Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-30Conservation Board May 30, 2017 Page 1 of 10 Conservation Board May 30, 2017 Members Present: Peter Davies (Chair), Milo Richmond, Gian Dodici, Joe Osmeloski, Craig Schutt, Bob Beck, Steve Bissen, Charlie Smith and Nancy Munkenbeck Liaisons: David Weinstein, Planning Board Guests: Tom Hatfield, Don Scutt, Bonnie Scutt, Sarah Osmeloski The meeting was called to order at 7:05PM. Review and approval of minutes from April 25, 2017: C. Smith moved to approve the minutes with editorial changes. The motion was seconded by C. Schutt and unanimously approved. Citizens Privilege: Thomas Hatfield, Planning Board member Mr. Hatfield stopped in tonight to react to and to make a couple of corrections to D. Weinstein’s report to the Conservation Board on the Dryden Planning Board meetings of May 3rd and May 25th. In regard to the resolution requesting a moratorium, Mr. Weinstein’s report indicates the moratorium would be on all solar projects but the resolution specifically states industrial applications over 2 mw. It does not affect residential or community solar. All this is, is a timeout so good planning can be done by all the town’s boards, the Conservation Board, the Planning Board, the Ag Committee and the Town Board. The other thing is, the report says the moratorium is to give the Town time to investigate all alternatives sites to identify one where no neighbor was negatively affected. The resolution says pretty specifically that the town needs to look far and wide to find areas in town where industrial solar would be an asset to the community, not that all of the people or neighbors would be in love with it. It is like the cell tower legislation - no one wants the cell tower in their back yard but everyone wants to be able to call 911. This issue is tearing the town asunder. It is not about whether you are for or against solar. It is about where as a community we want to put these facilities so they are not interfering with cultural or other aesthetic values that members of the community hold dear. It is about where we put them. It is not about saying it goes on this x. It is like overlay districts. You can say to a developer, if you want to place or buy land in this area, the community has said by zoning this can be done. This is something that can be done in the normal permitting process. Unfortunately when the Town Board put the original solar law in place, they did not address large scale industrial. Had they done so with some of the Planning Board input, maybe some of the current issues might have been avoided. David (Weinstein) does good work and I am glad he is a colleague, we have worked together for a long time. This town prides itself on the work that its boards do. Six months is nothing when it is going to impact our community for the next 35-50 years in terms of siting these things. Solar is not going to go away. I don’t know anyone who is opposed to it. Technology is changing. Those things can all be taken into account with a good, vigorous 6 month review. I am confident that this Town has the resources in human capital, some of which is sitting at this board tonight. Rushing through is not the right answer. Conservation Board May 30, 2017 Page 2 of 10 C. Smith asked: since we have Tom (Hatfield) and David (Weinstein) both here, are there legal or social or political reasons why the Town and the Village can’t collaborate on siting the arrays at the Village industrial park which is virtually empty? D. Weinstein said he did go talk to the village, they were interested in their options. One of the issues that didn’t come up in the meeting is where they can work with the Town. They clearly have an interest. T. Hatfield - As I have said before, the Town of Dryden is the first or second largest town in NY - if we can’t find a place or several places for industrial solar then you won’t find a place in NY. It is not about whether it is welcome or not but a question of siting. We have two applications in front of us right now. One is impinging on the community that has clearly reacted against what they perceived as an industrial plant in the middle of their community. The other one, the cemetery association is equally upset over the perceived impact on the cemetery. Perceptions are important. P. Davies responded to T. Hatfield: that is an overreaching statement in terms of Ellis Hollow. It is just the immediate neighbors which say not in my back yard, we are not willing to sacrifice for the planet. The rest of the people in Ellis Hollow are very much in favor, so that was a broad statement. T. Hatfield - I diverted from a report on the comments to personal opinion. I don’t live there so I don’t know. I talk to people, I go, I see. All of these things should be addressed. A six month moratorium would allow the community to interact better. At the end of day, we have the same problem with cell towers and