Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-29 CB 2014-7-29 Page 1 of 13 Town of Dryden Conservation Board July 29, 2014 Members Present: Bob Beck (Chair), Gian Dodici, Bard Prentiss, Craig Schutt, Jeremy Sherman, Nancy Munkenbeck Town Hall Staff: Jane Nicholson, Planning Director Town Board Liaison: Linda Lavine Planning Board Liaison: David Weinstein Tompkins County EMC: Steve Bissen Guests: Craig Anderson, Planning Board, Marty Hatch, Planning Board, and Rick Young, Highway Supervisor The Meeting was called to order at 7:05PM. Review and Approval of minutes from June 24, 2014. C. Schutt moved to put the minutes on the table. J. Sherman motioned to approve the minutes with suggested changes, C. Schutt seconded and the minutes were unanimously approved. Citizens’ Privilege: Rick Young, Highway Supervisor Mr. Young reminded the Board that he has worked with them in the past, meeting with them and listening to their suggestions. He has listened to the Board’s recommendations and is trying to implement their ideas. He has gotten phone calls from residents asking him to cut or not cut trees, to ditch or not to ditch in front of their house. Neighbors have different preferences and he is trying to accommodate everyone to the best of his ability. He is unhappy that a member of the Conservation Board called the NYS DEC regarding the way a particular area was ditched. Since he has been working with the Conservation Board, he was hoping that they would work with him rather than going outside of the Town. He emphasized that action has cost the tax payers’ money. Both B. Beck and B. Prentiss agreed that Mr. Young has been working with them and they appreciate his efforts. G. Dodici said he doesn’t think anyone on the Board is questioning the Highway department doing what needs to be done. The question is how it is being done and being presented. Without knowing ahead of time what the Highway department is doing, there is no way to nip it in the bud. He is more concerned about the ditching. He mentioned that Mr. Young could have to do a SWPPP for all the ditching and we don’t want to go down that route. He pointed out that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. His point is that he has concerns that the ditching is not being done in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way that meets the ditching requirements CB 2014-7-29 Page 2 of 13 without harming the stream, the neighbors, the property, the road, etc. The consequences of over-ditching can be worse than not ditching enough. Mr. Young responded that the department has dug to the depth of the culvert pipes, many of the ditches have filled in to the point the material in the ditches is blocking part of the discharge pipe. B. Beck asked about hydro-seeding. Mr. Young said that he has all the materials and the hydro-seeder training is tomorrow (7/30/2014). B. Beck thanked Mr. Young for coming to the meeting to talk with them. C. Anderson At the Town Board meeting last week he spoke about narrowing the focus of the Open Space Plan. He is at the Conservation Board to encourage them to go in that same direction. He believes that there are a lot of people concerned that the Open Space plan is going in a different direction than what they think it is. He is concerned that the OSP is going to undermine the Ag Protection Plan. He suggested that the focus be on the Ag Protection Plan. B. Beck sees the Ag Protection Plan as part of the finished OSP and is happy to see the farmers moving forward. He isn’t sure that should stop the other Boards from moving forward on their parts. C. Anderson responded by pointing out various times that people have made statements that lead the residents to feel the Dryden Boards are trying to pass more legislation. D. Weinstein asked if an open space plan moved forward that said “we feel ag land is part of the open space character of the town”, would that be objectionable to the farm community forming their ag plan. C. Anderson said the biggest concern is what is this going to lead to. D. Weinstein said we don’t know where it is going to lead. Craig responded that it has been hinted that the Conservation Board knows where the OSP is going. He feels we need to build tru st. David and Craig continued to discuss how to build trust, what the mixed signals are, the lack of agreement of opinions and what the next step should be. Marty Hatch He has sent an email to the members of the Conservation Board regarding the Open Space definition and the Planning Board. He was asked to take the definition to the Planning Board for their comments. The email is below: Dear Conservation Board Members (with a copy to Dryden Planning Board members), As you requested us to do, last night the Dryden Planning Board discussed the definition of Open Space that the Conservation Board has drafted. As preparation for last night, initially the following definition was emailed to the Planning Board members: CB 2014-7-29 Page 3 of 13 Draft Conservation Board Open Space Definition, from Discussion of 10 December 2013: Open space is defined as land which is not developed for residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional use. Open space can be publicly or privately owned. It includes agricultural and forest lands, undeveloped scenic lands, public parks, preserves, and hiking trails. It also includes aquatic resources such as wetlands, streams, rivers, and lakes. What land is defined as open space depends in part on its surroundings. A vacant lot, a small wetland, or a stream corridor can be open space in a hamlet, village, or town. A narrowcorridor or pathway for walking, bicycling, horseback riding, or snowmobiling is open space, even though it may be surrounded by developed areas. Open space also can include, but is not restricted to, the air above the land, groundwater recharge areas, or subterranean spaces (e.g caves) beneath the surface of the land. And while not strictly open space, this Plan discusses cultural and historic resources (e.g cemeteries) which, along with open space, are part of the heritage of the Town of Dryden. Subsequently, the Dryden Deputy Clerk advised the Planning Board by email that, after the Dryden Agriculture Committee made a suggested change, the Conservation Board revised the definition above to omit the sentence "Open space also can include, but is not restricted to, the air above the land, groundwater recharge areas, or subterranean spaces (e.g caves) beneath the surface of the land." At last night's Planning Board meeting, discussion of the Open Space definition was quite lively. The general consensus of the Planning Board was that it could not make a formal "endorsement" of the Conservation Board's definition, as most of the PB members felt that there was no indication of the intent or goal of the open space exercise evidenced in the framing of the definition. Planning Board member John Kiefer read the following definition of open space to the board, and the board generally agreed that the definition he read served as an example of how to write a definition that makes clear the goal of an exercise in identifying open space. This definition is not meant to be an alternative wording for the Dryden's definition of open space, but only an example of a definition that incorporates intent and goals ("it has 'verbs' in it"): "Any land area in which the preservation in its present use would: a. Conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources b. Protect streams or water supply c. Promote conservation of soils or wetlands d. Enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forest, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries e. Enhance recreation opportunities f. Preserve historic sites g. Preserve visual quality along highway, road, and street corridor or scenic vistas" As I said above, the discussion last night was a lively one. One point that was raised by one of the Planning Board members who has had conversations with members of the Dryden agricultural community was that there was a suspicion that the open space exercise involved at least in part an effort to bring CEAs back to life by incorporating some or all aspects of CEA standards into whatever town policies emerge from the open space exercise. (Minutes of the Planning Board meeting will have a more framing of this comment.) There were several active participants in the CB 2014-7-29 Page 4 of 13 Dryden Ag. Committee meetings at last night's PB meeting (one member of the AC, one liaison to the AC, and one member of the public who is concerned with ag. in Dryden). The AC member agreed with the PB member's characterization of the perception of the connection between OS's and CEA's. Another member of the Dryden PB made the observation that the deletion of the sentence on air and underground components to open space in the CB's draft definition was significant, in as much as it was done at the behest of the Ag Comm. Some reference was made to a possible connection between the removal of these elements and a concern that, should they remain, any town regulations having to do with open space would affect the ability of property owners to exploit natural resources beneath the ground or emit substances that would have an effect on air quality. "Looking at the map of Ag Districts, you'll see that much of the north and east of the Town is in an Ag district, while the center and southwest is not. As you know the center and southwest is more residential, with residents employed mostly (I suspect) in non-agricultural related work. These residents might appreciate open spaces of the "scenic resources, recreational facilities and opportunities, scenic and aesthetic quality" kind, but the Ag folks might well be more interested in "economic viability, and productive agricultural lands" kind. Both might be interested in "Protecting/preservation of natural resources" and "resource management". But they have to get together on that side