Solar Law. The Board discussed the pros and cons of six options for amending the current law as it relates to large scale (aka industrial) solar farms:
- Banning them from all residential districts (allowed in current law)
- Banning them from commercial districts (not allowed in current law)
- Banning from residential AND commercial districts
- Allowing them only on agricultural parcels (these parcels are zoned residential
- Adopting a “floating zone” that would establish general criteria for the facilities and would give the Town Board the flexibility to apply the criteria on a case by case basis before rezoning the property and forwarding the application on to the Planning Board for a more detailed site review
- Amending the criteria in the current law regulating their use, e.g., required setbacks, screening requirements, etc.
While the concerns and initial positions of Board members changed over the course of the discussion, the end result was to proceed with option #6 – amending the current law. After Board members provide the supervisor with their thoughts on what those amendments should include, the supervisor will work with the director of planning and the town attorney to draft possible amendments.
The video of the meeting provides insights into how each Board member viewed the different options. (See link to video at the end of the summary.)
Battery Storage. After a very brief discussion, the Board directed the town attorney to draft a local law that would repeal provisions in the current law that permit Tier 2 (commercial) battery storage facilities in all zoning districts. The town will need to gather more information about how Tier 1 facilities, typically found in homes, should be regulated. The Board’s concern was primarily for the type of lithium battery used in the facility. Any repeal law would grandfather in already existing battery storage facilities.
Navajo Fields. Scheduling Update. Because there was insufficient time to notice an additional Board meeting, the plan to hold a January 28 meeting to continue reviewing the development plan was cancelled. No new date was set.
As a follow up to the January 14th Board meeting, Supervisor Lachterman reminded Board members to let him know what additional information they wanted from the applicant before tomorrow, at which time he will send the applicant a list of the additional information the Board needs.
In response to comments during Courtesy of the Floor (now renamed “Public Comment”) there was more discussion about the sewering options for the development, e.g., instead of building a trunk line down East Main to Hill Boulevard, the developer could build an on site pump station and hook up directly to the Route 6 trunk line. There were also comments about what could be done to improve the quality of Lake Osceola.
In a related issue, and in response to concerns expressed by Councilwoman Siegel, the Board decided to hold off voting on a resolution to have the Town’s traffic consultant review the applicant’s traffic study. Ms. Siegel’s concern was that it didn’t make sense for the consultant to review a report that was incomplete. Supervisor Lachterman asked Board members to let him know what other traffic information they felt was needed and whether the consultant should proceed to review the existing study but include a list of missing information that would be reviewed at a later date – or wait for more information now before reviewing an updated study.
Thompsom & Bender. In a 4-1 vote, with Councilwoman Siegel voting no, the Board extended the $60,000, one year contract for the town’s PR/Communications consultant.
Fieldstone Manor. In an item not on the agenda, Councilwoman Siegel asked for an update on the status of an 8+ acre portion of the site where the developer was supposed to construct three pickleball courts and a basketball court for public use as part of the developer’s recreation fee requirement. One issue was whether the deed transferring the land to the town that has already been filed was valid. The second issue was when the developer had to begin constructing the recreational facilities. Ms. Siegel noted that cars and trucks are currently parked on the town owned site. Town clerk Quast said that the deed issue is still being researched and that compliance with the recreation requirements were an issue for the Planning Board, not the Town Board.
A video of the meeting is available at: https://yorktownny.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=1909