Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCB 2024-04-30CB 2024-04-30 Approved Page 1 of 7 CONSERVATION BOARD April 30, 2024 Hybrid Approved on May 28, 2024 Present: Gian Dodici (chair), Bob Beck, Steve Bissen, Anne Clark, *Kate McKee (alternate), *Andrew Miller, Nancy Munkenbeck, Craig Schutt, Tim Woods Absent: Jeanne Grace Liaisons: David Peck (DRYC) Staff: Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) “*” denotes attendance via Zoom The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. David Peck, Vice Chair of the Dryden Recreation and Youth Commission (DRYC), was introduced and welcomed by Board members. He is present to answer questions and get Conservation Board input about the draft RFP regarding Town lands, which is on the agenda tonight. Review and Approval of Minutes from March 26, 2024 The minutes of March 26, 2024, were incomplete at the time of tonight’s meeting and will be reviewed for approval during the Board’s May meeting. New Business: Discuss DRYC RFP Regarding Town Lands The most recent edition of the RFP regarding Town lands (drafted by the DRYC) was previously distributed by email for Board members to read. Responding to a question about how familiar the DRYC is with wetlands, D Peck stated that the DRYC is very aware of the wetlands and their buffer. The maps that have been circulated regarding land usage were not drafted by the DRYC; they are the work of the Housing Committee, who have a specific agenda. The approach that DRYC has taken is that Dryden needs active recreation space. The land at issue is land that was gifted by Cornelius for the purpose of recreation. We want to try to create some active recreation space, at a minimum, while very much preserving the wetlands and adding an educational component to it because we have this resource. The Dryden Agricultural Fairgrounds were also located there. To incorporate that history and bring it out in any potential design features is also on our radar. T Woods mentioned that Boy Scout leaders have been discussing options for recreation within both the Village and Town. They have looked at the Town lands out back as well as the future site of Ezra Village (on Mott Rd). Why are we trying to put recreational fields in a location far from residences (where families will have to drive to) instead of utilizing land that is close to the neighborhoods? D Peck reiterated that the maps depicting field placement were not sanctioned by the DRYC. The Mott Rd site would have been ideal for the location of a Town park, but unfortunately it had been purchased by a company to develop housing. N Munkenbeck wondered if at least one recreational field could be made part of the Ezra Village development plan? D Peck answered that the Village is the lead on that project, but both he and Jason Leifer (Town Supervisor) have asked that the Village codify something with the developer to give money for funding recreation resources as well as ensure that adequate recreation is provided for Ezra Village residents. CB 2024-04-30 Approved Page 2 of 7 D Peck repeated the DRYC’s desire to preserve the wetland that is there; if there are parts that can be remediated without impacting the ecology, then we can do that, but we want to do the best we can to provide some recreation space. G Dodici acknowledged that the proposed RFP was very cognizant of the fact that there are wetlands there but disagreed about consolidating and relocating wetlands. You can’t do that. Wetland mitigation functionally does not work. It is done all the time as a regulatory mechanism to offset impact to the wetlands, but the reality is that they are not the same. A lot of the wetlands that are delineated down there are not high quality wetlands, but they still perform wetland functions. B Beck inquired how many acres would be available if neither the wetlands nor the buffer were disturbed, and if that would be near enough for what DRYC envisions. D Peck answered that DRYC has approached this from the perspective of what they NEED to have, what they WANT to have, and what they WOULD LIKE to have. For what they would like to have (e.g., a comprehensive town park with recreation and a facility), there is not enough room at all. For what they want to do, they would need space for three (3) multi-use fields, to be used for soccer, lacrosse, and football. He doesn’t know what this would constitute in acreage, but that is one of the reasons why they are putting out an RFP for a consultant, who can really look at the situation and say, ‘We have a delineation, but of that, what actually is usable?” For comparison, Lansing’s town park, which really is just ballfields, is about 15 acres. For us, that would be a minimum. N Munkenbeck turned to bathroom facilities. Because it is so wet out there, would you be able to have anything with its own drainage or would you have to use portable restrooms? D Peck responded that the DRYC would ideally have a built facility that would have bathrooms, storage, and a small concession center. The feasibility of drainage would fall to the consultant to consider. The consultant will determine what we can in fact do within the usable space. We would like to avoid the portable restrooms, if at all possible, but we’d have to figure it out. G Dodici wondered if the consultant could suggest other areas where the fields might be located, because it seems that there’s an interest for these fields to be located within the Village. It’s just finding that right spot; unfortunately all the prime spots are taken either for agriculture or big housing developments. D Peck stated it was