of things. Those who are "unreconciled" will either feel that, for example, the agricultural people "want to do whatever they want with their land", or that the "non-agricultural" people "only care about the aesthetic/scenic qualities of the land (view-sheds and "landscapes") and want the agricultural people to provide those for them". Additions to the Agenda: C. Schutt volunteered to be a liaison to the Planning Board. He has mistakenly bee n identified as such in the Planning Board minutes and asked the Conservation Board if they are interested in his filling that capacity. B. Beck said that he is comfortable with that situation and pointed out that any members can attend any other the Boards/Commissions meeting. B. Prentiss added that he has been strongly encouraged to read the minutes from other boards/commissions and he feels that he has learned a lot. He learned that there are feelings out there that he had no idea existed. He then encouraged the other board members to read the minutes. G. Dodici offered the following resolution: To increase the level of communication between the Planning Board and the Conservation Board, C. Schutt is nominated to serve as a liaison from the Conservation Board to the Planning Board. B. Prentiss seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously. Reports and Updates: Town Board: Linda Lavine did not have anything to report. CB 2014-7-29 Page 5 of 13 Planning Board: David Weinstein said that the last Planning Board meeting was brief primarily focused on the sketch plan for a landscaping retail business at 1922 Dryden road. (Right next to the former Tweitmann’s) The Open Space project did not generate much discussion. The Planning Board is waiting for more information. Tompkins County EMC: Steve Bissen was absent. Dryden Ag Committee: Craig Schutt said a majority of the discussion at the most recent meeting was in regard to the presentation by Ag and Markets on the 13th of August. J. Nicholson has agreed to bring snacks. Other Boards and Commissions: N. Munkenbeck said that Scott Doyle did a presentation at the Town Board meeting about Emergency Preparedness. It also included information about being prepared for a flood situation and the use of buffer systems. She wanted everyone to keep in mind the riparian buffers since she believes they will be part of the future conversations. Old Business: Campbell Meadows Rain Garden sign: Gian Dodici G. Dodici handed out his 2nd draft. The initial comments noted that the draft had birds, insects, and amphibians but no mammals. The group discussed adding a mammal. The anticipated sign is 34 x 22. He has incorporated QR codes that will link folks to information regarding certain plants. It was determined that the sign will have one QR code that links the Town of Dryden website. Once there, users will be able to see pictures of the various plants plus more information about their growth and habitat. The group then moved to the sign material discussing the pros and cons of different materials. Fiberglass has a shorter life span, the metal signs (like the ones on the Jim Schug trail) are more stable, should a kiosk be built, where should the sign be placed on site, should the sign be in black and white or color, etc. G. Dodici is going to talk to some more people about sign material and will report back next month. D. Weinstein asked who is caring for Campbell Meadows. He is wondering who and how much maintenance is being done. N. Munkenbeck explained her understanding that the rain garden was going to be self sustainable, even though it might be difficult to see the actual depression in the ground where the plants are. G. Dodici interpreted David’s question differently and shared the concern that if the sign is put near the parking area, would weeds grow up to make the sign unusable? And will people actually be able to identify where the rain garden is? Dryden Trail and Preserve Guide: Rick Ryan was absent but sent in an email update. The Recreation Board is working on the Recreational Needs Assessment for the town. We came up with questions to ask Dryden youth (students) regarding what they like about the town, where they CB 2014-7-29 Page 6 of 13 hang out, what they would like to see, etc. I think it will tell us a lot about the state of recreation in the town. Also discussed a Mobile Rec Unit that takes sports equipment (frisbees, volleyballs, etc.) to Dryden parks for kids to play with. Pretty great idea that is being implemented. We were about to discuss the Open Space Plan, but were told that we should table the discussion as "things are being taken in a different direction". So, I am quite curious as to what is happening with the OSP. Looking forward to speaking with you about it later. Maintenance Guidelines for Dryden Trails and Parks: Bard Prentiss B. Prentiss has started a guide for the Highway Supervisor explaining how to maintain the trails and parks in the Town. He hopes to give the guidelines along with a map