Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Right call the order. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[snorts] Let me know I'm warm right now. All right, folks. Just got to pause for a moment. There's not four planning board members sitting at the bench. Um, which folder? It I didn't see the folder. Oh, it should have been the I didn't see it.

There you go. Documents. Okay. See, it's right there. Yeah. So, I didn't know which what to click on first. I should really go in. No, I have Thank you. Okay. All right. So, our previous meeting was uh November 17th. [clears throat]

Uh under new business, we had the uh 207 Dual Hall Road channel stabilization uh project. Uh we had a uh motion to uh for the application of the highway superintendent um increase the escort to $3,000 and we set a sitewalk uh which we'll discuss a bit tonight. Um and then uh had a public hearing on Windingale Solar and we heard uh from members of the public. Uh and then um had a motion to leave the public hearing open for public comments uh until uh Monday uh December 1st uh until noon. Uh that passed. And then um uh resolution to appoint secretary of the planning board for next year. Uh appoint the planning consultant, the engineer and the attorney. Uh and then we also set the meeting and deadline schedule uh meeting deadline schedule for 2026 and uh and then we join the meeting.

Does a mistake. Okay. Uh the minutes I have the October date there. I'll change it to November. Uh where see member approve? Oh, no. That's that's for the minutes. That's correct. October. Sorry about that. No worries. I think we're good. All right. Any uh any any discussion on the minutes? Any discussion? I need a motion to approve the minutes. Motion made by member Vano. Second by [clears throat] member Palmer. Discussion. I see no discussion. All in favor say I. I.

I. Any post say no. Okay, that passes 5-0 with two absences. Excuse me. [snorts] All right. Um, next on the agenda, uh, we have Camp Rama, the FA uh, Fila lot line change. Uh, do we have, uh, representative from Camp Rama Fa Pila lot line change? Okay, we just talked about it briefly then. Um all right. Uh they were before us uh was it earlier this year? March I believe. March. Right. Mhm.

Okay. Uh so this is regarding um properties uh eastern portion of uh Windale along a while road uh for a lot line change between um two parcels and this the latest update here now is uh let's see uh memo uh saying from Mr. Filer saying that uh uh review the pro pro change. Uh him and his wife have no objections to it. Um and then and then there's a settlement agreement between the two parties. So attorney Paulo, if you want to maybe just talk for a moment about uh kind of what comes next at this

Sure. So at the time the board could not proceed with the application because um it was a transfer of land between two parties but one party hadn't signed the agreement. So this letter and this backup agreement now authorized the application to continue before this board. So tonight uh you would be simply characterizing it as a type two action under seeker and then setting a public hearing which would be the next step to move it forward. [snorts] Okay. All right. Uh so again, opportunity for uh the applicant or their consultant to come to the podium. All right. We still proceed. Uh need a motion to uh set this as a type two action under secret. Uh motion made by member Williams, second by second. Uh discussion.

Seeing no discussion, all in favor say I. I I post say no. Okay, that motion passes 5-0 with two absences. Uh our next meeting January 5th. January 5th. Right. While you're looking at that, I will say that my notes show that there were still some technical questions and items to be addressed um from Joe's review back in March. So something they'll have to Yeah. Before we go to setting the public hearing, we'll hear from uh Engineer Burgerer and Planer Warner. Just see if they have anything to add.

Um we had a comment memo for the March 2025 meeting that really didn't have much uh on our end. We did recognize that it was a type two um and that the filers needed to sign off on it, which they had not. So, we held off on doing anything at the March 17th meeting. Um yeah, I mean it was a transfer of 4.2 acres from from the filas to the camp property. Um we thought that everything on the plat was looked okay. Um there was some notes that we had asked for that were put on. Um so yeah, I think I just turn over to Joe if he has anything else.

No, I was concerned with whether there were any septic or wells in the area. There isn't. So I'm I'm fine with what's been presented. All right. Attorney Palad, anything further to add? Okay. Uh, see nothing further. Any members of the planning board have any comments or

comments? Question uh consultants? No. Okay. Uh, so u uh we'll need a motion to set a public hearing um [clears throat] for the camp Rama lot adjustment. uh for January 5th at 7 p.m. or soon thereafter the planning board can hold such public hearing. Uh motion made by so moved member Palmer seconded by member Williams. Member Williams. Discussion. Okay, seeing no discussion. Uh all those in favor say I. I. Any post say no.

Okay, that motion passes 5-0 with two absences. So, um, Secretary VM, if you could just reach out to the applicant or their consultant, just we said a public hearing. Uh, they need to come and get their sign.

Thank you. All right. Um, anything further on, uh, can't prom. All right. Moving on. [clears throat] All right. Uh next on the agenda is uh discussion of uh 207 dual hollow road channel uh stabilization. So we had a uh sitewalk. Uh is there a representative from 207 dual hollow road and come to the podium [cough] for two? That's fine. [laughter] Uh I think we said at the sidewalk it was just going to be we're going to discuss what happened today. It wasn't like they had to be here sort of thing. Uh, I was uh engineer uh uh Burger and myself and helped me out. I was

Palmer and you were not there. And um that was it. Yeah, I guess that was it. Uh so um we just looked at the uh the property. You can see where the water flows uh predominantly north uh under um Pulhal Road. um onto the property, makes a pretty hard right turn,

and then it goes uh kind of northeast for a bit, that makes a hard left turn. So, the idea is to really just straighten out that channel and um um stabilize it. You could see a lot of uh erosion concerns that have come up over the years. I it looks like it was just a project that was done maybe decades ago just to try and make it look nice and you know just kind of redirect the the stream a bit but um so uh engineer uh Burgers is there anything you wanted to uh well we did observe a small dam there that would be yes that's that was placed apparently a while ago to try to slow down the water right

and to be clear a small dam the size of maybe that piece of black very small yeah very non-functioning basically. Right. It did. It's concrete and it eroded away over the years or for aesthetics I think. Yes. There was like a bench there to sit. Yeah.

So the highway superintendent does have a plan to increase and replace that covert due in his capital budgets. So he is requesting that the applicant coordinate their work when they do get their permits with the highway department so the culvert replacement can be uh done at the same time as any work on the stream is. So there's no interrupt, you know, proper two, you know, two two jobs working together, right? But he has no problem. I spoke with him this afternoon. He has no other issues with the site other than that. He plans on increasing the size of the covert as the FEMA allows based on former flooding in the area. You're allowed to upsize a covert one size [clears throat]

in the normal FEMA permitting. So,

so he uh our other concern on there which we expressed to the applicant was that the wetlands are shown on the parcel access and on the wetland maps from DEC are pretty close to where they are planning to terminate their work. that needs to be more better defined so that we know that they're not actually going into the wetland or wetland buffer. I understand they filed the JD, which is the jurisdictional determination with the state. I think it's now a couple weeks ago. So, that's a 90-day turnaround before they find out whether it is a state wetland or not. If it's not a state wetland, they still have to determine where the federal limit is. The difference is the federal limit has no buffer,

right? So they could go right up to technically right up to the edge of that federal wetland without needing a federal wetland permit. The only um exception to that is if the federal wetland runs up the stream banks slightly. if they affect any any bank of the stream within the federal wetland area that that's constitutes needing a permit, right? Uh I think they're uh assuming it's going to need a federal permit,

which is a nationwide permit of a tenth of an acre. So that would cover any disturbance to the federal, right? the the big wild card is whether they have to cut back on what they want to do or apply for a DEC wetland disturbance or a buffer disturbance. And that will be determined they once they get their JD. But other than that, the plan or what they plan on doing with the uh uh relocation, filling in and armorizing with stone is perfectly acceptable methods. It's just whether they need the DEC permits, right? And so the DEC has essentially 13 weeks to 90 days. 13 weeks to about maybe two or three weeks into that 13 weeks. Yeah. They're taking the whole 90 days too. BEC.

Yes. Yes. As we discussed that as well that they're so overloaded. They're going to get it right around the 90th day if not the 91st after they send the letter in. Right. Our experience is the 90 days goes by. We send in the way the DEC works is 90 days you don't hear. You must file a letter to them stating the 90 days are off certified right to get a 10-day clock going. If they don't respond within that 10 business days from receipt of the certified letters is concluded that it's not a state wetland for five years. Mhm. So they have and they might respond and say they typically do. Yeah. That that 10day clock once they get that letter they seem to put it to the top of the list and you get a letter the next day in the email. They don't mail it to you. They email it to you.

Well, that's nice of them. Yeah. Um, so 90 days. So, three basically three months we're talking. So, if it was the end of November, end of December, end of January, end of February or so is when the applicant might hear something from DEC or not hear something and then have to file in March. Well, the concern is the trees that need to be cut down, right? If they wait too long, they're not going to be able to cut the trees down because Indiana bat, right? But we've expressed that to them. That's that's in their uh their hands, right? We have advised them of that. Mhm. Okay. And anything further? No, that's okay.

So that 90 days is just for DEC to say, "Yeah, it looks like you might have jurisdictional wetlands here." Doesn't mean doesn't mean it's done. It's they don't really tell you the limits. That's your job to go out and do. Um, so if they get that positive determination, it's called, they would have to delineate um, and then go back to them with and have that field delineation verified. And they can't delineate until we're in the growing season, which is like April, right? So like there's a little bit of time here. I think we have to we're going to be waiting. Yeah. Um, if they get that positive JD from the EC

Yeah. They're not You can't delineate now. It's not the window is not the winter. So, um yeah. And otherwise, I wasn't there, but I heard there was something about an old chimney. Yeah. So, there was I just as we were kind of wrapping up, there's a just a chimney on the property at the intersection. Uh um Dual Hollow and uh is that Bergs Hill maybe? Um so, I just pointed out that, you know, maybe this is some historic chimney. I don't think it is, but just I didn't want it to kind of go through the whole process and then someone's, you know, like, oh, George Washington slept under that chimney or something and then we got a big problem. So, um, yeah, I looked up the I looked on the state's uh cultural resource information system,

right? Um, they don't have anything identified for that property as for archaeology or architectural significance. So, I mean, you could see the, you know, the the mortar or whatever you want to call it in the side of the chimney. You can see, you know, where there was um yeah, you know, the siding for the a house, you know, so it's probably just the house got torn down. They left the chimney. It kind of looks neat. I asked I reached out to the applicant and did ask if they can provide background about what that's about. Um haven't heard yet. Yeah, but you know, if this is a state permitting process with DEC because of the wetlands that come up, yeah,

they'll probably be required to uh talk to Shipo as part of that. So, um because state permits require Shipo to look at things. So, there's a chance it'll be looked at formally in that manner. Um you know, if we're going to be if we're sitting here waiting for them for a few months anyway, you might we could ask them to do the consult with Shipo now just to just to clear it just to see what's going on. Um that's a possibility. just looking at the this uh um plan set now the you know the only I guess other concern is you know is the the proposed temporary soil stockpile near the chimney is that some kind of issue you know yeah but I haven't heard back from the applicant when I asked about what it what

again so that you know uh I don't think I have the pointer here but so I'll just use the mouses so the water goes under the road um here and then uh you can see that the the present course of the water go takes it towards the house. This is where that little dam is. What is it? Maybe a twoft drop. Yeah.

And then it goes this way. Um uh so again, the proposal is to just have it just just really straighten it out more and connect back up with where the water goes now uh over here. And uh you know the just the concern is where does the the swamp you know the wetlands where does that start? It starts somewhere near where they want to reconnect to the current water stream. So you know maybe it's a concern and 100t is the state adjacent area also known as buffer right

100t from the wetland. So um okay uh so anything else you want to add from n this memo um right yes you included this in your in your memo this uh right this blob yeah the pink is the is the DEC's new what they call informationational wetland layer um my understanding is it was developed based on GIS S analysis, aerial photo interpretation, LAR data, whatever, right? Staff at DC use to come up with those polygons. Doesn't mean that's where it is, but right,

they'll look at that as part of that JD um request by the applicant. Yeah, you can see it joins up somewhere. It's close. Yeah, it joins up kind of like right around here. Very close. So, so you're saying that if this right here is within 100 ft of this line or the line that's I mean you can see the size of the house from here to here is not 100 ft. So well yeah and that again the pink is not delineation the actual right it's an approximation

so the field delineation done by the applicants professionals has to be reviewed by DEC also and then that it's that delineation wetland boundary 100 ft from that to the area of work if that's if the area of work is within 100t they need a permit if it's not they're cleared right okay attorney pado anything to add here U just at this point the onus is on the applicant to come back to the planning board when it has new information. Okay members of planning board any anybody who's there have anything further to add or anybody who wasn't there have any comments questions.

Okay I don't see [clears throat] big issue with this project. Right. Yeah. You know but like attorney Paulo said we're basically just we're not going to see this again till maybe March. March. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. [snorts] All right. Um, so I think further discuss here, uh, the next item up for discussion is, uh, Wingdale Solar. Uh, before we, uh, have this discussion and before we have the applicant andor their consultants come to the podium, uh, member Palmer.

Uh, yes. Um because this project is so close to home literally I think it would be in everybody's best interest if I recuse myself and Mr. Chair if I can exit. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. [snorts]

All right. Uh [sighs] okay Wayne Solar. Thank you. Good evening, uh, Chairman Cordia and members of the board. Um, thank you for having us again. Um, [snorts] thank you, Planner Warner, for sharing the draft of the FAF part two with us. Um, we submitted some responses in writing to those today, so we understand that it's not in the record officially. Um, but if you would allow us to, you know, join the discussion on on the points in the forum and we can go through those point by point, we'd be happy to do that here and we can submit these to to be distributed for the record um as as soon as possible.

Okay. Uh, anything else you wanted to say? Is that good?

Uh, that's basically it. Today I have uh Rob with me. He's our director of development and we have uh Mark as well from Wendell who's our engineering consultant. Um I don't think I have any substantial updates um other than the last meeting I mentioned we would set up a project website with some information um and we have done that and um I will work with uh Secretary Vanillan to figure out how best we distribute that um so people can see materials that are before the town and as we update them um in real time we can update them on that website too so people can uh stay up to date on what's going on with the project. Um, currently linked is the site plan, the VIA, um, I think the decommissioning plan. Um, but any of these letters that I'm submitting to town also as part of the course of development, we can put those there too, so everyone can read them. Um, I think, um, they're obviously all in the do uh, website as well. But,

right, um, we'll have that set up as well. Okay. I just want to reiterate, I know I said it at the last meeting, I just want to reate, you know, just be 100% sure that whatever is on your website is also officially submitted to the town or whatever you officially submit to town is also on your website just so it's it's just, you know, I think u applicants for larger projects having their own website makes a lot of sense. Um, but it just can we've seen it happen in the past where there ends up being confusion where wait this was submitted but now your website says that or whatever. Yep. So, okay. Okay. Yeah, understood. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Um, and obviously we as the town planning board are going to go off of what you submit to us. We don't I mean officially we don't care what's on your website. Yes. So, okay. Thank you. Uh, we care what you submit to us. So, understood. Just in case there is ever a the website says one thing and what you submit says something else. at the deadlines uh to to submit something today is not going to get to the planning board members to read because they work. Sure. The the deadlines are for you also. Yep. Understood. Yep. Okay. And we are working on an update to the site plan that's going to include some additional screening proposed and

the plan is to have that submitted to the board um in time for the February meeting. So that that'll be coming in January. Yeah. So, I mean, just for everyone's uh [snorts] knowledge, uh the deadline for the January 5th meeting is this Wednesday at noon, December 17th. So, um and then the the next deadline is January 14th for the February 2nd meeting. Yep. Uh and because of federal holidays, there is only one meeting in January and one meeting in February. So then the next meeting would be the first Monday of March. Understood. Okay. And the deadline for that would be around mid February. I have it written down somewhere. Yes. Yeah. Okay.

All right. So, um let's go with uh any members of the playing board have any comments or questions before we turn it over to our consultants here? Nothing you want to say? Not at this time. [clears throat] Um little deer, I think. Okay. All right. Um, uh, attorney Polidaro, we, um, we had the public hearing, we closed public hearing, left it open for public comment to, uh, um, the 1st of December. Uh, we did receive some more written comments. Correct, Secretary Mill?

Yes, we did. And we received one after the cut off date and I did send it to the applicant and put it up on the website, after I received it. Okay. All right. And um so uh I don't if you just want to maybe walk us through it a little bit. Uh sure. So at the last meeting um we went through what [clears throat] seeker is um you know the purpose of it.

And so you had a public hearing to elicit comments from the public on potential environmental impacts. And so tonight um planner Warner has prepared a draft part two of the environmental assessment form. And that's the opportunity for the board to go through the questions and identify potentially significant impacts and then to evaluate those impacts. And so, um, he's prepared to walk you through it and I'm here to help answer questions based on information in the application that you heard from the public and your own knowledge of the area.

Right. Okay. And, uh, we're going to we're going to get to this momentarily. And uh just to be clear uh you know um you know whatever um we put into this document is what we're deciding as the planning board the consultants are [snorts] just advising us. So um you know it is our decision uh to make um so aside from the document which we'll go through is there anything else you wanted to add um planner war? No, I mean just understanding that what part two is about it's the title of it is identification of potential project impacts. Um and it has 18 questions um with sub questions under each and basically what you're doing here is you're going through each category. Um I'll go through what the guidance of of the DEC has how to answer these questions. We'll talk about the site and the project and how they fit into these. um if there's an area where there's a potential for significant adverse impacts um we can discuss that. It only takes one of those to um for the board to possibly make a finding of a positive declaration which would require preparation of environmental impact statement. Um so that's the discussion we can have after we go through it. Um we do have some areas where we did check off moderate to large impact particularly with regard to not complying with zoning. Um which is a big has [clears throat] been a big issue for this project since it came back.

Right. Um, so yeah, with that I think we'll just start with the top and I have notes from the DEC's EAF workbooks which are pretty helpful in working through some of these questions and what they say as far as what they think is a small impact or a moderate impact or a large impact. Um, but again it's your document to complete. Um, so with that we can start with All right. Just before we do that, uh, engineer Burger, do you have anything to add at this time? Okay, thank you.

All right. Um, so the first category is impact on land and the main question um is the proposed action may involve construction or physical alteration of the land surface of the project of the proposed site. And this should be a yes just because the guidance from the DEC is that um you know you're disturbing the land to build something but there's going to be physical um alteration to the land. You should just check yes and then we can go through each of the sub questions here. Um A is the proposed action may involve construction on land where depth of water table is less than 3 ft. Um I had checked no or small for that because here it's greater than three feet

and the guidance is that if you're there's no chance to encounter groundwater um as a result of the construction you don't really need to do much more. It's no or small impact. Um B the proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater. Um there are some slopes on the site. I don't believe they are proposing anything on the steep slopes. Um they're doing minor regrading in some areas. Um so for that I put a no or small as well. There are some steeper slopes uh like in the northwest portion on the route 22 side. Yeah. But there's no solar panels proposed no in that location.

Uh all right. And engineer burger leading down like the northeast portion. There's there's slopes. Is it are they greater than 15%. Yeah. But they're not really doing anything on them. They're terracing across them. So they're not changing the slopes, right? Okay. Okay. They're not cutting into them and altering the grading within the 15% there. Okay. The the way they put the solar panels down, they're terrace, right? Okay. Okay.

Um C is about bedrock. Um the proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 5 ft of existing ground surface. Um here the bedrock's deeper than five feet according to the data that we've that's available um and what they provided. It's farmland. There was no right so a no or small impact I thought was appropriate for that. [clears throat]

Um next is D. Uh proposed action may involve the excavation or removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural material. Uh there's not much excavation proposed here so I put no or small impact. Okay. E u pros action may involve construction that continues for more than a year or in multiple phases. We've been told that it's about a 6 months construction process. Mhm.

Uh so for that reason I put no or small. Um F proposed action may result in increased erosion whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal including from treatment by herbicides. Um, in this case, the guidance from DEEC says that um you could deem something a small impact if uh there's going to be a SWIP in place um a storm water pollution prevention plan to cover all or small percentage of the of the project.

Um and you know that's usually a ground for saying no or small impact. It'll be controlled by the SWIP that Joe has the has been already taking a look at and right um has some comments on but I think uh a storm water erosion concern is not a moderate to large impact on this one. engineer ber they uh their part of their proposal is to have those uh what do they call those channels that like that would so the water running any any down down any hills would be essenti dams checks right sp [snorts] you know and they were going to put some French drains in we suggested they become raised French drains right

so the water would so basically their slip is fine we we asked them to modify it some to make it more effective and they've complied with request. Okay. And I'll just I can go through some of the guidance from DEC about what constitutes a large impact when it comes to this question if that would be helpful. Um I mean if it comes up we don't need to go through everything. We don't have to go through everything if all agree. If yeah four degrees we'll move on to question two. Mhm. Oh sorry there was one more about coal.

Yeah. Coastal erosion. I don't think that's going to be an issue. So all right. So, anybody have any concerns about number one impact on land? William over here. No. Okay. Okay. So, number two is on geological features. The main question is the proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of or inh inhibit access to any unique or unusual land forms on the site, cliffs, dunes, minerals, fossils, caves. The answer is no. The answer is no. um based on the primarily on the EAF mapper deec's database that fills out the part one um that the applicant prepared didn't identify any unique geological features in this area on this

there were no cliffs or caves on our sidewalk of the so that's a no to the main question without the need to answer the sub questions okay okay number three impacts in surface water yeah so the main question here is the proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies. So, we check yes because the site does contain wetlands or other surface water bodies along the roadway into the site. Yeah,

there is. Yeah, there's an intermittent stream um and there's also that pond that's in like the northeast area um of the site. So however um most of these I think actually all of these sub questions um I had checked no or small impact simply because they've received the applicants received a letter from DEC saying they have no jurisdiction on this site for wetlands or water courses um because the wetland on the site is not connected to any other wetland. Is that why engineer burger just it's got its own separate wetland? Okay. I think it has to do with the size of it too, right? Um but

okay. So the proposed action may create a new water body. No. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than 10 acres. Increase or decrease in the service area of any body of water. No. Proposed action may what? What plan? He said they're not altering any wetlands.

