Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Solar farm Special Use Permit approved

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,056

    Solar farm Special Use Permit approved

    By 3-2 vote, the Town of Lancaster granted a Special Use Permit to Andrea DeBernardis of AC Power 14, LLC to install two (2) Co-located Ballasted Community Solar PV Facilities to be located on two (2) parcels on Gunnville Road.

    After a very contentious / controversial work session and pre-file resolution public comment session, those voting approval were Supervisor Ruffino, Councilmember Mazur, and Councilmember Wozniak. Voting ‘no’ were Councilmembers Leary and Dickman.

    Prior to resolution voting, Wozniak suggested adding two stipulations (conditions) to the resolution language:

    1. Completion of Department of Conservation (DEC) study on impact to landfill cap and affect on wildlife and environment concerns.

    2. Requirement of a bond prior to project construction that takes into consideration all the projected expenses associated with the decommissioning of the project in the future.

    Before voting ended, Leary asked for clarification why there was no vote taken on the addition of conditions. Voting continued with no response from the board members.

    The subject was later broached at the public comment session at meeting’s end. The discussion led to board consensus that added reasonable conditions suggested by all board members would be considered and added by resolution at the next board meeting to the approved Special Use Permit. Conditions that would hold the project sponsor accountable ensuring the town’s best interests were being served - held harmless should the project fail or by expenses at project decommissioning time.

    NEXT: Part II: Project concerns shared by board and public

  2. #2
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,139
    I have many concerns about this project in general, and about the April 5, 2021 meeting in general.

    Specially, can some explain why this happened...
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    By 3-2 vote, the Town of Lancaster granted a Special Use Permit to Andrea DeBernardis of AC Power 14, LLC to install two (2) Co-located Ballasted Community Solar PV Facilities to be located on two (2) parcels on Gunnville Road.
    ...before this process is completed?...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Prior to resolution voting, Wozniak suggested adding two stipulations (conditions) to the resolution language:

    1. Completion of Department of Conservation (DEC) study on impact to landfill cap and affect on wildlife and environment concerns.
    Simply put, does it make any sense for the Town Council to approve a project which is still subject to an obstructionist DEC intervention?
    Of Mike Wozniak: "He has the same ideology as Ron (Ruffino) wanted, Giza said."

  3. #3
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post

    NEXT: Part II: Project concerns shared by board and public
    What I perceived as the arrogant, pre-ordained positions of the Democrat majority, along with what I considered to have been the badgering responses and comments of the Town Attorney, were to me, painful to listen to; just my opinion of course.
    Of Mike Wozniak: "He has the same ideology as Ron (Ruffino) wanted, Giza said."

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,056
    Part II: Solar farm premeeting work session

    At the pre-meeting work session, councilmember Leary questioned why the resolution was presented as a regular pre-filed resolution and not a suspended resolution considering it was submitted late to the Town Clerk for publishing. Town Attorney Loftus explained the issue as being routine and an exception here because of the holiday and Town Hall being closed on Good Friday. Leary disagreed with the attorney’s interpretation. He spoke on a discussion he had with with the Association of Towns who confirmed it should have been presented as a suspended resolution by Rules of Order #17 - because the resolution did not get to the Town Clerk's office in time for posting. “You should have a resolution to change a resolution,” said Leary.

    Attorney Kevin Loftus declared it has been routine for resolutions to come in late and it was preferred they come in as pre-filed and not suspended. He also declared that it was the Town Clerk’s discretion as to whether the resolution winds up per-file or suspended.

    Councilmember Dave Mazur and Supervisor Ruffino interjected that the project had been approved by the Planning Board and the Code Enforcement Department and that the project sponsor had answered all the project concerns at the Special Use Permit public hearing. Leary countered that they certainly had not answered all the public’s questions and specifically his questions that are relative and important before permit granting. “Shouldn’t we have a bond in place to cover the cost of decommissioning the site?”