identifying the various species and habitats that need to be protected. The group discussed some of the desirable and non-desirable plants that grow along the trail and ways in which they can be controlled. B. Prentiss said Mr. Young has agreed to a spring meeting with the Conservation Board and the DPW to discuss plans for the year and what practices will be best for the trail. At the same time, the group can discuss ditching and brush removal. Bard suggested that the two groups meet in the fall again to discuss the pros and cons of the previous summer. He has started a maintenance plan but isn’t sure where to go from here. The plan so far consists of Bard’s thoughts and suggestions. He pointed out that the different points of view have been around since the initial building of the trail. He also believes that a map of the trail identifying the plants that should not be destroyed will be beneficial but the map needs to be updated on a regular basis to ensure opportunities aren’t missed. N. Munkenbeck recommended letting the residents of the Town know when Bard or others were going to identify plants along the trail, perhaps residents are interested in learning more about the nature along the trail. D. Weinstein expressed his concern regarding the conversation between G. Dodici and Mr. Young regarding the ditching. He is not sure that Mr. Young understands the problem with erosion that can happen with excessive ditching. It is one of the things that he feels the Conservation Board needs to work on by bringing information to the DPW staff and Mr. Young. G. Dodici asked about training. D. Weinstein said that there is a person at the Cornell Cooperative Extension that can explain how to do ditching so they don’t erode. G. Dodici reminded the Board that although Mr. Young is relatively new, there are a lot of folks at the DPW with a lot of knowledge. He believes that there is a feeling out there that the regulator agencies (DEC, the State, etc) are not permitting the highway guys to do their job which would stop the flooding. He thinks there are better ways out there to do it and it is simply a matter of education. B. Beck said they have access to the resources and training and are aware of the opportunities. N. Munkenbeck recalled that in Ellis Hollow there were some lawsuits related to the maintenance of a right of way. If the Town did not do maintenance on a ditch to a CB 2014-7-29 Page 7 of 13 certain distance for a period of time, then the Town no longer has the right to do the ditching – they have lost the right of way. D. Weinstein returned to the work that B. Prentiss has done. Is this a good first cut that can be left at this stage with the understanding that there will be an informal group that is going to get this line of communication going or do we need to generate more detail ….. B. Prentiss feels we need to generate more but D. Weinstein wasn’t confident that was necessary. He doesn’t believe we can just hand Mr. Young a set of rules and expect him to follow them. He feels more private communication between a small group and Mr. Young will be more beneficial. B. Prentiss suggested meeting with Mr. Young and work with him to create the document. G. Dodici would like to see a distinction between right of way management and trails management and ditching. B. Prentiss said this document is just about trails and parks. Gian doesn’t feel there should be any problem with the current document but he is concerned that the ditching issue could become a tense issue. He doesn’t want to see the two issues overlapped or grouped together. B. Prentiss agreed to schedule a meeting with Mr. Young. B. Beck, M. Richmond (volunteered in abstention) and C. Schutt will work with Bard. C. Schutt showed a couple of pictures of the ditching on McClintock road. The ditch has already started to wash out. C. Schutt has already suggested that they put in check dams but was brushed off. He was told they don’t work and cause problems. G. Dodici agreed that check dams don’t work without a slope but in steeper situations, the check dams are necessary. C. Schutt said there is a formula that tells how many and how close together the dams should be. The Board concluded the conversation by admitting that Mr. Young has been agreeable to work with them and seems to be taking some of their suggestions to heart and acting on them. They understand that this is a situation in which experience in the Highway department might conflict with the desired goal of the Conservation Board. They will continue to work with the Highway department and hope to maintain a positive relationship. New Business: Bridge proposals: The Red Mill road bridge has been closed for many years. The West Malloryville Road bridge is in bad shape as well. The two bridges are close to each other. D. Weinstein said that the West Malloryville Road bridge isn’t rated which indicates that it isn’t in horrible condition. Both are considered historical bridges. The County is looking at