HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-11<.
Conservation Board Meeting
April 11th, 2006
Members Present: Craig Schutt, Chair; Dan Karig; Charles Smith;
Stan Marcus; Steve Bisson; Tim Woods; Milo
Richmond
Others Present: Kate Hackett, Tompkins County Planning; Mary
Ann Sumner, Town Board Liaison; Dan
Kwasnowski; Kris Strickland
Agenda: Kate Hackett, Tompkins County Planning
Mary Ann Sumner, Dryden Town Board Member
Meeting brought to order at 7:30
Kate Hackett from Tompkins County Planning was at the Board meeting to
discuss the Tompkins County Draft Study regarding riparian buffers.
There has been research on the stream widths and buffer widths. What
they are looking at is water quality. The research has included but is not
limited to site conditions, run off, soils and drainage. There has been data
used from Cornell studies.
It was suggested at the last meeting that a list be made of all the things
that we wanted to prevent. Some of those things being... channeling,
logging clearing, gravel removal from the buffer, pollutant input, xFretland
destruction, cultivation in the wetland.
One idea to help prevent the farms using creeks for watering animals
would be to build a. pond or some sort of well for watering the animals. The
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a program
currently available to farmers. The farmers that have already used this
program have been very responsive. The farms that have not yet utilized
these programs have not done so onl`r because they are unaware of what is
available to them. For some farmers not allowing them use of the xvctland
or streams could take much of their land depending upon location.
Kate explained that this is not a stream buffer recommendation. This is to
be used to help landowners divide land management practices minimizing
input to a stream, this not to be regulated.
Riparian Buffers are buffers such as forested stream buffers to be used for
water quality and stream stability. Creating a buffer zone could help
prevent contamination from livestock from local farms using the creeks for
drinking water. Other ways of contamination would be from new
construction too close to a creek, waterway or wetland without the proper
buffer.
This is a study not an ordinance, the Town of Ithaca started with a stream
buffer that was not publicly acceptable. They then went to a. stream
setback law.
There were different ways suggested to protect the streams one of which
being educating the public /farmers as to the contamination and hove we
are able to help them find alternative methods. It is very important to
educate people as to what is available and this takes time.
Another issue is to identify ditch systems that might have a direct impact
down stream.
A stream buffer width would need to be set and how to come up with that
width would need to be determined. Would it depend on the site
conditions? It was suggested that a site review of the area be done and
then discuss the best way to deal with issue. The Board came to the
consensus that Dan draw up a draft map of streams and wetlands,
DEC has a 100' buffer and the Army Corps has no buffer. There are also
other groups such as the Wetland Committee and the Water Resources
Council that are working on Wetland Legislation. We as a. Torn could
define what level or quality of wetland we are talking about. We could have
that as part of a description of what we would like to do so that if it does
change as what is considered a protected wetland at least if we have our
definition we would know what we are talking about.
We would need to get a reasonable buffer width. It was discussed that we
not take the land away and it would make more sense to have a smaller
buffer width and also to make people aware. The emerging consensus is
currently that the water quality out of affluent suburban neighborhoods is
worse than the farm zones. The run off from the parking lots, driveways
and residential lawns products attribute to some of the stream
contaminates.
It was suggested for Dan to draw two lists one of allowable uses and things
that we would like to see and another of things we don't want to see or
things that should be discouraged. Also programs that are available so
that we would have a better picture as to what this is all about. This would
not have to include the width at this point. This would be something to
build upon. Start by educating the public with a pamphlet.
Mary Ann Sumner, Town Board Liaison also representing the Planning
Board presented to the Board the recommendation of the Planning Board
® returning to the .l -acre disturbance within the Stormwater Ordinance. She
wanted a consensus of this Board as to their opinion on them wanting the
'/2 acre disturbance. It was recommended that the '/2 acre be used for the
reason of the single home development were not using the proper
is practices. We were asking for some common sense erosion sediment
control standards.
Mary Ann also wanted to discuss the Wind Draft Ordinance that was to be
presented to the Board at the next meeting. Dan explained that the Wind
Ordinance was now a Renewable Energy Conversion Systems Ordinance to
cover all future systems. There are many gaps in the state and local law as
to how these are reviewed.
An example would be that a solar panel would need a building permit. Any
alteration or building of a structure you need a building permit. The
problem is that there is no mention in the Building Code of New York State
about these renewable energy sources. You also need a zoning permit if
you were to have a building permit. In the zoning ordinance you have an
inclusive list and an exclusive list. It is the believe of our Town Attorney
that if it is not listed as an allowed use than you cannot do it. It actually
means that we do not regulate it.
The draft ordinance has been written which exempts other renewable
energy systems. This is a permissive ordinance for residential wind
turbines. There was an issue from the Board not having this renewable
energy resource ordinance with the way the world is today.
This draft ordinance does limit the wattage (determines residential or
industrial) but does not limit the amount of wind towers you may have if
you meet all the other requirements. This discussion was based on using
«rind power for the running of farms. The standard height for the 'Power in
this ordinance is approximately 150' this would include the blade height.
Dan explained that the Renewable Energy Resource Ordinance was not yet
ready for their review but he did want them to be aware of what was going
on and that he would send them the draft as soon as it was ready.
The Board asked about the scenic view impact, Dan responded by saying
that it would be the visual addendum to SEQR it is a form to fill out. This
would be filled out by the applicant and reviewed by the Town Board.
Once the Town Board gives the OK to go ahead with the ordinance this
board will get a copy of the draft.
Meeting adjourned