HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-11 CAC MinutesTown of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 1 of 9
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council (CAC)
Minutes of Video Conference (Zoom) Meeting on
Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Danby, New York
Council Members present: Clare Fewtrell (chair), Joel Gagnon, George
Adams, Don Schaufler, Brittany Lagaly, Margaret Corbit, Jonathan Zisk,
Mary Woodsen,
Council Members absent: none
Others present: Elizabeth Keokosky (secretary), Ronda Roaring (Danby
resident), Katharine Hunter (former CAC member), Ted Crane (Danby
resident)
Zoom Meeting was officially called to order at 7:05.
Deletions or Additions to Agenda: Solar Array discussion added to
agenda item 8 on Low Density Re-zoning Group Report. Adams removed
Agenda item 4 on Easement Signs since he had nothing new to add at this
meeting.
Privilege of the Floor (PoF): Two people in audience spoke: Hunter
thanked Lagaly for the Lantern Fly Presentation and said it was helpful.
Roaring reminded CAC that they were one member short and should be
recruiting. She also described an event at Sycamore Hill in Marcellus
which she had attended and which had charged admission for a garden
event, donating the money to Baltimore Woods Nature Center. She
suggested that CAC might run a special event and similarly raise money for
purchase of a property or development rights or just to promote
conservation easements and land preservation.
Approval Minutes MOTION for April 11, 2020
Zisk moved to approve
Fewtrell seconded
Unanimous approval except for Lagaly who abstained (since she
was absent at April meeting)
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 2 of 9
REPORTS AND UPDATES
1. Spotted Lanternfly Webinar Report – Lagaly
Lagaly reported on the Webinar given on April 22. Besides what the
group had done, she had advertised it in quite a few places through
Cooperative Extension and the Finger Lakes Native Plant Society.
She was complimented by several people on her powerpoint on the
Lanternfly life stages and its effect on its host plants. 11 people (as
reported by Town Clerk who noted the people registered) attended.
The recording will be put on CAC web page and the Danby town
website will reference it.
2. Easement Zoom Meeting (13th May) last minute check-in – Zisk
Presenter Jonathan Zisk, will moderate the program and described
his slides as information-intensive. He will discuss some of the pros
and cons of easements. Richard and Joan Curtiss, current easement
holders, will be there to relate their experiences, and perhaps Dan
Hoffman, who is a prospective easement donor. There was some
discussion on how to pace the presentation and keep the right time
balance between Zisk’s main talk, other easement voices, and the
questions/answer section, all within the allotted hour. Zisk arranged
with Gagnon to meet early to practice sharing his screen before the
presentation begins.
3. Easement Website –Margaret Corbit & Mary Woodsen
Corbit had no updates since she has not been able to communicate
with Town Clerk, who has been very busy and unavailable. Corbit
suggested to Zisk that his final slide at his presentation might show
the links to the easement-related documents listed on the CAC
webpage. Fewtrell reminded him to use the shortcut to the URL
address.
4. Easement Signs – Adams (not discussed)
5. Easement Rack Cards – Woodsen and Schaufler
There was continued discussion of how to get hold of the original rack
card document so that it could be modified. Roaring suggested that a
former CAC member, Jenny Cauldwell, was the person who worked
on it with Woodsen, and she might have a copy on her home
computer. Schaufler was also going to check with Gnomon copy on
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 3 of 9
the file type of the file that was still on their system, and whether they
could make the changes there. Gagnon took on the responsibility to
make sure these things happened.
6. Logging Ordinance – Adams, Schaufler & Zisk
Adams noted we are now on draft version 5.4 (of the “Local Law to
Amend the Zoning Ordinance: Related to Timber Harvesting in the
Town of Danby, New York,” as it is entitled). He had given a copy to
Steve Cortwright, the Code Enforcement Officer, who had not read it
thoroughly enough yet to give a full response, but had reported back
after a quick look that he had not seen any “red flags”.
The draft states that the permit applies to “anyone desiring to harvest
timber in quantities greater than 25 standard cords of wood or 10,000
board feet of timber as measured by the International Log Rule in any
one year within the town. The property owner and the logger shall
apply for such permit jointly.” (Adams and Schaufler might decrease
this to 15 cords or 5,000 board feet).
Fewtrell felt it was a significant improvement over the last version.
The main question she brought up was on the confusion raised by the
difference between the 2 types of applications – basic, and full – and
the 3 types of permits – homeowner, basic and full.
Adams explained that everyone will initially apply for a permit. He felt
it was up to the Code Enforcement Officer to determine whether a
homeowner or basic permit was needed. Fewtrell thought it should
be more transparent, and that there should be some initial filtering to
weed out the homeowner before s/he was required to complete all
the paper work and requirements, not afterwards. Adams felt that
some oversight was needed, in all cases.
Fewtrell said that she would send the rest of her comments and
editing to the subcommittee by email.
Corbit felt that the current version was much more concise than past
drafts. Schaufler brought up the question of how a performance bond
worked and asked if the town has the ability to do it - was there an
existing mechanism to receive money, put it someplace legal, and
give it back if all is well? Adams responded that “that hasn’t been
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 4 of 9
checked out yet.” Gagnon said that there was a law including
performance bonds already in the Highway Dept.
Adams asked why this law wasn’t used for Santo Oliver (the
disreputable logger who had left a mess on Marsh Rd.), and Gagnon
said that the existing agricultural exemption (Right to Farm law, which
included logging) had stood in the way.
Gagnon made the point that the Highway Department could have
stopped the logging several years ago - when the incident with Santo
Oliver in Deputron Hollow happened (and initiated this whole process
of strengthening the regulations on logging), but they were reluctant
to do so at the time because the language of the law had made it
confusing. He said that this law has since been clarified and used on
other occasions.
(After-note: from 5/19/21 email from Laura Shawley at Highway Dept.
(URLs added): “We were trying to pass some laws that would put
restrictions on this activity (Santo Oliver’s misuse of the
road). However, they were exempt from everything because it was
regulated by the Right to Farm Law (https://agriculture.ny.gov/land-
and-water/section-305-review-restrictive-laws ), which lets them do
whatever they wish. The only other law that we have is the Road
Usage Law
(http://danbyny.org/Documents/TownBoard_Law_201104.pdf), which
we only enforce if we catch them. Then they come in and give us
their load information to see if they would need to post a bond. There
is nothing that we can do to stop this at this time. We would like to
have a specific law that states that they must get a permit to log and
the second would be for them to post a bond, period. A designated
amount in the law.” )
Referring to the performance bond, Adams said that it was just
insurance by another name. It becomes less important for people
who carry insurance already. It was noted that the fine in this version
of the logging ordinance has increased from $100 to $1000 to make
more of an impact for violations, but Fewtrell thought that it was still
too low. Roaring asked who would check the job after it was done.
She was told it was the Code Enforcement Officer.
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 5 of 9
(PoF)Secretary Keokosky protested that people who had logged for
firewood all their lives (and were in the homeowner category) would
be totally put off by these rules, and in doing so would possibly
delegitimize the whole effort. Fewtrell also wanted more simplicity for
the low-end user. Schaufler reminded them that these were full
cords, not face cords, that were being discussed --with the limit being
15 full cords, or 45 face cords, which becomes a commercial
enterprise. Zisk asked about the board feet limit and Schaufler
replied that the limit of 5000 board feet is more than what is held by a
tri-axle truck load of logs, which is 3500 board feet or around 20 tons.
These clarifications put the requirements into a better perspective.
Fewtrell directed group to send further comments to the
subcommittee.
7. Invasive Species Talk for Highway Department – Lagaly
Lagaly reported that this talk was scheduled for Thursday, March 20th
at 3:30 specifically for the Danby Highway Department to see from a
monitor in their break room. It will last around 30 minutes with a Q&A
to follow. One part covers how to operate equipment safely around
invasive species like giant hogweed which can cause problems like
chemical burns for highway department workers. The second part is
about measures highway departments can take to prevent the spread
of invasive species, such as Japanese knotweed.
Places to advertise were discussed and also if the public should be
included in this presentation. The value of a presentation for just the
Highway Department was considered vs having competing questions
from people with a different focus. The final decision was to keep it
open to just the Highway Department. Also to record it and put it on
the CAC webpage. (PoF:Roaring suggested contacting “Local Roads”
to put on their website as well.) It was decided that we would wait
until after the event to see if it should be presented a second time, or
if the recording was sufficient.
Fewtrell and Gagnon also recommended another Zoom recording on
ditches (Finger Lakes Land Trust’s Re-Plumbing Roadside Ditches:
Simple Solutions to Reduce Flooding, Droughts, and Water Pollution)
that will be sent as a link by email to the group and perhaps kept as a
link on the CAC webpage.
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 6 of 9
8. Easement Updates – Fewtrell and Gagnon
Fewtrell reported the latest on the Wimsatt Easement, which is being
worked out for the complicated 3 way split of the property on Marsh
Rd. Gagnon, Fewtrell and the Wimsatts’ lawyer have been working
on a conservation easement for the whole property which will then be
subdivided into 3 lots, one of which will be built on. The least
invasive way is getting approval for an Open Development Area
(ODA). The conservation easement is required as mitigation for the
ODA, with road access at the northeastern corner of the property.
Joel Gagnon, Clare Fewtrell, David West (Town Planner) and the
James family (prospective buyers) inspected the property with Ruthie
Wimsatt and the Wimsatt’s lawyer, Hayden Brainard, some months
ago. The ODA was approved last night by the Town Board.
Some corretions and inconsistencies need to be fixed in the current
draft of the Wimsatt easement. Fewtrell will be sending the group the
latest draft (version 13) so that they can see what an easement in
progress looks like. She asked them, and also Crane and and any
others who have suggestions or concerns, to provide comments.
Since they are near the end of what has been a long, involved work,
only essential changes and minor corrections should be suggested
and the reason for them should be explained. Fewtrell asked that
comments or concerns should be sent to her by next Sunday
The complexity of this easement and the scrutiny that it has received
from members of the Town Board, in addition to the individuals
involved in drafting and donating this easement, has created an
opportunity to consider a number of improvements, corrections and
changes that might be made to the Easement Template. Also, part of
the complexity and confusion had ensued because Art James took it
upon himself to draft an easement based on the Palmer Easement,
rather than our template. Zisk wondered about differences between
“exceptional”, “extraordinary”, and “natural values”, as stated in the
easement template. He suggested changing this to conservation and
natural values.
Fewtrell suggested that changes to the Easement Template be put on
the agenda for our next meeting. Once the Wimsatt easement is
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 7 of 9
finalized she will compare it with the current template and send the
document highlighting the changes to CAC members.
9. Low Density Re-zoning Group Report from Planning Group –
Gagnon (last two agenda items switched)
Gagnon noted that the topic of a solar farm in Danby is more of a
concern of the Hamlet Working Group than the Conservation Working
Group. There are not many places to grow in the hamlet and the
proposed site for a solar farm on Russ Nitchmann’s land off Bald Hill
Road would decrease the hamlet core area even further. However,
the Town Planner had suggested that the land might be used for a
communal leach field for the hamlet in addition to the solar farm.
Fewtrell remarked that solar panels are a CAC clean energy interest
but their aesthetic is also a concern. Zisk noted that they are a major
disruptor of habitat. Both thought that CAC should be discussing this.
Gagnon noted that the only reason that Danby is not inundated with
proposals for solar farms is that we do not have a major transmission
line. Our early succession fields of brush are perfect locations for
that kind of development since they are not good farmland, unlike
Lansing and other places. The Bald Hill Road location would be
using the distribution line going down 96B and permission to use it
has been asked of NYSEG.
PoF: Crane noted that the line going down Bald Hill is not sufficient.
A solar array is better than a building development, and it is hidden
from most views. The visual impact will affect some residents of Bald
Hill.
Corbit asked about the wetland. Zisk said its not enough acreage for
DEC oversight. Corbit said perhaps we could use the area for both a
leach field and a solar array.
In the Conservation Working Group, Gagnon said that Town Planner
David West had taken a second pass at dividing up the low density
zone into sub-zones. Most controversial are “pink” areas on the map
where rules would be substantially the same as what we have now.
Gagnon said that “Betsy (secretary) would have characterized them
as a sacrifice zone”. His alternative would be a mechanism for
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 8 of 9
alternative tracks. He would like to go to a minimum Town-wide
density of 1 building for every 10 acres. Currently, since every parcel
could have 2 buildings, it is more like a density of 1 building every 2½
acres, so this would be a big change. Since that would be a hard
sell, Gagnon went on to describe a complicated trading scheme of
development rights within a neighborhood that he has proposed. It
would also include figuring a balance between development on front
and back acreage. One problem he mentioned is that if people could
sell development rights, why would they want to give them away?
Currently land behind houses is undeveloped since building requires
road frontage, but this may change.
Gagnon said the new Ag working group was an important addition to
the Planning Group, and asked Keokosky (one of the originators,
along with Alyssa de Villiers ) to explain it.
Keokosky said she was very encouraged by the first meeting. Just
people sharing information on what they were doing was extremely
important. Agriculture is in transition right now and processing
agricultural products can be considered value-added and this has to
be accommodated in zoning. For instance, this might mean having a
cidery alongside of a apple orchard, or Greek yogurt beside the cows.
The group was interested in incentivizing people to do agriculture as
well as regulating them. How do you make Danby a place that
encourages agriculture? All kinds of Ag-interested people were
there. One, Peter Moore, contributes to open areas that we want in
Danby by keeping them mowed (he mows 1200 acres). Gagnon
asked how we should accommodate business in the town? We don’t
want heavy industry. What we need to ask is what we are willing to
accommodate and where do we want to put it? Is it only on Rt 96B
between Hornbrook and E. Miller? How will it be compatible with the
neighborhood, especially if the integration of land and business is
essential.
Zisk noted that all these decisions are a conundrum and these
meetings of the planning group and its sub-groups need the brain
power, so we should all attend them.
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 9 of 9
There was no Executive session
Next Meeting via Zoom is on June 8th at 7p.m.
Adjournment at 9:22
_____________________________________________
Submitted by Elizabeth Keokosky (Secretary)