the bridges for potential changes. They have suggested replacing the Red Mill bridge with a wider bridge or replacing the West Malloryville Road bridge with a wider two lane bridge which will require widening the road. CB 2014-7-29 Page 8 of 13 N. Munkenbeck offered the following resolution: The Dryden Conservation Board advises the concerned parties to maintain the bridge across Fall Creek on West Malloryville Road in its current single-lane form. They further recommend the bridge on Red Mill Road be replaced with a two-lane structure, and the historical bridge there be preserved and moved to another location to be used as a pedestrian bridge. J. Sherman seconded the recommendation and it was unanimously passed. D. Weinstein reminded the Board that getting TIP money was difficult. Getting the Red Mill Bridge on the TIP was a suggestion along with the idea of moving the bridge to a new location to be used as a pedestrian bridge. G. Dodici asked if one of the Conservation Board’s roles is to be proponents for projects that have large carbon reduction potential. No one has presented the cost- benefit analysis. C. Schutt said that the Beck Farm has already done that and has presented the information. N. Munkenbeck said she has seen the information and it was at least $100,000 more per year for the Beck Farm to take the roads around the Red Mill bridge. C. Schutt mentioned the increased maintenance costs for the alternate routes that are being used. N. Munkenbeck responded to G. Dodici’s question about the Conservation Board’s role. The West Malloryville bridge replacement would include widening the road which will negatively affect the preserved land next to the road. She also believes state rules and regulations will force the widening of the bridge despite local or town desires. D. Weinstein believes that if the community expresses a strong desire to maintain an historical bridge, they will do that. The state will not force a community to make changes that they are not in favor of. L. Lavine suggested looking at what Forest Home drive had to do to maintain their bridge. Open Space Plan: Jane Nicholson started her presentation at the very beginning. Her job as the Town Planner is to advise the Town Board and Committees how we are going to plan for the future and to create and implement the best plans and practices for the community going forward. She also holds the responsibility of identifying the areas where we need to plan and assess the town as a whole. When she first arrived in 2011, the OSP was one of the plans on the table but it never moved forward. Lately she has been an active listener and is hearing all the boards, the comments and confusion has caused her to take a deeper look into what is going on right now, what is the context in which the plan is being developed. She looked back at what was going on when the OSP was first brought to the table. That was in 2006-07. The comprehensive plan had just been adopted in 2005. In 2009 an intern started working on the OSP. At the same time, the recreation master plan was being developed, the zoning started in 2009 and the CEAs started around the same time. CB 2014-7-29 Page 9 of 13 In the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Planning and the Open Space Inventory were mentioned. What also needs to be considered is the fact that the old zoning was still in place so the measures for Open Space Planning were not as strong as they are in the new zoning and subdivision laws. The Open Space Planning was lost with all the other initiatives that were happening. Present day we have new zoning, new subdivision regulations, and new committees. The original plan was to have a 3 tired system – a recreation focus, an agriculture focus and a conservation focus. The recreation plan was not adopted until late 2011, we did not have an agricultural committee as we have today and there wasn’t an active plan at the time to write an ag plan. We have an open space directive on the table that came in August of last year. Now we have an ag plan that is on the table and will be funded soon. We also have the recreation and youth commission that is doing a youth needs assessment . The Planning Board is working on an analysis of the Comprehensive Plan which will generate a proposal for updating the plan. The question now is where does the Open Space Plan fit into the rest of the Town planning. We don’t want to have conflicting or redundant information on the table. That leads to questions about whether agriculture or recreation still fit into the plan the same way. We have new subdivision regulations and a zoning law that are both less than two years old. The Open Space Plan has been in the background now for seven years. (The Varna Plan directive moved to a plan in 18 months.) Is it still relevant and does it fit into the Town’s long range plans? What are we trying to accomplish? What are the long-term goals? Jane feels these questions need to be answered before we write