Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-27Town of Dryden Conservation Board minutes for June 27th 2017 In the absence of formal minutes (because the secretary was absent and the recording malfunctioned) this account was assembled by David Weinstein and Peter Davies ****** A meeting of the Town of Dryden Conservation Board was held on Tuesday, 27 June 2017 at 7:00 - 9:00 pm in the Dryden Town Hall, 93 East Main Street, Dryden, NY 13053 Agenda: Call to Order (7:00 p.m.) - Peter Davies Completion of Record of Attendance by Members and Observers Review and Approval of Minutes from 30 May 2017 Citizens’ Privilege (5 minutes or less per person, please). Discussion of Reports and Updates (if any) from Boards, Commissions, etc. (previously distributed by email please). New & Continuing Business • Feedback and corrections to the Natural Resources Conservation Plan v8. • Any other business Attendees were: Peter Davies, Charles Smith, Craig Schutt, David Weinstein, Gian Dodici, Joe Osmeloski, Milo Richmond, Nancy Munkenbeck, Robert Beck. The minutes for the meeting of May 30 were discussed and minor corrections send to Erin Bieber, Secretary. A Report of the Town of Dryden Planning Board Meeting on June 22, 2017 was received from David Weinstein as follows: 1. A public Hearing and discussion was held concerning the conservation subdivision final plat submitted by Randy and Nancy Luberecki. This project subdivides a 57.74 acre parcel, Tax Parcel 49.-1-30.2, at 426-430 Lake Road into seven residential building lots, with open space preserved along Lake Road and Dryden Lake. Carl Snyder, the applicant’s representative, was willing to accept three additional conditions after amending the lot lines so that two of the existing ponds would lie entirely on one parcel and not be bisected by a parcel line. Two of the conditions were (1) ride-thru barns, which will be allowed in the conservation zone nearest the road, will be limited in height to 10 feet and in floor area to 800 square feet, and (2) when each parcel is transferred in ownership, the new owners must sign a copy of the conditions specified on the plat to ensure that they are fully aware of the conditions under which the conservation subdivision was granted. I will pass on the third added condition when I have access to the minutes. 2. Following requests from various residents north of Freeville along Route 38, centered on Cricket Lane, to have the zoning changed from Rural Residential to Neighborhood Residential (which is much more restrictive in the uses that are allowed) and from a separate resident along Route 38 to have the zoning changed from Rural Residential to Commercial, the Town Board charged the Planning Board to analyze and advance recommendation about whether any changes should be made in the zoning. A committee was established to review the issues and provide preliminary recommendations to the rest of the board for possible action. The volunteers for the committee consist of Hilary Lambert, Craig Anderson, and David Weinstein, and they will work with Deborah Cipolla-Dennis. 3. Ray Burger gave an update on Current Solar applications. He listed the sequence of events, hearings, and approvals that now must occur before a final determination is made on the solar applications. He particularly identified the responsibilities of the Planning Board in the process, including consideration of subdivision approval and recommendations on the overall applications for solar after the town board has completed the SEQR evaluation. Since the Planning Board minutes will not be available for some time and since I cannot be completely sure that my personal notes are 100% accurate, I will not be able to give you the sequence at this time. I will alert you when the Planning Board minutes documenting this sequence have been finalized and accepted, and therefore can be referenced. 4. A discussion was initiated by Craig Anderson about whether to make a recommendation to the Town Board that the Zoning Law be amended to give the responsibility of all Site Plan Review applications to the Planning Board. The advantages to this change in procedure would be to have all site plan reviews be more consistent since they would be conducted by the same board. Because of the training in site plan review that Planning Board members receive, it might make sense that the Planning Board be the one to provide this consistency. On the other hand, it was mentioned that the reasons for keeping Site Plan Review of Special Use Permits with the Town Board was that the review could be conducted as part of the Special Use Permit review process, saving the applicant time and expense. It had been previously agreed that Special Use Permitting should stay with the Town Board since that board is composed of elected officials who are directly answerable to the voters. 5. A brief discussion was held concerning the need to specify the responsibilities of the Planning Board members, including liaison responsibilities. Craig Anderson suggested that board members read a document detailing these responsibilities that Mahlon Perkins had prepared for a training of the Planning Board when he was town attorney. The board agreed to review this document for a future discussion on the topic, including identifying those areas where Attorney Perkins’ opinion matches current documentation from the New York State Department about responsibilities and procedures of the Board and where they no longer match. The Board will hold this discussion in the near future. 