The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-04-24!Minutes Town of Dryden Conservation Board Tuesday, 24 April 2012 Dryden 'fawn Hall 93 East Main Street, Dryden, INN 13053 Fall to ardor (7;30 p. m,) - C. Smith 2Completion of Record of Attendance by Member 3 Members ['resent: Beck, Munkenbeck, Prentiss, Richmond, Ryan, Schutt, Smith ; ex officio. 4 Nicholson; liaison; Anderson (Planning Board), Lavine (Town Board) 5 Members Absent: Bissen 6Additions to agenda? 7 -Di�Gu sioii of motions to adjourn in orderly fashion in order to assure all business has been B addressed_ 9Review and approval of minutes from 27 March 2012 Meeting 10 - C. Smith requests motion for approval I I - B_ Beck makes motion, C. Schutt seconds, and all approve 12 Report from Town Beard - L. Lavine 13 - No report- 14 Report from Town Planning Board - C_ Anderson Is - Update on industrial suitability analyses. 16 - No news on the subdiViN1017 update. 17 - Dryden Fanners Corn mittee has been asked to draft guidelines to determ1ne the number of 18 members (seven) and ask members of Recreation Commission and PlanniagF Board to attend 19 meetings. Craig Schutt expressed intemst in being liaison for the Dryden Farniers 24 Committee, The next meeting is set i& 2 May 2012, at 7:30PK4 ilt the Dryden Town Hall. 2I.l eport from Ad 11 or, Agriculture Committee w N. Munken bee k, R. Ryan, C. Schutt 22 - The Committee has not met and there was no report 23 Rep 0OS from other Town Boards and Comrnissiorts - Jane N Who lson 24 -No report, 2SOld business 26 - Acknowledgrnent letters sent to seven Conscrvation Board applicants - C. Smith 27 - Ail of the applications wi 11 be held with the To wn Clerk for at Ic11st one year, in the event of 29 an unexpected Vacancy_ 29 Liaison with Town Recreation Commission - C. Smith 30 - No one has been identified Conservation 13nard Minutcs, 24 April 21112 Page 2 of 4 3ilYew business: 32 - Group discussed possibII ity of either additional or Ic>nger {or both) Future meetings to 33 review CEAs 34 - Additional meetings would help us rnove forward more expeditiously, is - Prenti4L, recommends weekly meetings. 36 - N. Munkenbeck would line to present CEAs a group to the Town Board. There was 31 discussion ab0Lit meeting with the Iand owners. 38 - Special Meetings were scheduled to Review CFAs: {Jane to book room} 39 - I May at 7:30PM 410 - 9 May at 7:30P 4 - 16 May at 7:30PM 4j 2, - 29 May at 7:31 }P M �regularty scheduled meeting} 43 - Process: Changes to CEAs recommended by Conservation Board will be made by Planning 44 I apartment Staff, then forwarded to the Town Beard for review_ 91annIrig Department will 45 put copies in the shared folder for final mviimw before sending, 46 - Group discussed some Questions /Concerns from Dryden I�armer's Committee: 47 - J. Sherman: Asks how to address Dryden farmer's concerns regarding contacting land 48 owners within CEAs? Need directive from the `I "awn Board as to how to address this. 49 - C_ Smith; Forum to discuss thern should be at the discretion of the Town Board. -5n -N. unkenheck: All members of the CB to be present at the Town Board to answer si any rcrnaining questions? May not be able to answer on l'hc spot, would possibly need 52 more time to give thoughtful answers. �;3 - C_ Smith: The pub ic. hearing process, at the discretion of the Town Board, is the only 54 mechanism presently in place to address those concern s. 5s - S, Beck; Would there be a limited group contacted? 56 - C. Smith. Mules and procedures of the Conservaion Board do not have any previsions 57 for calling public information ieetings or hearings. is - C. Anderson: Part of th is process is education, and the Town could be inissin g an 59 opportunity if we didn't meet with the people whose properties are within CEAs. Go - L Lavine: Does the C9 need a directive from the Town Board in order to meet with at land owners:' 62 - C. Anderson: It might make more sense to discuss this with the Conservation Hoard 63 directly rather than the Town Board. 64 - L. Lavine: Needs to be streamlined through the Town Board_ 6j; - C_ Smith: A 'hearing" needs to be defined and relates to N Y Open Meetings Law_ 66 - B_ Beck: Can the Planning Department eontiwt land owners and invite them to an open 67 meeting' 68 - C_Srnith: ► ould this duplicate the Town Board meeting? 