No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-28 Dryden Conservation Board November 28, 2017 Conservation Board November 28, 2017 Members Present: Bob Beck, Steve Bissen, Peter Davies (Chair), Gian Dodici, Nancy Munkenbeck, Craig Schutt, Tim Woods, Linda Lavine (at 7:02PM) Via phone: Bard Prentice, prior member Review and approval of the minutes from September 26 and October 24. The minutes for the September 26th meeting need to be resent and the October minutes haven’t been completed so the minutes will be reviewed at the next scheduled meeting. Updates • The Ag Committee didn’t have a recent meeting, but will be getting to the Ag report • Planning Board has sent out a list of what they were looking at (agenda) • S. Bissen sent information out on CLEAN (Cayuga Lake Environmental Action Now) That committee gave a presentation to EMC regarding the Cargill Mine expansion and the dangers associated with it. The DEC has granted them a permit for shaft 4. CLEAN wants an environmental impact study done. The Retsof Mine collapse (Livingston County) was talked about; similar construction to the proposed Cargill Mine expansion • EMC member James Kniten produced a flood survey document listing flooding events and documenting how communities respond. S. Bissen will contact him to see if he wants comments from everyone. New Business • P. Davies reported that at the last Town Board meeting he presented/requested wording for the appointment of alternates which was put together in March and nothing has happened. He presumes the Town Board will act on that at their next meeting because presently we have no alternates and are down one member • A bound copy of the Natural Resources Conservation Plan will be presented to the Town Board for their next meeting, so hopefully they will act on it and accept it or reject it • Once the NRCP has been accepted, a bound copy will be printed for everyone • Committee members thanked Peter for all the fantastic work he’d done and getting the plan document put together • He said that he couldn’t have done it without everyone’s help • The amendment to the Town’s Solar law was presented o Comments should be sent to the Board prior to their December 14 th meeting • Previously it said there should be a 50’ setback all around the solar panels, but each group is just 2 megawatts. This would mean a 100’ foot buffer or wildlife corridor between the various sections. This was considered rather excessive so this was reduced to 10’ feet internally where two solar units (now about a 20’ corridor) • There was some discussion as to whether this would mean they could pull back from property lines because they would get more area in the center of the project. This wasn’t written in any formal way, just that it should be reduced to 10’ internally • Question for this committee: Is that okay? Unfortunately, M . Richmond and C. Smith are absent, they would have some insight on this issue • Generally there is a fence around the entire solar project so the 20’ corridor - the deer couldn’t get there. • C. Schutt - the Planning Board concern is if this is allowed to have less setback and then for some reason the solar panels are decommissioned, then you have a lot that doesn’t comply with the rest of the current zoning laws o Since the law would only apply to solar projects, this shouldn’t be an issue o P. Davies thought this was to ensure a wildlife corridor, is there no wildlife corridor for the Dryden Road solar project? o According to the map, it doesn’t appear to be o T. Woods asked what the original reason the developers had to subdivide it into different parcels? It was because of restrictions currently in the town ordinance that doesn’t allow for projects of that size. This zoning change would give them special rights that no other construction project could have unless they applied for a variance o This is a “special interest” in that we are going to give these kinds of concessions to one industry and if other industries want that same favor they have to go through an application for variance o The 2MW per parcel came from the State, not the Town, trying to accommo date the solar 2 MW requirement Any comments/suggestions regarding this to the Town Board? • T. Woods: regarding the wildlife corridors, if you want to make a recommendation about the specific change would you want to say to the Town Board this would be possible but only if on a large project there’s some kind of compensation for a wildlife corridor somewhere in the project or would it be just one large massive project with no way for wildlife to transition through the area. • So, should the law require wildlife corridors or just leave it that there could be something built into the plan and in this case (with the Dryden Rd project) it wasn’t part of the plan • Two projects have already been approved by the Town Board, so make a recommendation for future projects which would be an amendment to the solar law Change from 50’ to 10’, any objections? Something should be put in that they can bring in from neighboring lands (more space between) Each project would require an application so each would have a specific proposal It was mentioned that for the Dodge Road project there is a 200’ set back in order to get the approval The discussion should address the cutting down all of the willow trees which could very well have a negative impact on water flow across the land and the creek below. It was felt that they couldn’t require that the trees not be cut down (The trees would shade the panels) This issue was discussed at the Town Board meeting This is an amendment to the Town’s Solar law, not to this particular project N. Munkenbeck made a motion to approve the Town’s Solar Law as written, S. Bissen 2nd the motion. Passed 5 to 1 Should we request that the Town, in future solar development, require a wildlife corridor? Anything greater than 20 acres, need to write an official amendment T. Woods: There is precedent for this in 114HR448 (National Corridor System) has all the research & design specs, so could look at what they’ve done. This is going to be sent to the committee members N. Munkenbeck made a motion to table this until next month, S. Bissen seconded the motion Unanimously passed David Weinstein (not here tonight) has issues regarding conservation easements o Who owns the conservation easement o The landowner owns the land, but does the conservation easement/ subdivision take away some of the owners rights o If the Town owns the easement, will zoning monitor and ba ck up the agreement o A conservation easement is a formal agreement between owner and state, local government or an official organization o An advantage to a conservation easement is home ownership is less expensive, less sprawl, however, resources (like water, ecosystem, wildlife) may be unrealistically stressed o Need additional information from R. Burger This discussion will be continued at the next meeting. Review of the Agriculture Plan • C. Schutt summarized the Cornell Cooperative Extension presentation that was given at the Board meeting • Commended the Ag Committee for a job well done Water sub-committee progress report • About three months ago decided to look at the local orders & set up a sub-committee • G. Dodici: Reported that he and C. Schutt have met to discuss the issue & decided that rather than trying to tackle the buffer ordinance it might be easier to tackle items somewhat within our control. • Largest threat to water quality within the town is the road ditch network. That can be addressed without a need for an ordinance or rules and laws, just reach out to the Town, County and State Highway departments. Work with them to figure out how they can implement best management practices • He’s spoken to Rebecca Schneider and she’s willing to come and give a presentation to the Town Board, Conservation Board, Town Highway Dept.-whoever wants to attend Need to schedule a tentative date and time, it may possibly be next spring for the presentation depending on the weather December meeting plans: • P. Davies suggested not having a formal meeting in December. • A social gathering for the committee will be held - date and time will be emailed later S. Bissen: Since the committee is down a member, when should we bring another person on? Since the Town Board makes the appointments, need them to look over the applications and appointment a new committee member and two alternates. Motion was made to recommend Tim Woods as a new committee member. Motion was seconded. Passed unanimously N. Munkenbeck made a motion that P. Davies be the committee chair, M. Richmond be 1st vice chair, and S. Bissen be 2nd vice chair for next year. The motion was seconded. Passed unanimously A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:47, and was seconded. The motion passed unanimously Respectfully submitted, Diane Michaud Deputy Town Clerk