their task to specifically look at the development of the Town-owned parcel. He hopes, though, that there will be a few different parks established within the Town, a large park and some smaller parks situated around the Town to meet its recreational needs. To this end, G Dodici thought there might be an opportunity, with the zoning ordinances being rewritten, for there to be added a recreation fee to development permits. B Beck offered that the limitations of the Town-owned parcel might be sufficiently severe enough to make it’s use much less than what the DRYC wants. Rather than spending money on developing recreation there, on land that isn’t spacious enough, it might be better to spend money on other land in the Town that would better suit recreation’s needs. He then voiced his concern over the constructed roadways that would impact the wetlands. According to the draft RFP, “… the wetlands should be preserved in quantity and quality, although consolidation and/or relocation will be considered to design the optimal use of the property.” S Bissen thought that something should be added such that any wetland relocation would require the approval of the Conservation Board. G Dodici went further, stating that the wetland relocation clause be omitted altogether. He clarified for D Peck that the Board has been struggling with wetland protection in the Town, trying to get the Town to be more proactive in its protection. It seems counterproductive to be encouraging this type of activity, given that we are trying to get the Town to be more regulatory around the development of wetlands, trying to encourage people not to do the type of thing that is being proposed here. CB 2024-04-30 Approved Page 3 of 7 A Clark sees an opportunity to stress the multiple forms that recreation can take by creating a passive recreational facility that is educational, which can be used by schools. Schools are always looking for places to visit. D Peck added that there are multiple passive recreation options throughout the Town. What we don’t have are active recreational spaces; for the Recreation Department to do its athletic programs, we’re at the mercy of the schools, so we want to alleviate that. At the same time, we want to create a connection between the Village and this space, by putting in a boardwalk that would go down to, for example, Neptune Drive, that would have a minimal impact on the wetland and could also include education about the ecology of the wetlands. There has been talk of solar. There’s no space for that, but as a covering for some sections of the boardwalk, you could have a roof that is solar which would help to offset some of the power needs that might exist or provide lighting for the boardwalk. G Dodici proposed that solar could even be used above a parking lot. G Dodici informed D Peck that the Board had talked about the possibility of putting in a boardwalk and dedicating it to Bard Prentiss, an active proponent of wetland protection in the Town and County. D Peck stressed that neither he nor the DRYC wants to take out the wetland. We want to preserve that and use space if it can be used. The consultant may find out that only seven acres of land can feasibly be used, so we would have to go back to the drawing board and look for another location, but he would still champion putting in a boardwalk. N Munkenbeck inquired whether the DRYC has actively looked for other sites within the Town that could be used for recreational purposes. (The DRYC has not.) She asked only because the best possibilities are continuously disappearing. If you find a suitable location, proactively address the owner that you’re looking for recreational land, and ask if they might be willing to sell the property or put it in a will. If they are not aware of your interest, you won’t get it. T Woods wondered if land swaps had ever been discussed in order to acquire a more appropriate spot for recreation within the Village. D Peck answered that it has been brought up in the past. The Recreation Department had reached out to the State on one particular occasion to inquire about a particular parcel that it owned adjacent to Mott Road. The State was willing to sell it, but the price was too much. It still sits empty. C Schutt mentioned the slope of the land behind Town Hall, to which D Peck responded that, within reason, slope can be addressed, but that would be part of the RFP. The consultant would address how much of the land can be used and how much could be altered without impacting the wetlands. G Dodici reminded Board members that this is just an RFP. The consultant’s product is not binding. Options are just being explored. He takes issue, however, with it being okay to mitigate wetlands, but everything else is fine. The consultant will come up with a series of alternatives, ranging from doing nothing all the way to maximizing what you can put in the developable areas. The only thing that he would strongly encourage is to minimize the developable areas to areas outside of the wetland buffer. G Dodici asked if the DRYC was considering the use of artificial turf for their fields to reduce maintenance and maximize playability. (The DRYC has yet to consider surfacing.) Any field that goes in should have good drainage, because even though it’s a natural surface, it’s still being actively drained, so it would run off faster than it would if it was left a fallow field. CB 2024-04-30 Approved Page 4 of 7 N Munkenbeck thought that there is a lot to be gained from having a natural field. Rain happens. You need to learn to live with it instead of thinking that plastic is going to solve any problems. B Beck reasoned that if the RFP does not include the possibility of looking at other sites, then the Town should have a professional seriously look at and adequately explore other potential sites. D Peck repeated that the charge to the DRYC was for them to look at the space behind Town Hall. He surmised that Town Board members, as individuals, may have their own ideas for the space, but as a group, they want that space to be utilized, as that was space that was given to the Town to suit a need. We have land; let’s see what can be done with it. A Clark thought it counterproductive to fit a part of what is actually wanted into a given space, and then to find another location in which to put the other part. It just seems like you’re dividing yourself by having soccer over here and ball over there; this makes it hard for the families. D Peck understands this, as Recreation faces that now, especially when school facilities are not available, and practices need to be relocated to other areas of town. He reiterated his desire to see one large park with 2-3 smaller parks in the Town. The discussion then turned briefly to road access to Bernie Cornelius’ landlocked property. B Beck thought it logical for this access to be from Lee Rd, adding that its residents probably wouldn’t like that. He also stated that a small-scale, passive recreation project might be okay, but felt that this is not what the Recreation Department really needs. He ventured that when the consultant finally submits the results of their work, there will be a strong push to move forward with that alternative. A Clark envisioned that parking may be an issue. To be ecologically sound, you would need a gravel base. Even permeable surfaces are not permeable enough for a wetland application. To be sure, permeable pavement is better than impermeable pavement, but it is not adequate. She continued that it would be helpful to have your minimums somewhere in the RFP (e.g., minimum acreage desired, minimum minutes’ walking access to a parking lot). D Peck related that DPW wants to avoid having stuff too close to them for security and safety reasons. A Miller offered that there is never going to be enough recreational space for what the Town needs. He felt that it does not make much sense to sacrifice habitat for a few ballfields that will not serve all the needs of the Town. He brought up the Gutchess complex in Cortland, built on old, reclaimed farmland using some private donations. Both Ithaca and Lansing have large facilities, and he did not know if Dryden could ever compete with these. Maybe Dryden doesn’t have to. D Peck would love to see a multi-use community and recreation center (possibly with turf) that would not compete with the likes of the J M McDonald Sports Complex or the Lansing field. He knows that there’s demand enough to support that. We first need to find the right spot for a large park that meets the primary needs of recreation; then, we will locate some smaller parks that people don’t have to drive quite so far to access. G Dodici then recommended that the RFP task the consultant with generating a list of criteria that the Town would need to build its dream sports complex. Have them say how many acres of continuous, developable land it would take to build this. A Miller cautioned that most of Dryden is wet or on a gigantic hill. And while he appreciates the desire to have a place where people don’t need to drive a far distance, Dryden is huge. There are always going to be people driving a significant distance to get somewhere; it’s unavoidable. CB 2024-04-30 Approved Page 5 of 7 B Beck sought clarification on the call for housing in the RFP. G Dodici explained that the Housing Committee is pushing for housing development to be investigated as well for the area behind Town Hall. This would certainly take a significant amount of available land away from recreation. The Town has to decide what their primary objective for that parcel is. Recreational facilities are a lot less invasive and intrusive than housing would be. D Peck recalled that at the DRYC’s last meeting, they envisioned a scenario in which the consultant determined that there was enough room to put in recreation space that accommodates DRYC’s needs as well as some housing. Should such a scenario manifest, what type of housing would the DRYC be open to? 55+ housing, which might incorporate a community center (because that is another thing that is needed). But he ultimately did not see this in fact happening. A Clark wished the draft RFP was a little more prioritized extrinsically. Intrinsically, the priorities are: 1) keep the wetland in its pristine state; 2) see if there’s opportunities for recreation; 3) use the appropriate opportunities for recreation, if all else fails; and 4) make a commitment to looking elsewhere for appropriate recreation. G Dodici confirmed that the purpose of the semi-general RFP is to get a consultant. After the consultant is selected, a group (consisting of representatives from the Town Board, Planning Department, DRYC, Housing Committee, and the Conservation Board) will meet with the consultant to hash out the specifics of the final product (e.g., what exactly is being sought, stakeholder concerns). It is more important that the Board is engaged in the latter process than in creating the language of the RFP. G Dodici ended the discussion by stating that recreation is important to Board members, but not at the expense of other important resources. He thanked D Peck for attending the meeting and pledged to get a written letter about the draft RFP out to the DRYC as soon as possible. Old Business: West Lake Road It was communicated to Board members via email that the draining of the triangle on West Lake Rd has now resulted in the wetlands across the road in the park being drained, which is DEC land. Where there had always been standing water, one can now see the bare ground. This is a main breeding area for Spring Peepers. This situation has been reported. Unfortunately, there is not a lot that can be done because the owner is undertaking the activity on his land. C Schutt reported that the Planning Board discussed this issue at their meeting last week, which resulted in Ray Burger sending code enforcement officer David Sprout to the site. D Sprout stated that the property owner would not listen to him, so the matter is being handed over to the court. G Dodici wondered what ordinance was being violated. If DEC land is being drained, DEC should pursue action. N Munkenbeck mentioned that, when it comes to zoning regulations being violated, the courts rarely find in favor of the municipality; however, if the matter centered around the purchase of development rights, the courts would view this as a contract violation, and the municipality would win. K McKee has encountered this same owner operating a backhoe on the Rail Trail, and wondered whether he has a legal right-of-way despite signs that state “no motor vehicles.” G Dodici suggested that the Town be encouraged to install bollards to prevent access. CB 2024-04-30 Approved Page 6 of 7 G Dodici viewed the matter in the hands of the DEC, given that DEC land is being drained. They would first tell him to stop. If unheeded, they would potentially fine him and make him fix it. K McKee related that, in November 2023, the DEC was aware of the matter and had made contact with the owner. T Woods also mentioned that the wetland on adjacent property just west of the triangle is also being drained. He mused on whether the owner of the adjacent property knew of the actions undertaken at the triangle. C Schutt will talk with her. Board members sense that this will be an ongoing issue with the property owner. But the more the DEC hears, the more they may act. As a citizen, call the DEC. The more people complain, the more it might help, especially if he is digging on state land. Old Business: Jim Schug Trail Signage L Sparling had previously provided Board members with the text and current images of the signage along the Jim Schug Trail. He has not been able to locate any of the original notes regarding the signs’ creation and has to start from scratch; as such, this may be an opportunity to upgrade the signs if members deem it necessary. He noted that the images associated with the ecological signs all seem generic; if members desired images that were more specific to the Trail itself, that could be arranged. He also shared the notion of incorporating QR codes into the signage. Rather than have plexiglass coverings as the old signs did, the new signs are planned to be constructed solely of metal (most likely etched aluminum). A Clark wondered if there was any TC3 involvement, in terms of sign design or metalwork. If TC3 does have a graphic design program, this may be a good project for them. There is lots of theory and practice surrounding zoo signage, in terms of how much text to incorporate and how to frame it. The use of copyright-free images and having someone look over the images before they are printed for accuracy were also recommended. B Beck thought that it would be great if a design group took this on and then continued with the rest of the Rail Trail. There is a lot of opportunity for educational and interesting signage along other parts of the Trail. K McKee saw this as a great senior project. She also mentioned that the Girl Scouts are pretty active and occasionally undertake big projects that are community-focused. She envisaged there being new trail signs with information about sustainability. Dryden Lake Dam C Schutt related information from a DEC email about the Dryden Lake Dam. The design has been completed by the engineering consultant and it is being reviewed by DEC staff. The construction of a new dam is planned for 2025. Reports: Agriculture Advisory Committee There is no report as the Committee did not meet in April. Reports: Rail Trail Task Force CB 2024-04-30 Approved Page 7 of 7 B Beck reported that Rick Young and his crew are building out the section of the Rail Trail between Hallwoods Rd and Pinckney Rd (where the railbed is on the edge of a wetland and was partly covered over by fill). They are following the plan that T.G. Miller did for us after we received the Army Corps wetland permit, which is to dig into the fill embankment that Bellisario put in behind his warehouse buildings. By cutting into the bottom of the steep bank, impact to the wetland will be minimized and the Trail will stay closer to where the railbed is. B Beck will share the T.G. Miller plans with Board members. He mentioned that funding for this came from Dryden’s second Tompkins County Parks and Trails grant in the amount of $5000 and from its third Triad Foundation grant of $10,000. Reports: EMC S Bissen reminded Board members that the next EMC meeting will take place at the Stewart Park pavilion on May 9 at 4:00 p.m. This is a get-together for all municipal and County conservation groups to connect and learn what each is doing on conservation and sustainability issues. There being no further business, on motion made by S Bissen and seconded by B Beck, the meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Deputy Town Clerk