Planning Board, September 23, 2024

Recycling law. The Board had a two-part discussion dealing with the proposed recycling facility: one dealing with the land use aspects of the site plan and one dealing with the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code that would repeal the provision allowing for recycling facilities. 

During the land use discussion, the applicant’s attorney, stating that his client was “stuck in limbo”  between the Planning Board and the Zoning Board on the 100’ vs 200’ setback issue, asked the Board to decide which option it preferred. (Note: the Zoning Board said it could not make a determination on the setback variance request until it heard from the Planning Board.)   In response, the planning director said there might be third option: moving the building that met the 100’ setback further back into the site and further from Route 6. He said that all three options should be analyzed, adding “we’re not there yet.”   Board member Garrigan expressed the opinion that neither the 100’ or 200’ setback plans were good, asking which was the lesser of two “evils.”  Board member Bock suggested that the Board adopt a SEQRA Positive Declaration so that more of what he considered “significant adverse impacts” would be studied. In response, the applicant’s attorney stated there was already sufficient information about the project’s likely impacts.  There was a brief discussion about the need for the town’s traffic consultant to review the specifics of the project’s traffic impacts.

After a closed executive session, the Board  resumed the open portion of the meeting and discussed the proposed law that would eliminate  the recycling provision from the Zoning Code. The Board’s consensus was that because recycling, in general, was a positive, the Town Board should keep a recycling provision in the Code for the light industrial district but amend the existing provisions to give it more definition and to possibly narrow the materials it could receive, e.g., limit the facility to accepting residential recyclables and not construction debris.  A memo will be sent to the Town Board which will be holding a hearing on the law on October 1^. 

Solar Law. On a referral from the Town Board, the Board considered the pros and cons of the proposed increase  in the required setback from the property line from the current 100’ to 200’. The planning director explained that the 200’ setback might not be needed as the further away one was from the panels, the less need there was for screening.  He also said that  a requirement that the panels be ”fully screened” could not be absolute and that the Board should require screening that was reasonable.  Board member Bock suggested that instead of a fixed setback number, the law could have some flexibility, e.g., a minimum and maximum number, that would allow the Board to consider other factors, like the typography of abutting properties.  A memo suggesting flexibility will be sent to the Town Board.

Battery Storage Moratorium law.  The Board was in agreement with the extension of the moratorium.

MJM subdivision, Gomer Street. (See September 9, 2024 Planning Board summary.) Based on Highway Superintendent Paganelli’s recommendation, the Board agreed to the option of two cul d’ sacs with one having access to Cordial Road and one to Gomer Street.  Joe Riina, the applicant’s engineer, advised the Board that his client would widen the portion of Cordial Road that abuts his client’s property but, when asked if his client would widen an additional section of the road, he said he would have to speak to his client.  Now that the access issue has been resolved, the applicant will proceed to fine tune the subdivision plan.