Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCB 2024-01-30CB 2024-01-30 Approved Page 1 of 7 CONSERVATION BOARD 30 January 2024 Hybrid Approved March 26, 2024 Present: Gian Dodici (chair), Steve Bissen, Anne Clark, *Jeanne Grace, Kate McKee (alternate), *Andrew Miller, *Nancy Munkenbeck (arrived 7:18 p.m.), Craig Schutt Absent: Bob Beck, Tim Woods Liaisons: *Spring Buck (Town Board) Staff: Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) “*” denotes attendance via Zoom The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Review and Approval of Minutes from 28 November 2023 On motion made by A Clark, seconded by G Dodici, the minutes of November 28, 2023, were unanimously approved as written. Report: EMC S Bissen reported that the EMC had their organizational meeting to decide what they will be doing in 2024. The ideas that were discussed were pretty vague, so they will continue to work on this in February. One thing that will happen, though, is finalizing the update of the Unique Natural Areas (UNAs) for the County. Once this is completed, each town will be provided with a new list of prospective UNAs located within their limits. A lot of the boundaries have changed; they have been refined because when they initially did this, they just marked up a bad aerial map. The boundaries are more precise now. Report: Agriculture Advisory Committee C Schutt reported that the Ag Committee did not meet. Report: Rail Trail Task Force B Beck was not present to report. Report: Town Board S Buck reported that the DRYC (Dryden Recreation and Youth Commission) is being tasked with gathering community input for potential uses of the Town-owned land behind Town Hall and the DPW building. It is her hope that the Conservation Board will engage on that and provide recommendations to them. S Buck also reported that multiple companies have responded to the RFP that went out to update the Town Zoning Code. This will provide us with a much better opportunity for choice, and another good opportunity for the Conservation Board to provide input and advice. Rick Young went through a list of funding needs for road maintenance in 2024. S Buck will work to understand what activities will be undertaken so that she may report these to the Conservation Board so as to seek their input well ahead of the spring when these activities would commence. CB 2024-01-30 Approved Page 2 of 7 Lastly, S Buck confirmed that the streambank stabilization efforts will continue this year on Knollwood Drive. New Business: Discuss Direction for 2024 G Dodici began by gauging interest among Board members in the chair or vice-chair positions. He stated that although he does not mind being chair of the Board, he does not want to deprive someone else from holding the position should they want to do so. G Dodici expressed his unease at how people become members of the Board, through selection/appointment more than through the membership process (submitting an application, holding an alternate position, and waiting for a vacancy to open up). C Schutt recalled how membership applications were first reviewed by Conservation Board members, who then made recommendations to the Town Board; nowadays, members are simply selected by the Town Board. G Dodici acknowledged that there also hasn’t been a new Board member in quite some time, as nobody resigns. From his years on the Board, G Dodici stated that the chair position has never been decided by Board members; he himself was asked to be chair by the previous chair. There are no nominations or discussions. He would welcome some fresh insight and drive if anyone was so inclined. G Dodici has been frustrated over the past few years at the lack of any meaningful product from the Conservation Board. We would occasionally submit a resolution to the Town Board that may or may not be listened to. It doesn’t seem like we are doing anything except having interesting discussions among ourselves. He is unsure how they can generate a tangible product, though they are close with regenerative agriculture. Ditching is similar; we have tried to communicate with DPW to collaborate on getting things done, but, as of yet, we haven’t made any headway. S Bissen echoed G Dodici’s comments, stating that he has more or less been on the Board for 20 years. We have come up with a lot of things; these are submitted to the Town Board or the DPW, but nothing happens. He feels at times that the Board has no power. We might be advisory, but no one is taking our advice. K McKee asked if the Board exists solely to advise the Town Board, or if community outreach was an option. G Dodici responded that the Board is anything we would like it to be. Previous Boards have been active in the development of Dryden’s Natural Resources and Open Space Plans, as well as Tompkins County’s UNA inventory. K McKee explained that her interest in Board membership stems from her desire to subtly educate the community about conservation-related issues (e.g., Dryden Village’s “No Mow May”). S Buck suggested the redo of the Town website as another opportunity for educational outreach. G Dodici returned to the Board’s role as advisor, expressing that it would be helpful if the Board were asked for their advice. We often give our opinion to the Town Board, but it is extremely rare that the Town Board asks us for our opinion. He hopes that the Town Board recognizes that, as an advisory board, there is expertise on the Conservation Board and will ask them for their input. S Buck responded by officially asking the Board for their input, especially over the next year, when the Zoning Code is reviewed and the Town lands behind Town Hall/DPW are developed. Zoning Code Rewrite G Dodici feels that the Conservation Board’s input needs to be more specific. Regarding the