They're not altering wetlands or water courses. They're not dredging from anything. Um D has to do with uh construction within or joining a freshwater tidal wetland or in the banks of a water body. No or small impact. E is the proposed action may create turbidity in a water body either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. F. The proposed action may include construction of one or more intakes or withdrawal of water from a surface from surface water. That's not proposed here. G. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfalls for discharge of waste water to a surface water. That's not happening here. Uh the proposed action may cause soil erosion or otherwise create a source of storm water discharge may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. In this case again there's going to be a swift to control

to come up with the to plan to mitigate storm water from uh the services of the panels from the road um all the components of the project. Um, I, the proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. Again, that's tied to the SWIP. Uh, J, the proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. That's not proposed. Yeah, I just I wanted to confirm that you're not proposing the use of any pesticides or herbicides. Nope. Okay.

Okay. The proposed action may require the construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities. That's not the case here. Um and that's it. So I just wanted to add there also um because the state DC has no jurisdiction um the intermittent stream and whatever's out there falls under the federal jurisdiction. Um the applicant is already in the process of getting a permit for or they're going to have to get a permit for the crossing of the intermittent stream with the main road, right? Which they've already started that process with Army Corps of Engineers in in getting that. It's nationwide permit uh 14, I believe. It has to do with access roads. I don't know the number. Is it 14 or 41? Oh, it's 41.

I think could be 41. I got water quality certification. Yep. remember that's so because of that process like I think there's and the SWIP there's a lot already proposed as part of the project to address these things so a no or small impact related to that category surface water I think is appropriate all right so members of planning board impacts in surface water yes but every uh sub question is a no or small impact any discussion okay number four

all right four is groundwater water. Okay. So, proposed action may result in new or additional use of groundwater or may have a potential to introduce contaminants to groundwater or an aquifer. Uh, so your suggestion is no. Any members of the planning board have any comments or questions on it being no? See, I think it seems pretty straightforward. Okay. Impact on flooding proposed action may result in development on land subject to flooding. The answer is no. No point, right? It's on top of a hill. Any comments or questions there? No. No.

Okay. Impact on air. The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. That answer is no. Any questions on that? None. Okay. Number seven. Impacts on plants and animals production may result in a loss of flora or fauna. So the suggestion is yes. Planner warner if you proceed. Yeah. So we because the site has um potential to contain species based on the DEC's uh EAF mapper and the federal US Fish and Wildlife Service databases um it's appropriate to say yes here. Um however on the other questions which we can go through each one

because the applicant has already begun consulting with both those agencies on on their project and these species and how to mitigate impacts to them. Um, I thought that it would be appropriate to have no or small because they're working out uh plans with each agency to to address um these types of impacts. Like an encounter plan for bog turtle, I think they mentioned, is something that asked for. Um they're going to have openings under the fences for small animals to be able to move through the site. Things that are common for solar projects. Um, and you know, tree removal would be limited to the window that that is applicable for the Indiana bat. Mhm.

Those are things that they're already proposing. So, because it's, you know, they're built into the project already, I felt that um a no or small impact would be appropriate.

Okay. So, just going through each of them really quickly. The proposed action may cause reduction in uh population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species as listed by New York State or the federal government that use the site or found on over or near the site. Uh no or small impact. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare, threatened or endangered species listed by New York State or the federal government. No or small impact. Pros action may cause reduction in uh population or loss of individuals of any species of special concern on or conservation need listed by New York State or the federal government that use the site or found on over or near the site. No or small impact. The proposed action may result in the reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any species of special concern and conservation need as listed by New York State or the federal government. No or small impact. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered uh national natural landmark that supports a biological community if it's established protect no or small impact. The proposed action may result in the removal of or ground disturbance in any portion of a designated significant natural community. No or small impact. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or overwintering habitat for the predominant species occupy or use the project site. No or small impact. The proposed action requires the conservation of more than 10 acres of forest, grasslands, or any other regionally or locally important habitat. No or small impact. Proposed action commercial, industrial or recre recreational projects only. Involves use of herbs or pesticides. Not using herbs, pesticides. So, no or small impact. Yeah. Number seven. Does any any member any members of the planning board have any comments or questions when it comes to impact on plants or animals? That yes, proposed action may result in a

loss of flora or fauna, but all the impacts are non-existent or small. And I'll add to that if I may, just that they did a habitat assessment report, right, where they had a biologist go out and see what's out there. And those are what the agencies have also been looking at. Okay. All right. Number eight, impact on agricultural resources. Pros action may impact agricultural resources. Uh so your suggestion is uh no. Um it is farmland, right? So I can talk about what the guidance says on this one.

Okay. Um the main the question the main question, right, that that you answer yes or no on before you answer the sub questions. The main the guidance from DEEC is quote if any agriculture activities are taking place on or adjacent to the project site or if the project site is within a New York State agricultural district the proposed project may have adverse impacts on farming. If so, check yes and answer to sub questions. If no agriculture is taking place on or adjacent to the site or if the property is not part of the New York State agricultural district, check no. [snorts] So that's why I check no because it's not actively farmed. It's not in the A district either. Okay. Okay. So, not in an egg district. Um, correct.

Okay. Uh, I mean, is it who is the current owners of like have they been paying it? Yes. I believe it's being mowed. Uh, the owners are Charlotte Street Associates and they have not been farming it and have no intention to. Okay. So, can you give us like any indication last time it may have been used agriculturally? I believe we submitted an agricultural data statement and that should have some of that information on it. Um I don't tells you what others that just tells you what other farms are within 500 ft. But this isn't a farm. It's not I mean it's not in the a district. It's not getting the exemption. Um I think the guidance is pretty clear. We're not

taking away an active farm. So okay, I thought it would be um so that answer but my my suggestion for the planning board just looking at this and just out of abundance of caution would be that the pros action may impact agriculture resources. Yes, but that all the impacts would be non-existent or small. I mean, I know what the guidance says, but someone could reasonably just far start farming that in the spring if they wanted to. I mean, not anyone obviously you have to own the land, but I'm just saying it could be farmed. It's not as though it's a forest that you clearcut and then decide to farm or

unfarmable land. I mean, I think the proposed action may impact agricultural resources. It may impact agricultural resources. Yeah. So you should change it to yes and then you can check no or small if that's what you feel. This is where your local knowledge comes in more than so let's just go through each of those to see if it is in fact a no or small impact maker. And again I just want to be clear this isn't my decision. Any members of the plane board have any thoughts [snorts] on yes or no. I think you're right. Okay. [clears throat and cough] Okay. All right. So a the proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group one through four of the New York State Land Classification System. to know or a small impact may occur. So small there's some there

there's some there and they've showed us that they've showed us an exhibit in the plan set they actually have um soils exhibit that show us where these you know prime trucking out tons of no and the idea is that you know if the project is uh when it's removed in the future you know if it's once it's done and you know right this could go back to being a farm 30 years from now or something. So, it's not the type of project that's going to take away the fertility of the soil, right? Okay. Other proposed action may sever, cross, or otherwise limit access to agricultural land. No. Uh proposed action may result in the excavation or uh compaction of the soil profile of active agriculture land.

Small to moderate because of the excess drive, but that's a small area. Okay. So, small or moderate? Small. Small. Small or not. Okay. You said moderate. So that's why careful. Okay. Yeah. Just small because it's just the access drive which can easily be pulled up. Sure. And return to its original condition. Okay. The uh solar panels and the diversion swailes will not be compacting the soil.

Right. Uh the proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-aggricultural uses either more than 2.5 acres if located in an agricultural district or more than 10 acres if not within an agricultural district. Uh so it's not irreversible, it's reversible. So that would be no. Supposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land management system. So no. The proposed action may result directly or indirectly in increased development potential or pressure on farmland. The answer is no. Pros action is cons is not the proposed action is not consistent with the adopted municipal farmland protection plan. I mean, I don't believe the town of Dover has a farm. I'm trying to think off my head if there

haven't seen one. This is an adopted. Do we have an adopted muscle farm? I don't think so. Yeah. All right. Um, so for now, we'll say no. Okay. So, number eight, uh, the answer is the question, the proction may impact agricultural resources. Yes, it may impact resources, but we believe that all the impacts are no or that those impacts are small. Any comments there? Remember Williams or over here? Okay, number nine. Let me just save that. Number nine. Yep. So nine, we start to get into

tax on aesthetic resources. All right. So the land use of the proposed action are obviously uh different from or in sharp contrast to current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. Okay. So your suggestion is yes. Okay. While it's not a designated scenic resource, I mean you have Boyce Park Overlook. Yes. Overlooks the entire Wingale area. Mhm. Um they that is an area that we've been focusing on and um having the applicant look into. So that's why it's Yes. Okay.

Um and it's pretty visible from that location as as we've seen. Mhm. So proposed action may be visible from an officially designated federal, state or local scenic or aesthetic resource. So your your suggestion is that it's a moderate to large impact may occur, right? Okay. Coupled with, you know, the fact that it's and we'll get to that when we get to the category. It's um proposed, you know, in in conflict with these um with the zoning.

Okay, let's just take a pause right there for a second. Uh, attorney Paul Daro. So, proposed action may be visible from an officially, it's not federal state. So, proposed action may be visible from an officially local scenic or aesthetic resource. Boyce Park is an official town park. Okay. Are we stretching here? I mean, I'm with you. I love hiking up there and seeing the valley, but is it a local is it officially a local scenic or aesthetic resource? I think it's open to some interpretation.

Like I think if it was, hey, you're building this solar panel farm right in front of the Doverstone Church, I think you could say, okay, that's a officially local aesthetic resource. Yes. Um so you know normally this question an an identified scenic or aesthetic resource it is like anony's ridge like somewhere that is a designated hiking point or a viewshed right if it were the aderond trail

or dostone church which is it's not I'm just saying if that is an example right if you said if say if the applicant owned the the grass area around the ponds at the dostone church and like we want to build a solar farm here we could be like wait that's an official local scenic or aesthetic resource. So that's a moderate that's a moderate to large impact, right? So I mean it's more common to have uh those sorts of resources be designated. Boyce Park is a municipal park, right? I leave it to your discretion as to whether that fits. Well, thank you for your advice being to listen to myself. Um [laughter] I mean look, I I this is one of the harder ones to go through, right? Yes. I I mean

that's what I'm saying. I think like that overlook is nice. I mean there used to be uh it used to there used to be a platform there that you could um paraglide off of. Yeah, I'd say it's I remember that less official now. I mean I don't know. I'm not the only one listening this now, folks. Like what do we think? Been a while since I've been up there. Yeah. But I I think we get to the same concept when we get to community character, right? without having to force yeah the question of whether it's an officially designated scenic resource.