    Attorney Loftus responded that he had sent out an email requesting if any board member had any conditions they wanted to add to the two conditions general to permit issuance and had received on board member responses. Leary declared that there should be many conditions going into the resolution but that the email focus had been on resolution format presentation.

    Loftus declared this matter had been treated no different than hundreds of previous like situations over the years when late resolutions were received and entered as regular pre-file resolutions, rather than suspended resolutions. Leary disagreed and referred to a series of emails exchanged between Solar AC-14 and Loftus, and where he believed the project sponsor was getting preferential treatment.

    Leary entered the Loftus-AC Power-14 emails into the public record and recommended the hiring of another attorney to investigate the process.

    NEXT: Part III - Residents address board at resolution pre-file public comment session

  5. #5
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,139
    Lancaster Bee...

    Lancaster Town approves AC Power 14 special use permit
    April 08, 2021

    by MARIA PERICOZZI Editor

    After lengthy discussion during the work session and regular meeting Monday regarding the approval of a special use permit for AC Power 14, the Lancaster Town Board split the vote to approve the resolution.

    Council members Adam Dickman and Bob Leary voted against the resolution. Supervisor Ronald Ruffino Sr. and council members David Mazur and Michael Wozniak voted for the resolution.

    The resolution approves a special use permit for AC Power 14, LLC, to install two co-located ballasted community solar facilities on a closed landfill of 197 acres on Gunnville Road in the Town of Lancaster. The project will be on 40 acres, and the solar panels will cover 15 acres. The total project is estimated to cost $14 million.

    “These folks have been working in good faith with the town engineer, code enforcement office since January or February of last year … I don’t understand the hiccup with all this,” Ruffino said.

    The resolution was on the agenda as a pre-filed resolution, but that was questioned by Leary, because the resolution arrived to the Town Clerk’s office “late.”

    Due to Friday’s holiday, resolutions were due to the Town Clerk’s office by 3 p.m. Wednesday. Ruffino said at 12:30 p.m. Wednesday, they were told the resolution could not go on the agenda because the clerk’s office was short-staffed, and they did not have time to put it on the agenda.

    “I don’t understand all this controversy with this,” Ruffino said. “We’re trying to bring business to the town. It’s a project that the piece of land has no use at all but this … It’s a great project that will use unusable land, it will generate some dollars for the schools, town and county. I don’t understand the hiccup with this. These projects are going on all over New York state, not just Lancaster.”

    Town attorney Kevin Loftus stated that his office treated the late resolution as they would normally, warning the clerk’s office that it would be coming, and clerk Diane Terranova can either accept or deny the resolution as a pre-filed resolution.

    “The clerk has the discretion to put it on, and she did,” Loftus said. “This has happened numerous times. Our office routinely gets late submissions and we’ve always been consistent.”

    There are some circumstances beyond their control, Loftus said, which leads to late submissions, and Terranova either accepts or denies them.

    Leary said he does not believe it should be at Terranova’s discretion to accept resolutions late.

    “Anything that can go on the general agenda, I think it’s an advantage to go on the general agenda,” Loftus said. “This is not the first time we’ve submitted a late resolution.”

    Leary requested an outside attorney to review whether or not the resolution should appear as a pre-filed or suspended resolution.

    Leary read multiple emails between Loftus and AC Power 14 into the record during the meeting.


    “This email to me, sounds like our town attorney is working very closely with [AC Power 14], and I object to him making the determination on whether it’s OK to put this resolution on at all tonight,” Leary said. “I think we should pay for an outside attorney to be brought in and make a determination on this.”

    The motion was denied, as only Dickman and Leary voted for an outside attorney.

    Leary also questioned why the resolution had been “pushed through.”

    Mazur said the resolution is not being pushed through, that the planning board and LIDA approved of the permit, and the special use permit hearing was more than 30 days ago.

    “We’re not pushing anything through,” Mazur said. “It’s just like a regular project.”

    Leary also asked AC Power 14 who the private investor is and where the panels will be made, adding that residents have a right to know if these panels or parts are coming from “Communist China.”

    An AC Power 14 representative said when their contract is signed, they will introduce the investor to the board, and when the final determination is made as to where the panels will be from, the board will have that information.

    When the resolution was ready to be voted on, Leary asked that the resolution be taken off the agenda and put on the next meeting’s agenda.

    Wozniak added conditions to the resolution, including that the special use permit take into account any deficiencies in the landfill cap and impacts to wildlife, that the applicant would be responsible to remedy the deficiencies or impacts prior to starting construction, and that a decommissioning bond be instituted prior to the start of construction, which would take into account projected expenses associated with the decommissioning of the panels.

    After the vote, Leary asked why answers to his questions regarding who the private investor is and where the panels will be made were not added as conditions. Leary did not specifically ask for those added conditions while the resolution was in question.

    “If you’re going to put these other conditions on there, why not put them all on there, and make them answer the questions they haven’t wanted to answer?” Leary asked, after the resolution had already passed.

    No other conditions were added to the resolution after voting.

    The next Lancaster Town Board meeting will be held at 7 p.m. Monday, April 19. Residents can dial into the meeting by calling 800-4267 and using the PIN 1232. Residents are asked to mute their phones until they would like to speak during the public comment period.
    “The clerk has the discretion to put it on, and she did,” Loftus said..
    Is that not a curious comment if considered within the context of this email...

    Click Attachment:

    "I explained it to the clerk and got her to put it on."

    Reader, is not the comment "got her to put in on" worthy of amplification?
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; April 8th, 2021 at 08:58 AM.
    Of Mike Wozniak: "He has the same ideology as Ron (Ruffino) wanted, Giza said."

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,056
    Part III - Residents address board at resolution pre-file public comment session

    Resident Lee Chowaniec

    Chowaniec: Having served on the town committee to establish solar code ordinance, after hearing that the landfill clay cap will not be penetrated, I take
    no exception to the project itself but have reservations. Reservations whether this project is in the best interest of the community as it is being presented in this resolution.

    AC Power-14 is to receive over $5 million in taxpayer funded subsidies and/or abatements – approximately 35% of the project cost. AC Power-14 clearly states it cannot take on the project unless it gets the public funding.

    AC Power-14 will be receiving $330,000 in county tax abatement and $1.2 million from the town.

    You were quoted in the Lancaster Bee Mr. Supervisor as saying that the town will be receiving $1 million in revenue over 20 years – an IDA PILOT. What else are we getting back that makes this project in the community’s best interest – especially when it has already been shown the savings in energy cost is miniscule and there is no IDA job creation after construction end? I don’t understand why an IDA was granted.

    The resolution states a public hearing was held on the special use permit on March 1st. Unfortunately, the public asked questions and the project sponsor was often evasive or non-committal on several questions by councilmember Leary and the public.

    I am still not clear on the status of a decommissioning bond and why it is not a resolution condition – a condition that would hold the town harmless during the time of solar farm operation or at solar farm decommissioning time when 31,000 solar panels would have to be disposed of.

    There are still too many questions unanswered by AC Power-14, a project that has miniscule energy savings for the Lancaster residents, has potential financial and environment future risks / consequences, no conditions in the resolution to hold the town harmless, and should therefore be tabled for further review, or denied.

    Supervisor Ruffino interjected that are savings because the town joined the Solar Simplified energy savings program and we already realized savings of 10%. “I have taken advantage of it and see it as a valuable project.

    Chowaniec: That may be your opinion, Ron, but I know of several residents who have enrolled in Solar Simplified and their savings were less than $1 per month – and that includes the individual who spoke on 10% savings and then acknowledged her savings were only 78 cents. You are not telling the truth. Ruffino stated later in the meeting that he personally saved 10% on a $400 electric bill and was willing to make it public. Mr. Rinow and I requested he post it on the town website, which he agreed to.

    Resident David Rinow

    Rinow: It sounds like this thing is being pushed through. Councilman Wozniak, at the Republican Party endorsement meeting last month, you said that you had become a conservative because the democrats were a too far left for your palate. So, I would hope that you would vote with Mr. Leary and Mr. Dickman ‘no’ or to table the resolution for further review.

    In regard’s to Mr. Leary’s query about sticking to the rules of order, we are talking about the resolution being late here. In listening to the town lawyer, he should recuse himself. It sounded like a ten-minute commercial as to why thus project should continue.

    Supervisor Ruffino: Nothing is being pushed through here. This thing has been delayed for weeks and months. This is something that is going to benefit the town.

    Rinow: You have yet to prove how this project in anyway is going to benefit the town. What the project sponsor said earlier in what is going to be invested outside town interests has nothing to do with town best interests. You know that.

    Supervisor Ruffino: Residents can sign up and get energy savings of 10%.

    Rinow: That’s false. You don’t get 10% of the total bill. That has already been proven.

    Supervisor Ruffino: That’s what we are being told.

    Rinow: Do you get a 10% savings on the total bill? No!

    Supervisor Ruffino: I will send you a copy of my Solar Simplified bill where I saved 10%

    Rinow: Post it on the town website. We also can’t hear where the solar panels are coming from. Are they coming from China? No jobs coming to Americans. No job creation in the IDA.

    Councilman Leary: The IDA should not be funding a project like this. It should be funding a job that creates jobs. They are and they are giving them all these tax breaks. Yes, the town will be getting $1 million in revenue but what would they have to pay if they did not get all the IDA tax breaks.

    And, with no bond in place, the town of Lancaster would have to get rid of all those panels at a cost of anywhere between a half million to a million dollars. So, what are we left with? A landfill. Where is the bond from day one to take care of this? If there is a hailstorm next year, whatever, we are stuck with it.

    Councilmember Dickman: Not in favor of acting on this resolution tonight especially when there is no bond in place.

    Resident Kevin Lemaster

    Lemaster: In listening to this it sounds like the town board and the town attorney sound like salespersons for AC Power-14. The town attorney misled the people. AC Power never answered all the questions at the public hearing.

    Councilman Mazur, as the sponsor of this resolution, did you ever get information back on the testing of the wells?

    Councilman Mazur: No.

    Lemaster: Did you get any information on who dumped on the landfill in the past – as I have already asked twice?

    Councilman Mazur: No. I will wait and defer to the DEC report.

    Lemaster: I requested this information before the public hearing, and it should have been provided before the public hearing. The DEC has not concluded its environment study and the board is going to approve this resolution tonight?

    The IDA should never have been involved in this project. This project would not be possible without public money, has no real benefit to Lancaster town residents as it now stands, has potential risks as now proposed and the resolution should be pulled.

    Comment

    The above comments / exchanges make it quite clear why Councilmember Wozniak wisely added two resolution conditions to the two basic Special Use Permit condition – environment and bond. Two more were added by Councilmember Leary after the vote was taken.

    IMHO, the intent of the discourse was to not stop the project but to hold AC Power accountable, protect the town against potential financial / environmental harm, and look at the project in the true sense of a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the town’s best interest was being served. The four added conditions should have been included in the presented resolution.

    Resolution Conditions

    NOW, THEREFORE,
    BE IT RESOLVED
    , that pursuant to Chapter 50-Zoning, Article XL Solar Energy Facilities, §50-57(B) of the Code of Town of Lancaster, the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster does hereby grant a Special Use Permit to Andrea DeBernardis of AC Power 14, LLC for a Special Use Permit to install two (2) Co-located Ballasted Community Solar PV Facilities to be located on two (2) parcels on Gunnville Road, locally identified as SBL Nos. 83-00-5-6.1 and 84.3.1-1, in the Town of Lancaster, New York, upon the conditions as set forth in Chapter 50-Zoning, Article XL, §50-57 Major solar systems and Article XIV, §50-78 Special use permits, and the following conditions:

    1. Permit must be renewed every two (2) years at no additional cost to applicant. Renewal request is considered upon the property owner submitting an application to the Town Clerk, on or before April 4, 2023.

    2. Applicant will authorize representatives from the Building Inspector's Office to enter the premises upon reasonable notice to inspect the premises to verify compliance with this permit.

    3. That the applicant, AC Power 14, LLC or Landowner satisfactorily address and remedy all of the concerns or deficiencies found as a result of the NYSDEC's investigation and assessment of the proposed property including but not limited to performing remedial work to deficiencies in the landfill cap and any impacts to wildlife, prior to the start of any work associated with the construction of Solar Facility.

    4. The applicant, AC Power 14, LLC shall post a Decommission Surety Bond ensuring the proper removal of all equipment associated with this solar facility project and restoration of the landfill to its present pre-existing state. The Decommission Surety Bond shall be in the amount of all factors including but not limited to environmental liabilities, decommissioning costs, and reclamation costs as outlined in a Reclamation Cost Estimate which shall be submitted by the applicant and the estimate shall take into account the costs associated with inflation, changes in recycling standards, returning the land to its original contour and establishing sustainable vegetation. The Decommission Surety Bond and Reclamation Cost Estimate shall be submitted prior to the start of any work associated with this solar facility.

    5. The applicant AC Power 14 LLC will advise the Lancaster Town Board of the supplier of all Solar Panels to be used in the Lancaster Solar project(s) and what country the parts for the Solar Panels came from and what country the Solar Panels were assembled in BEFORE THEY ARE INSTALLED.

    6. The applicant AC Power 14 LLC will give the Lancaster Town Board a complete list as to what entities and individuals are financing the Solar Project and their percentage of ownership in the Lancaster Solar Project(s) before Construction begins.

    The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call, which resulted as follows:

    COUNCIL MEMBER DICKMAN VOTED NO
    COUNCIL MEMBER LEARY VOTED NO
    COUNCIL MEMBER MAZUR VOTED YES
    COUNCIL MEMBER WOZNIAK VOTED YES
    SUPERVISOR RUFFINO VOTED YES

    April 5, 2021

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,056
    The rest of the story

    The solar farm project town board meeting was indeed a cluster**** Monday night. A combination of bad governance, lack of transparency and political partisanship.

    IMHO, No one involved in the process wanted to stop the project, but to ensure the town was held harmless and the residents had reason to believe the project was in their best interests.

    The resolution coming out of the attorney’s office was entered to the Clerk’s office late as has happened so many times in the past - and as stated by town attorney Kevin Loftus. It was up to Town Clerk Diane Terranova to decide whether it should be on the agenda as a regular pre-file resolution or a suspended resolution. Loftus did not influence or coerce Terranova’s decision.

    Councilman Leary’s contention that the resolution should have been entered as a suspended resolution (one without conditions) was warranted because it was his and councilman Dickman’s only way to delay the resolution because a supermajority vote (4 members) would be necessary, and the resolution would have died.

    The project sponsor had made known in a series of emails to attorney Loftus that time was expiring to get funding and it was imperative the resolution was on the agenda Monday night. Loftus’ email responses to AC Power-14 were noy out of the ordinary.

    When resolution sponsor councilman Mazur was asked by a resident who wrote the resolution, he responded that attorney Loftus did. The resolution language became contentious because there were no conditions written into the document which would hold AC Power-14 accountable for holding the town harmless in case of project failure and resulting consequences. Attorney Loftus had by email asked board members whether they had wanted to add conditions to the resolution and received no response.

    It was at the time of resolution vote that councilman Wozniak introduced two resolution conditions; one for a site decommission bond, the other for completion of DEC environmental site study. Wozniak stated he had done research and felt these conditions reasonable. Why had these conditions not been discussed and included into the resolution at the work session before resolution voting took place? It would have allowed Leary to introduce his conditions then and avoided the confusion and bedlam that ensued at the pre-file public comment session, at the time of resolution vote, and at the closing public comment session.

    Leary dis get his conditions in as well – in a hard-fought manner, experiencing partisan opposition along the way. Protecting the town’s best interest was his goal the entire time. Combating a project sponsor that was evasive or misleading in answering his questions.

    If there was any appearance of favoritism extended to the project sponsor, it can be attributed to Supervisor Ruffino. Countless times he deferred to AC Power-14 acting in good faith, they’re answering all board and public questions, and his touting the 10% energy savings the residents would realize from the project. For Ruffino to tell Leary that he didn’t think it possible for the board to question where the solar panels were going to be manufactured, was appalling. “If these panels are going to be made in Communist China where their standards and materials are questionable, we have a right to know that,” Leary contended.

    There are other unanswered questions that remain – like why an IDA PILOT was granted in the first place, cost-benefit analysis as to public funding expended vs. taxpayer return, and other.

    Imagine that, $5 million in public funding, 35% of the total project cost ($14 million), and the project sponsor evades answering certain questions because the answer is proprietary, and the Supervisor tells us not to worry that the project sponsor is acting in good faith. He puts outs a misleading letter to the community on 10% energy savings, touts the $1 million in revenue from the project over 20 years, and that should be reason enough for having no resolution conditions to hold AC Power-14 accountable.

    Councilmembers Leary and Dickman thought not, as did the residents speaking at Monday evening’s town board meeting.

    There is still time to add conditions Mr. Leary!

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,382
    There will be no 10% savings from the project because solar energy systems are hopelessly inefficient and ineffective. That’s why they require massive tax breaks to even build them. Add in the massive removal and cleanup costs when they fail and it’s a stone loser for the taxpayer victims of these scams. The costs of cleanup from the known carcinogens such as cadmium and a host of others that leach out of the panels and into the ground in the rain are spectacular. And while you’ll never hear it reported on American tv, it takes a solar panel 8 years of operation to produce enough energy to replace the equivalent amount of the hydrocarbons pumped into the atmosphere by the coal fired plants in China and other 3rd world countries that are used to produce them. And the panels aren’t recyclable or reusable. All in all, an economic and environmental disaster promoted by Democratic Totalitarians in bed with panel makers, kinda like Cuomo and Musk.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,056
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    There will be no 10% savings from the project because solar energy systems are hopelessly inefficient and ineffective. That’s why they require massive tax breaks to even build them. Add in the massive removal and cleanup costs when they fail and it’s a stone loser for the taxpayer victims of these scams. The costs of cleanup from the known carcinogens such as cadmium and a host of others that leach out of the panels and into the ground in the rain are spectacular. And while you’ll never hear it reported on American tv, it takes a solar panel 8 years of operation to produce enough energy to replace the equivalent amount of the hydrocarbons pumped into the atmosphere by the coal fired plants in China and other 3rd world countries that are used to produce them. And the panels aren’t recyclable or reusable. All in all, an economic and environmental disaster promoted by Democratic Totalitarians in bed with panel makers, kinda like Cuomo and Musk.

    There are numerous reasons to refute the ‘clean energy’ claim that can be researched on the Internet. Warehouses filled with solar panels in half the states that do not allow solar panel disposal in landfills; panels catching on fire, etc.

    While China gets a pass, where individuals are still defecating in the streets in many countries, where the world is polluting land and sea and killing off flora and fauna, we are tasked to do the impossible without any consideration for the likelihood that the great majority of Americans will not be able to afford the transition. Not to worry though, the government climate change advocates will hand out more free stuff to scam the public.

    And our town supervisor admonishes a board member that he didn’t think the town had the right to condition the recent solar farm resolution to know where the solar panels were manufactured or their component makeup. “They (project sponsor) told us they meet regulation standards,” said Supervisor Ruffino. Trusting a ‘project sponsor’ is tantamount in today’s world to trusting politicos.

  10. #10
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    And our town supervisor admonishes a board member that he didn’t think the town had the right to condition the recent solar farm resolution to know where the solar panels were manufactured or their component makeup. “They (project sponsor) told us they meet regulation standards,” said Supervisor Ruffino. Trusting a ‘project sponsor’ is tantamount in today’s world to trusting politicos.
    The near-perfect description of "Corporatism?..."



    cor·po·rat·ism

    noun
    the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
    "roughly one hundred years ago, the free market began to be replaced with corporatism"
    Does not that great "Conservative" Ron Ruffino appear to be speaking with a socialist accent?

    Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were in fact socialist states which were entirely reliant on the shared power of the state and private business.

    In fact, Premier Mussolini defined Fascism accordingly...

    "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
    Reference: https://roanoke.com/news/local/quote...tury%20fascism.

    Is Lancaster's Town Board morphing into a localized, 21 Century version of the Fascist Grand Council?
    Of Mike Wozniak: "He has the same ideology as Ron (Ruffino) wanted, Giza said."

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,382
    Lee, if they say they have no right to environmental fundamentals it’s pretty certain they’re lying. What about SEQRA?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,056
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    Lee, if they say they have no right to environmental fundamentals it’s pretty certain they’re lying. What about SEQRA?

    In the December 2, 2020 site plan approval, the town had language in the approved resolution that read:

    WHEREAS, the Town, acting as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) has identified the relevant areas of environmental concern and determined the action to be a Type II action under 6NYCRR Part 617.5(c)(9).

    Type II Actions do not require SEQR.

    At the December 2, 2020 Planning Board meeting the project sponsor declared this is exactly the type of product that NYSDEC envisioned when they amended SEQR in 2019. DEC has determined that this will not have a significant environment impact. As a Type II Action, no SEQR is required of the Town of Lancaster.

    Previously, it was the town that determined whether there was a need for SEQR. The town did not conduct a SEQR, yet they declared Monday that they were waiting for DEC ‘study’ completion (whatever that entailed) and conditioned DEC study completion. Confused? Yeah, me too.

    Federal, State and local governments have bought into this renewal energy program without giving any consideration to present and future shortcomings. The conditions that were instated at voting time (and even after) should have been included in the resolution draft.

    Again for the Supervisor to declare that the project sponsor acted in good faith, answered all town and resident questions, was just plain BS.

    Cluster****, indeed! Transparency, not so much!

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,382
    So they’re saying they declared a Type 2 action even though they had no information on the environmental impacts provided by the applicant. Sounds to me like the sponsor declared it a Type 2 action and your boards just caved. What’s that sound I hear in the distance? Wait, it sounds an awful lot like...yes, I think it is...ka-ching, ka-ching. On a larger scale this is what happens when the state legislature, through laziness and cowardice, hands its statutory duties over to clerks at the DEC. We saw the same results of their laziness and cowardice when they made Cuomo the Emperor of the Empire State and ran home to hide in April 2020.

  14. #14
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,139
    Lancaster/Depew Bee

    Poll

    Do you approve of the proposed solar facility on Gunnville Road?

    Yes
    No
    Vote: https://www.lancasterbee.com/?fbclid...HMelxlAuL6NQWU

    I can relate this much: I can view the current result, but for some reason, I am unable to register my vote.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; April 13th, 2021 at 08:35 AM.
    Of Mike Wozniak: "He has the same ideology as Ron (Ruffino) wanted, Giza said."

  15. #15
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post

    I can relate this much: I can view the current result, but for some reason, I am unable to register my vote.
    This poll was posted on the Lancaster/Depew Bee FB page only yesterday afternooon.

    I have since heard from another individual who was unable to cast its vote this morning.

    Under approximately seventeen hours, including overnight hours, to vote?

    Curious, curious, curious.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; April 13th, 2021 at 10:02 AM.
    Of Mike Wozniak: "He has the same ideology as Ron (Ruffino) wanted, Giza said."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Right to Farm Law approved by Lancaster
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 6th, 2012, 10:49 PM
  2. Rezoning and Special Use Permit Hearing
    By Roberta in forum West Seneca Politics
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: December 11th, 2008, 08:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •