No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-29Conservation Board December 29, 2015 Page 1 of 4 Conservation Board December 29, 2015 Members Present: Bob Beck (Chair), Craig Schutt, Charlie Smith, Milo Richmond, and Nancy Munkenbeck Liaisons: Steve Bissen, EMC Guests: Peter Davies The meeting was called to order at 7:50PM Review and approval of minutes from November 24, 2015: C. Smith moved to accept the minutes with the recommended changes. C. Schutt seconded the motion and the minutes were unanimously approved. Reports and Updates: Town Board: Linda Lavine (not present) - Supr. Sumner indicated that discussions have continued with the DEC, the Game Farm and sportsman groups. - Professor Fahey from Cornell University was part of the discussion and he didn’t understand why the DEC and sportsman groups were against the trail through the Game Farm. - The DEC has new employees. Gordon Batchellor has retired and the new person might be more interested in moving forward with the project. - Greg Sloan (Town Board) made the point that following the trail through the game farm would be far less disruptive to the pheasants than going around the game farm. - The trail through the Game Farm will split it into two parts but the area is swampy and trail will not negatively affect the pheasants. It might actually increase public knowledge and support. - the point was made that this is not an anti-hunting movement/attempt - C. Smith stated that he has heard that some folks see the support for trails as a competition for recreational initiatives. The two are not mutually exclusive but rather compatible. Planning Board: David Weinstein (not present) No report Ag Committee: Craig Schutt No meeting last month DRYC: Rick Ryan (not present) No report TC EMC: Steve Bissen - The last meeting was mostly about UNA 106, Sapsucker Woods. There will be a boundary expansion but they have been talking with Cornell real estate about where the western boundaries are going to be. Cornell’s consultants want the boundary to be much farther back than the EMC wants. - Mr. Bissen was interested in the Conservation Board’s opinion on which boundary proposal they feel is appropriate. Conservation Board December 29, 2015 Page 2 of 4 - N. Munkenbeck inquired as to whether the Lab of Ornithology has had any input regarding the UNA boundaries. Mr. Bissen indicated that the Lab has not been consulted probably for several reasons including the fact that the EMC has their own consultants and they don’t want to bring in 3rd party (in addition to the EMC and Cornell Real Estate). - N. Munkenbeck stated that a major reason for the UNA is the Lab of Ornithology. - Cornell owns the land but provides about 10% of the Lab’s budget. The projects sponsored by the Lab are not affiliated with Cornell. - Mr. Bissen pointed out that this is not part of Sapsucker Woods; the Lab is adjacent but not part of the UNA section that is in question. - C. Smith stated that 30 or so years ago, Cornell Real Estate was agreeable to a UNA boundary west of the sanctuary that would buffer it against cow birds getting into the sanctuary. The problem with development in the disputed area is the increased possibility of predators once the buffer is removed. - Currently Cornell Real Estate doesn’t have any plans for the disputed parcels. - The Board concurred that they could not make any formal recommendation since the property is not in the Town of Dryden. - At this point, the EMC has expanded or contracted UNAs but have not eliminated any of them. New Business Membership: C. Smith offered the following resolution: Whereas, Charlie Smith, Bob Beck and Milo Richmond are current members of the Conservation Board; and Whereas, they have applied for another three year term; Therefore, be it resolved, the Conservation Board recommends the reappointment of C. Smith, B. Beck and M. Richmond to the Conservation Board for terms ending December 2018. N. Munkenbeck moved to second the motion which was unanimously approved. N. Munkenbeck offered the following resolution: Whereas, Bob Beck has served two years as the Chairman of the Conservation Board; and Whereas, the Conservation Board members believed Mr. Beck has successfully led and guided the Board; and Whereas, Mr. Beck has agreed to serve another year; Therefore, be it resolved, the Conservation Board requests the reappointment of Mr. Beck as Chairman. The motion was seconded by M. Richmond and unanimously approved. B. Beck offered the following resolution: Whereas, the Conservation Board will have two vacancies at the end of 2015; and Whereas, Peter Davies and Steve Bissen have applied to serve; and Whereas, Mr. Davies and Mr. Bissen have both previously served on the Board, are familiar with the goals and objectives of the Board and have attended recent meetings; Therefore be it resolved, the Conservation Board recommends the appointment of Mr. Bissen and Mr. Davies for terms ending December 2018. The motion was seconded by C. Smith and unanimously approved. Conservation Board December 29, 2015 Page 3 of 4 Continuing Business: NRCP: Scenic Resources C. Smith recommended changing the Goal to “conserve, promote and enhance Dryden’s Scenic Resources” N. Munkenbeck expressed her concern that certain language will lead to an increase in regulations – the point of the NRCP is to provide guidance for the Town Board and they will use it through regulations. It is important to remember the future applications of what we do here. B. Beck feels the Board should identify what conservation and natural resources are important for the future. How the Town protects those resources is secondary; whether it requires regulation or public education, the application is the second step. N. Munkenbeck feels that some of the Objectives (5 and 6) include language that suggests legal outcomes. C. Smith said that the manner in which the plan is implemented is left to the Town Board. As a Biologist, “freedom diminishes as numbers increase.” You cannot count on the citizens collectively, or individually, to do what is best for the environment. The more people that live in the Town of Dryden, the more likely it is that you will have actions that will be detrimental to the natural resources of the Town. The decision as to how to preserve those natural resources is left to the Town Board. The Conservation Board is simply making suggestions and recommendations. The challenge is to create mile posts that will allow whoever implements the Board’s recommendations to measure their level of success. N. Munkenbeck suggested that an inventory of view sheds in the Town would be a good place to start. - Tompkins County has an inventory: http://tompkinscountyny.gov/files/planning/nri/documents/TCSRreportJan17.pdf N. Munkenbeck questioned the meaning of “intact hilltops” Conservation Board December 29, 2015 Page 4 of 4 - this may not be an issue in Dryden but it could relate to view sheds and/or to prevent development at the top of hills. C. Smith said he would like to ensure that however it is defined, “intact hilltops” should not be construed to preclude agriculture. N. Munkenbeck doesn’t think we need to worry about “intact hilltops” as long as we are not doing mining, etc. A farm located at the top of a hill is a great view. S. Bissen asked if the appreciation of the view would be the same if the farmer sold and the farm was replaced by a subdivision. N. Munkenbeck said that would not be a problem for her, partly because housing developments tend to plant trees which will lead right back to forest covered hills. Mt. Pleasant is a great hilltop that has been cleared and provides a wonderful opportunity to teach and demonstrate the development of Dryden. It has also been used as a “classroom”. - Cornell defines “intact” as “undeveloped” - There was a consensus that agriculture is not considered “developed” Based on the Tompkins County inventory, some of the protected view sheds are outside of the Town’s purview and some of them are agricultural fields which are already protected by the Town. In terms of lighting (#5), the Town has requirements in place regarding lighting. It does not hurt to have the information appear in more than one place and it was suggested that the word “continue” be added at the beginning of the goal acknowledging this is an on-going Town effort. Goal #6 – add “recreational and agricultural” before the term “working landscapes” View sheds are subjective: each person or municipality has their own opinion of what constitutes a view shed. What Tompkins County has identified as scenic resources in Dryden may not be what the residents of Dryden consider priorities. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:23PM. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk