Planning Board to compare the benefits of trees against the benefits of solar; current law only compares the amount of carbon that would be sequestered by solar and trees. Planning Director Tegeder, citing the Foothill solar farm currently under construction, advised the Board that the solar farm was actually saving more trees than would have been possible if the site had been developed for houses.
Because there was no apparent consensus on any issues, Supervisor Lachterman said the Board would have to have a second discussion before the town attorney began drafting any language. But he anticipated that the discussion couldn’t take place until January.
Smoke Shop/Vaping Law. The Board discussed what it wanted to include in the law before the moratorium ends. There was a consensus that the law would not include smoke shops, but would regulate businesses that sell vaping equipment and smoking paraphernalia. The key would be in defining these uses. Other issues likely to be included are restrictions where these shops can be located, e.g., distances from each other and from certain uses likes schools. Councilwoman Siegel advised the Board that she had similar laws from other towns that could be used as a guide.
CREST ($100,000) grant. The discussion was how to use the grant that could be used for anything. At the October 8th Board meeting, Supervisor Lachterman suggested digital signs at the community center and library that would announce programs. Councilwoman Siegel, citing the difference between “needs” and “wants,” suggested that a more urgent use of the money would be funding the engineering study that needs to be done for the Sparkle Lake dam. Classified as a high hazard dam by the DEC, the state requires the dam be inspected every ten years; the last inspection was in 2011. No problems with the dam have been noted. Supervisor Lachterman said the town would be looking into possible grants for the dam study and if that wasn’t successful the project could be funded from the fund balance. No decision was made pending more information about a grant.
Town Clerk noted that a bid was award for on call engineering services for bridges and culverts for the Highway Department and that the bid could possibly be used for the dam.
Worker’s Compensation. Based on an RFQ (Request for Qualification) and a presentation by Comptroller MacNeil, the Board agreed to change the outside vendor that handles the town’s worker’s compensation program The new vendor will be Perma. She explained that the new firm, a non profit entity that services only municipalities in New York State will save the town money in the long term. Instead of paying on a fee basis, plus the cost for individual claims, the Perma contract will be a fixed yearly sum; $576,050 for the first three years. After that, the cost will be dependent on the number and amount of claims. Worker’s Comp has been costing the town an average of almost $1 million a year.
Water meters. (See September 10, 2024 Town Board meeting.) In an item not on the agenda, Councilwoman Siegel asked the Board to begin imposing a penalty on the estimated 400 water customers who have refused to make appointments to have the new smart meters installed. She said it was only fair and equitable that these customers pay for the water they are using, just as the 4,000 customers who have had the meters installed over the past two years. She said the water apartment did not have the staff to knock on doors and that phone numbers were not available.
Supervisor Lachterman disagreed, however, with the penalty idea and said that these people should be given more time to comply, citing the possibility that they might be elderly residents who think the request might be a scam or people on fixed income who could not afford the extra charge. He said that if necessary he would knock on doors.
Recycling facility. In order to cure a procedural error with the October 1, 2024 vote that eliminated recycling facilities as an allowed use in the Zoning Code, the Board scheduled a new hearing on the exact same law for December 10, 2024.
Navajo Fields. In an item not on the agenda, the town attorney advised the Board that the applicant was ready to proceed with a hearing on the extension of the Lake Osceola Overlay District to include his property. Councilwoman Siegel advised the Board that before that was done, the Overlay Law needed to be amended to correct problems with how the project’s density was calculated (the FAR or floor area ratio). In response, the attorney said that the any amendments to the existing law could be included in the law to extend the district’s boundaries.
Town Clerk Quast said that a public hearing could not be scheduled until her office had some missing documents, including a completed EAF, Environmental Assessment Form. She said she would check with the Planning Department about the missing documents. In response to Councilwoman Siegel’s comment that an Expanded EAF would be required to supplement the 13 page EAF check list, Supervisor Lachterman said that that might not be needed.
Foothill subdivision. This was taken off the agenda with no reason given.