No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-27Conservation Board December 27, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Conservation Board December 27, 2016 Members Present: Bob Beck (Chair), Craig Schutt, Charlie Smith, Peter Davies, Jeremy Sherman and Nancy Munkenbeck Board and Commission reports: Planning Board: D. Weinstein - See attached EMC: S. Bissen - See attached Ag Committee: C. Schutt - The Ag Committee met December 14th. Most of the meeting was spent discussing plan progress and how to move ahead. Conservation Board Chair: C. Smith nominated P. Davies to serve as chair in 2017. R. Beck seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. P. Davies abstained. R. Beck nominated M. Richmond and S. Bissen as the 1st and 2nd vice-chairs respectively. The motion was seconded by C. Smith and unanimously approved. P. Davies stated that as Chair he will encourage the Board to act on the reports that are generated. He wants to see the information implemented rather than reviewed and filed. Dryden Lake Golf Course subdivision: - The Board is concerned about the potential danger to the water if houses are built too close. The septic systems are a significant concern. - Viewsheds should also be considered. C. Smith pointed out that NYSEG encourages underground utilities rather than power lines. - P. Davies pointed out that there appears to be a buffer of shrubs and brush along the lake front and he wondered if the developer would be cutting those down. - The Board was looking at maps and determined that the brush/ natural barrier is on the land owned by the DEC - The DEC is the entity that will regulate the buffer along the lake. Board members pointed out that it only takes a phone call to get the DEC to respond. - C. Smith asked if the Town had renewed the lease of the Lake with the DEC – it is a 25 year lease and has been renewed or is in the process of being renewed. - According to the lease, no docks or buildings can be built without DEC permission. - The biggest concern the Conservation Board expressed regarding the project, is the safety of the lake and the surrounding natural environment. - Some members of the Board will further discuss the project with the Planning Board. Conservation Board December 27, 2016 Page 2 of 4 NRCP: − P. Davies has reviewed the sections that are done and have been sent to him. Now he feels the skeleton is set and the rest needs to be filled in with pictures, charts, references, sources, etc. - The references have been moved to footnotes rather than in-text citations. − Sections of The Open Space Plan, The Methods and Criteria for Land Protection and Acquisition, The Varna-Freeville Rail Trail Concept Plan and Parks and Trail Maintenance Guidelines should all be included in the plan – perhaps as appendices. - J. Sherman was asked if it is true that Ithaca Organics is the largest organic farm east of the Mississippi River. It is possibly true but he said the moniker originated from somewhere else and stuck. - The Board discussed the order in which the sections should be organized in the plan: Water, plants and animals, ag, view sheds and recreation. - Each section is organized into description of topic, a description of local situation, perceived threats in the local situation and recommendations to combat the local threats. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:14pm. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk Report of the Dryden Planning Board 12/21/16 David Weinstein, liaison 1. The Planning board had previously requested a change in the zoning law that would allow Conservation Subdivisions in all three districts in the hamlet of Varna, a request that has subsequently been approved by the Town Board. The purpose of this change was to allow the board flexibility in designing new types of housing options on small parcels in the hamlet when, in the judgement of the Planning Board, a more bunched arrangement of houses would allow a sense of open space and still leave a viable amount of homeowner privacy without requiring the amount of road frontage for each lot dictated by the zoning law elsewhere in the town. Without this change, the Tiny Timbers subdivision, providing homeownership options not available elsewhere in the town, would not have been permitted without the zoning board of appeals granting separate variances for each of the 15 lots. Consequently, the Planning Board had to conduct another public hearing on the proposed Tiny Timbers development. The Board had previously conducted lengthy discussions between the board and the developers that produced a plan that all parties thought would be a benefit to the Conservation Board December 27, 2016 Page 3 of 4 community. Hearing no further objections from the public or from the board, the board approved the Tiny Timbers subdivision. 2. A sketch plan for a proposed 6 house subdivision on the former gold course next to Dryden Lake was discussed. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that in this area a conservation cluster subdivision should be mandatory, but the zoning law does not dictate it. Nevertheless, board members emphasized the necessity that any subdivision accomplish two goals: (1) retain a sufficient buffer from Dryden lake, excluding any development (of houses, sheds, barns, or docks) in the buffer area, and (2) retain as much as possible relatively little impairment of the viewshed of the lake from Lake Road. The developer expressed great concern that the houses could not be prevented from being situated in the location on the property that maximized their view of the lake, since the major selling value of these properties would be the lake view. Imagining that the ideal locations for houses would most likely be about half way down the slope from the road to the lake shore (each house lot would run all the way down the slope), board members suggested that the subdivision could most efficiently (storm water, septic fields, etc.) be constructed using a shared driveway that went down the hill, took a right angle turn, about half-way down the slope, and then serviced each house in succession. The board also suggested that some minor clustering of the houses, keeping them only 100 or 200 feet apart instead of evenly spacing them across the entire former golf course could do a lot towards maintaining some of the viewshed. Some board members felt a 200 ft buffer above the hydric soils would be sufficient, while others felt more was better, perhaps 300 to 400 feet. The developer seemed reluctant, but said he would think about these proposals. 3. Discussion of the proposed Dryden Solar Law, which includes a new section on Large Scale Solar Installations with more than 2000 square feet of collecting area and less than 2 MW production capacity. A variety of suggestions had been made by the public during the comment period on this law, so the board made an effort to consider each of these suggestions and to modify the law appropriately where it seemed necessary. The process went smoothly towards having a final version to be approved by the Town Board at their next meeting until the Planning Board considered the 3 new proposals for large scale solar installations, each containing approximately 6 adjacent lots (varying from 50 to 100 acres in total) with a combined generating capacity of approximately 12 MW. Board members realized that this type of installation was on an industrial scale, and was an order of magnitude potential impact beyond what we had previously considered in our discussions of Large Scale system. Consequently, a special Planning Board meeting was scheduled on January 15th, 7 PM, to discuss whether any additional modifications had to be done to the solar law to complete the Planning Board’s recommendation to the Town Board, with specific consideration of industrial scale facilities. Some possibilities include: (1) Create a limit to the total amount of wattage in the town, let’s say 2x the sum total of what his Conservation Board December 27, 2016 Page 4 of 4 company is planning, which would make a total of about 50 MW for the whole town, or some 750 acres (assuming 2MW per 15 acres (wow, that seems like a lot). (2) Create a rule that says no more that 10 (or 12 MW) can be located within a mile (or two, or three) of existing or planned facilities within a 10 year period. (3) Allow these systems to go into effect wherever, but create a more involved procedure to scrutinize projects involving more than 10 MW located within a mile to assess whether the environmental effects of each proposal would be too great, and therefore a SUP should be disallowed. (4) Allow these systems to go into effect wherever there is no impact to any viewshed identified on an official map. (We’d have to figure out what map to use, and what constitutes a viewshed impact). (5) Don’t allow any large scale installation on any lot within a given distance (a mile? 2 miles? Etc.) of an existing or planned 2MW installation. 4. We had proposed more discussion of our recommendation for a new road infrastructure law, including regulations for the proper procedures to be followed prior to utilities and pipes being installed under and near our public roadways. However, we ran out of time for this discussion, so it will be moved to the agenda for our next regularly scheduled meeting. EMC Report: Steve Bissen - Gov. Cuomo vetoed the bill to provide tax credit for geothermal systems. His explanation can be found here: http://www.greenenergytimes.net/2016/11/29/geothermal-tax-credit-bill-vetoed- by-governor-cuomo/ - West Dryden Pipeline is close to using eminent domain to allow construction of the pipeline. Questions, you can contact, Brian Eden at bbe2@cornell.edu. - Brian Eden was voted next year's chair of the EMC - Boundary changes to another batch of UNAs will be voted on at the January meeting (possibly). - City of Ithaca is considering adding questions to their SEQR about the subject's carbon footprint - Jose Lozano (City of Ithaca Water Dept.), Susan Allen-Gil (Ithaca College), and Damian Helbing (Cornell CEE) gave a talk regarding Microplastics & Pharmaceuticals passing through wasterwater treatment plants (especially pertaining to the Ithaca wastewater plant): - In short, the findings of a study determined that Lipophilic compounds are removed but Polar compounds were not. - A PDF reviewing the talk can be found here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.cce.cornell.edu/attachments/15550/NYSFOLA_Emergi ng_Contaminants_in_Our_Lakes_1_.pdf?1463600108