69 -13. Beek: Agrees that the PR "Education" component is important and w a need to 711 incorporate more as we move forward_ 71 Discussion of getting important documents to tl�e l ibrary for review. Conservation Board Minutes, 24 ,April 2012 Page 3 of 4 z - C, Smith - invites a motion to ask the 'rown Board to make important documents available at the Dryden Library for public to review, 74 - N. Munkcnbeck moves that douurnents related to the Conservation Board and other 75 final documents be made available by the Town Board at the Library for review, 76 -C. Schutt seconds the, motion and all approve. 77Began review of revised C BAs 1 throrigh 5 (background materials provided through the U4LDropbox" utility were ►dewed onscreen by the Board, with Josh Bogdan's as5ilstance) A long, grouts discussion of CEA -# 1 and its boundaries followed: Vu - N. Munkenbeck general question. The boundaries have been changed- Why? At - J. Bogdan: Took the information and list nFcriteria and overlaycd them using 1. , Areas 92 are being clipped with houses and areas that may not he as critical. s-3 - C- Smith: If we follow a topographic contour, does it get us where we want it to be? 94 - R- Ryan: pollowing the contour lines would be the most logical approach - 85 - - Smith: It's important to insert C.Schutt's language retarding pesticides and ferti Ii7,Fw Lrs 86 from the McMO tO J rN icholson, dated 26 March 2012. LLanguxge reads, `pesticides and 87 fertilizer should only be applied according to manufacturer'w recommendations and/uT a ss qualified professional in the held" 99 - N- Munkenbeck: Thephrase "limit development" should be changed (recommended m mitigation section); "Further development should be in concert with - - -" 91 - M. Richmond; We could adopt boundaries that recognizc contour lines and how they z contribute to the site; then, follow those contour lines. 96 - C. Smith: Dikes the idea of using watershed boundaries 94 - B- Beck: Big problem in deal i n g with arbitrary decisic)ns that have noth ing to do with the 9�; ecology, watersheds, plants. �6 - C, Smith: One criteria may be based can rarity rankings (handout) of plants within a ULNA; P other Ideas emerging is that we des no need fertiliser and pesticide wording; need thoughtful 98 wording about dove] opment consistent with landscape features; follow the contours for the 99 boundary; if these areas have a variety of rarity rankings we'll give them deeper too consideration. Comes back to protecting the water resources of the town for a very long 141 time, Another suggestion: If we are doing 1 ine -itern editing, rnark on paper and return 102 comments to Planning Deparlrnent- to - M. Riohmcsnd: Can we agree that we identify some contour level? Not an entire watershed, 104 but if we agree that if we move out 2= foot contours, we should use contour ] irnes as 105 something a draw- These arc points that OUld trigger further investigation. The simplest 106 approach is to draw a circlo around them and anyth ing close to it will attract the S EQ RA 107 process- Can we do better? We need to figure out a way that docsn't capture the who] e town. ioa We need to identify what we can, but in a thoughtfuI way. 109 - R]- Munkeabec : It's difficult not making the boundaries arbitrary- Wo need to be 110 comfortable making these decisions and explaining them to the landowners. C. Smith: Suggested considering USGS 7 -digit Hydrologic [knit Codes (HUCs), at some 112 level of resolution, or seeing if the global hexagonal tesselation of U.SGPA, rendered at a 113 large rnapping scale might be helpful. Conservation Board Minutes, 24 April 2012 Page 4 of 4 H4 - C, Smith, CEA 91 was made too small when revised; boundaries need to be reconsidered, [is especially with conservation of wetland - dependent amphibians in mind (300 -foot buffer 116 recommended for amphibian conservation — up to a un�mile buffer around wetland areas 117 possible for Wood Turtle conservation)- yso substantive progress was made i il n resolving how to bound CEA%i more objectively, though a 191ot of ideas were offered - N o further CCAs were discussed at this meeting- 12o M otion to adjourn made by C. S chutt, *econded by N. Munkenbeck 121 Meeting adjourned at 10;00 p.m, 122 Minutes recorded and submitted by Jane NirhoIson.