My my my other concern just on this one particular question is if you say that building this has a moderate to large impact then kind of not building anything but building anything of a certain size in Wingale then has a moderate or large impact because you could see it from that that lookout. I mean if you're at that lookout you could basically see the whole southern part of town. So we're basically we basically be saying that if we build anything that is visible from there, you know, bigger than someone's house, then I just think that's it's these are good points. It just seems like a big reach. And this is the this is one of the questions that's tough to answer because what is a locally designated resource? The guidance says it has to be something that's officially like designated,

right? That's what I'm saying. It's not like that's, you know, we have the Dostone Church. We have the Seven Wells Brook. Now, it's not it's not like we said, "Please come visit the the the overlook at Boyce Park." It's not a it's not an attraction. People don't people don't go there. So, I mean, I think I think based on this discussion, you could check this. No, I think small impact. We're going to get to it. No impact. Well, no, because it's not official. Okay, that's Yes, I agree. It could be a no because you don't have an official here. That's and then and then you bring these same concerns to the community character question comes later. [snorts] Okay,

I'll change it. Uh, and I think I buffed it up. Hold on. There we go. Okay. Okay. There. All right. All right. Members of the planning board, any further discussion on number nine, letter A? None here. Thank you. All right. Not even A. I It's the main question. The threshold question. Well, the threshold question is the land use of the proposed action are obviously different from or in stark contrast to current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. But we don't have the designated scenic or aesthetic resource,

right? Well, let's I that's that's the heart of the question. If you don't have if you don't consider Boyce Park No, I was just going it off. I was only looking at letter A that it's not officially designated but that's what local aesthetic or scenic resource. The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. I say it's an a scenic or aesthetic resource. It's just not an officially designated local scenic or aesthetic resource. That's what I was going on with letter A. No, no, I agree with you. Just when you look at the guidance Yeah, I have it here. The big nine actually should say locally designated scenic or aesthetic resource. But then A is just a redundant question.

Correct. That's [laughter] not what it says. Okay. Yeah. There. So I can read what it says about how to answer the threshold question if it helps. Okay. Let's hear.

All right. Yes, please. This question explores consistency in land use between the proposed project and other land uses that may be seen from or part of a scenic or aesthetic resource. It is oriented to those scenic and exotic resources that are officially designated and publicly accessible. Officially designated scenic areas include scenic byways, scenic roads, scenic areas of statewide significance, scenic trails, and scenic rivers. Other designated areas may also include places or sites listed on the national or state registers of historic places, state parks, state forest preserve areas, state game refues, national natural landmarks, and national park service lands. Note that other areas may also be designated for scenic and aesthetic reasons at the local level.

Okay. So again, it it it the question is getting to something officially designated at at Can someone get me some water, please? D [laughter] I'm sorry. Thank you. I don't I don't [clears throat] Okay. So I I mean I based on the discussion I think big nine is no even though Okay. So like the proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points. Yes. [laughter] So that's what I'm saying. Right. I so I had it I had yes and I had those answered to get to those things. This question sucks.

Yeah, it's not a great question. I mean, you want to re the new forms are coming. I hope they're not. That's how I really feel. I mean, it's just it's just I don't know. It's like you have the main question, but then question A is the same question. Yes. But just asked slightly differently. So, you might come to two different conclusions. Thank you so much. Well, in a you get to decide if it's no, small, or moderate. I guess small or moderate, right? But be in nine, it doesn't say. It doesn't say. Look, I I feel your pain and I live with it. Mhm. All right. Again, I'm not the only person up here. What do we think?

All right. Slow down, everybody. Not all at the same time. I think it's right the way it is that yes check. Yeah. Okay. Check. Yes. But that no on a no on a Okay. I mean that's a change from what it was. Okay. But it it it's it's contradictory statement guidance like Yeah. Right. Okay. I agree. Attorney Palado. Fine. Us not following the guidance. Is that a problem? The guidance set is contradictory. It's just guidance. Okay. So ultimately it's your form, your decision. All right. Nine. Yes. So far, A, no or small impact may occur. Any further discussion on that?

B. The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination, or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. I would say no. I would agree. No or small impact may occur. See, the proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points. So again, yes, but is that a moderate to large impact or is it a certainly not a no, but is it a small impact or a moderate? You're saying potentially moderate to large impact, right? And then you're asking the applicant to by checking that you're you're asking for more information, right, that they need to provide. So we've already heard from the public about High View Drive, how um it's right there and there's concerns that you're going to be able to see it from High View Drive,

right? But it's how do you drive a publicly accessible vantage point? It's a publicly accessible road. It's a public road, but is it a van publicly accessible vantage point? Words have meaning. Like they throw the words in here. They mean something. I think again it no one drives I think. Hu drive is a great neighborhood. No one drives to Hive Drive to look at a farm that isn't being used. I mean the people who live there look at it and that's important, but that's not what this question is asking. I mean it's a vantage point so I don't know visible from voice park I'd say like let's let's come back to it but we still got we got it doesn't matter we got

I just want to be clear too though um that when planner warner says it means ask for more information at this point in the process checking it unless it's been mitigated through this project redesign you would be headed toward a positive declaration which means through an EIS process you would now be getting new studies, alternatives. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Not like next submission, right? Yeah. Okay. So, what I'm thinking here is that the look at it Boyce Park is a publicly accessible vantage point. Is that a is that a small impact or a moderate impact? I think it's a moderate impact.

Modern impact. Okay. Uh seasonal and year round. Yep. Okay. So, um, we'll keep that there. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while reviewing the proposed action is routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work or recreational or tourism based activities, right? You're not going to see it on your commute. So, I said, right, no one's going to the top of Boyce Park on their way to work.

That's why. But recreational tourism based activities, yes. So, it's a moderate impact there. E. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. So small impact. I mean you there's something there, but there's still this whole valley. It's not as though they're putting it right in front of where you would look. So I can agree that it's a small impact. To that question, the proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment or appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. Any comments or questions on that? Okay. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed uh project. Uh so zero to five. Why does it have it four different time? Like

it's a factual statement and then you have to decide if it's an impact. It's another strange question. So again, no or small impact. Agreed. All right. So members of the planning board, number nine, impact on aesthetic resources. The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. Are we saying it's yes? Yes. Yes. Yes.

Over here. Yes. Okay. All right. Looking at A through G, uh AB, D1, E, and F are all no or small impact may occur. And then C1 and two, and then D2, we're saying a moderate to large impact may occur. Does everyone agree? Yes. Yes. Okay. U Mr. Chairman, if I may, we're going to go through the whole document and then we're going to go back. Sure. Can't keep going on about number nine right now. I need to move on for a little while. No problem.

Number 10. Impact on uh historic or agricultural Jesus. This impact on historic or archaeological resources. The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. So I think the reason this was yes was because I'd like to hear the guidance as to why. Yes. Well, the site was identified in the EAF mapper, I believe, as being potentially archaeologically sensitive. So, for that reason, you check yes. But they did consult with Shipo and they have a no effect letter from Shipo on the project. So, so if they have a no effect letter from Shipo, what's the historic or archaeological resource? True.

It's it's Shipo's archaeological sensitivity blob. It's called That's not a scientific term. Um but it's the the area on there. No, it's everyone calls it that though. Okay. Um that's on the uh um the New York State DEC's environmental resource mapper. Um it's just a large area where there's potential for archaeology u to be an issue. So the proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. Shipo says it's there's a blob there. No. And then Chipo said they they've consulted. So you could say no on this. Say no because it's not a resource

again. Yeah. I mean, current in or adjacent to a historic I mean, I I would say if it was next to, you know, the if it was adjacent to the uh the churches there on Church Hill or the Taber Wing House or I'm trying I don't I can't point to an historic archaeological resource that's furnace right there. Yeah, do furnace or something. But there's a lot of historic and archaeological resources in town. I just don't know that there's one adjacent to this site. Well, there's not a historic resource. So then it goes to the question of whether there's an archaeological resource. And so it came up as potentially sensitive.

But then they went the next step and they worked with Shipo and they came back and Shipo has agreed that it's not. So right, let's see what the threshold question guidance is. So again, I I mean I would think this is a no then. Yeah. Okay. Oh, are you saying to change the whole thing to know? Well, that's I mean, do you that any of the questions? We have a determination from the state agency that is the authority on this subject, right?

Um that there's this project after reviewing the plans and I think they actually might have done a phase 1A archaeology study. I'm not sure if that's been done, but they reviewed everything that Shipo had asked for and Shipo came back with a no adverse effect letter for the project. Okay. So I think the answer to question 10 is no. That would be appropriate. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to be thorough. I understand. Okay. So number 10 is no. Number 11. Impact on open space and recreation. The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or reduction of an open space resource as designated in and any adopted municipal open space plan. The answer is no. This is pretty clear because it's not a part

impact on critical environmental areas. The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area. So your suggestion is yes, right? Because nearby is the great swamp and that was checked off as uh [snorts] again in the part one it's it gets filled out automatically by uh the EAF mapper. Mhm. Um and it does it does flag the great swamp as being in the area. So um it's appropriate to check yes for that. Just again it says C part one E 3D. Mhm. Um the part one threshold question identified it as being near one. So we check yes. Um

so then a the proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CA. So no or a small impact may occur. Right. and the proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CA. So they're now a small number. Okay. Members of the planning board, any comments or questions on number 12? Not here.

Okay. Number 13, impact on transportation. The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. The answer is no. Number 14, impact on energy. The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. I think in this case, they're generating energy. It's not going to be using much. Um, so right, it's a no. Agreed. No. 15. Impact on noise, odor, and light. Proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. So, your suggestion is yes. Yes.

The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. And there's uh then your suggestion a moderate to large impact may occur. That's my suggestion based on um the fact that we do have a noise study. We haven't fully signed off on it yet. We have some concerns in the neighborhood. [clears throat] We have some knowledge of an existing solar facility not far away that engineer burger I understand is there's been some issues with engine ber if you could maybe expand on that a little bit. So and again the question says may produce. So it's something that we're asking them to study further. Yeah, there's there's a slight sound that comes off of the transformers and the point of connection,

right, that you're you may if they don't properly screen or properly soundproof those pieces of equipment that then the school could and that's part of the sound study that ARF is looking at to see that they do mitigate but as of now they haven't shown full mitigation of it. Okay. If I understand if they do that then the the answer could change. Correct.

Yeah. I think we've we've seen the report. My technical colleagues have been reviewing it. Um they wanted to see some additional backup um that we're waiting to see from the applicant um before they fully signed off quote unquote on the findings. Um we haven't done that. So, I think for now we're still concerned about it as being something that's uh could impact the neighboring properties and the school. Okay. That's your members of board. Any comments or questions on 15 being yes and a being a moderate to large impact? Nope.

Okay. Uh B. The proposed action may result in blasting within 15. Are you doing any There's no blasting proposed. So, no. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day. No. Proposed action may result in uh light shining onto adjoining properties. We're fairly confident that's no or small impact. And I think that's that question relates to like sight lighting, not necessarily. It's not a glare question um per se. Um but that's again that's something that's we can address later on that particular issue. But this has to do with sighting. It could do it. Claire,

the proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. The sun hitting a panel, the panel hitting something. I haven't seen that problem with No, I'm right. I I don't think it is a problem. I'm just saying it could. It's possible. I'm not saying it's a moderate to large impact even. I'm just saying it's possible. Okay. Is it's a small, right? Because we haven't seen that. I mean the the the panels are proposed to move with the sun. Correct. So ide like what is supposed to happen is essentially it's always trying to be parallel with the sun. Therefore any light is reflecting back towards the sun. Correct. Okay. So that would be no or small impact. And the panels now are such that they don't reflect and glare like the original ones did. Correct.

Right. It's in our best interest to absorb you want as much. But that was a problem with the first generation. That's correct. which now resolved, right? But al also if it's static, you know, dawn static problem, it's been changed since the newer panel. Yeah. Okay. The proposed action. So then the proposed action may result in lighting creating sky glow brighter than existing area conditions. No or small impact. I mean, it's probably closer to no, but anything small.

All right. Any com comments or questions on 15 [clears throat] um E through E? Okay. 16. Impact on human health. The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants. Your suggestion is no. I didn't get too high. Um, from the state DC to determine if you need to answer the sub questions in this section, you should ask one, is the project site on, adjacent to, or near a location that contains contaminants that may be disturbed, released, or leeched out? and two, will the proposed project use, create, dispose of, or store any hazardous substances as part of its construction or operation? If the project site is not on, adjacent to, or near a contaminated site or does not use, create or dispose of or store hazardous substances, then there would be no related impacts, check no or small impact maker.

Okay. So I'm proposing though um based on you know there if you look at the aerial photo history of this site it's been pretty much a field as far back as like the 1930s. The DEC database that's used to answer part one didn't show any um documented DEC remediation sites or spill cases on or near the site.

Um they're not going to be storing petroleum products here. Um there's no battery storage as part of this project which is sometimes the case with some solar farms. If any of the hazardous materials would be frankly inside the panels um and those are my understanding is solar panels are considered hazardous waste when they're disposed of after their useful life. Um but while they're operating you know there's there's measures being taken to prevent anything from from leaking out of them right and taking care maintaining them. So with that assumption um the risk of this causing like you know a contamination uh spill as a result of like you know the solar panels is pretty low. So

okay impact on human health. Um we're going to go with the answer being no. Any comments questions? All right. Number 17. Consistency with community plans. proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans and your suggestion is yes. Yes. Yes. Right. Because it is not consistent with community plans. Okay. Uh the proposed action uh land use components may be different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns. Your suggestion is a moderate to large impact may occur.

Yes. And that's because again it's um well the guidance says that a moderate to large impact can be selected if the proposed project is not consistent in its proposed use dimensions of the lot dimensions and location of all structures setback size of the structure accessory uses and overall scale intensity with existing land uses and local laws and plans uh that encourage maintenance of such existing uses. So here we have the solar law that was put into effect. It has setback requirements. Um, this project is not meeting those setback requirements.

Right? So, that would be a moderate to large impact may occur. B. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town, or village in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%. No. C. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. Moderate to large impact may occur. Yes. So, yes. Right. Moderate. Yes. Uh the proposed action is inconsistent with any county plans or other regional land use plans. So no or small impact may occur. The proposed action may cause a change in the density or development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. So no or small impact may occur. Pros action is located in an area characterized by uh low density development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. So no or small impact may occur. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts. Examples are residential or commercial development not included in the proposed action. So no or small impact may occur. Okay. So for number 17, consistency with community plans, the proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. We're saying yes. And we are also then saying that there is that a moderate to large impact may occur for letters A and C. Any members of the planning board have any comments or questions or want to discuss those any further?

No. No. No. No. All right. And then um 18. Consistency with community character. The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. Your suggestion is yes.

Correct. And then going through each of the sub questions, proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. No. Or small impact may occur. Proposed action may create a demand for additional community services, school, police, fire. No. Or small impact may occur. Pros action may displace affordable or lowincome housing in an area where there is a shortage of such such housing. No. Uh the proposed action may interfere with the use of enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. Uh no or small impact may occur. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant uh architectural scale and character. Uh so your suggestion is a moderate to large impact may occur. And then F proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. Um and your suggestion there was no or small impact may occur. Um [snorts] okay so let's look at uh just the guidance on on this consistency with community character. The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character um in so much as there is not other solar arms.

Right. What's what's the predominant community character in this particular area? Right. you have uh single family load density residential a school um you know two major roadways to go through it um and we don't have a utility uh public utility projects located right in this spot right we dealt with uh a substation up the road that you know this was talked about a lot for community character it was this board determined that the character of that area was predominantly high transmission uh electric lines of power plant. So it kind of fit.

Mhm. In this case um this isn't something that is my opinion. Okay. But it the question about um predominant architectural scale and character you know that I checked yes or moderate to large on um has to do with you know bulk and area requirements too and those you can't ignore those and we have a project that's um not meeting those currently

right okay uh and then also proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape um is there guidance on letter Yeah, cuz I mean someone I would think could make an argument that the proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape.

So for that one, small impact criteria or guidance is the project site is located in an area that already has a diversity of vegetation and a mix of cover types and where land uses and the proposed use are similar to or already found nearby. Two, the project activities do not have other significant adverse environmental impacts and the structures are cited in such a manner such as with very large setbacks or significant buffering so that the visual character of the natural landscape is not noticeably different. And three, the change to the natural landscape is small in size and not in sharp contrast to the broader area.

That's a small. So I mean Attorney Polaro I mean we basically in 17 we're addressing the land use concerns with the zoning. Mhm. Can we in a sense double dip on that in 18F where if they were complying with the zoning then there'd be enough setbacks like uh planner Wernern was saying and that it wouldn't um you know because of the setbacks then the proposed action um would be a small impact. It just it seems like because of what they're actually proposing it could be a moderate to large impact. even if they complied with the zoning, you could still find that

in this particular area, it doesn't it's not consistent with the scale and character of the area and then, you know, decide whether that's small or moderate. So, I don't I don't think I think even if it complied, you could still find that on this particular property in this particular part of town, it's it's inconsistent. Can I read the moderate to large guidance? Yeah.

Okay. significant portions of uh in size and in importance to the community of the natural landscape are removed or changed such as through blasting, grading, filling or removal of predominant vegetation growing in the area. Two, there are more buildings, lawns, roads, and other structures introduced into an area that is currently rural and undeveloped. [clears throat] Three, a proposed project includes a road that is highly visible where no other built features can be seen. Four, structures taller than the predominant vegetation are introduced. I mean the predominant vegetation is trees that are scrubs shrubs and trees scrubby at the same time. You could argue with it either way, [clears throat]

right? So all right. So um I would say we're checking off. Yes. I'd say as of this moment out of abundance of caution I would say proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape that a moderate to large impact may occur. It doesn't mean it will occur that it may occur but obviously I'm one person here. Correct. Thoughts? Correct. I agree. You agree or Williams? I'm on the fence on that one. On the fence over here, you agree? Okay. Changing the landscape.

It's not easy. Just that it's not that changing, but it's inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. But like member Williams said, he's on the fence. I mean, that's what And member Wano said, it could go either way.

So there's no box in between though. We have to choose one of them. So um All right. Uh I mean three of us agree that the proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. Every decision of this planning board needs to be four members. Um, so, uh, really up to you, you guys. Not trying to put it on you. It's just I just, you [laughter] know, it's just

I mean, it's just, you know, it's like it could go either way. That's that's the problem like you said. So, I would defer to um the planner in his decision. Who will defer to the attorney who will defer to me? [laughter] Whatever you think right now the plan you referred to the planner planner warner let's hear what you have to say okay you [clears throat] original suggestion was that a no or small impact may occur so looking at the guidance as I know you do you thought that why

um yeah I mean the when I looked at the four guiding factors for moderate to large I didn't see anything that stood out because they're not like destroying the landscape, right? There's no like predominant roadway. I mean, I was listening through all four of them. It didn't seem like And again, this can revert back to what it was when the project ends. True. Um, true. So, right, they're keeping the natural slope. Well, in some sense, trying to work with the terrain. That's what these projects usually do.

Right. Can you read through the moderate to large impact guidance again for 18F, please? significant portions in size and in importance to the community of the natural landscape are removed or changed such as through blasting, grading, filling, or removal of predominant vegetation growing in the area. All right, so stop there. Let's just do each one. There's no blasting, there's no removal or very little removal. Um again when we had our sitewalk I remember that member Holmes uh who is a arborist said these aren't trees worth caring about where they were going to cut down trees like in the western part of it kind of over the the edge of the hill.

Mhm. Um they have a forestry [clears throat] report that supports that finding as well. So okay what's the second one? There are more buildings, lawns, roads, and other structures introduced into an area that is currently rural and undeveloped. So, there's an access road over here. We are introducing the solar panels to an area where there's not a solar panel. Okay. A proposed project includes a road that is highly visible where no other built features can be seen. That's not No, that's not. And then structures taller than the predominant vegetation are introduced.

No. How tall are the solar panels? They're right. 15. When the tables are in their most upright position, 15 ft. 15 ft. So, possibly possibly taller than the shrubs and bushes, right? Especially if it's up on the hill. And Williams, what do you think? I'm going with the planner and the planner saying

you already have another moderate to large in this category, right? So to be extra thorough, you could add this one to it too. And it's all part of the same uh thing we're asking them to look at, which is just they just might have to do some additional study. It all falls under issue of visibility, compatibility, and consistency with the community character. So I I don't see the harm in having that checked off. So you don't see the harm being moderate to large? No. Okay. Remember William? Okay. So we're going to change it to moderate to large. Yes. Okay. All right. So that's the end of the document. Nothing

I would add. What? Well, there is just something to think about. Um, the DEC is in the process of updating the EAFS. Yeah, sure. It's not official yet, but there's a new category that has to do with environmental justice and disadvantaged communities. Um, and when has it become official? No idea because they haven't announced when. They've only they released the proposed changes earlier this year. They had a comment period that ended over the summer, I want to say. And as of now, they haven't given any guidance on when this is going to be official, but they are January 1st

advising lead agencies in areas that are designated as disadvantaged communities, which we are in one. Wingdale has been designated as one. The census tracks that make up Wingdale are identified as a DAC. It's called the disadvantaged community. Yeah. um that they should start that they should assume you know look at these issues um in determining significance and if there's an environmental impact statement that it should include um an analysis of that is the proposal which they haven't adopted yet right DC took two years to adopt the new storm order they take 90 days to do nothing so but there's also DC has a role in this and that if DC has a permit that they have to issue

they have to look at it Um, and they have to do an analysis too under the law under the environmental justice sighting law. So, and I believe this does have a permit requirement for speedies, state pollution discharge elimination system requirements storm water for storm water. So, the DEC has a permitting role here. So, they would be looking at this uh these new regulations uh if and when they get around to adopting them, right? So, I mean the the conservative thing to do would be for you as lead agency to have this addressed so that it's covered by your environmental review. That would be I'd like to hear from the attorney saying that we should do something that we're not required to do. So, it look if

I'm not opposed to it. I just don't want to say yes, we have to do this and then the you know the applicant could be like well you don't have to do it. You're choosing to do it and that's a problem. Well, you don't have to. But at this point, if right now you have an EAF form that does identify some potentially large impacts, yes, the next step is for you to evaluate whether those impacts can be changed uh mitigate through project change or whether you want to go to a positive declaration which would trigger a scoping document. Right? If you go the the EIS route as part of scoping,

you could include this um new what uh disadvantaged communities discussion because it would just be one more thing they have to address as part of the scoping document which gives you broad discretion to identify potential impacts and I think that would be appropriate since it's coming anyways, right? And a change could happen while you're in the middle of review. Sure. Okay. But just with all that being said, yeah, there's no 11th page in this document. No, it's 10 pages. It's not something we look at at this moment. Okay. And you know, this came up with the transcope project as well. Yes, I know. Yeah. So, it still wasn't adopted then. At that time, it was definitely not applicable and now it's potentially applicable in the future. So,

so to follow up on the stormwater permit, which is the only state permit they're going to go for, right now there are no guidance within the storm water eggs, right? to take that in consideration when we file an NOI, which is the notice of intent intent for a storm water. So, we're not being advised to look into it, do any of that as part of our NOI. So, they would if they were to file their NOI within the period of time that we're working, right? It would not come up. But if if you're going to scoping, then it is prudent to include it at that point as one more thing for them to take a look at, which a lot of a lot of EIS's are doing around the state. I can attest to that, right? But we're not at the point of an EIS, right? Saying that that's happening this form. Okay.

We have a lot of All right. So, let's just do a quick review of the yeses and just no decisions been made by this planning board. We're going to review the yeses. We're gonna give the um we're review the S's. Uh we're going to um reviewing the S's the way they were originally. No, they are on this form in front of all the us on the screens.

Okay. So, is this considered something that we're going to review because it was checked? Yes. or is it something we're going to ignore because we said we were going to change it to no? We can review every single one of these if you want. Well, I just want to say that I are we going to vote on approving everything as being final as far as this form goes tonight because I would like to take a look at the uh the historic survey.

Right. We we do not have to vote on it tonight. Um and certainly especially considering quorum is four people and there's four of us if one of us is not comfortable then there is no vote. So my proposal right my suggestion right now is let's just review through these um uh we can uh you know I I think it it would be prudent to uh you know just check through the uh 12 um comments we had at the at the at the public hearing and then um you know there was some additional comments that came in just to you know see what um make sure we're not missing anything from the public and uh then obviously you know the consultant can give their input as to what they think uh for each of these answers. All right. So what we're saying now is that um impact on land yes but that there's no or small impact on the other parts of it. Number two is no that was um geological features. Uh number three impacts in surface water is yes. Uh but all the sub questions were a no or small impact. Number four is impact on groundwater and that was no. Number five is impact on flooding and that was no. Number six impacts on air that was no. Number seven impacts on plants and animals. Uh that's yes but all the um sub questions were small impact break if that's okay. I don't want to miss anything, but

sorry, what? Restroom break really quick. You're free to go. I just want to make sure that's okay. Uh number eight, impact on agricultural resources. Uh yes. Uh but a no or small impact on all uh sub questions of number eight. Number nine, impact on aesthetic resources. So we are answering uh the question is yes and we are answering three or rather not well we're checking off three boxes for moderate to large impact may occur under number nine. Okay.

Uh so impact on aesthetic resources the land use of the proposed action are uh obviously different from or in the sharp contrast to current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. for saying yes and that letter C the proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points and that that will have a seasonal and yearround moderate to large impact maybe may because it's may occur and D the situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is uh uh number two recreational or tourism based activities that that may have a moderate to large impact that may occur uh 10. We're saying no on um impact on historic and archaeological resources right now. But u maybe uh member Ladier would like some more time on number 10. Um number 11, uh impact on open space and recreation. No. Number 12, impact on critical environmental areas. Yes. Um but we're saying that there no or a small impact may occur. Number 13, impact on transportation. No. Number 14, impact on energy. No. And just to be clear for everyone, it's because the proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. Um, so we're saying that that's no,

it's going to be generating energy. Generating, not using.

15. Impact on noise, odor, and light. Uh, yes. And that letter A, the proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. and that uh that may have a that a moderate to large impact may occur and the rest are no or small impact. 16. Impact on human health. No. 17. Consistency with community plans. Yes. Uh that the pros action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. Uh so again saying yes means that we're saying it's not consistent and that uh we're saying that for letter A the proposed actions land use components may be different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use pattern or and C the proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations saying for both of those that a moderate to large impact may occur. And number 18, uh, the proposed action is inconsistent with the existing community character. We're saying yes, propose action is inconsistent is inconsistent. And that, uh, for letter E, the proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character. And F, the proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape, saying that a moderate to large impact may occur. Okay. All right. Um, okay. So, did anyone uh was there anything from any of the public's comments that kind of jumped out um for anyone in terms of again [clears throat] this um the filling out of uh this form? Uh I'm seeing a number of people who are saying

that um they may be in favor of solar, but this is not just not the right spot for it. And that I think speaks to community character. [clears throat]

Um um I think you know some people have um some concerns about um construction noise and traffic during construction but uh you know I as as we fill out this form we believe that those would have a a small impact and not a moderate or large impact. Um [clears throat] uh the cutting of trees and clearing of land um minimal uh concerns of over glare. We think that is probably not a concern is what we're with just the current uh technology. Um the um I mean it is it is you know someone brought up about this proximity to uh Wingdale Elementary. Uh I mean I walked from the back of Wingale Elementary to the site. I mean there is some buffering of we did that I think on the first sitewalk.

Very first

the very first sitewalk. Yeah. I think there there's certainly some tree buffering there. I mean, I think the only people who would see the uh the um the solar farm from there are maybe any of the staff that use the there's like a little table in the woods, I think, where they go on a break, right? [snorts] Um so, and if that is a true concern, I mean, I I would think that the we could ask the consultants to do some like the consultants, we could ask the applicants to do some screening or something uh if it's uh appropriate. um that and then you know obviously a number of people brought up that that's you know it doesn't comply with the zoning or zoning that they need um to go to the ZBA. Um, okay. Was there anything else that um got that anyone?

No. Okay. No. No. Okay. All right. Um, so you've heard us go through this form. I'm sure you have some thoughts. Okay. Sure. Go ahead. Thank you. Um, yeah. So, um I'll just skip right to section nine. Um we agree with everything up to that point. Um we agree with 1 through eight. That's correct. Yeah. So, we are we're satisfied with those. All right. Um so, we're halfway there cuz we're on page six.

Yep. I'm going to try to make this easy on everybody. Um so, we'll skip the page nine. Um, we also would agree with changing 9A to no or small impact may occur. Um, with respect to 9C, um, the proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points, seasonally or year round. Um, we just want to note that it's important to note that secret distinguishes between visibility and a significant adverse visual impact. Visibility in and of itself doesn't necessarily constitute a moderate to large impact under Seeker. Um the distance between the project and the vantage point at Boyce Park nearly 3/4 of a mile

makes it uh difficult to credibly argue that its visual presence will be a significant or detrimental impact. And you can see that in the VIA where you see the outlook. It looks over thousands of acres of land and in leaf off conditions. Yeah, you you'll be be able to see the solar panels from up there. But um we believe that's a a small impact if any. Um I just want to do it I guess a just a check-in right now to your reasonability. So if it was if you were proposing this on the upper fields of Boyce Park where from that van from that vantage point you'd be looking right down on top of them. Would you say that that's a moderate to large impact?

I think if it took up a huge portion of the viewshed yeah I might agree with that. But I think as it is now, you can see that, you know, just like when you're at the top of a tall building and the cars and people look like ants, we're threequarters of a mile away. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it's pretty far away. So, we think that the visual impact uh the visual impact assessment um speaks for itself in that regard. Sure. Um I'll skip to then. Sure. Just I'm just I'm acknowledging you said something. I'm not agreeing. Okay. [laughter] Again, these are just remember the qu the no or small or moderate to large is may occur, right? And it's basically the planning board's an elite agency's way of saying

we don't have enough info. Maybe you can provide a little bit more if that takes the form of more submissions or a different type of submission in a different type of document. We can get to that then that's what this is saying. Sure. Okay. Um D2.

Yep. uh situation or activity in which viewers are engaged in while viewing the proposed action is recreational tourism based activities. Again, the visual change is small in scale to the surrounding landscape. The the view shed from Boyce Park again spans thousands of acres where there's limited visibility during leaf off conditions. Also want to point out that most recreational use of that trail would occur during leaf on conditions where it would be less visible. Um so that would further mitigate that potential impact. Um, I'm sure people go up there in the winter. I would if if I lived here, but um, just to point that out.

We anticipate majority of that going on during the summer. Um, 15A. So, we'll skip down to section 15 again. Um, everything 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Uh, we're in agreement with um the question about 15A. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. Um we understand that there are outstanding questions on the noise study. We have obtained additional information from the manufacturers on that and we'll share that with the planner. Um but that confirms that the noise study as it's submitted is accurate and that those measurements of the baseline were taken at 1 meter or about 3 ft. Um so that just confirms that that noise study uh should be accurate. Um it clearly shows that the noise levels are considered [clears throat] quote very quiet on a typical sound pressure uh relative loudness scale. Um the town of Dover zoning law prohibits noise in excess of 50 dB during nighttime hours as measured at the property line.

Um that threshold goes up to 60 um during the daytime hours. The project is well below the 50 decel threshold at all times at the property line. So we would anticipate that that would be no or small impact. Um sort of further to that point um it's important to to remember that th those noise studies are taken in uh chambers with no topography, no vegetative buffers and no wind, no humidity, no ambient conditions of any kind, no road noise, no noise from train tracks. So um when you sort of add that all back in um those factors being present in practice uh we don't anticipate that the project would produce a moderate to large impact under seeker regarding noise.

Okay. I mean I guess I'm can you clarify why you would point out all those other factors? I mean it's you're trying to make it out to be like we're supposed to isolate your noise from every other noise but that's not the real world. there's noise and you are potentially adding to the noise, right? And so you can't add to the noise at the property line. We can't ignore all the other noise, right? But and then like well your noise isn't so I mean if your noise pushes it over the threshold, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Yeah. We don't live in a lab. Like that's right.

Yeah. Um I would say that if there's ambient noise at the property line that's louder than what is in the noise study, we can't control that. What we do in the noise study is we say isolated this is what it is at this distance and decibel levels don't get added up like building blocks. That's not really how it works. It's a logarithmic scale. No, it's a logarithmic scale. I know that. No, but I'm saying is it's say it's 49 dB at the property line. You do whatever you're doing and now it's 51 dB at the property line. That's not what's allowed. Yeah. Um, again, I would say that the noise study, you know, we believe that as it's done, it's accurate and

Right. I'm not saying that you're going to exceed the the the level. We're just having concerns about it at this time. Yeah. But I would say that that wouldn't result as the noise study shows, it wouldn't result in a moderate to large impact because what we understand is that the noise produced [snorts] from our system wouldn't exceed those thresholds just like it's written in in the bylaw. Okay. We just we need to look at that. No been decided yet. And again, we we have that question from the planner and we'll we'll provide that additional documentation. I would question though whether there's actually maybe something we need to add under F other impacts because I understand that technically they might not be exceeding the decibel limit in the code. I know engineer Berser talked of like a low hum

but there there could be the potential for a really annoying sound that doesn't exceed it but that is constant. And that's in our code it actually states that The decibb is one measure. There's also the distracting [snorts] sound right description within that noise ordinance which doesn't have a quantification [snorts] in decibb more of hearing. Yep. So I don't know if the report has actually addressed that. I don't believe it does, but and or maybe we put it under other impacts, which is, you know,

uh potential to create um constant there's a there's a word for it, ambient sound, ambient noise. I'm not sure if you have it'll just change the ambient noise. Um, everybody in the board is familiar with generators who produce that similar type

other type of small ACs and and create that. And when you're in an urban environment, what we do is we put acoustical panels around those. And we did that [snorts] at Cricut Valley when we had to hum from some of the air compressors and some of them. We were still under the 50 dB, but they were still clearly sounding on the on the road and at the property line. So what Cricut Valley did was place acoustical panels around, right? So that those sounds would be absorbed or deflected back to the site, right?

And it did solve the [snorts] problem. So there are mitigating measures if the applicant chooses to presuppose them or not, but there are mitigation measures to to mitigate the if you want to call it the hum or the annoying sound that may in fact be under the 50 dB, especially at nighttime when the ambient noise around 22 drops to it fluctuates because I've spent many many a night on 22 taking sound readings for Cricut Valley and Transcope and it'll run between 45 up to 60 dB. But when the cars aren't driving, you're 2 in the morning, you start hearing, you look at the sound meter, you're down around 45 dB, but you're hearing some sounds.

Sure. And that's those are the sounds we're concerned with, right? Um, is that all right if I any recollection as to where in 107 it points to like the uh the reference to the decimal level is in 145 I believe right but the the noise ordinance is is 107 I think it's it's 107-3A the creation of any unreasonable disturbing disturbing or unnecessary noise interpretive how you not it's not a black and white So

then the things underneath it are per se annoying or disturbances, but in a there's leeway for something to be of such a character that it's a disturbance. So we used a cricket belly to to try to So there's there's just two thoughts here. So, one, I I certainly do not want to leave a project with a community that people find it is constantly annoying them from their sound perspective and uh inhibiting their ability to enjoy their property. Mhm. Cricut Valley to distinguish is an 1100 megawatt AC project and ours is um

4.2 4.2 megawatts AC. So, there's a difference there. Oh yeah, no one's saying they're it's the same thing. And and I think to address like the potential concern, I know that we are not there right this second,

but we would be amendable to if we get there and hopefully when we get there, um including a condition of approval that builds into the process. Um, if a formal complaint is submitted and the building inspector or the town engineer inspects the site and finds that the sound is annoying because everyone's, you know, discretion is different, what they consider annoying, they say, "Yeah, that's pretty unreasonable to deal with, then we will be responsible for providing some form of mitigation." Um, but I think at at this post, you're saying post construction?

Post construction. at this time. Uh I I I would be candid to say I don't know what we would ask the manufacturers to provide. Um as far as like what annoying noises their equipment produces. Um we we do have the decibel ratings, but I I think that might be a reasonable uh solution for consideration to that. Right. Well, in Tresco, what we did was provided a post prior to accepting the plant that once it got and we're in that process right now,

not only doing the sound study, but at the discretion of the building inspector and myself, we're going to be monitoring the sound studies at the conclusion. And if there are additional issues that we have that they're going to they're going to remediate that before we give them a sign off, right? I think if anything this board chooses to do it should be prior to giving a sign off and during the uh you know the startup of the uh facility is when it should be checked not six months later after it's done right because it' be difficult to get that that done once it's signed off. Okay. if the board chooses to do that.

And in your experience with the other solar farm in town, do you have you heard it like No, the location here. Luckily, it's not too bad. And we did put a lot of trees up to help with the sound, right? Uh we did have issues, Don and I. We had several issues after it was done and before we signed off for over six months when we worked with them and right one of the solutions was adding a lot lot of trees along the buffer between the one residents that group of residents on the west there's like two or three yeah houses there.

Yeah. Right there on the north side and we buffered them from where the uh facility was on the far south side. So we were concerned, we did have concerns, but they worked with us by and their solution was adding additional buffering with trees, natural buffer. Right. Okay. All right. So, attorney Polar, do you I mean, do you think there is a potential I mean, I'm just trying to distinguish between the an actual noise level established by the local regulation and then F, which might be, you know, potential for persistent low frequency humming or sound.

Okay. Um I I don't know. It's up to the board whether you think that there's a potential for potential for what is uh I think it's low frequency humming or low frequency. Is it low frequency? Is it high frequency? I'm not sure whether it's low or high. I just don't. Okay. Just potential for humming. I'm not electrical so I don't it's persistent humming from a You think it's like I've been in many electrical rooms. You think you think the product's fy? It's just going to be humming. Yeah. [laughter] No potential for I don't know if I could persistent humming or persistent uh noise level that would result in the ambient noise condition to be

an annoyance. Usually it's not late in the night time when all the local sound drops down below 50. During the day you don't notice it. So if you go out there in the day and you walk around, you said there's no problem there because the ambient noise is up around 60 to 70 dB. At night, our system won't be producing electricity. So right maybe that's true. It's a solar farm. He's right. That's true. But someone they were hing on the other one. So right solar expert I just know Yeah. what we heard. Right. Sure. So uh let me just go to this. Maybe the newer equipment is better too. And that should be pointed out that that's an older solar farm. [snorts]

Um, I think what they're proposing with the mitigation stuff is something the board can consider because it's creation of a annoyance. Creation of a disturbing noise or and then I think that would create annoyance create a risk of annoyance. Oh, here we go. Yeah. Yeah. If you look at the last sentence.

Yes. Yes. That's where she wants to go. that could you know like what was done by the other solar farm there was increase in the tree buffer between those was all was it absorbs the sound all the blocks create may create annoyances. So, so their suggestion to uh provide mitigation down the road could be part of the modified or solar study, right Aaron? as and that brought forward as a whole. Correct.

Um yeah, there's a few ways it can be done, right? they could update their study now, but also the board's on the at the point of trying to make a determination of significance um where we could, you know, if it goes one way, if it's if there's enough here that they warrant um that this be a positive declaration and there's an environmental impact statement that we get the noise study just gets incorporated into that um EIS process and gets reviewed by us again, the public, you know, and then there's mitigation that's proposed as part what's what an EIS is supposed to do, which is introduce mitigation that can be uh done to address the adverse impact that's potentially identified. So, we can continue um reviewing submissions. Um or we could take it to another step which is a formal environmental impact statement process which is prescribed. it has

right you you already have an issue with um zoning inconsistency and you know you have the zoning board expressing concern you have the public expressing concern so you know that's another way it can go or we can continue reviewing submissions and making findings off of those um to an eventual negative declaration if that's what the board wants to do. There's a couple of paths you can take. All right. So, attorney Polado, uh, potential for persistent noise which may create annoyance and contravention to local regulation. Yeah.

Okay. Members of the planning board, uh, uh, number 15, uh, impact on noise, odor or and light. Letter F. Other impacts potential for persistent noise which may create noise and controvention of local regulation. Um there a moderate to large impact may occur. Is that agreed? Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. All right. So, you were saying in letter A, you don't think that uh and also you don't agree with letter F. That's correct. Okay. So, let's just get down to the real meat of all this. So, 16 is a no. 17 Yeah. is consistent with community plans and 18 consistent with community character. Right. This as proposed goes against local zoning. It's your turn.

Sure. So for 17A the the proposed actions land use [clears throat] components may be different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns. Um to that we would say you know the project was studied carefully um with respect to existing vegetation natural topography to help reduce the contrast of surrounding land use patterns. Um if you can't see it you can't tell that it contrasts existing land use patterns. Um, we've conducted some additional analysis on the visual impacts of specific homes in the area and what we're going to do in the submission that's forthcoming for February is we'll propose screening to address those to make sure that

everybody is screened out effectively. [snorts] Um, you know, we've talked a little bit about other uses in the area. There are other uses in the area that are comparable in scale, character, and land use. Those would include the other solar farm in Wingdale. Um uh there is a large agricultural operation with greenhouse infrastructure covering more than 8 acres just over half a mile away north of the site. There is a modular home manufacturing facility covering approximately 11.3 acres um just about a half a mile northeast of the site as well. So we we feel as though that would be a small uh impact there. Right. For [snorts] um 17C, the proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. Um you know, the comprehensive plan does call out amending the zoning code to include solar and alternative energy use. Solar isn't allowed use in the rural district by special use permit. Um although the project does not comply with three specific dimensional provisions in the solar law, it's compliant with the remainder of the law, which is pretty extensive. Um and the project does not require a use variance um and is largely consistent with the town solar law

except for those specific dimensional requirements um for and that's that's all the comments we had for section 17.

Um moving down to section 18. So 18E the proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character. Um, you know, although the project, like I said, does require uh area variances due to the irregular shape of the lot. The com the previously completed Caesar with Nice Egg, um, that sizes the project at 4.2 megawws. The project's occupying 16 acres out of a 48 plus acre lot. So that's about 33% of the lot. Um, the project is designed to minimize the height of structures. um specifically placing all the utility lines underground where we can except for where they sort of rise to meet the lines that exist on the road. Um agricultural districts in New York are working landscapes that routinely include barn silos, irrigation equipment, other visible infrastructure. It's not agricultural zone, but we've talked about farmland a little bit and there's there's others in the area. Um and then again, we would, you know, refer to the other uses in the area that I identified for for 17. um and would say that you know the project's height, scale, finish are consistent with the working landscape. Um [snorts] and uh are less intrusive than other permissible abuses in this district if anything. Um and then I'll note for 18F proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. I I would ask what is consistent with the character [cough] of the existing natural landscape. Um I think planner warner mentioned blasting buildings things of that nature. This this is nowhere near that scale. Um so we would we would argue that that should be marked as a no or small impact on 18F. Um and that is all I had except for just a few notes. Um we've talked a little bit

about sort of the the routes we can go. Planner Werners mentioned um sort of two [clears throat] choices here and to that we would you know obviously say that we would much prefer to work [clears throat] with submitting new materials and work directly with planner warner and directly with this board to address these concerns here as opposed to going the full environmental impact statement route represents you know a significant delay in the project. I think there's been ample opportunity for the public to get uh acquainted with the project and we've you know obviously committed to um trying to be as transparent as we can creating this this website so people have easy access to the latest materials. Um we currently have an open public hearing before the planning board. Um and as you all know we need to get the seeker uh termination done in order to get back to the sorry the zoning board I just misspoke. Yeah, we don't.

Right. So, we have a open public hearing in front of the before the zoning board.

Um, that'll remain open until we sort of uh work through seeker here and we would ask for the opportunity to work through these issues here, get back to the zoning board and continue discussing those area variances with them um without having to go through the full process feeling as though that's um maybe a little excessive. We've submitted a lot of materials. We're happy to submit more um but we're not sure, you know, we talked a little bit about proposing mitigation potentially for any um noise impacts that occur if they do occur. Uh things of that nature were happy to talk through more of, but um not sure what going through a full environmental impact statement would really benefit anyone. Um so, uh I think I'll leave it there.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, any members of the planning board have any comments or questions at this time? I'm here. Okay, member. Everything good? Just give me a minute. Okay, we're still recording, right? Yeah, we're still recording. Okay, I see it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, member, you would like to have more time to review you like the stream. Well, different parts of or at least one part of this.

Just wanted the [clears throat] historic survey. [snorts] It says in or adjacent to Yeah. So, okay. I mean, is that okay or is that going to be like major change in the calendar? isn't getting video. Streamy isn't getting video. It's still recording though. She's got to check into it. Okay. But it's still recording. What? She said it's still recording. Yes. Okay. So, it's still recording. So, streaming is not working. YouTube. It's just

Yeah. Okay. All right. So, um I mean hearing from uh member little over here uh that she may be more time to review uh a part of this uh and knowing that we need four members of the planning board to uh vote. Uh I don't know that there is an uh uh I think the vote would be potentially 300 with an abstension and then that's and then that's not a a positive vote. So, um, uh, I would say that as of right now, this is the current thinking of the four planning board members that were here tonight.

And we have just change it back to I mean, I don't want to I don't It's not I mean, no, I don't have any idea what we were supposed to get through tonight because I wasn't able to come to the meeting. Yeah, that's okay. So, I only changed it. So, I didn't print PL print out all of the uh what the plan was. So, is part of the plan for tonight that we have to get through this? No, I mean we we got through this. It's the part of the plan tonight. It is not that we have to vote on it.

Oh, okay. Yeah. I mean, you know, if if there was a majority of the seven members of the planning board that wanted to vote on this tonight, then we could vote on this tonight. But, um, you know, I think it might be best just given how there was a number of things where, you know, a number of points in this where it seemed like, well, could be a small impact, could be a moderate to large impact. You know, maybe we all should need to just uh take a step back. We have another meeting in three weeks, right? And and voting. I mean, all you would be voting on anyways would be the form of the part two because the next real substantive vote is whether or not you want to do a NAGDA or a PADC. Yeah. And so what

but I I don't want to say like no, we need to vote tonight and then 3 weeks from now you or whatever like you know someone else is like you know what actually now that I think about it I don't want to go back on a vote like that. what what you could authorize in the meantime um is for the consultants to start working up a part three draft um you know maybe with options that could be modified so that at the next meeting uh you could either be prepared you could be prepared to vote or not just to kind of keep it moving along through the process. Okay. It's the part three on the form itself, not like a poll. Well, yeah. Reasoned, right? Well, no. I mean, with reasoning. Based on the current one paragraph in the form.

True. Based on the current choices that the planning board members have made of yes and no. And and so the applicant has asked, I mean, this is where this is where the the decision point is going to come. Um, you've identified some potentially large impacts. Mhm. And now the moderate to large impacts. Yeah. But the the moderate it's the large that sure that triggers the the posex. So the applicant is has asked you you know give me a chance. Let me address this and prove to you it's not going to be a large impact through project change and through some design plans. Right?

So the path can be to wait to see what happens with the applicant. Hold off your vote. or you go forward through the formal process which will then give them the opportunity to present that information but in a more formal setting where there's going to be you know mandated public comment and mandated scoping right and and timelines so that the process um has a a clear path sure how it's going to continue

if if we're you're thinking about having the applicant and respond to these. Should you should we the planning board wait until that response comes in before you discuss this and put this off until we get a time when we have them and do you have a time period when you could reply? I mean obviously you're not replying in the next two days. So that's [laughter] right. Yeah. So you're not making that deadline. Correct. I I would ask if you could um help us understand what you would like to see, you know, in addition to what we've talked about here with the commitment to um evaluate [clears throat] any noise impacts. What else can we provide you? Um

whatever mitigation based on where the yeses were and there's a moderate to large impact, right? you have to provide your answer to mitigation to them to pull them down to not large or some study or some you know something factual that says you know you think it's moderate to it may be moderate to large but in fact here's why it's small

true and and you know again I would as you all know reiterate you can have you know things checked off moderate to large and still you know issue a negative declaration under seeker um just want to state that so yeah we'd be happy to do that as I said earlier We're working on a submission that gets to the screening. Um, so I think that should get to some of the community character questions for the February meeting. Anyways, so if Yeah, [clears throat] if you would like to I would just add that, you know, one of the things that the seeker process is good at doing is it can initiate changes to a project, right?

Um, it can be done in this fashion. It could be done through a formal EIS where there's um alternatives that are mentioned, right, that you have to that you're required to take a look at. Um so there's another ways to go. It's just as as attorney Paladoro was alluding to. Um you know, an environmental impact statement process does have prescribed milestones, prescribed timelines. Um and you know, you have an involved agency here in the ZBA that's waiting for you to make those findings, right? and they can't act until they have that and they would be a participant in the process as well if you were to go that route. Um to summarize

as an involved agency. So, it's your it's the board's decision to decide if you want to continue with just what's basically an expanded EAF with supplemental studies that we review and comment and they you know to your satisfaction or move forward to um a formal environmental impact statement where a lot of this stuff will be rolled into that um and repeated which is which is done a lot um but you have a timeline and you have milestones and a process that right is good for everybody

formally Couldn't the applicant provide a draft part three to the planner that the consultants to review and incorporate into what typically the town prepares as a part three to present their position on why these may or may not be uh actionable or or disputing what the town is saying and that format could be as a draft part three for the town to review. Correct. Yeah. I think the only issue would be that I mean in summary you want us to keep moving but you don't like this document that you're looking at. So the idea that they would propose a part three would be we don't like this here's what we like

I mean I'm being simplistic but let's just kind of get this over with. So what that would look like is that's something that you did for Harlem Valley Homestead like all the all the areas that were checked moderate to large on the part two. Um the applicant prepared a part three report that kind of went through had each question and then a whole narrative underneath about why it's not a moderate to large impact or it's being mitigated. That's another way I was suggesting be done and draft is not for the board to accept or use. It's just presented to the board for consideration

instead of just speaking it in an oral environment here the record more present it to the board in a formal environment as part of seeker. Yeah, we we definitely will formalize I think some of the responses that we had covered and provide documentation to lean on which is you know again hard to bring up verbally as well as imagery and such. Are you anticipating that you would be able to meet you were talking about February, right? There's a deadline for January 14th. Yeah. Okay. I mean I think I think that's reasonable. people do stuff in the next two weeks that kind of gets away from

you know we we we definitely do we definitely do want to make an effort to keep this moving forward and and it's not I guess our preference is either direction. I don't I don't want to try and sway the board in one decision or another. Your preference is either direction. That's as far as as as far as a formal EIS or not. Right. I I what I would ask though is that the consideration when entering into an EIS a big part of that is exploring the alternatives that are viable as well as the mitigation

if if essentially this project has been before the planning board for a year. We have been providing mitigation additional studies justification behind alternatives or why we can't entertain those alternatives. Mhm. We we can further go down, you know, each one of those um and continue to look at those, but I guess the question is like what value well the EIS would would potentially provide. I can address that. We we can again we're happy to do it.

And I want to start just by saying the year bit is a little misleading because you weren't really actively before the board for a year. Um, so I just for the record I want to make sure that's clear. Um, you really only came back in October in Ernst. Um, so the the the benefit to the AAS process, um, as we've discussed it is that we've had applications before where um, information comes in and then we say, "Oh, oh, you know what, one more issue." And then another issue comes up and it ends up dragging on dragging out. Yeah. For months and months and months, right? uh because either we didn't know about a potential issue, it came up during a public hearing.

And what that does is it causes, you know, at that point the applicant gets mad that things are being raised last minute. The planning board feels like, oh, I'm sorry we're raising this. The public feels like they're not 28 condos never get built. And so the the the benefit in a project like this, which is I will say going to be considered somewhat controversial compared to other projects we've had, is that it provides a clear process for getting all the impacts out at a specific time and then um right having them reviewed so that there's not these Yeah. drip drip drip here's a document. What do you think of the document? Right.

Yeah. So, so that is the benefit not necessarily an alternate discussion in this particular case. It is useful in other projects. Um, but but a process. Mhm. But you know, we've done the expanded NEG deck before too and it's worked. It's just Yes. But we again remember we have these new possible changes. the seeker and the our identification of disadvantaged community and environmental justice issues with a community that's been voicing a lot of concern about these types of projects being concentrated in the town. So

um while I don't think I'm not going to draw conclusions but the the idea of the analysis for in that case is to determine if something is causing an um disproportionate pollution burden on on the public. I wouldn't argue, you know, it's hard to make a lot of arguments that a solar farm pollutes necessarily, but um, you know, looking at it cumulatively like with other, um, other utility projects, that's part of what the analysis makes you do, right? So, it's just again, it's just it's something that's coming. Um, it's been raised by the public and it's something that is worth looking at just to protect the town. Okay. So, we have our our homework cut out for us.

Yes. We're going to aim to submit at at least a draft part three for the planning board and the council to review. What they do with that, that's entirely up to you all. Um,

well, have yourself a merry little submission. [laughter] the updated uh site plan will be submitted and we'll also try and get some additional uh information regarding the noise study. Um is there I guess is there anything else at at this moment in time that the the board or the council feels would be potentially useful to address some of the topics that we've covered specifically or Not for me. No. Members of the planning board, anything further? Anything jumping off the page for you?

Do you propose to take a look at the new potential question 19 on the forms, which is has to do with the environmental justice sighting? And we all we all looked at the screen like it was going to appear. Yeah, it's on like nope, still not there. Something to consider. Um, question 19 TV. I mean, this is like like we're waiting for like like an Avengers trailer to drop or something. Like [laughter] when's it going to happen? Who knows? Going to be thrilling, though. Um, again, cuz it has DC permits. It's something that I don't think it's we should ignore it, but um it's come up with them.

I agree. But I don't know. I can't We got to just move on with our lives here. Like I would say if the DEC responds back in relation to the permit requesting that information, we can certainly provide that. I I truthfully don't even know like what the question is at this point to address. I understand whether you're going to have a disproportionate impact on a disadvantaged area. I mean it's you can you can give us information on that. Would the would the planning board uh request that information as part of our supplemental submission? Yes. Yeah. Sure.

Okay. [laughter] I just I don't I I don't want to request something that is just like not required, but that might be required at some point. Changes and the guidance and they have it, you know, they have an analysis tool that's on the EC's website. I would just take a look at that and we we can definitely take a ponder that's that's exactly not just the question but like the criteria and how we justify or quantify that. Um if it is publicly available we certainly can take a look at it and uh include that in our draft part three response. Great. Anything further you wanted to discuss?

No. Thank you. Did you want to propose like a question 20 for the DEC to consider in the future about Sure. impacts on AI with respect [clears throat] to project. [cough] All right. Um, thank you. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Member Palmer, you can come back to adjourn the meeting, I guess. Oh, I think he probably left. He did not. Oh, is he scared? He He is a dedicated public servant. the most boring hour and a half of my life. And and and uh you weren't even in the room. So video games in the back.

All right. Next meeting is uh January 5th. Uh Monday, January 5th with the deadline of this Wednesday, December 17th. Um we uh we will be having at least a public hearing. That's it. And we'll see what happens in the next um 39 hours, I guess. Um, good, man. Okay. And then the meeting after that would be Monday, February 2nd with a deadline of Wednesday, January 14th at noon. Is there any other business before this planning board? Always at the hearing.

No, just I'd like to say that we're still we have a new uh software for the agenda, right? Uh we're still working on the glitches. Like I said last month, we we're still in training, right? And we're doing our best. Yes. Uh also I'd like to say um member Roman um Yes.

Uh she had submitted her letter of resignation to the to the uh town board. She said her goodbyes at uh the meeting we had in November cuz we didn't know at the time whether we necessarily would have this meeting. So, she was um but I thought she did a fantastic job in her seven years uh serving on this planning board, serving the public for the town of Dover. Uh so, member Roman, thank you. And um the town board uh might be uh approving a new member to replace member Roman's position. I mean there will be a open position and it is up to them to do what they are going to do. So we may have a new member at the January 5th meeting. We may not. It's up to the town board to appoint a member to fill out the rest of member Roman's uh term. I guess what two years to go I think

uh she replaced I think she finished up like term and then was appointed to a seven-year term and I think it's been five years since she was appointed to a full term. So I think there's two years left. So all right um so with that being said um everyone have a safe uh enjoyable holiday season here. Uh I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Seconded by second member Roadier. All those in favor say I. I. I. We're adjourned.