6. A brief discussion was held concerning the rules and regulations by which the Planning Board operates. The chair reiterated that the board does not necessarily follow Roberts Rules of Order, nor is it required to. In addition, there are no regulations (confirmed by research done by Joe Wilson) about whether an issue needs to specifically be included on the agenda of a meeting in order to be addressed at that meeting. Several board members had erroneously presumed that no resolutions could be brought up and voted on at a special meeting of the board called to address one particular task that did not include those resolutions. It was argued by the chair and others that the board needed the flexibility of adding new items, including resolutions, to the agenda of any board meeting during the course of that meeting in order to allow the board to respond in a timely manner to new issues just surfacing. It was alternatively argued that although this flexibility is important, for single-issue special meetings and for issues of great public concern and controversy, the need to notify the public that an issue was going to be discussed and the need to allow board members time to think through all aspects of an important issue might supersede the advantages of flexibility. However, the consensus of the board remains that items can be added to the agendas during the course of any meeting, including resolutions proposed and to be voted on at that meeting. A report on the county EMC was received from Steve Bissen, who was unable to attend the meeting, as follows: The EMC meeting was held on June 8, 2017. - On June 20th, a meeting was held regarding the EPA's proposal to designate the Ithaca Falls lead cleanup site as an NFRAP (No Further Remedial Action Planned). The comment period will be open until July 17. Contact Gary Priscott at NYSDEC (gary.priscott@dec.ny.gov) for more info. Just a note: Walter Hang of Toxics Targeting toured the site and is still finding lead shot and shotgun shells. See these news articles for more info: Ithaca Voice - DEC closes in on final proposal for Ithaca Falls cleanup Ithaca Times - DEC proposes final clean up strategy for troubled Ithaca Gun site Spectrum News - Activists Scoff at DEC's Ithaca Gun Company Site Cleanup Proposal - The Piper Road Fen in Newfield was visited as a possible Unique Natural Area (UNA) and a report was given. It is one of the largest springs in the county and has many rare species including Sundews. It will be included in the upcoming budget to have it surveyed (most likely by Robert Wesley). - Bill Evans (wrevans@clarityconnect.com) gave a talk about Tompkins County Lighting Recommendations. Due to rapid increases in lighting technology largely involving LED lights, the type of light emitted has been observed and found that color above 3000K (yellow to blue-white) is detrimental to wildlife and people. More info can be found at: www.darksky.org as wells as the following document: Human and Environmental Effects of Light Emitting Diode (LED) Community Lighting. ****************** 1. There was an initial discussion about meetings that have been occurring (and are soon to continue) concerning the potential environmental problem with expansion of the salt mining under the lake. 2. The report from the TC Environmental Management Council liaison included information from Bill Evans (wrevans@clarityconnect.com), who “gave a talk about Tompkins County Lighting Recommendations. Due to rapid increases in lighting technology largely involving LED lights, the type of light emitted has been observed and found that color above 3000K (yellow to blue-white) is detrimental to wildlife and people. More info can be found at: www.darksky.org as wells as the following document: Human and Environmental Effects of Light Emitting Diode (LED) Community Lighting.” 3. Agriculture Committee liaison’s report spurred discussion on two topics: a. There will be an upcoming (as yet unscheduled) meeting with Steve Winkley, NY State Water Resources coordinator, on the new state program to fund acquisition of land for source water protection. Although it will be too late to apply for funding this year, we can prepare for the process for next year, including beginning to identify land within Dryden that would qualify for source water protection and the parcels in this group that might be for sale. b. There was a lively discussion about whether Dryden would be interested in joining an Amicus Brief arguing that the limits used to define a CAFO operation should be changed. 4. The Trails Committee liaison’s report initiated a lengthy discussion about who owns the F.H. Fox bridge in Varna. A letter has been received from the state declaring that they do not own it, and Mahlon Perkins, whose document of sale from his purchase of all the railroad easements is reported to state that he was also purchasing all bridges and culverts, denies any ownership of those bridges. The Board discussed the likely ownership of other pedestrian and driveway bridges in the town, and agreed to help investigate what other precedents of ownership have been created. 5. The liaison’s Planning board report brought only a question about why no mention was made about the discussion at the Planning Board of the responsibilities of liaisons. Weinstein replied that there was, in fact, an item in his report that mentioned this, and pointed out where it was mentioned. 