Zoning rewrite, he personally is not in a position to broadly give input. But if it came to CB 2024-01-30 Approved Page 3 of 7 specific conservation/environmental issues (e.g., impact to wetlands, stream buffers, deforestation), the Board can be asked specifically about those items. They can offer opinions on lot sizes and housing density but would not have the expertise to back it up. S Buck understood, saying that she had hoped to engage the Board early in the process of the Zoning rewrite rather than towards the end, knowing that it was going to be big; she wanted to be proactive (because it would be easier to incorporate any feedback) rather than reactive. A Clark inquired whether the Conservation Board could ask the Planning Board that the Zoning rewrite be undertaken in a conservation-responsible manner, and so push themselves into the process a little bit. To this, S Bissen wondered whether the Conservation Board needed a liaison to the Planning Board, so that they would be involved. A Clark thought this a good idea, saying that the Board needs firsthand knowledge so as to be helpful around the table. C Schutt hoped that all boards would be represented in this process. A Clark resumed by saying that the Board could simply make this suggestion upfront. We could send a letter to the Planning Board elucidating areas of the Code where the Conservation Board could provide insight and ask for a seat at the table when those areas are reviewed. Right now, we are just expecting a place at the table. Use of Town-Owned Land behind Town Hall/DPW G Dodici was curious to know the process by which the DRYC (Dryden Recreation and Youth Commission) would engage the Conservation Board’s thoughts about the use of the Town-owned land behind Town Hall/DPW. Would S Buck be facilitating this, or should the Board itself reach out to the DRYC? He further questioned why the Town is even interested in developing this land rather than saving it as open space. S Buck relayed that there had been a significant amount of feedback in regard to the Town having outdoor space for outdoor activities. There has been a real shortage of available space for outdoor recreation, especially for kids. The school system cannot fully support all the different kinds of club activities, and we end up with people in the community going to other counties for access to such recreation opportunities. G Dodici understood the need for recreation space but had heard a rumor about potential housing on that same land, which troubled him. S Buck still believes a task force should be assembled to gather community input, consider what is and is not feasible, and get more expertise on suggestions. She encouraged the Board to reach out to the DRYC to state its willingness to engage in the land’s use. It would also be another opportunity for community education on wetlands, given how much of it there is out there. If anything is done with the land, S Buck would like to see that the Board takes advantage of the educational opportunity. A Clark asked about the type of space being sought for recreation. S Buck has heard about a variety of uses: ballfields, soccer fields, even a raised walkway. But currently, it is just talk. A Clark suggested that the Board think about things that maintain some natural functioning in areas used by people, e.g., pollinator gardens, linking backyards as habitat, linking wetlands, and say that what we would like to do is to partner with the recreation and zoning efforts both to ensure that the naturalistic habitat is maintained and showcase that human use is not completely unfriendly to its natural function. K McKee put forth that this fits well with the Recreation Department not wanting to develop programs solely for children, but to engage the broader community. The health of the environment and the health of the community go hand-in-hand. S Buck added that beautiful and functional does not always CB 2024-01-30 Approved Page 4 of 7 mean perfectly groomed. Bring in the butterflies, the milkweed pods, and the witch plants, and leave the seed standing through the winter. Ditches S Bissen proposed that no-mow areas around Dryden Lake be expanded. C Schutt related that on the north side of Dryden Lake, along Lake Rd, there are a couple of nest boxes on posts; though part of the park, DEC stated that these must be left alone until late summer to allow the birds to nest, and then the area can be mowed. For the last few years, DPW mowing has occurred in May. S Buck will inquire about this with Rick Young when she next sees him. A Clark reminded the Board that ditches are perfect for leaving and planting milkweed. Milkweed is not going to get so high that it will prevent you from seeing deer. If the ditch is not too deep, deer will not hide in it. To S Buck, A Miller related his observation over the past two years that a lot of great ideas stem from the Board; these invariably run up against the DPW, who does not want to follow any guidelines produced by anybody, whether that’s county, state, or town. We have no power (I don’t know if we ever will), and that makes for a relatively frustrating situation for many people on this Board when there are ways to improve things that never actually happen. G Dodici acknowledged a difference of intents between the Board and the DPW. It does not seem to him that the intent is really there on the part of the DPW to try to do what’s right for the resource. It is more than just the road; it is the environment around the road. S Buck does not believe that there is any bad intent but wants to figure out how she can help support alignment between both entities. A Clark feels that the Board gets verbal best intentions all the time, yet actions contrary to these words. She doesn’t know if these contrary