Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner; Dan Gaba; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman; Howard Pinsley; Janet Casey LATE ARRIVAL: Mark Torpey, Chairman arrived at 7:03 P.M. Tom L. Lewis arrived at 7:26 P.M. STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs. CALL TO ORDER: ROBERT BRISTOL, Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECTS ADJOURNED PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 14.059 77 EXCELSIOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, 77 Excelsior Avenue, Special use permit for commercial and residential uses in a Transect-5 (T-5) District. 14.067 STONE PROPERTY, 68 WEIBEL AVENUE, 30 Church Street, site plan modification in a Transect-6 (T-6) District. 14.074 UNION FOX APARTMENTS, 72 Union Avenue, Site plan review for multi-family residential in an Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. 14.052.1 CITY CENTER PARKING GARAGE, TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, High Rock and Maple Avenues, In the Transect-6 (T-6) Urban Core District. 14.060 HOFFMAN CAR WASH FACILITY, 2216 NYS Route 50, proposed special use permit for a car wash Facility in the Highway General Business (HGB) District. 14.010 SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF HARRISON, 180 Meadowbrook Road, public hearing for a two-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential District. 14.053 21 PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS, 21 Park Place, Site plan review for multi-family residences in an Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Monday, May 11, 2015 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Monday, May 11, 2015 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 14.045 DYER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, 72 Dyer Switch Road, lot line adjustment in a Rural Residential (RR) District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action “replacement or reconstruction of a structure of facility, in kind on the same site, including upgraded buildings to meet building or fire codes. No further action is needed. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we had a conversation when the applicant appeared before the Board two weeks ago. We have a good sense of what the applicant is attempting to do. We requested the applicant reach out to the neighbors and see if there is a way to cooperate to co-invest or support a water line connection. Discussions also occurred regarding perhaps arrangements being made relative to modification of property lines. We did receive a letter from the Ellsworth’s regarding an arrangement which would be of interest to them. The applicant did notice neighbors in surrounding properties a letter informing them of what is occurring. Where did the price quote come from which was included in the letter. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the one item the Board received was a letter which the Chairman noted was from Tabor Ellsworth adjacent to the property in question. Subject proposed was a lot line adjustment, which was in relation to the reconfiguration of the property boundaries and a potential land swap. No other correspondence was received. Requested property owners have been notified regarding potential water line connection. Applicant: Dan Dyer, owner Agent: Jim Doyle, attorney Mr. Doyle explained he sent correspondence out to adjacent land owners. Mr. Doyle explained how he came up with the proposed cost of the water line installation. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated at the workshop City Engineer Tim Wales noted there was some interest in the City providing some help in terms of manpower to help expedite this endeavor, with a cost of materials to the parties involved. When the price quote went out to the neighbors it seemed to me that it was quite a large number and there might have been some reluctance. Discussion ensued regarding water lines installation costs and the possibility of city staff being involved. Mr. Doyle stated in his conversation with the City Engineer this item did not come up however, there is no reason why the applicant would not take the City Engineer up on this offer if the adjacent land owners were agreeable. I have not received any response to the mailing from any of the neighbors. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 3 of 22 Mark Torpey, Chairman read into the record a letter received from J. Tabor Ellsworth stated his proposed land swap Proposal. It seems a willingness on Mr. Ellsworth’s part to proceed with the land swap. A copy of the letter was provided to Mr. Doyle. A suggestion was made to the applicant to locate the new homeowners on one of the parcels and to inform the other parties in question the proposal of the City Engineer for a private public endeavor. Mr. Doyle stated he will make contact with the new homeowners; he will speak with Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Davis and get in touch with the City Engineer, Tim Wales and return before the Board. 2. 15.008 SARATOGA SPRING WATER COMPANY WAREHOUSE EXPANSION, 11 Geyser Road, site Plan review in the Industrial General (IND-G) District. SEQRA: Action appears to be unlisted. BACKGROUND: Project previously received a variance in 2012 that allows for parking within the front yard setback. Current project provides for a 13, 423 square foot ware house addition to the existing site operation. Overall parking space requirement of 28 spaces, 32 are proposed. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated on Monday, we did receive the updated SEQRA form. Chazen comments were circulated at the workshop on Monday as well as those of the City Engineers and staff. Applicant: Saratoga Spring Water Company Agent: Bill Sprengnether, Cardinal Direction. Mr. Sprengnether, provided some background information concerning the proposed expansion. A visual presentation was provided to the Board as well. A review of the site which currently exists was provided to the Board. The current fire access road will be enlarged to 20 feet in width to accommodate new regulations and emergency vehicles. We are adding a 100’ x 125’ warehouse addition, which will accommodate storage of the finished product, water and will eliminate the need for additional trailer housing as well. The trailers on site will remain at no more than 9. Existing parking and proposed parking will total 32 an excess of 4 over the minimum. The parcel site is 46 acres and the site disturbance is .26 acres. The wetland issue and 100 foot buffer identified on plans. We did not feel it was necessary to do a line delineation at the time because of the distance to the project site from the wetland area. We are 47 feet outside the 100 foot buffer line. A visual designation of the area was provided to the Board. The Board requested two items, a diagram of the circulation, and a diagram of the improved fire access. An updated SWPPP will be provided. There are currently 3 lights on the site and these will be relocated and improved with LED’s and outside shield to guide lighting downwards. There will be lighting on the building for safety. There is only one shift currently, the day shift so there really is only need for outside lighting for safety purposes. A rendering of the proposed building was provided to the Board including elevations and proposed materials. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Dan Gaba requested information on landscaping. Mr. Sprengnether reviewed the landscaping plan. All buffering along the east of the new structure a row of white pines will be planted. These will be a decent size trees which will be planted. Additional trees will be added by the parking area. There are woods facing Geyser Road. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 4 of 22 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Board will now review the SEQRA form. Part I of the SEQRA form submitted by the applicant looks good. We are using the short Environmental Assessment Form, this is an unlisted action. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Howard Pinsley stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEQR negative declaration for this action. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated on the site plan we did cite several items, those are: widening the gravel driveway to 20 feet to be able to deal with emergency vehicles, and also checking to make sure the substrate there is sufficient for the additional weight, in adherence with the code. We spoke about the connection to the County Greenbelt trail, we have recognition there. We acknowledge the fact that we have that trail planned and that you are willing to work and coordinate as the details of that become available. Clifford Van Wagner stated even the County referral states partnering between the property owner and the City and the County as design progresses for an 8 foot wide side path along the north side of Geyser Road. So I think the motion for site plan approval should include the acknowledgement of the partnering between the property owner and the City and the County. Mark Torpey, Chairman, stated that sounded good. The Letter of Credit has been adjusted. We spoke about the ten foot tall white pines, which are the proper caliper for that area as well. These are the items on my list. That particular sidewalk where the cars drive over would seem to be more logical to put a stripe down. Tom L. Lewis made a motion for site plan approval with the caveats as listed. Janet Casey seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 3. 15.010 WILLAIMSBURG COURT GARAGE, 150 Lincoln Avenue, site plan review for construction of parking structure in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 5 of 22 SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type 2 action, no further environmental review is required. BACKGROUND: Site is pre-existing multi-family complex. No approved site plan found within the City records. Applicant provides that project was completed prior to City Zoning ordinance being adopted. Project proposes to remove an existing garage structure and replace with a larger structure. Applicant: Jacqueline Falvey Agent: Sue Davis, SD Atelier Ms. Davis provided the Board with updated plans and elevations drawings for their review. This is an existing condition site. A visual presentation was provided for the Boards review, as well as a site plan review. Two handicap parking spaces are required, currently there is one. A review of the current parking structure was provided. We are looking to update the building in the current location. Landscaping view was also provided. A proposed view of the new structure was provided as well. Chris Myer, created a new site plan for this site. A review of the current site was provided for the Board’s review. 44 rental units, 35 parking spaces, 2 handicap spaces and two nine bank garages, totaling 18 spaces. We are keeping that all as is. The purpose of this is to expand the garages, make them useful which they currently are not. The expansion of the garage will add about 1300 square feet of building. There is also a small additional amount of blacktop. Total impervious area will be increased by 600 – 700 ft. After our discussion at the workshop on Monday, drainage is a big issue. What the owner has done is contacted the engineer on the project who has placed four drywells on the property. Two by the front entrance and two in the rear of the property. This will channel the water from the roof into these dry wells on site. We will be reducing the flow of water to Jackson Street which is where is went previously. This will be reduced by 40%. Screening was mentioned. We have proposed some additional landscaping to the rear of the parking lot, on the approach and exit area. Janet Casey questioned if the expansion of the garage decrease the number of parking spaces provided. Ms. Davis provided the currently layout of parking spaces. We will lose approximately 5 spaces because of the width of the garage. Ms. Falvey stated currently now 30% of the residents have vehicles. Not a big percentage of residents have vehicles. Mr. Myer, stated what we are doing we are leaving blacktop in place and concrete in place. Disturbance will be limited to the trenching for the new garage, the installation of four dry wells, and the addition of the black top for those seven spaces in the rear, a small 6 foot strip on either side of the north and south of those seven spaces. By doing that we are 1000 feet under the threshold. Tom L. Lewis stated he would like to have this verified with Tim Wales the City Engineer. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated she did speak with Tim Wales, City Engineer who is also the Storm Water Management Officer, so within the code he does have jurisdiction over the interpretation of the plans coming in and how they are perceived. We did speak regarding the disturbance would be greater than 1/10th of an acre. He also did provide that test pits would be needed, as well as perc tests. Survey should be provided, erosion sediment plan, and construction notes to city standards. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 6 of 22 Clifford Van Wagner questioned if the application could be voted on with the list of items necessary by the City Engineer, or is there enough to hold the application open until Tim Wales completes his review. Tom L. Lewis stated what the applicant is doing is improving what currently exists. The architecture is better. If other Board members feel it is necessary to put the application off until the next meeting we will do that. Ms. Davis reviewed the architecture of the project with the Board. It will also be handicap accessible. Review of the proposed materials for the project was also provided to the Board. Elevations were also provided. Mr. Myer stated sidewalks, tree plantings and curbing will be to city standards. We will inspect the current sidewalks and repair and replace as necessary. Richard Rossetti is involved in this project and he stated to put curbing and sidewalks on City property will require some addition investigation. He will not be putting curbing in for this project. This project will be upgraded and will look nicer, landscaping and I fell we are doing a good project. Discussion ensued regarding the curbing installation which is required as a City standard. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Board is responsible for how projects move into the future. How projects can improve the area they are in be it for drainage, aesthetic improvements, etc. Tom L. Lewis stated I believe we should not move this project along tonight. We should wait until the City Engineer has had time to review and comment on this application and makes a decision regarding SWPPP. Clifford Van Wagner, stated if this application is postponed until the next meeting this gives the applicant time to sit down with the Department of Public Works to see if there is a cost saving potential in this project. 4. 15.013 ADVISORY OPINION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT, Section 6.4.8 Solar Access. Mark Torpey, Chairman read into the Record a letter from the City Council requesting the Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board for a Zoning Text Amendment Section 6.4.8 Solar Access specifically noting Commissioner Madigan’s requested change as follows “Except for properties located in a Transect 6 Zoning District, or has otherwise provided by this chapter no property owner may erect a structure or allow a tree or other flora to cast a shadow upon a solar collector greater than the shadow cast by a hypothetical wall 6 feet high located along the property line between 8AM and 4PM EST from September 21, through March 21.” This mentions specifically that what we are being asked to consider is the properties located in a Transect-6 District, and whether that condition applies to a T-6 zone. Any further advice, guidance or approaches that the City Planning Board may provide regarding how this might otherwise be revised such as including other zoning districts may be welcomed. This is the extent of what we received, and I had a chance to see the City Council webcast and hear the discussion they had on the issue. But, that is the only thing I think we have, as a Board, at our disposal to broach the subject. Is that a fair statement, Kate? This is what we have received to date? Kate Maynard stated that is what we have received to date from the council in terms of their request. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated okay and the City Council is required, whenever they are considering a change in language in the text of the ordinance to seek PB input on that. I think that’s a City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 7 of 22 statutory requirement for the council. So this is why they are coming to us, they need to. This is part of the process. We as a Board have 60 days to respond to this request. The request, I assume being dated April 7, 2015, and the 60 day clock starts at that point. We need to do what we can to respond within 60 days of that. We can ask for an extension if need be, but this is what we are being asked to do. The language in the ordinance has actually been on the books for many, many years. I don’t know, Kate, if there’s any new information we have? Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated I’d be happy to run through a few things that may help guide you as far as content. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated that would be great. Do you want to provide that now? Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated sure. As was mentioned, there is the 60 day window provided for the Board to make an opinion. The scope of the Planning Board review, just to remind you, is to include, but not limited to, whether the proposed zoning revisions are in sync with the Comprehensive Plan, and if they are in line with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. In terms or walking you through this, a little bit of context: Starting at the federal level, as you can imagine, there has been a lot of activity in terms of the increased solar installation, particular to areas you would expect. California has led the charge. There are many states now; NY is one of them that have really seen an increase in solar energy in terms of installation in recent years. So at the Federal level, just establishing exactly where to start, there is not a common law provision for the protection of solar rights. This is something that’s really been handed down to the states, as far as I can tell. So state by state, it varies in how it’s treated. NYS is one of 40 states that have a solar access provision; they allow for the consideration of solar easements, but leave they also leave the option for a solar rights provision to the local level. At the local level, how we look at things currently is that solar installations are considered to be accessory structures and are permitted in all districts. Review is not triggered this is not meeting the accessory use. So for example, a larger installation where it is a primary or principal use, in particular, to plot, there would be questions about that. Typically, this is not something the Planning Board currently sees for review in its application. What does occur, in terms of Land Use Board approval, would be any particular variance that’s triggered area requirements, or architectural or historic review with the DRC. And that’s in the select area that the DRC has jurisdiction. So if it is in those parameters, the review is then triggered. I did receive a question about when this was introduced, so we looked at it, and it seems it was put in place in the 1990 Zoning Ordinance. In terms of context, Bob Bristol has shared with use that there were activities at least as early as 1970s, in terms of installation. An office building, he mentioned had a solar installation placed on one of its buildings in the back wing. That was when we saw some communities start to provide some regulations in regards to solar installation and some of the questions that were arising. In the 90s, when the City actually introduced this item, the