6. The elements needed to complete the Natural Resources Conservation Plan were discussed, final edits being collected and any additional last comments and corrections being encouraged to be made in the next few days. The chair awaits receiving a map of the Dryden Trails from the County Planning Department. The Committee discussed whether the locations of great scenic interest and potential recreation, both mentioned in the document, should be more highlighted in the executive summary with an encouragement that these resources should be used with increasing frequency. 7. Schutt claimed that there was missing information in the latest documents for the Distributed Sun solar applications. Smith said that there were continuing problems with the SEQR form information, and its review by TG Miller because of their lack of biological expertise. Osmeloski pointed to problems with the new information presented, including an error in where the cell tower was positioned on the map of the 2150 Dryden Road application (identified as being 417 ft from Rt 13 when it should be 567 ft from Rt 13). Osmeloski indicated that he had a list of errors and incorrect statements that would eventually be shared later in the process. Lavine related her attempts to investigate why parcels of land near Turkey Hill were not originally put in play, something that might have permitted moving some arrays off of Dodge Road and thereby lessening the objections there. She explained that the changing rules of the Public Service Commission and NYSEG created a situation in which the locations originally proposed as the grid tie-in points could not be changed, eliminating flexibility that could have been valuable later in the process. Lavine expressed the viewpoint that, regardless of whether one thinks the solar proposals are right or wrong for our community, we need to all respect the potential validity of data being put forth and not dismiss it out of hand because it comes from an international corporation, a consulting firm, or a citizen with a vested interest. She reiterated the professional qualifications and long positive track record of Distributed Sun and their consultants in their five other Cornell Solar farms, and implored the board to examine the data being presented from this perspective and not dismiss it by assuming that the company is stupid and has malicious intent. There was disagreement and Lavine left for reasons of her own. Schutt expressed his view that the Natural Resources Conservation Plan being created is “unpalatable” with the proposed solar projects. He indicated that he knew of 6 other solar farm projects being planned, and worried that although the Distributed Sun projects combined would consist of only 100 acres of solar panels, Dryden could quickly see 1000 acres or more of solar panels, potentially significantly decreasing farmland available. The chairperson strongly disagreed that the Natural Resources Conservation Plan was not compatible with solar farms. He expressed a view that, having examined the simulation documents for the Willow Glen Cemetery, the long term effect on the viewshed would be minimal after the screening trees had grown. He cited the evidence given by the Cornell solar farm near the airport, where the buffering vegetation barrier has already in a few short years made it difficult to see the solar panels beyond them. He also reminded the board that the solar farms would not be taking farmland permanently out of production, but would instead be essentially putting it into a reserve bank. He mentioned that in any event the farmland on Dodge road was poor quality and had not been in production for a long time because of it. The question was raised about whether the Conservation Board should pass a resolution for a 6-month moratorium supporting the resolutions that have been passed by the Agricultural Committee and the Planning Board. Descriptions of what those two resolutions contained were requested. These were not forthcoming but Weinstein had previously sent them the resolution through email. Some members felt that a search for alternative sites would not get us much farther than where we are today, especially given the difficulty in obtaining connection information from NYSEG and PSC and the difficulty in identifying owners with an interest in selling or leasing their property. Others expressed concern over the implication that such a search to identify properties would easily be interpreted as the town dictating to landowners in a very specific way what the town thinks should be done with their property. It was questioned whether this is intrinsically different from what is done in zoning. However, others felt there was much to be gained from a moratorium that would allow time to create a round-table committee comprised of representatives of Distributed Sun (or other solar company), NYSEG, Public Service Commission, the town board, and its advisory board to get a more complete understanding of what options for large scale solar installations really exist and what constraints on those options practically limit how the town can move forward. A motion was put forward at the meeting of the Town of Dryden Conservation Board on June 27th as follows: “The Conservation Board of the Town of Dryden supports the recommendation of the Planning Board and the Agriculture Committee for a moratorium on large scale solar installations in order for the Town to examine the issue.” Proposed Craig Schutt, seconded Nancy Munkenbeck. For Schutt, Osmeloski, Smith and Munkenbeck Against Davies, Richmond, Dodici and Beck. The vote was therefore four for and four against. The motion was therefore not supported. One committee member (Bissen) was absent. (This motion and the vote thereon was communicated to the Town Board by the chair of the Conservation Board the following day). The meeting adjourned at 9:20.