Planning Board Minutes - subject to approval
Regular meeting - January 5, 2009
Call to Order: Larry Lockwood called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Larry Lockwood, Joe Snyder, Jack McGuire, Chris Kenyon and Charles Boorgaard
Other Officials present: Roger Gallant - Building Inspector (Councilman Buisch did not attend due to illness)
Correspondence: Chris Kenyon gave the board members an article on wind energy which had appeared in the Sun & Record.
Approval of Minutes: Jack McGuire moved, seconded by Chris Kenyon to accept the minutes of the December 1st meeting with the following changes: the meeting date for November 2009 should be November 2nd instead of November 9th. On the last page of the minutes, the word office had an extra space to be removed.
Old Business:
1. Data Comparison of setback distances and stack heights done by Charles Boogaard.
Charles stated that he had sent out data which showed all the municipalities and all the counties in the state. He chose a few sources and put them into a PowerPoint printout which he gave to those present.
The data on the first page showed various restrictions based on distance from the resident not using an outdoor wood furnace. There was some discussion to clarify exactly what the data involved.
Joe Snyder asked whether the 200 ft distance given by some was set regardless of the efficiency of the furnace.
Charles said that it was.
Jack McGuire wondered about restrictions for a wood burning furnace being installed next to a neighbor who also had a wood burning furnace.
Charles said that he believed the restrictions would not be applied in that case.
The second page dealt with stack height near residents. There were varying heights from different sources and Brownville, NY uses what they call "slide rule stack heights" which was detailed on the 3rd page. Charles said that he had seen pictures of the higher stacks but found no information on bracing.
The 4th page dealt with the Model Rule from the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) which stated that any furnace not meeting the Phase I or Phase II emission standard must be 500 ft or more from a property line and must have a permanent stack extending 5 ft higher than the peak of any roof structure located within 150 ft of the furnace.
The next page dealt with regulations from New Hampshire. One item to be noted was that some distances were from property lines and some from residences. Page 6 of the handout showed requirements from Maine.
Joe said he thought that this data was important because it showed that there were some restrictions that went beyond what Huron was proposing.
The next page showed Glenns Falls which had no special setback for furnaces. It had stack height requirements but the setback of the furnace would be determined by current zoning and building codes.
Page 8 contained the proposed bill from Assemblywoman Donna A. Lupardo. Jack had sent an email regarding the current bill to the board after the last meeting. This shows what restrictions are being proposed at the State level.
Charles said he included Nuisance Conditions on the next page of the packet because he thought that it could also be tied into a local regulation.
The last page contained items that Charles had questions about after gathering his data. They included: chimney caps, spark arresters, distance from road, cement base, tying in a nuisance law, permits and what would happen if the property was sold or abandoned (furnace could be considered abandoned if the furnace is no longer used.)
Larry asked Roger if permits and cement bases were currently required.
Roger said that permits were required but cement bases would only be required if the manufacturer stipulated it.
Joe thought that the months of operation should be addressed in the local rule.
Jack said that the proposed NY State law would restrict the months of operation.
Charles felt that states would be moving to requiring Phase I or Phase II.
Joe thought that the furnace emission qualities and cost should be investigated so that the board would be knowledgeable in that area and then that information could be shared with the public. Joe also felt that if a person was willing to pay more and thus pollute less, they should benefit through less regulation.
Discussion continued about different personal observations of outdoor furnaces by board members and their concerns about the amount of smoke that can occur at times.
In discussing what the board would propose, Charles stated that he likes the 200 ft setback from the nearest lot line.
Joe wondered what would happen if the property was empty and then a residence is built; would the placement of the new residence be dictated by where the furnace is or would the furnace have to be moved if it did not meet the required setback from the residence. He also stated that he personally prefers using the lot lines but feels that the draft should use structure. For furnaces where there are no structures on adjoining property, there should be stipulations that the furnace owner understands that he/she would have to be in compliance if a structure is built in the future.
Charles stated that a stack height 2ft above the eave was common to most of the sources.
The general consensus after discussion was that it would not be practical to build very high stacks - support would be very difficult.
Charles asked if the board felt a Nuisance Law would be sufficient. It was generally felt that it would be difficult to enforce.
Larry asked what the next steps would be.
Jack and Chris both thought including the Phase I and Phase II in the local law makes sense; that it spells things out clearly.
Joe said that he thought that a proposed law could say that for Phase II it would be 200ft, Phase I would be 300ft and less efficient would be 400ft. That would give the people of the town the choice. If you get far enough away, stack height might become a non-issue.
Using this type of proposal, zoning and acreage issues would be gone and it would just be based on setback.
Joe will draft up something with the 3 different styles of furnaces or standards for furnaces. He will couple that with setback and stack height numbers. That would create a framework for the board to work from.
Charles stated that descriptions could be found on the EPA site.
Joe said he could put them in a table for the next meeting.
Charles will provide the cost information for the different types of furnaces.
Other discussion items to be considered: distance from schools, daycare centers, etc.; commercial applications, rain caps, abandoned furnaces, non-conforming furnaces that already exist but then are abandoned.
Charles felt that if they are not used for a year, then they should be removed. He felt that people that already have the furnaces should be able to keep them.
Joe stated that existing furnaces might be dealt with through stack height unless there were no complaints about the operation.
Charles thought that all new ones should comply but that the others could be brought slowly into compliance with selling of the property, etc.
Larry stated that some had invested quite a bit in their furnaces already.
Joe said that the possibility exists that some properties may not be sold and therefore would never come into compliance.
Jack said that perhaps that could be covered under a nuisance law.
Charles said that he can see both sides of the issue but doesn't want to cause any unnecessary hardship to individuals or businesses. He prefers slow-change type regulations.
Chris said that perhaps a timeframe could be set up for serious cases.
2. Tax Issues for Condos and Townhouses
Dave Scutter was going to contact the town attorney concerning these issues; no further information has been received.
New Business
1. Joe thought that the board should discuss what their focus would be for the upcoming year.
Some ideas put forth by board members included:
keyholing
continuing with the outdoor furnaces
littering laws
wind energy (town has a committee but they have only had one meeting)
shoulder improvements for the roads for walking, biking, running, jogging, etc. (this would have to be a long term project) The board agreed that it could be a planning proposal; the board would need to get cost estimates from Chuck Bush for doing 4mi or so per year. Roger said that easements for utilities, etc. would also have to be checked. Chris thought that this would be more of an actual "planning" project for the board as opposed to regulating issues. Roger said that parks and recreation are of interest to the town board so he thought that this would be a good project to pursue. Chris said that he could work with the Planning Department of Wayne County.
the debris left by hunters - wads and shells that are left along the shoreline
2. Charles asked about updating the technology capabilities of the town hall.
Roger asked that Charles send an email to him asking that question and copy the Town Supervisor.
3. County Planning Board Monthly Report
Larry said that the County reviewed a request to build a wind tower in Ontario on Lake Rd. The individual wanted to build an 80ft. tower but the height up to the top of the blades was 120ft. His property was only 175ft wide so the county recommended denial. The board said that the fall zone for the tower should be contained within the property so as not to impact neighbors.
4. Email communications
During the month of December, copies of the following emails were received by the clerk:
From Jack McGuire regarding a bill before the NY Assembly dealing with the outdoor wood furnaces with responses from Charles Boorgaard and Joe Snyder.
From Jack McGuire regarding questions for the Planning Board with a response from Dave Buisch
From Charles Boorgaard listing municipalities with requirements for outdoor furnaces. He also provided a website for the article "Dispersion Modeling Assessment of Impacts of Outdoor Wood Boiler Emissions in Support of NESCAUM's Model Rule."
Adjournment:
Jack McGuire moved and Chris Kenyon seconded.