language was virtually identical to what is currently in place. In terms of just basic framework, you also asked on Monday where existing solar installations in the T-6 were located. We have 4 locations that currently have solar installations in that district. They include the Downtowner, Four Seasons, Uncommon Grounds, and the Mouzon House. There are examples in other districts, but for the purposes of this item, I wanted to make sure you had that information in regards to solar installations in that particular area. We talked about Monday one thing for the Board to consider is the understanding of the context of different policies and desires that have been stated by the City. So for example, the City to date has shown strong support for energy efficiency, alternative energy, for residential and commercial structures. This has been most recently reflected in the draft, Comprehensive Plan, which is being considered for adoption by the City Council. The City is also stressing the desire for infill and development of the concentrated centers of the Community. These include the special development areas, such as downtown, Weibel Avenue and additional areas. We consistently call out for Downtown to be the most intense center of the Community with the highest mix and intensity of uses. The intention of build out and build up in intensity is again something to consider. The building height as you know in the T-6 is considered up to 70 feet. Within our downtown area we of course have different land use types and intensities. Everything from surface parking lots on upwards to special recent development activities at that 70 foot maximum. In terms of looking at that, there is also consideration for looking at the impact of the amendment on existing solar installation in the future. There are 4 existing solar installations which have been provided. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 8 of 22 I have just had the opportunity to dig in within a short period of time, there are a number of materials out there again with the field still evolving quite rapidly but there are a number of approaches that are being considered by communities and implemented. Everything from solar access permission of emitting type scenarios, solar easements, which for example when a property owner actually secures or provides for the continued ability to have the solar access to collectors. There is anything from incentives to restrictions. Particular restrictions in parts of town. Boulder Colorado has a very geographically focused. They actually vary their approach according to areas. Residential is different from their downtown area. There has been a lot of careful Comprehensive Planning in the field which communities have been applied in various ways in terms of what fits that community. To conclude regarding the longer term side of solar energy regulations - we are in the beginning of the process of currently developing our Unified Development Ordinance which will entail the comprehensive review and substantial update of the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations. This work is to be completed through a grant from NYSERDA. One of the goals the City pledged is sustainability more so throughout our regulations. So we know that we need to look at alternative energy in a comprehensive manner in a way to fit our community’s needs, and especially balancing interests. Items such a historic preservation, concentrated development and infill where it contrasts with solar energy, urban forestry and especially the adopted master plan which calls out for large species of trees in all parts of the City are all items which need to be considered from a balanced comprehensive approach. The framework of that is the overall look we are expecting within the next 12 months to be initiated and cultivated. Tom L. Lewis questioned if the Unified Development Ordinance is not the new Comprehensive Plan Committee, or that has nothing to do with that. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated it is taking the Comprehensive Plan policies and looking to implement them within our two very important implementation documents. Tom L. Lewis asked if the Committee Mark Torpey was on was on separate from this. Kate Maynard responded yes. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he appreciated Kate putting this information on the record. This is a fairly complicated issue. It is a simple text amendment proposed to us to consider and provide an opinion on but there is a lot to this. I do want to spend a little bit of time setting the stage and speaking about some of the nuances. I don’t want to get crazy about it but put everything out on the table, so we have the ability to make a decision. I feel I would like to share a number of nuances about what this is about and setting the stage going forward. I can do that but if timing for you guys is such that you want to get your points across, I would be open to have you share public comments at this point if you have some ideas to express and then we would obviously engage in conversation as well. Would you like this opportunity to provide some public comment? There are only two people in the audience who would like to speak. Before I allow the public to speak there is one thing to note for the record. Harry Moran is the president of the group Sustainable Saratoga. I am a Board member of Sustainable Saratoga I wanted to disclose that since I have been publicly criticized for not disclosing for a number of reasons and so I have no knowledge of what Harry is going to say or helped him prepare any statements or anything. This is merely a disclosure. Harry Moran, President of Sustainable Saratoga. We as an organization have two primary sustainability goals. The first is to encourage the use of renewable clean energy, to be sure we are careful stewards of resources minimize our footprint and the damage to our environment and move us closer to energy independence. The second is we advocate for a built environment in our downtown core that supports the sustainable robust economy and makes the City attractive for the visitors and residents alike. As it has been alluded to the issue of shading of solar panels in the area by taller buildings is a really good example of how complex it can sometimes be to achieve the desired balance between these two priorities. That said we believe that a win win scenario can get identified but some time needs to be spent carefully weighing various options. We therefore respectfully request this Board to vote in a time necessary to fully explore this matter. As you know, it has been stated 60 days to provide an Advisory Opinion to the Council. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 9 of 22 So there is adequate time to give this the attention and consideration it deserves. We have been continuing to research this issue and hope to have some additional comments and perhaps some suggestions very soon. This is something we are very actively working on. Mark Torpey stated if my fellow colleagues will bear with me I just wanted to put a few things out on the record. It is in my opinion a complicated issue, and I think it does warrant a fair amount of conversation. Let me go through my list. I think the first thing Kate brought up was a very important thing to bring up. We are in the process of selecting a contractor to work to develop a Unified Development Ordinance and if you look at the basic elements that we are stressing in that Ordinance the contractor will be looking and focusing on renewable energy and sustainability as a critical part of it. So there is an opportunity through that mechanism to get a lot of good information and not look at this strictly for solar but a broader look at renewables and how they work together. Be it geothermal, solar combined heat and power, there are a lot of different technologies that would qualify as renewables. It seems to me that the Comprehensive look is really something that should be done first, I appreciate the fact that we are being given an opportunity as a Board to weigh in and to provide an Opinion but my feeling is that having that opinion supports the further analysis at the UDO level and that development I think would be helpful. I think that they would welcome our comments as a Board as they consider that Ordinance. That is number one. That is going on in parallel to this. I will say that the specific language that is in the Ordinance is problematic and I wanted to point out a couple of items. As I read through it, the terminology that is used such as solar collector. If you go into the Ordinance’s definition section, there is no definition for what a solar collector is. A lot of the other things are spelled out reasonably clearly but there is nothing in there for solar collector. It could be PV which is an electric conversion of sunlight into electricity; it could be thermal energy that is produced to provide hot water. You could argue that passive solar orientation of a building that is just there to capture heat in a passive format qualifies. People will put covers over their swimming pools to provide heat from the sun. There are so many definitions of what a solar collector could be that it warrants some thought in terms of how we articulate this in our recommendation. Maybe what the sandbox is around the definition. The whole notion of a six foot high hypothetical wall around the property line in a T-6 zone, there are zero foot setbacks around the entire property, so in essence the building is built to the property line, and there is a minimum requirement in terms of height of two stories. What we are required to do to push in the direction of increased density of mixed-use developments. We have an inherent conflict just by definition the way the thing is structured. Six foot at the property line, with zero foot setbacks and a two story requirement in a T-6. This does not make any sense. Also, if you look through the date that is provided as a window of where we consider this shading, it talks about September through March. Really at the end of the day December 21, is the only day that really matters, which is when the sun is at the lowest elevation in the sky, casts the biggest shadow. So, if we are going to be doing this right that is the design point we look to when we are making the decision. I don’t know why it is over a broader time range. So, those are some points I have just relative to the way it is written. It is very problematic from my standpoint. I was glad that Kate mentioned I didn’t realize what the total number of solar installations was for T-6. So, I was glad we actually had a number on it. I think that is helpful. 4 Installations, I will say that with respect to the Downtowner Motel which I know quite well, because last year they had some bikes they were doing an experiment with the Community Bike and so I had a chance to meet the proprietor of the Downtowner and talked to her about some of the things she is doing with the hotel. I was really kind of excited, she is not only using the solar thermal panels for saving money, she has solar thermal panels on the roof but she has also built in a marketing program to try to broadcast the fact that her business is green. So, there is more to it in terms of the benefit that is accruing to the Downtowner, in terms of increased potential room sales, and just broadcasting the green emblem that is serving to their advantage. When we are looking at the impact that a decision like this can have it is more than just the cost associated with the lost revenue from reduced natural gas prices or electricity costs. I wanted to make that point. The one thing that we do not have is a complete inventory of all the potential future conflicts where a “short building” considering solar may be located next to a building or lot that is looking to expand vertically, so you have got our 4 existing situations where you have solar installed, you also have a consideration for future installations that maybe considering it. This is sort of what I would call a backwards look as well as a forward look as we consider this issue. I do think there are many future conflict areas as we continue to encourage high density mixed use development you are going to see more and more of these conflicts. Small buildings, tall buildings, we are at a state of development that is going to present more and more conflicts. Even though this is the first time this provision has ever been pulled City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 10 of 22 or referenced in any of the discussions the Planning Board has ever had that I am aware of. With that said, and I appreciate your patience on this I also want to identify a couple of macro level trends in the industry that are I think affecting and should affect how we look at this activity and this particular language. First and foremost there has been an increased propensity for folks to lease systems. This is a brand new concept that Solar City has been pushing for a long time. At this point in time the majority of the systems that are being installed now are actually leased. A third party owns it, they come in and in essence put it on your roof, and they provide you power, you agree in essence to purchase the power from them. It is a private company that is making the initial investment. More and more installations are moving in that direction. So, why am I bringing that up? We need to consider the impact of a building going up, its impact on an installation in the future or maybe someone’s existing installation. I think personally there is a big difference between if the impact is impacting a private company that made the decision to put those systems in and took that business risk, as opposed to a private homeowner or a business who made that expense on their own and actually owns the system. The impact to them is far greater, than if it is a business who is leasing a system. So, that is something I think would be worth considering in our debate. The other trend, thanks to China and Germany is the cost of these systems is coming down significantly. It has been a tremendous decrease in price recently and what that is allowing to have happen is the pay back periods are faster. So, if somebody makes an investment in a solar panel and right now the pay back periods are on the order of let’s say 6 years it is a rough justice to it. It used to be 15 years. So it used to be you had to have your system run for 15 years to get your money back. Now, it is 6. So, if somebody puts one in you at least have a shorter period of time where you are potentially in a loss revenue standpoint if somebody blocks your access. So there is that element that is working in that direction to I would say minimize the risk of the asset not providing the economic pay back to justify the investment. Community solar is the third item. Where we have an opportunity, the laws and regulations are not in place yet but they are soon to be in place. They are very close on the horizon. Regardless of your orientation, you can procure and purchase solar power produced from a location nowhere near where you are. So, you have the ability to contractually save money to make the investment but there is no need to put the solar panels on your roof. So, there is that trend as well. I think we need to be aware of that because businesses may not necessarily have to put solar panels on their roofs at this point. If the laws change, there are other options to be green. To convey that green if that is part of their business strategy. The last item on the trends. The building integrated PV market which basically means having your façade of the building and having your windows, having every facet of the structure creating electricity or clean energy those technologies are happening more and more so the trend towards having something on your roof facing south as the only opportunity is becoming less and less important. As the cost has come down for these other technologies. So, there is an ability we can work to try to promote solar in a more holistic fashion throughout the City down the road without having to have the fixed array you were typically thinking about. I do think these things are worth bringing up. I think if we are looking at how to deal with this issue these are important. I wanted to bring up two other items and then I will open it up for discussion. If a business purchases the system and doesn’t exercise a lease and roughly speaking about 40% of businesses and folks spend their own money, they buy it themselves and maybe 60% are actually leasing. This is the ratio. If a business is going to put their own money down on this, this purchase, there are a couple of ways which they can finance this. One way is to actually pay the thing off on their property taxes, it is called pace financing. Property Assessed Clean Energy. So, if they go through the process, of setting up an account, where they are making a payment and paying off the system through their property taxes it is not that easy to get that liability off your bill, if now you have a building that went up next to you and after a year of your system being now installed and running within a year you have a tall building in essence completely shading your investment and I don’t know how we are going to try to reconcile that. My point is it is more than the money that the individual paid; there is a tax implication potentially in terms of how you structured your financing. This is something that needs to be considered. The other way to finance the project is On-Bill Financing with the electrical utility. So, if you have done that, and you now have a building that goes up, blocks the solar access and you are using the savings of that to fund and pay the increase on your utility bill and now you can’t make that payment you could be in arrears in your utility bill, people shut your lights off and all that. So, it complicates how we look at this if we want to consider all these things in a holistic fashion. I think to me those are important issues to consider as we debate the issue. I will now open it up. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 11 of 22 Howard Pinsley questioned Mark Torpey if he had looked at the paragraph and wanted to re-write altogether. You pointed out parts of it that don’t make any sense. Do you think we should be recommending a revised paragraph to the City Council? Mark Torpey, Chairman stated I don’t know, I actually came to the meeting here with a completely open mind to public comment and I don’t have a prescribed notion of where this should go. I do think the language is problematic and so it needs to be changed. But I don’t have yet proposed language that I can share with you folks as a template or a straw proposal. So, I don’t know whether it should be completely accepted as is, with the T-6 exemption. There is some logic to that. I don’t know whether it should be revised in terms of the language and I don’t think it can be preserved as is without some other significant changes. Maybe not to the language but other understanding of what these other implications mean and being able to deal with them in a more thoughtful way. I am hoping that I can get everybody to agree that the completion of the UDO provides the platform to actually address this is in a much more sophisticated way because of all that is going on in the industry. The last thing I want to do, because I do this stuff for a living is to have solar look like it is preventing development that is smart, and the right place, and mixed use and doing all the great things we want because it is a blemish on the industry that I spend a lot of time trying to support. So, I think, it would be helpful for us to work through that other process to get at the right answer as opposed to just coming up right away with our thoughts. Howard Pinsley asked if Mark Torpey, Chairman thought the UDO is going to supersede this thing altogether? Mark Torpey, Chairman stated yes. Howard Pinsley stated it seems we are wasting our time here, it they come up with new language, and it kills what we are doing here. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated you are right. The UDO is an attempt to take and correct me if I am wrong Kate, will take the subdivision regulations, take the existing zoning regulations we have in place, look at the other policy documents that we have in terms of our open space plan, urban forest master plan and unify it into a common document which is no easy task and I still have my doubts if they will be able to pull this off but I am hopeful. Yes, I think they could come up with a set of recommendations that will supersede anything we do as a patch in the interim and I just don’t think it is worth it. I think it is better to go through that process but articulate our collective thoughts on what we think is the right thing and give it to them as part of our input in their review of that work. Tom L. Lewis stated he absolutely agreed with the last think Mark Torpey said. I mean you just gave me a whole education that I knew nothing about, and incorporating all of those thoughts into the UDO seems to make a whole lot of sense. But, I think there is an immediate issue here and I have been through enough zoning ordinance updates and comprehensive plan updates. Good luck to having the UDO in 2016. I think right now the City Council has said there is an immediate issue that they feel needs to be answered. I am not against solar; I am not against renewables, who would be. I think I heard that in 1990 that that was put in there for the protection of solar rights it was something somebody here said. I don’t think anybody thought back in 1990 well before the downtown became the downtown that it is thought that that would prevent the very thing that Harry and Sustainable Saratoga want and what we have been hearing for years and years about building up our downtown core and I am glad that Harry said what he said, and the ordinance in the T-6 the way it is now prevents some things you said Mark are good projects. My guess is, I don’t know this the Downtowner didn’t do what they did to prevent something from happening. That would surprise me. But in either case, I am very, very comfortable doing what the council had asked to make a change now. I would add that all of your comment should be added into the record whether it is the UDO when they look at actually updating the whole Comprehensive Plans they can take a look at the points you made, they can weigh the pluses and the minuses but also add in there the size of doing what the Council asked altering the T-6, that they also as a separate action consider that in all instances when someone gets a building permit for any alternate energy if it would affect the neighbors, that the neighbors be notified, that seems like a reasonable thing to suggest. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 12 of 22 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated that notification could be a good thing but if you accept the language we completely change the way the solar access is written, you may not need to provide that notice. Tom L. Lewis stated in a T-6 you would not. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated right. Tom L. Lewis stated it is the other zones I am suggesting. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the timing issue, I don’t quite understand. I mentioned before this is the first time this provision has been exercised. Nobody even knew it was in there to bring it to the forefront. I mean in terms of the discussion, if there is an imminent need to now rectify a situation that has only been incited once, I don’t see it. Howard Pinsley questioned if the other 3 installations are in danger of being blocked by somebody next to them. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated there are no known impediments to their access. All we can say now is that we are seeing more and more applications. Howard Pinsley questioned if Kate knew of anything immediately affecting the other three. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated no. Howard Pinsley stated nobody is planning on building anything next to the other 3 installations at this time. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated no formal applications at this time. Tom L. Lewis stated except the parking garage. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated so the Zoning Board obviously made their decision to look at this provision and deny the variance for the project. So obviously that is something that we are well aware of but that is the issue that has brought this thing to the forefront for discussion in the first place. Tom L. Lewis stated that action; I would think reasonably precipitated what the Council did. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated correct. Diane Pedinotti, owner of the Mouzon House. So we did have an engineer prove that a building could be built in the parking lot that did not block our solar panels. We paid a lot of money to have them look at it and they proved that something could be built there. We also applied and you can find this if you go back through the City archives so it was mentioned at a ZBA meeting in 2011 that we were going for solar panels. This is such a thinly veiled attempt for the City Center to say okay we went through all the channels. The Zoning Board said no, we are not going to give you this variance. So, now, it is like okay, let’s just go ahead and change the code now and let’s do that without any thought because we have to rush this through. The most interesting thing is the City Center has refused to change the design. They have stood fast with that exact design and they have refused to change it. Howard Pinsley stated ok we understand where you are coming from. But you have to keep in mind that we do have a lawyer here if we agree to the few words that they have in there, Transect 6 is accepted, would there be any way that that would be retroactive. I have no way of knowing that maybe the lawyer does. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated it is really a separate question, whether or not the applicant in the case you are talking about - the City Center Authority - could come back to the Zoning Board with an identical application, or it City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 13 of 22 has to be changed in some substantial way that would allow them to do that. This is a question I would like to do some research on before I give you a definitive answer, since this is a significant question. I can tell you one thing, that this ordinance, you can keep it separate and apart from that application. The Zoning Board in reviewing that application, I can tell you in the 29 years I have been working with the Zoning Board I don’t recall a variance application for this section ever before this last one. It has sparked a lot of discussion and a lot of inquiries as to the operation of the section itself separate and apart from the application itself. Everything from the way the language reads it doesn’t mean that if an individual has a tree growing in their yard and the tree is so high the neighbor installs a solar collector, the tree grows to a larger height, would they have to cut part of the tree down to comply. I pointed out to the Board that this ordinance actually verbatim reads that it prohibits an individual from blocking his or her own solar collector, literally. So, it is the language of the ordinance itself is maybe ripe for discussion, regardless of the impact it would have on the application that you are talking about. I don’t know the answer to your question. Tom L. Lewis stated just to answer what Tony said in his 29 years and I am not an attorney, but my guess is being around land use for over 2 decades that if the council adopts what is in front of us then it means neither the City Center nor any other developer is violating the law, and so they could build what they could build and Mark made a very interesting point, which I am impressed that you could even figure that out. If this actually happens and the City Center garage gets built and has a negative impact financially and there is a way the Mouzon House can actually recoup their investment that would be terrific. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated there is nothing in the provision that allows that, no there is nothing in there, so I am leading the discussion in that direction to understand that, depending on what we decide to do that there are financial implications to people who would be affected that in my opinion need to be corrected somehow. If they go through the process, they put in solar panels, and a building next to them gets built that obscures that view, my opinion is there needs to be some degree of remuneration for that and you can debate how you calculate that. I was just trying to express that. But, I want to get back to what Howard just said because he asked a very specific question is this retroactive, I think Kate may have talked with Mark Schachtner on that and may have some thoughts. Kate Maynard, as I stated at Monday’s workshop I did have a brief conversation with Mark Schachtner about could this be retroactive, is this moving forward only, his short answer was that within the legislative authority of the Council, in their amendment of any language that really rests within that jurisdiction. Howard Pinsley stated so the Council could do it. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated correct. So, we are in a situation, where the Council could - if we just say ok the language looks great, you guys just have at it. In essence they could make the provision retroactive so that it would deal with, there would not be any time limit, and it would be retroactive. Tom L. Lewis asked Tony Izzo, even if this Board were to not agree this does not force a super majority on the Council is that correct Tony. This Board only has an advisory role. Even if this Board unanimously said no we think everything should remain the way it is they could vote however they want anyway, and not force a super majority. Tony Izzo stated I think you are correct. Clifford Van Wagner stated it is a non binding Advisory Opinion. Tony Izzo stated I do not think it forfeits what is required to override anything because it is just an Advisory Opinion. Tom L. Lewis stated that is correct. So again my difficulty is not specific to the Mouzon House although it is a consequence, is that the way the law is written because it is not addressing all the good points that you made. It is not addressing those points which are legitimate points, which under the UDO, I think they should look at that because there really is a balancing act there. But, the way it is written now is it is protecting the solar rights. It is City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 14 of 22 removing the property rights of everybody around them and in the T-6 given the way growth has been over the past 15 years and the pleasant unanimity within the community for the way downtown has been built, from east to west to north and south. I think what the Council is asking for is very reasonable in the T-6 and I am very supportive and I am comfortable in making that motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have seen one instance where this provision has created agida since 1990. We have a situation where a long time has passed, where we have one instance where this has been an issue. We have got a number of installations which exist now, that don’t seem to be in jeopardy of having that issue arise to create a conflict. We have a Unified Development Ordinance that is being moved forward. At this point I don’t understand the rush. It makes no sense to me to make any substantive change to a zoning ordinance even how minute it may appear in terms of the actual language as proposed based on one project over that period of time creating this. It doesn’t bring the issue to the forefront that needs to be addressed right now. Tom L. Lewis stated but that is not what a majority of the City Council believes. And in many instances you have seen me very consistent. The legislative body, they are the lawmakers. We are interpreters of a certain amount of stuff. So the City Council does not agree with what you said but I bet you they would agree when they get to actually pinning down the UDO. I bet they will take everything you said into serious consideration. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated I think what the City Council agreed to do with a 3-2 vote was to seek an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board. They do not have a preconceived notion as to whether that language is exactly what they want. They are asking for our opinion on that and it is not even just the opinion of the specific language that is written in there they ask us to consider the last sentence that other issues, other concerns, other districts, and that takes some time Howard Pinsley interrupted Mark Torpey and stated we are not going to get into all the other districts tonight. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated right and I don’t think we should get into the T-6. Howard Pinsley stated I don’t think we should be paying attention to what the UDO might be doing either because if they wanted us to wait for the UDO they would not have sent this to us. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated no I personally think we have a responsibility to the City Council, the way I see it to provide them some guidance as to how to approach the broader issue. I agree they gave us specific language to consider. My recommendation is that it is too complicated to give them a definitive answer even in the interim because there is nothing pressing to force us to make a decision because there are no issues with the other projects. Tom L. Lewis stated I think the City Council thinks there is an issue. Howard Pinsley stated they didn’t ask us to wait. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated they didn’t ask us to wait and they also didn’t necessarily ask us to make a decision that definitively says okay this is what will work in the interim within the 60 days either. Tom L. Lewis stated no I think they did ask us for that. Howard Pinsley stated I think they did ask us for that too because if they wanted us to wait for something else they wouldn’t have asked us for an opinion now. Tom L. Lewis asked how some of the other Board members feel. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 15 of 22 Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated just to update the information and advice I tried to give you, let me make sure I understand the question. It is not the Advisory Opinion of this Board that triggers a forfeit stall. If there is a protest of a proposed amendment, should the Council propose an amendment and that amendment is protested by a stated number of adjacent property owners that can trigger a forfeit stall. That is Zoning Ordinance amendment 10.4.8. It is the protest of a given threshold of adjacent property owners that does that. Tom L. Lewis stated it is 20%. Tony Izzo stated that is correct. Howard Pinsley stated that would be everybody in the Transect-6 zone wouldn’t it. Tom L. Lewis stated no, no, no. It would be the immediate neighbors. Clifford Van Wagner stated he heard Tony say earlier that even the applicant can have an issue with their own building blocking access to solar panels. Tony Izzo stated that’s the way the language reads right now. Clifford Van Wagner stated I am still offended that the solar panels were put up without the benefit of a building permit. And to a certain extent their high building blocks the solar panels that are on their low building. So, that’s an issue. Way back in the beginning, Mark is the expert no doubt on solar panels and energy and your calculation that you gave to us was that this solar panel would save the applicant about $100.00 a year. So, I don’t think we are talking about a ton of money here. I think that these solar panels were put up to do just this and another point in the past when the City Council has given us a request for an Advisory Opinion, we have gotten very strict advise from Mark Schachtner, from staff, from Tony Izzo to answer the question. Not expound on what we might think they want to hear or how we think we should expand the Advisory Opinion. The letter has asked us to do a review of does the T-6 belongs in this zoning ordinance. And by the way if you wish to make further suggestions or recommendations you can do that. I agree with Tom, I think we have been asked really a simple question. Advisory Opinions usually break down to a simple question. If you cut away there is a question and there is an answer. The answer to this is yes or no. I think that this UDO is a fine tool, I thought that the Comprehensive Plan Review was a fine tool and that has been going on for over two years now almost and nothing has happened with that. In light of the fact that we have an application that is in front of you and now the rules want to be changed, I think for future use this UDO which will take no doubt one to two years, like Tom said maybe 2016. Use that in the future. We have been asked a simple question for this Advisory Opinion. I think we should answer the simple question. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated do you mind if I jump in. I think it could be perceived as a simple question. But there is definitely not a simple answer. I think in addition if you read what is being requested, it said specifically “in addition further advice, guidance, alternative language or approaches that the Planning Board may provide regarding how this might otherwise be revised such as including other zoning districts would be welcomed.” They are opening the door, they are broaching the subject, and I think with some recognition that it’s a complicated issue so it is not in my opinion interpreted as just T-6 exempt and black or white, yes, no. I just think this requires much more consideration. Clifford Van Wagner stated it could be T-6 exempt, and then the Planning Board recommends that when this UDO report is completed and finalized that all the zones are addressed that the City Council look at it. Kick it back to the Planning Board for an Advisory Opinion and then you open up the box. Tom L. Lewis stated the first thing I said Mark was you gave me an education. I had no idea the depth and the different areas there are and one of the first things I said was I think all your notes should be included in the motion I am going to make at some point after the discussion is done. Because it is that complex of an answer but in terms of what is happening in 2015 in April, I am very comfortable in moving the recommendation to changing the T-6 and as City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 16 of 22 a separate additional suggestion that at the same time they give notification in the other T zones, when someone does this and a very serious and thoughtful examination should be given as part of the UDO addressing everything so that, I mean there will be so many things they are going to deal with in that UDO. There are so many things that can go into the Comprehensive Plan, and then so many things following up in the Zoning Ordinance. These things take years. So, I am not disagreeing with a single thing that you said. You are knowledgeable; I am a zero in that area. But I believe everything that you said and the technology is moving so fast and is getting so much more efficient that all those things should be incorporated in that UDO. But in April of 2015, there is an issue the Council thought serious enough to ask us about. It was a split vote, so there are three people on there who thought this was serious. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated so I mean feel free to weight in. Dan Gaba stated we keep saying simple question, complex question, no it is not a simple question, and there are so many pieces and parts to it. I break this down for myself as follows. If somebody had found some language in the code and said you can’t build a building that will impede horse traffic industry. We would look at it and say that is ridiculous, so we have to change it. So, taking any other applications off the table, there is nothing that came before us, the Mouzon House is it. There is nothing that was on the table. This came to us for an Advisory Opinion and we said would a solar panel hold a developer hostage on a one story building, for building a building or planting a tree. That tree can cast a shadow. What if it was a pocket park and someone decided to take the park down and want to plant 150 foot elms, what would we do with the solar panels. For me I look at it in real simple terms. With nothing else on the table how would we address that language. Janet Casey stated I am going to jump on what you said because I like the first part of what you said it is exactly what I am thinking, but I swing the other way with it. I agree entirely with Dan that whatever happened with the Mouzon House is irrelevant. This is a legitimate question. A question of how to balance these competing interests of the City is a legitimate question. Regardless of how it came to us, regardless of what applications was the instigator of this question. For me, if we found this without any applicant being involved, how would we respond? It is exactly how I would approach this question. But my answer would be different from Dan’s. I am persuaded by Mark’s deconstruction of the language here and I do language for a living. It troubles me to simply change one piece of this language to swing in the other direction while we acknowledge, we freely acknowledge that there are all sorts of problems with the way that this was written. That strikes me as throwing good money after bad for lack of a better metaphor. Putting a band aid on the problem instead of actually addressing the problem at hand which is how to balance these competing interests. So, I would take how Dan began but I would end with where Mark is. Dan Gaba stated the only problem is that is not the questioned we are being asked. We all agree that there are so many other pieces and parts that need to be looked at, instead that is not the question we are being asked and that is as complex as you can make it. We are being asked a question but to get into all the other zones, that is really complex. We are being asked how it affects T-6. In a T-6 zone we are having a roundabout conversation, we are all sharing ideas. The question is; is it contrary to the Comprehensive Plan to have a provision that could essentially end development, let’s say that everybody put a solar panel on their roof next month. That means that development downtown would cease, it stops, because there is nothing that can be built without affecting the neighbor with this provision. Tom L. Lewis stated that is a great point. Clifford Van Wagner stated it “sterilizes” projects that is a zoning term. Tom L. Lewis stated also, it is Mark who I view as an expert. It is his very expertise that shows the complexity. We are not going to solve this in 60 days. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 17 of 22 Janet Casey stated she agrees we are not going solve this in 60 days, but I just wonder. Clifford Van Wagner stated as I stated at the workshop any small buildings on Broadway, in a T-6 zone such as Harvey Fox’s jewelry store. A two story building. If he wants to go up five stories he could not there is a solar panel on Uncommon Grounds, they sterilized it. And that is what I think Dan is saying. If we are to look at this with no other plan on the table would we as a Board say – number 1 it is in direct conflict with the Comp plan which says build 70 feet on Broadway and keep everything lower on the outskirts. So that is in direct conflict with that. If you just go down Broadway and look at all those buildings that could be affected by this. Tom L. Lewis stated when you weigh the benefit and the cost the taking away of rights here is so much more than the advantage of the energy in the downtown district. Just my opinion. I will bet there is a way that you guys who know how that works will find some balance in the T-6 that will work. Dan Gaba stated one of the things which I jotted down - and I am not going to get into what we would recommend - but if someone builds a building next to you and it interferes with your solar panels, so is there a potential for having language in there that they agree to co-locate solar panels on the competing structure so as not to remove the solar. I am a firm believer in solar and I think the technology is coming around in terms of what we are looking at and what we will have to look at; is it in direct conflict with the chapter and intent of the T-6? Absolutely. It completely advises against this. If you read it, it encompasses business, cultural, entertainment concentration in the City of Saratoga Springs. T-6 consists of the downtown area, a shadow or build to line, smaller blocks, widest range of building scales, interior blocks, front to back, side to side as high as you can so, to have a provision that then would in fact limit any height of a building that could be built in the downtown area is contrary to the long term planning, long term comprehensive plan. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated I said that at the very beginning. If you look at the way the language is written, basically in the T-6 zone with zero setback, 2 floor requirement by definition, it is inconsistent, the language is wrong. It has to change. And, I think it is for us to determine what the best change should be. My feeling is that this one provision provided as the proposed change is insufficient to address the issue in a holistic fashion. I don’t think that there are any pressing projects that are pushing this to the forefront other than the City Center Parking Garage. Everything that I have been taught in terms of being a member of the Comprehensive Plan Committee as part of it you don’t make changes based on one project. Especially when it comes down to the ordinance. This is not even comprehensive plan language you are talking about. This is where the rubber meets the road and it affects the decisions of a lot of projects potentially down the road. Howard Pinsley stated this is your own premise here because what Dan is saying is you are telling other projects they cannot continue because somebody might put solar panels on the roof next door. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated I am not saying that at all. I am not sure. Howard Pinsley stated reading into what you are saying, it is about the other projects, and this is the problem you have. I agree with one thing: very quickly, this whole paragraph, Tony said the same thing, it is ridiculous. We have known that since we first read it. We are not lawyers here. We are not able to re-write this thing properly. If it needs to be rewritten I agree with these guys. Dan Gaba stated in the Advisory Opinion we are asked about one change to the language in the code. I am not speaking for the entire Board but merely as a suggestion, that what this Board says it not the be all answers to the solar provision. Tom L. Lewis stated my motion is specifically to approve that language. And the second thing is about notification in the T-6 zones and the third thing is I would like to incorporate all of Mark’s notes with a comment that this is a very complex balancing act between energy savings and development rights. All that information should be incorporated City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 18 of 22 into the UDO, which I think will take a long time to figure out. In the mean time the City Council has sent us the paragraph which I have just made a motion and I am waiting for a second and there can be more discussion. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman stated first of all this is not a brand new issue. If you look to our bigger neighbors to the South in New York City, they have been dealing with day lighting zoning for at least the last 20 years. They have not come any closer to solving it than we have. Because the fact is and they have one of the best people in the world Mike Qwartle handling the writing of that ordinance in New York City. Dealing with something they call day lighting. Didn’t relate to energy or anything like that. Where do we throw shadows and so that history of getting there and that knowledge exists. Tom L. Lewis stated that is a great point. If you think about it New York City must have to solve this thing. They must have all kinds of ordinances. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, stated it is what we said in the beginning this is a very complex issue. I know where all the stuff came from in the beginning because back in the 70’s when the solar panels were put on the County Building my office designed it and that was really if you go back and look in 1974 there was something called the oil embargo or something like that going on that caused a great deal of energy concerns and that is where all of that action came from across the country. We just started initiating that and solar panels were one of the proposed solutions at that point. Janet Casey asked if she could make a suggestion for another possibility here. Part of the problem here maybe that the language that is being proposed here presents us with only an either/or. Is there another way to write this so that it just doesn’t say “except for properties located in the T-6” but accepts properties located in a T-6 that, perhaps have some other kind of set of requirements that they have to meet or to satisfy to show that they have shown some kind of concern about some of these issues? Do you know what I mean? The language is so black and white can we propose some other kind of language that would open things up in the T-6 district? That would not absolutely say that you could never do this but that would also acknowledge that you expect any such project to be seriously alert to something like solar panels on a neighboring building. Tom L. Lewis stated Janet this is a serious answer I am going to give you to a serious question. I am not that smart, because he just proved to me how complex and how many levels there are. So, for where we are, in April of 2015, I really don’t think that there is a way of accomplishing that. However, again for the third time, I think Marks notes should be included and I think at some point the Council is going to have a vote and Mark and anyone else, my guess is, will go to the public hearing and make a point and then ultimately the Council is going to vote up or down. So, there is a motion on the table, to be seconded and time for more discussion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there is any additional discussion. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak on this application, in terms of what you heard in terms of this discussion? Kate Maynard, Principal Planner questioned Tom L. Lewis with regards to his motion and notification. I have thought about this more since our conversation on Monday, so, one thought is how things are working out in the context of our process. So keeping in mind, any notification right now is only triggered typically with the DRC review architectural, historical review. Their view is very limited to historic architectural features. So, just to be clear, it is not a situation of saying yes or no to an application based on neighbors’ objections. Tom L. Lewis stated the only reason I am saying it is because when someone puts up solar panels they are restricting someone else’s property rights. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated understood. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 19 of 22 Tom L. Lewis stated so that is why it is a suggestion that the Council looks at the other T zones whether it warrants notification to neighbors when someone does this. Because it affects their rights. It is the same way when there is a subdivision there is the requirement that the neighbors are notified because it may affect their property. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated I know where you are coming from. I want to make sure you understand that the DRC has limited jurisdiction. So if people came out and stated I don’t want this placed on the adjacent property that I own because it is going to limit my property rights DRC doesn’t necessarily have the ability to say no to an application because of that perceived impact on someone’s property. Tom L. Lewis questioned who does have authority to protect the neighbor’s rights. Tony Izzo stated the Zoning Board oddly enough in granting an variance has to consider “impact on the neighbors” a term probably brought up to encompass the situation you are talking about. In a practical sense your guess is as good as mine. Clifford Van Wagner stated but you do not have to solve that now. This is a recommendation. We are not looking to solve it. Tom is making this as some additional verbiage in his motion. Tom L. Lewis stated they should take a look at the fact that now this has come to the forefront, after 25 years that oh gee, I never thought of how it affects other people. At least they should be able to weigh in. I am not looking to further complicate it by making someone put some solar panels and they have to go the Planning Board. That would be a way. I think we have enough applicants but that is up to the Council and the ordinance. I mean they are reviewing the whole Comp Plan, Zoning Ordinance and the UDO. Who is driving the UDO, NYSERDA? Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Unified Development Ordinance is awarded a contract under what is called the Cleaner Greener program which is administered by NYSERDA. The City won an award, the objective of the award is to develop this Unified Development Ordinance and select a contractor. Tom L. Lewis stated so NYSERDA funds some of this. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated $200,000. Tom L. Lewis stated that is great. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated Harry would you like to speak. Harry Moran, Sustainable Saratoga stated you have a lot of good points obviously. The language effectively, practically eliminates any possibility of property owners wanting to own and develop solar when they are the owners of the solar panels. The language we are talking about would make it such that any property owner in T-6 it would be illogical for them to do this. Tom L. Lewis questioned why this would be this case? Why would that be if there are no big buildings around them then why wouldn’t they do it? Mark Torpey, Chairman stated I was trying to broach the nuance of your question with my comments because there is a difference in terms of if you have a small building and you have a vacant lot next to you with the potential to go up, right, that small business there has the option to put solar on even now knowing that potentially a larger building can get built. If they go with the leasing option, the company that does that is at risk financially for that or the business owner does that it is a different set of risks to the property owner. The discussion of the risks associated with putting solar is difficult. Dan Gaba stated he agrees with that but what we are talking about is guidance in other areas, which is too complex to get into now. The T-6 zone is the business district. That is the highest density. You make business decisions City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 20 of 22 down there. People decide to put businesses in. If I put a coffee shop in next to a coffee shop, if I invest my money and fail, similarly if I put solar panels on your one story building in a T-6 district knowing that you’re building could be 70 feet high. You are making a business decision knowing that the person next door could build a building 7 feet high and impede my solar panels, this is a business decision to make not that he is prohibited from building a 70 foot high building it is just that he decided to put them on a one story building. I think that is where I am wrestling with it. I don’t want to impede the solar panels but yet any of the taller buildings downtown anybody and everybody can put solar panels on those buildings. If you decide on a one or two story building next to a vacant lot that is the risk that you take in putting a tenant in there, a business or whatever you decide to do in that building. Tom L. Lewis stated this is not saying that you cannot put up solar panels. Is it fair to say that you can call for a vote Mr. Chairman? Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if Mr. Moran would like to finish his thoughts. Harry Moran, Sustainable Saratoga stated in general what we strive to do is to incentivize property owners to do things that not only benefit themselves and their businesses but also benefit the community and the environment. So, I think something that makes that more difficult is not in the long term interest to do that. Clearly to me this has that effect, not the desired effect. But we want property owners who are thinking ahead not just thinking about themselves but taking steps that benefit the greater good. We want that. So, I just ask you all to think about that as well. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any other discussion. So, I am not sure how the votes are going to play out but I wanted to ask a technical question in terms of a minority report assuming that there might be a dissent on this. What is the process for this? Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated this is a new concept for me. Traditionally, the minority report comes out during the discussion period and the individuals who do not feel a particular way get on the record or in the record permanently during the discussion period. I have to confess the idea of a separate minority decision is something that is a new concept for me. A minority report is what you decide it should be. My point is that for a minority report to get into the record during the discussion period. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman questioned Tony Izzo and stated lets think of the Supreme Court. When the minority opinion of the court comes out it isn’t just on the side. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated it is a dissenting opinion. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman stated so there is a methodology we use. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated I don’t know of any reason why a Board could not do that. My point is that it is not the way that I have seen in done for a long time. However, now I am seeing it done. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have a motion on the table and I respect that. It is getting late and we have beaten this thing to death for this evening. So, what I would like, I think you have acknowledged that we would acknowledge points that were made in terms of our discussion. Tom L. Lewis stated absolutely. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated that reinforces the complexity of this and would go along with our recommendation in terms of your motion. Tom L. Lewis stated I am comfortable with that. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 21 of 22 Dan Gaba stated we all agree to point out to the City Council that this is a complex issue and this is a non binding recommendation just for the Council’s consideration and up to them for final decision. Ultimately it is there decision. Howard Pinsley seconded the motion. Mark Torpey asked Lindsey to poll the Board. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chairman, opposed; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Janet Casey opposed. MOTION PASSES: 5-2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Clifford Van Wagner, made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 25, 2015 Planning Board Meeting as submitted with any corrections or additions. Dan Gaba seconded the motion. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, abstained; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0-1 Clifford Van Wagner, made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2015 Planning Board Meeting as submitted with any corrections or additions. Dan Gaba seconded the motion. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 7/8/15 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – April 22, 2015 - Page 22 of 22