we should have the same reme dy. We have a model cell tower law throughout the State of New York for siting cell towers. S. Bissen asked if T. Hatfield was talking about doing a law where areas would be zoned for large scale solar. T. Hatfield - I don’t want to speculate what we might come up with. One solution could be rezoning and using overlay districts. There is plenty of room for all folks to get involved. I would like to see a collaborative effort. We need input from the public. C. Smith believes the Town could develop an exemplary process for making these kinds of decisions. He has talked to some engineers and determined that we could pave the whole town or the whole county with solar panels but it won’t change the trajectory from here to planet Armageddon. We could do it as an example of how one should do it how one makes decisions that are locally beneficial in a logically, thoughtful, what used to be called science-based, using the best information available P. Davies asked T. Hatfield, with the moratorium and what you have said, won’t you get to a point where none of the Town is declared acceptable because where ever you put it, someone is going to have an objection. T. Hatfield - All I can tell you is go back to the cell towers. It is the same thing with solar - we want to be able to turn on the switch and make the lights work, if you are on life-support or oxygen. Those are capital items we need as a community. If you are going to make the objective that everyone will be happy, that is a false objective. There are places in the community we can put industrial solar. P. Davies said one of the problems is the word industrial. Industry is noisy, dirty - these are not noisy or dirty. Calling it large scale is fine but he objects to industrial. T. Hatfield - Words have meanings and connotations. To me, industrial is a business. We used to talk about, used to want soft industry versus hard industry with smoke stacks, pollutants and chemicals. We wanted soft industry which was usually labor intensive, administrative or computer development. This has gone from community solar to an industry. This is no longer a 10 acre site - it is the difference between retail Conservation Board May 30, 2017 Page 3 of 10 and big box. I don’t have an answer per se but I see the need to bring the community together instead of division. It is not pro or anti solar, it is siting. Additions to the agenda: C. Schutt proposed moving the discussion of the SEQR up. He was concerned the Board would not have enough time after the preceding items on the agenda. P. Davies indicated the update on NRCP is short. The next one is the charge from the Town Board, however, no one communicated this charge to him directly. He learned about it from Ray Burger who sent him a note saying there was a meeting on how to get funding for water projects. He attached to it the charge from the Town Board to the Conservation Board. Talk about a lack of communications. You would think it would go to the secretary and the chair of the board to be sent out and dated in some way. However, as this is a direct charge to the Conservation Board and there may be a time line on it with regard to state grants he felt that this should go first because otherwise when we get to discussion of the SEQR form, it could go on for hours. C. Smith requested some input from R. Burger about what is involved and where do we look. Reports and updates: Please see attached reports. Planning Board: David Weinstein The report stands for itself and Tom’s corrections, certainly the one about solar, is very much legitimate. It was just for 2 mw and up. The other correction, I am not sure how you voice better what his search for an alternative site is; the way he said it, a site that works better. I will leave that one. Ag Board: Craig Schutt At the regular meeting they were going through the draft plan and editing with Extension. The Ag plan is definitely coming really well now. Then they called a special meeting to talk about solar. There is nothing in the ag plan that dealt with solar and it could be a major impact on ag. They discussed for quite a while and came up with resolution for the moratorium based on their ag concerns. They supported the Planning Board’s resolution. A major concern was the potential stress on farmers trying to rent or buy land. C. Smith - But if a farmer wants an agreement to create a large solar array on his property, what do we do? C. Schutt - They went with the 2 mw. 2 mw is fine. D. Weinstein requested a copy of the Ag plan which will be sent to the Conservation Board members as well. EMC: Steve Bissen The EMC is strongly in favor of solar project in Dryden, especially the chairman. His view point and most of the EMC’s viewpoint is that there should not be any road blocks to solar, there are enough roadblocks as there is to prevent solar from getting established and nothing should be thrown in its