Context and Nuance Needed

Writing and implementing zoning codes is a challenging task. Providing guidance for every situation and circumstance is difficult to capture in legislation, especially when decisions set precedents for future cases. This is why planning and zoning boards, much like juries, consist of experienced individuals who can provide context and discern nuance in decision-making, rather than relying solely on a rule book.

Usually, posts about board meetings are made quickly to disseminate information as soon as possible. However, the June 3 Planning Board meeting required some contemplation, and even a week later, there are still unsettled feelings and concerns. These may be influenced by the very unpopular and still litigated decisions made by the town boards that effectively gutted the Hughsonville Hamlet. It's important to remember that at least two dozen large trees were removed, and lots of green space was replaced by large amounts of paving to allow parking for at least 30 cars, in addition to the filling station areas. Never mind that bringing large amounts of fuel into a residential, mixed-use area is decidedly unhealthy and fraught with risk. So when the planning board decided to debate six paved parking areas vs. eight, due to potential stormwater affecting neighboring roads, and spent a lot of time arguing about trees in a wetland buffer zone, we can either celebrate their maturity in understanding their role (admittedly, there are several new members on the Planning Board since the fateful Hughsonville decision, but the ones doing the majority of talking—and the staff members guiding them—are the same) or we can just shake our heads at the lack of consistency and discernment in their thinking.

To begin at the beginning:

During the "acceptance of minutes" section of the Planning Board agenda, an astute new member of the board requested that the minutes for the May 20, 2024 meeting reflect that the board voted on a resolution to go into executive session, or perhaps better termed a "client/attorney" session. There were a lot of startled looks around the room. The board member cited Open Meeting Law rules that require boards to reflect when they go into private sessions. The Planning Board attorney then diverted the discussion to making the minutes of the executive session public, which wasn't the question. After some back-and-forth, the board requested that the minutes be updated to reflect that they did indeed go into executive session on May 20. A small success, but pointing in the right direction towards more transparency in decision-making and fact-finding.

The first topic on the agenda was the request for a lot line realignment between two properties on Tuscany Drive. The resolution drafted by the town planner was accepted by the board and the applicant, and the board approved the lot line change in which 0.69 acres were conveyed between neighbors.

The second topic was a lot line realignment on Easter Road. The attorney representing the applicant read the proposed resolution seemingly for the first time while standing in front of the board and indicated his agreement with the resolution. The board then approved the conveyance of 0.09 acres between neighbors.

Next, the agenda moved on to a property on Old State Road that has been derelict for some time. The new owners, who have already invested time and resources to present their plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and were granted a variance, now have to move on to the planning board. Note that no change in footprint is proposed at this time, and the project will add to the town's housing stock, helping to mitigate the removal of apartments in Hughsonville. The applicant's engineers have reworked the parking design, reducing it from 10 spaces to 8, preserving 13 trees. However, in the current plan, one tree will have to be removed and replaced by two others. (Interestingly, the town planner suggested that Red Maples are inappropriate because they are not compatible with the existing Black Walnut trees.) The town planner also pointed out that parking spaces, according to town code, can be 2 feet narrower than proposed. There was great concern about the impact of 8 spaces of paving on stormwater potential on Old State Road. The board, the applicant, and the applicant's engineer agreed that 2 of those spaces would be unpaved and use gravel. This extraordinary concern for stormwater impact has not been displayed in other projects, just saying. A public hearing for July 15th has been scheduled.

The next topic on the agenda was the request to update a Site Plan for a property on Barrister Row, which neither the applicant nor the building department could produce the original. The building department promised they would look for it. The applicant wants to extend the space for her business of exercise, health and fitness, by converting an existing garage for a movement studio to be used by 6 to 8 people "off hours". There will be no sewer or water requirements, as the main building's current facilities will be used. The Town Planner, perhaps forgetting that he has access to Dutches County Parcel Access which details building sizes, was concerned that the parking calcuation could not be properly made without having the details of the size of the main building. The town engineer requested that the applicant contact the county health department to ensure that they are satisfied that there is no impact on the sewer and water requirements. It was established that the necessary outdoor lighting and paths are in place. The applicant will need to provide an updated site plan with the requested items.

Now for the "main event"... a proposed Ground Mounted Community Solar Farm in North Chelsea on 75.3 acres on Duck Pond Road. This requires a special use permit and a wetland disturbance permit. It became apparent that there had been a zoom call with members of the Planning Board with the applicant leading up to this presentation (I've been assured that this is all in accordance with Open Meeting Law requirements). Wetlands are categorized in several ways - Federal, DEC etc. -- and each type of wetland requires different oversight and treatment. The Town Planner had expressed some concern that the number of wetland designated acres on the site plan were not consistent, but the applicant explained that was in attempt to distinguish the different types of wetlands on the property. The applicant explained that they have reduced the size of the solar panels from the original plan and have planned for a racking system that allows for less disturbance and impact on the soil. The total amount of wetlands affected is .25 acres (on a 75.3 acres site). The subject of much discussion -- and people talking past each other, repeating etc - making the whole "conversation" confusing" is the wetland buffer area. The board seems incredibly concerned that there will be trees removed, with the planning board chair stating "destroying the environment to save the environment" didn't seem like a good idea. Part of the issue seems to be... that the board doesn't want any part of the buffer to be affected, while the applicant is pointing to their objective of remediating any disturbance created by construction with native plants and trees. Since we don't know what the current plants and trees inventory is not sure what the end result could be -- it could be better - (please keep in mind that most, in not all, properties in the town have been clear cut at least once and a plethora of invasive species and non-native plants have significantly altered the ecosystem - not sure if that is the case here, but that question was never asked or answered). The interaction quickly devolved with the applicant's attorney overstating the benefits and pointing out the laws that supported such projects and declaring the compromises that brought the town Tractor Supply a success, the chair and the project manager for the applicant repeating themselves, and the applicant's engineer, a quiet, well-spoken woman who waited patiently to explain the considerations and information from the DEC that she used in her planning - guiding the Town Engineer to some of the considerations about water run-off and DEC accepted solutions - it was a bit of a wild scene. The frustration seemed to be that the board can't really articulate what kind of solution would be acceptable (seemingly against the whole project .. in fact the chair stating that "maybe this project isn't meant for this site") and the applicant's representatives trying to find a solution that is feasible and practical.

Please remember that solar farms need to be close to an electrical substation -- this one is...that there are concerns about view sheds -- this has no view shed and there is enough setback area to prevent neighbors from seeing the panels -- unlike other projects in the town. It is also unclear how many sites in the town would actually be practical to install ground mounted solar farms with today's technologies and need to be close to Central Hudson facilitites.

The Planning Board members gleefully recounted projects they have shut down (BJ's proposed gas station on Route 9 and U-Haul storage/truck rental on Route 9) because of wetland impacts. The applicant's attorney pushed for moving to the next step... the board chair resisted saying "we have lots of time". Wetlands are very important. But the virtue signaling about the environmental credentials of the town's planning board in shutting down a community solar farm - when we can all agree that energy needs are going to be increasing - no matter from where they are sourced -- even for council members electric cars -- requires more nuance than the declaritives "wetland good, trees good, solar farms bad". Stay tuned.

In the room, listening carefully to the prior head spinning discussion - were Central Hudson Representatives - discussing their site plan application to move an electrical transistion station from its current location (sited in the 1950s) to a nearby location on Carnwath Farms Lane. It is disheartening to hear the town planner question whether it property is in an historic district (it's not... but please do the homework) - but interesting to understand the techology being employed to move current from across the Hudson River from Danskammer to the Chelsea Pump station (the cables are filled with liquid, which needs to be frozen to be worked on) The Town Engineer was concerned about the ability of Central Hudson trucks to get to the site (their PowerWagons and F150s will handle it fine) -- though the Central Hudson planner did express that moving 3000 spools of cable without tipping them will require some alterations to the road - which will be restored after the project.

Then the architect for the proposed Sikh temple came forward to requirest that a site plan for a 20,000 square foot Sikh temple be extended for 1 year (Old Hopewell Road and All Angels Hill Road). He pointed out that he had been before the board a few months ago, to amend the site plan, to build a 13,000 square foot temple -- but that discussions in the Sikh worship community were ongoing and they wanted the extension as they continued to explore their options. The Planning Board chair sagely announced that he understood "it is all about money".... and the board voted to extend the site plan approval.