actions stem from the machine operator or the lack of any policy (e.g., “Fix that ditch so that it looks nice”), but there needs to be something written that can be referenced (e.g., “Dig the ditch no deeper than x”). S Bissen surmised that their mindset may be that if the guidelines denote that a ditch be dug only to a certain depth, and yet if the ditch is not dug deeper, the roads will then flood and the Town will receive complaints from residents about the flooding. Is their thinking that we’re asking too much, and they can’t do their job because we’re giving them guidelines or suggestions that they cannot follow. To S Buck, he inquired if Rick had spoken to her of such complaints from his staff. S Buck related that R Young had taken her on a tour of the Town and highlighted the issues associated with certain areas that he is trying to address, as well as the different strategies being employed to reduce the amount of material used. He showed her some of the areas where DPW is having a lot of problems with ditches due to the amount of water runoff after significant rain events, in addition to areas where they are really proud of the work they did. Given the work DPW has planned for 2024, she wondered if the Board would want to provide advice to him on how to handle certain areas. A Clark counterposed this by stating that R Young has never offered to take the Conservation Board on a site tour nor to explain what he is trying to do in problematic areas. What the Conservation Board experiences are the aftereffects of DPW activities. A Clark for one would be interested in a tour to see the logic behind the action. S Bissen added that the Board could even come up with areas that they think he should look at with them, so that he could see firsthand the Board’s concerns and hear their side and perspective. A Clark continued that it is hard to proceed forward without a full two-way conversation, and reiterated that she would CB 2024-01-30 Approved Page 5 of 7 welcome going out and seeing exactly what R Young’s philosophies are and what he considers his written guidelines. G Dodici imparted that he, over the course of the last several years, has actually credited DPW with doing a better job on their ditch management; there are numerous cases where they’ve maybe not done best practices, but better practices than before, so they are working in the right direction. But then you drive around Lower Creek Rd, and there’s no consideration given to any kind of best management practice; they dig deep to get below the lowest elevation of the culvert that’s in there, and then it just ponds water because it is flat. There’s no slope anywhere. But the Board has given credit where credit is due. Ditches have been a constant source of frustration with the Board. As such, A Clark proposed that the Board decide on an exact set of actions, even if it is just writing something or inviting someone to speak, so that they could get some clarity on whether it is worthwhile to keep discussing this. It seems like one of the first things we should do is try to get a tour of past, present, and future ditches with R Young and get an explanation for how he sees these problems. She would like to understand his logic, to know what things he cannot do, what things he thinks that he must or should do, and what holds him back. If he says that he would rather do something a certain way but is not going to because of X, that would be helpful to understand. N Munkenbeck added that it might be useful to have someone from the Cornell Roads program be on this tour as well, as they would have long-time expertise on roads and could provide suggestions. S Buck will meet with R Young in the next few weeks to talk about the list of roads that will be worked on over the coming year. She will talk to him about sharing this with the Conservation Board and the potentiality of doing a tour. She will update the Board at the next meeting, at which time a next step can be devised. She hopes to identify some actionable specific locations to begin building some forward momentum, and after sharing these with the Board, it might be easier to divide them up into problem areas, areas that would benefit from DEC-expertise, areas that would benefit from Cornell Roads expertise, etc. A Clark mentioned that the Board once tried to identify locations where ameliorative water-blocking techniques could be employed, but that was not met with enthusiasm. G Dodici added that the Board also had a list of ditches that DPW was going to work on last year (via the 289 agreement), but that did not go anywhere. A Clark continued that if she were to ask for a tour, she would like to see a current location that exemplifies what DPW would like done and then a location that is forward-looking (i.e., this is what I am going to do with this ditch). She added that she simply has no idea what happens when somebody goes out and looks at a ditch. Who makes the decisions? What do they say to the guys operating the big machinery? How do they decide on what ditches need to be done? We just want to understand DPW’s perspective on ditches. It would be wonderful to see prospectively what is going to be done and how they are going to do it. Pollinators A Clark kept the discussion going by stating that pollinators and associated (natural) communities seem like the other big thing that the Board can get in on. G Dodici related that Jennifer Michelle is interested in helping the Town. As a consultant there would be a fee for her service. There seems to be interest in the Town to possibly incorporate pollinator-friendly language into our municipal law. He asked if he could put J Michelle directly in touch with S Buck, as the Town Board would be able to hire her, if they want to proceed forward with this. CB 2024-01-30 Approved Page 6 of 7 A Miller recounted that Dryden resident Scott McArt is a professor in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and that the bulk of his work is in pollinator health. His grad students would be a local resource as well. G Dodici reminded the Board that the goal was to get pollinator-friendly language codified, and he did not know if the folks at Cornell were working from the legal end of things, getting municipalities to insert such language into their laws. A Miller thought that it would be more reasonable to reach out to local resources before hiring someone. We might be able to get something done at no cost rather than at cost. A Clark reported that the Climate Smart Task Force has talked a lot with J Michelle. From their December minutes, she read that “J Michelle will reach out to Alice Green and the Town for potential collaboration on reviewing their zoning laws. She said there are currently no state funding initiatives to take these action steps, but there are potential points for pollinator- friendly landscaping and the Climate Smart Communities program.” One of the things that the Climate Smart Task Force is trying to do is to check more boxes, so that more sources of potential funding become available. N Munkenbeck suggested that the insurance companies also be engaged, as underwriters have put forth that insurance policies be cancelled because no-mow areas around houses represent a fire hazard. Before you start putting pollinator-friendly language into something, make sure you are not running into insurance issues. Public Outreach K McKee stated that she would be willing to write something up as the Conservation Board’s contribution to the Town’s monthly newsletter, should anyone have a suggestion as to what she should write about, especially given that springtime is fast approaching. Knowing of K McKee’s interest in educational outreach, S Bissen said that the EMC usually hosts a public outreach meeting once a year; the last one was about flooding and ways to prevent it. Maybe the Conservation Board could also host a public meeting on some theme or topic. A Clark added that such outreach could help in the promotion of pollinator gardens among the community. Have you considered this? If so, be sure that you support us as we try to get pollinator-friendly gardens passed through your local zoning office. Such outreach could also dispel misconceptions (e.g., letting your grass get long does not help pollinators). Putting in a pollinator garden is not simple. Joining up with other groups (e.g., Climate Smart Communities Task Force) during Dryden Dairy Days, for instance, might be good. A Clark ventured that the Board could write something to the Town Board, saying that the zoning update is an opportunity for some really nice actions that will put Dryden ahead of other municipalities in thinking about everything from pollinators to natural areas that can be utilized as recreational walkways, etc. G Dodici asked if she could begin drafting such a letter as a shared document among Board members. Monitoring Conservation Easements C Schutt wondered what has happened to the conservation easements that the Board is supposed to be monitoring. G Dodici had wondered the same a few weeks ago and contacted Ray Burger about this. The only easements that the Board was tasked with monitoring were two on Ellis Hollow Rd, which they did monitor. There is no formal requirement that these continue to be monitored, yet should the Board feel these easements need to be resurveyed, it is on them to do it, as there had been issues with a water retention pond that was not built well. It would not hurt to return to those two properties in the spring. Returning to the topic of pollinator-friendly language, A Clark located a website that lists municipalities and the regulations they have passed that control the plantings that people CB 2024-01-30 Approved Page 7 of 7 can put in, demanding that they be completely native or completely non-invasive (https://www.pollinator-pathway.org/ordinances). Task Summary In summarizing the tasks that they set for themselves, A Clark relayed that she would begin a letter to the Town Board that she will share with members. G Dodici asked Board members to let him know if anyone wanted to serve as the Board’s liaison to the Planning Board. A Clark will also reach out to A Green to ask how the Conservation Board and the Climate Smart Communities Task Force could mutually support each other. G Dodici will also reach out to the DRYC in regard to participation in the zoning update. S Buck also summarized the proposed tasks in a subsequent email to Board members as such: 1. Spring will discuss with Rick Young about the mowing schedule near the nesting birds area. 2. Spring will meet with Rick Young to discuss the potential uses of each location and bring the information back to the town. 3. Spring will share a list of key focus points for action during the next meeting. 4. Spring will discuss with Rick about a potential tour and sharing a list of upcoming road projects with the board. 5. Spring will also follow up with Nancy about potentially involving someone from the Cornell Roads program in the tour. 6. Spring will reach out to Jennifer Michelle about potentially collaborating on pollinator-friendly language in municipal laws. 7. Write a letter to the town board about pollinator-friendly initiatives and the opportunity with the zoning rewrite. 8. Reach out to the planning board for a liaison. 9. Consider contacting Alice for information on heat source heating and water heater installations. There being no further business, on motion made by S Bissen and seconded by G Dodici, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Deputy Town Clerk