way. D. Weinstein asked why they didn’t take a vote. S. Bissen said they did not feel it was necessary but if the Town Board wants them to make a resolution, then they will vote on it. J. Osmeloski asked if the EMC chairperson is of the opinion that anyone’s concerns with solar should be ignored. What does no roadblocks mean? Conservation Board May 30, 2017 Page 4 of 10 D. Weinstein and S. Bissen concurred that no roadblocks didn’t mean ignoring concerns. C. Smith pointed out that without the resolution and the wording, the conversation could not be fruitful. M. Richmond asked if anyone on the EMC spoke against the six month moratorium. S Bissen said no one knew about the moratorium at the meeting, it was held before the resolution was passed. D. Weinstein emphasized that a moratorium has not been passed, this was a resolution advising the Town Board. Rail Trail - Bob Beck We have met with all 36 land owners along the proposed rail trail and have 13 easements in place and 17 have pledged easement to the Town. That leaves about 6 or so that we are working with. We are having a workshop for the land owners and adjacent land owners on the trail on June 17 from 9-12 at the Neptune Fire Hall. They have met with the Executive Deputy Supervisor of the DEC, previously the director of our region 7. He knows the game farm site. They had a great meeting with him, Todd Bitner, and Dan Lamb. He is working on a plan to convince the opponents of the trail though the game farm, primarily sportsmen, and their concerns that it is the last game farm in NYS. There is concern that any change will lead to the closing of this one. We don’t think that the trail though the wooded part of the game farm will have any impact at all. It is looking promising but they don’t have a definitive answer yet. J. Osmeloski asked what the plan will be if 4-5 people refuse to sign easements. If the trail isn’t connected, it isn’t really a trail. B. Beck said that is always a possibility and they will deal with issues when we need to. NRCP: Peter Davies One of the things that I wanted in the plan was the map of the trails. There is a county map of the trails but trying to copy, the resolution got terrible. The person who has constructed the trail map of the county has been engaged to produce one solely for the Town of Dryden through R. Burger. That map will be available on June 11th. I need to go back to the guy from the Finger Lakes Land Trust to get more information specified such as the conservation easements around the Malloryville bog area. B. Beck indicated he can help identify the preserve area. I have received some summaries for the executive summary but not enough. I will create the one page executive summary using what I have and will have it next month. Then we should be more or less finished except with the appendix. D. Weinstein indicated he would send his executive summary tomorrow. C. Smith asked if we showed easements held by the Land Trust on the map. P. Davies indicated they are marked by dots. They are somewhere in the vicinity of the dot but not further described since they are not accessible to the public. The goal was to give a broad picture of the lands that are preserved. D. Weinstein asked the only thing missing were the Nature Conservancy easements. P. Davies said those are the only easements that are missing but there are some trails that are not yet marked. The FLLT indicated only what was theirs on the map. Town parks need to be included. D. Weinstein said we need GIS coverages. P. Davies shouldn’t have to photoshop these maps together. A bunch of us have the capabilities to do some of this. P. Davies and D. Weinstein will work together on the maps. Conservation Board May 30, 2017 Page 5 of 10 C. Smith cautioned, if it is not a GIS coverage and a GIS produced map, we don’t have an accuracy statement that we can make. We just need to include a disclaimer. The other Town preserve is on Rt 366, called the Parke - Dabes Preserve. P. Davies said it is not on any map he has seen. There was discussion regarding the ability to access the Town’s prior GIS property/maps/etc. The question is whether the computer can be accessed and the programs put to use. B. Beck said the FLLT produced a map of their preserves and dots for easements and they have more easements and preserves in the Town of Dryden than any other group but is ok for the map to be labeled Finger Lakes Land Trust? This is supposed to be of all the preserves the Town of Dryden. P. Davies argued that since the FLLT made the map specifically for Dryden, they need to be given some major credit. We can, however, relabel the map. C. Smith and B. Beck pointed out that there are more preserves in Dryden than the ones owned by the Land Trust. C. Smith offered the suggestion to P. Davies that if he has not heard from anyone by two weeks before the next meeting, or whatever deadline he determines, that is taken as acceptance of the plan. P. Davies reminded the Board that he asked at the last meeting for people to respond saying they were ok with the plan or to give him suggestions for changes and he got no responses. The deadline was set for June 13th. Failure to reply by June 13th, indicates acceptance of the plan. If you object, send the text you want to P. Davies. M. Richmond indicated he approves the work done. B. Beck recalled discussion of including two appendices, one on trail maintenance and one on Land Acquisition. P. Davies asked if the Board wants to include them in their entirety, which will make the document very long, or as a reference? The Board concurred they want them in their entirety. M. Richmond asked about the work the Conservation Board did on the Twin Sheds Management plan and indicated that he would like to see that referenced, if not included. C. Smith offered to put those three items together as an appendix. Source Water Protection Funding: The Town Board has charged the Conservation Board with regard to acquiring source water protection funding. RESOLUTION #67 (2017) - CHARGING TOWN CONSERVATION BOARD WITH RESEARCHING SOURCE WATER PROTECTION FUNDING Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden has an interest in protecting source water quality in the five subwatersheds within the Town; and WHEREAS, New York State is making funding available for projects that will protect water sources throughout New York State; and WHEREAS, Tompkins County has dedicated funding for watershed protection; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Town Board asks the town’s Conservation Board to work with the Planning Department to research the details of these Conservation Board May 30, 2017 Page 6 of 10 programs as well as other applicable funding sources, conduct public outreach to solicit ideas and locations for projects, and forward a plan to apply for these source water protection funding opportunities. G. Dodici indicated he feels this is more of an issue of figuring out how to apply for the funding rather than being an expert in water resources. P. Davies pointed out that the resolution also includes finding ideas and locations for the projects. The other person of interest might be Hilary Lambert. G. Dodici said there are two issues - the water quality improvement project funding has been around for years. Most of the projects were for water quality issues. This year they have included a component to include funding for acquisition for protecting sources water. What is source water - is that headwater streams, groundwater recharge areas, etc. It is an issue of ambiguity that has to be clarified. If sites are identified, which can be tricky because you have to figure out the criteria for these sites whether it is headwater streams or groundwater recharge areas, for which funding can be applied. You need land owners willing to give a conservation easement but the possibilities are endless. We can apply the bullets in the Water Resources section of the plan. There is a lot of work to be done before the July deadline. D. Weinstein indicated that Steve Winkley is the guide we are supposed to contact for these programs. Mr. Winkley was supposed to do a source water assessment but he has had personal issues. He is employed by the NY Rural Water Associations. B. Beck pointed out it would be logical for him to be involved with this as a source. P. Davies agreed that if he (Winkley) knows this area he might be favorably inclined should any application come in from this area. C. Smith again stated that he feels they need more information from R. Burger on this resolution. The area that makes him uncomfortable, because the Conservation Board has not traditionally done the part regarding conducting public outreach; that is the Town Board’s function, it sounds like a hearing. We can muster the expertise with input from R. Burger and other sources. P. Davies feels this is a good task for a Conservation Board to get suggestions from local persons regarding places to preserve source water. One is the Roy H. Park Preserve which is the headwaters of Six Mile Creek. J. Osmeloski suggested using the same model as they used with the Ag Protection Plan which was an invitation to all farmers in the Town and have them fill out a survey. D. Weinstein verified the deadline was July 28th. He then pointed out that it would not be possible to put together a detailed plan but rather tell them that this is what we plan to do and here is the method we will use to identify source water areas. G. Dodici said that the real potential he can see is if it is a parcel of land that the town was actively looking to acquire. P. Davies pointed out there could be a conservation easement of some sort. G. Dodici again indicated that he is not sure what source water protection is. M. Richmond said they need a definition of sub-water sheds. Everytime you talk about a water shed as a source then you have a picture of where the fingers are, the smaller branches and the drainage basins. It has been determined there are 5 sub-water sheds. Until we have a map of those sub-water sheds, we can’t really start. If we are going to dissect it out and try to select sites, we should start with that. C. Smith indicated conferring with the Ag Committee would be beneficial. Conservation Board May 30, 2017 Page 7 of 10 D. Weinstein read a definition of source water. “Water from streams, rivers, lakes or underground aquifers that is used to provide public drinking water as well as to supply private wells for human consumption.” P. Davies expressed his belief that this is not the committee to deal with this issue. He recommended a subcommittee that includes the Ag Committee, the Planning Board members that deal with water and the Conservation Board. He asked G. Dodici to put together a subcommittee. C. Schutt volunteered to participate. The Committee will put together a proposal and gather information. Review of SEQR: Related to the Dryden Road site. 1. Impact on Land - Yes a. No, or small impact may occur b. No, or small impact may occur c. No, or small impact may occur d. No, or small impact may occur e. No, or small impact may occur f. No, or small impact may occur g. No, or small impact may occur 2. Impact on Geological Features - No 3. Impacts on Surface Water - Yes a. No, or small impact may occur b. No, or small impact may occur c. No, or small impact may occur d. No, or small impact may occur e. No, or small impact may occur f. No, or small impact may occur g. No, or small impact may occur h. No, or small impact may occur i. No, or small impact may occur j. No, or small impact may occur k. No, or small impact may occur 4. Impact on Ground Water - No 5. Impact on Flooding - No 6. Impacts on Air - No 7. Impact on Plants and Animals - Yes No, or small impact may occur - discussion regarding the lack of knowledge/information provided regarding wildlife. A concrete decision cannot be made without further information. The US Fish and Wildlife Service issued a finding that it is unlikely to result in the take of a threatened or endangered species and no permit is required. The DEC stated the same. No, or small impact may occur It was pointed out that the Dryden Road site has a large population of shagbark hickory trees which are the nesting grounds for the Long Eared Bat. C. Smith added Conservation Board May 30, 2017 Page 8 of 10 that it has been stated by experts that the birds will move to a different habitat and that is not really accurate depending on the time that it is done. J. Osmeloski indicated he felt D. Weinstein was too involved with the Board’s discussion and left the meeting. G. Dodici asked how large the site is. 70 acres with 10 acres of trees that will be removed. He believes it will be a small impact. No, or small impact may occur - there isn’t anything on the special State lists. C. Smith pointed out that it hinges on the definition of “near the site”. There are a number of birds located nearby that have not been identified by the “experts”. N. Munkenbeck asked about the potential loss of predatory birds. P. Davies verified that we have more forested land now than we had 100 years ago. C. Smith pointed out that it is not the same forest as 100 years ago, the mature forests of 300 years ago are gone. He stated again that he does not feel there is enough information provided to make a fair assessment. There is not an accurate inventory of what is one either of the specific areas. d. No, or small impact may occur e. No, or small impact may occur f. No, or small impact may occur g. No, or small impact may occur h. No, or small impact may occur i. No, or small impact may occur 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources - Yes a. No, or small impact may occur b. No, or small impact may occur c. No, or small impact may occur - where the roads are installed and the soil compacted d. No, or small impact may occur e. No, or small impact may occur f. Moderate to large impact may occur - the cost of farmland and access to additional farmland may be impacted. g. No, to small impact may occur - the Town has not yet adopted an Ag Protection Plan 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources - Yes a. No, to small impact may occur. The decision hinged on the terms “officially designated”, the view “from” and the fact that the Cemetery is not a publicly owned resource. b. No, to small impact may occur. c. Moderate to large impact may occur. The view from north east will be impacted year round. d. Moderate to large impact may occur. For residents but not for recreation or tourism. e. No, to small impact may occur. There are no designated aesthetic resources. f. No, to small impact may occur. There is another proposed site within about 5 miles but it is not visible. 10. Impact on Historical and Archaeological Resource - Yes a. No, to small impact may occur Conservation Board May 30, 2017 Page 9 of 10 b. No, to small impact may occur. SHPO has determined there isn’t any archeological evidence on the site. The site is within a one-mile radius from the Plus Site. c. No, to small impact may occur 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation - No 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas - No 13. Impact on Transportation - No 14. Impact on Energy - No 15. Impact on Noise, Odor and Light - No 16. Impact on Health - No 17. Consistency with Community Plans - No 18. Consistency with Community Character - Yes a. No, to small impact may occur b. No, to small impact may occur c. No, to small impact may occur d. No, to small impact may occur e. No, to small impact may occur f. Moderate to large impact may occur, although D. Weinstein pointed out that this is not a natural landscape, farming has changed it. (I am uncertain how this was answered in the end) Please note that all answers above were reached by group consensus and were not necessarily unanimous. P. Davies indicated that the Planning Board and the Conservation Board have reached the same conclusions with the exception of one question. D. Weinstein stated that the Planning Board cannot move forward with the subdivision until the Town Board has completed the SEQR. B. Beck stated that he understands why people who are located next to these proposals might object to them, that is the case with most proposals. He has also considered what other proposals might come forth for the same parcels of land and reminded the Board that the adjacent land owners don’t own the land and thus can’t necessarily determine what is going to happen there. Solar is a good thing for the community and the planet. Would the six month moratorium actually make a difference? P. Davies pointed out that time is money to these developers and the delay may cause them to drop out. B. Beck and P. Davies concurred that the developer has been responsive to community concerns. C. Smith has a different view. He is left with the impression of the Town Board having to react rather than being pro-active and they seem predisposed to approve any alternative energy projects. His feeling is that no matter what the proposed development is, they should be viewed with the same scrutiny. With the moratorium, Conservation Board May 30, 2017 Page 10 of 10 the Town Board will develop a logical and step wise approach that assures all proposed development is dealt with in an even handed fashion. He takes exception to everybody that this is going to make a bit of difference to the planet. There is a trajectory for Armageddon but the farther away you get the less accurate it is. Folks trained in science are letting their emotions override their objectivity but it is a great idea for the community to try to do alternative sources of energy. The proposal that it is going to save the world, he can’t buy. We should do locally. P. Davies argued that if everybody, everywhere says the same thing then nothing is going to happen. We have to start somewhere. Dryden has gained a national reputation for this kind of thing. China has started to get on-line with the alternative energies. C. Smith agreed but wants information that says we are indeed going to say how many solar panels we have to install to actually save planet earth. We need to start locally but see if it is going to benefit us locally. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk Report to CB – Ag Committee Meeting of 5 – 10 - 2017 (Craig Schutt) to CB 5 – 30 -2017 The Ag Committee met for its regularly scheduled meeting on May 10. Most of the meeting was spent reviewing the DRAFT Ag Plan and making edits with Cornell Cooperative Extension. All agreed the plan has come a long way and is heading in the right direction. Solar development did come into the discussion particularly because there is very little mention of it in the DRAFT Plan. Through the ensuing discussions it became acutely aware to the Committee that the potential effect to the agricultural community is sizeable. The Committee agreed that more discussion on the subject is needed. A special meeting of the Ag Committee was called for May 17 for further discussion of solar projects and their potential effects on the agriculture in the Town of Dryden. After much discussion, the Committee proposed a resolution to recommend to the Town Board to pass a six month moratorium on large scale (larger than 2 mW) solar projects. The resolution was based on specific concerns for the agricultural resources of the town. The Committee felt there are too many unanswered questions and it was decided a moratorium would allow time to answer those questions. All stated they are in no way against solar, they just feel taking more time is the prudent thing to do. The vote in favor of the resolution to the TB was unanimous in favor of the committee members.