a plan. She has heard a lot of other questions that justify a conservation plan. Things like water protection, stream buffers, land acquisition criteria (they have already worked on it), trail maintenance, trail development, restoring wetlands, and riparian areas and buffers. Having listened to or attended a lot of the various board meeting, she has heard about the lack of community trust and the division of the community. She doesn’t want to see the community any more divided due to the planning process; planning is meant to bring the community together. Another problem is the continued general conversation regarding the CEAs. They cannot be considered concurrently with the Open Space Plan. Planning for public participation is critical as well, we need a solid plan for how people are going to be involved and how they are g oing to participate. We cannot just jump in and hope it works out. And we have to accept that plans will change; they will grow, sometimes they will be tabled, or they will be updated. These are really big picture questions that need to be discussed. J. Nicholson also wanted to touch on resources. Planning takes money, staff and planning in the budget. Once we have a defined goal, we need to ensure that we have the resources to create and implement the plan. One of the reasons the Ag Plan is going forward so quickly is due to the grant they are receiving and assistance from Cooperative Extension. CB 2014-7-29 Page 10 of 13 N. Munkenbeck, C. Schutt, and B. Beck immediately thanked J. Nicholson for the information. N. Munkenbeck is thrilled that Jane wants to focus on going from the ground up with participation. L. Lavine admitted that she is confused about the OSP directive. G. Dodici said he appreciated the information, and being new to the Conservation Board, he doesn’t have the same understanding of the history. Hearing about the distrust is a surprise because he has not seen any of it in the recent discussions. He thinks that creating an OSP should be done with members from all of the boards. If we come up with goals and objectives and a solid rational for developing an OSP, he thinks it will be better to have members from all parties that are involved with the town and maybe open it up to the public to some degree. J. Nicholson said that if you take it to the public, you better know what you are talking about. B. Beck said that the original plan was to have the Boards work together. For whatever reason, we have been spinning our wheels and not getting very far. The rec commission is working on a needs assessment and the ag committee is working on the Ag and Farmland Protection plan which is wonderful; they are both working on plans that can be rolled into the Open Space Plan which then gets rolled into the updated Comprehensive Plan. The rec group is doing something, the Ag group is doing something so the question for the Conservation Board is are we going to work on lots of little things like Jane suggested (we have been doing a lot of little things) or are we going to think again about focusing on a plan that rolls all of the little things together and more. That could be called a conservation plan. There was one thing that Jane did not mention and that is the group at Cornell called Design Connect which is comprised of students from many disciplines and work together on community projects. They have requested proposals from communities close to Cornell for projects. The deadline is Friday. He thought maybe we could put together a proposal for cooperation and assistance on a conservation plan. N. Munkenbeck suggested proposing they assist with the trail systems, how they would integrate with the County systems and how they will work for individual communities. D. Weinstein said he agrees with everything that has been tossed on the table, particularly the things that Jane went through. He wanted to remind the group that there is a very well articulated motivation behind creating an Open Space Plan. This came out of the survey of town citizens that said overwhelmingly they want to preserve open space. There are some things in the new zoning to help that. That doesn’t mean that if you take the new zoning, it alone will meet the objective that the people voiced. We can’t just say that Open Space will take care of itself. There is a requirement from the people of the Town that we tackle that subject. It is important that we don’t completely put that to the side and hope the current zoning takes care of preserving open space. CB 2014-7-29 Page 11 of 13 J. Nicholson said she did not say that and then asked when the survey was done. D. Weinstein said it was older, 10 years ago. J. Nicholson then asked about the building climate 10 years ago? D. Weinstein said he doesn’t think it has changed dramatically. J. Nicholson said it has changed significantly. She said to look at the building climate in 2003 – 2005, at that time the Open Space Plan would have fit really well due to the economy climate. They had the most building permits issued, there wasn’t a strong subdivision law or zoning and there was a good chance that massive subdivisions could have come in and changed the landscape. Fast forward 10 years and the climate has changed. She is not suggesting that the Open Space Plan be scrapped, she is asking where does it fit, what shape is it going to take and what is the goal? D. Weinstein said his point was that despite all that they put into the new zoning, that in itself is not going to maintain open space in this town. M. Hatch added that it is important to remember that the survey was a long time ago and it is also important to realize that there has been a lot of comment on the survey process that leads to the question of how broad the survey was. We need to look at the changing demographics and he doesn’t think we should not rely upon that survey as an indication of what the town is interested in. He agrees that we need to look at the big issues. J. Nicholson has taken an interest in public participation planning and would love to see the Boards help develop a public participation plan which outlines every type of plan you can develop in a town and what process you would go through to develop that type of plan and how you would communicate with people. If we did a proper survey now, she cannot say what we might learn. L. Lavine asked if open space is no longer a priority what does Jane think would be the priority. J. Nicholson thinks that housing, transportation and economic development would probably be at the top with open space. This is based on the conversations she has had with residents lately, the discussions at the meetings and observations from the public. L. Lavine asked about using Design Connect to do the survey. J. Nicholson doesn’t think the Town is ready for the survey, there is so much to do before that step is taken. L. Lavine said she supported Nancy’s suggestion that we see if Design Connect can do some work on the trails. B. Beck suggested trails and nature parks. The group continued to discuss the potential of having Design Connect work on a project for the Town. J. Nicholson said the group is certainly welcome to work on the application. N. Munkenbeck suggested waiting until next year to request help from Design Connect to come up with a plan to move the Red Mill bridge. She then suggested returning to work on the riparian buffers. B. Beck said that was what led them to the CEAs. As Bard has said many times the CEAs were a case by case analysis whereas we had huge problems with riparian CB 2014-7-29 Page 12 of 13 buffers trying to decide the size of the stream, the width of the buffering, and it was a lot of arbitrary things that the Board did not want to deal with. He hypothetically asked about how unfair it would be by putting absolute rules down for everyone to follow. We gave it up. D. Weinstein said there was a likelihood that the State might hand down a ruling that will require the Town to spend money to prevent further erosion along Fall Creek. (TMDL is the acronym for Total Maximum Daily Load. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that load among the various sources of that po llutant. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/overviewoftmdl.cfm) The conversation continued with points being made regarding the fact that looking at riparian buffers is a case by case situation again but if the potential exists that the State will require certain water standards, then maybe it is time to move forward again. L. Lavine was very interested in the Design Connect proposal. She asked if there were any projects that are ready to go? The deadline is Friday, is there any chance we could get an extension? J. Nicholson said that she doesn’t have the resources to push the application this week but the Board members are welcome to write it up. B. Beck said he had talked to Jane last week and she had been agreeable to the proposal if we had a project to move forward. The Planning Department doesn’t have anything ready to go. B. Beck recommended working with Rick Ryan, Todd Bittner (from Cornell plantations) and Design Connect to create a trail/ park guide. L. Lavine suggested getting together with R. Ryan and writing up the proposal. L. Lavine said the Town Board has talked about how useful it would be to have a trail/park guide. She has tried to get donations from various sources to print up pamphlets for the tourism bureau. D. Weinstein offered to write the proposal and J. Nicholson said she would review it on Thursday if they can get the information to her by then. The Town will need to invest $400 which L. Lavine said should not be a problem. Annual Picnic The group then discussed the Conservation Board picnic. It will be held Tuesday, 26 August, 5:00 pm at Dryden Lake Park at the Large Pavilion. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 PM. Respectfully Submitted, CB 2014-7-29 Page 13 of 13 Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk