Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCB 2024-09-24CB 2024-09-24 Page 1 of 5 CONSERVATION BOARD September 24, 2024 Hybrid Present: *Gian Dodici (chair), Steve Bissen, *Anne Clark, Jeanne Grace, Nancy Munkenbeck (arrived 7:11 pm), Craig Schutt, Tim Woods Absent: Kate McKee (alternate), Andrew Miller, S Buck (Town Board liaison) Staff: Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) Guest: *Dan Antonioli “*” denotes attendance via Zoom The meeting was called to order at 7.02 p.m. Review and Approval of Minutes from July 30, 2024 On motion made by C Schutt, seconded by A Clark, the minutes of July 30, 2024, were unanimously approved as written. Reports: Environmental Management Council (EMC) S Bissen reported that the EMC convened on September 12. They heard a talk from Cornell University’s Helbling Research Group about their FLX PFAS Project (helbling.research.engineering.cornell.edu/pfas-monitoring-in-the-finger-lakes-region), which is assessing the current PFAS situation in the Finger Lakes. Unfortunately, S Bissen could not attend the meeting and so is not able to answer any questions or give any more detailed information about the project. Reports: Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC) C Schutt reported that the AAC did not meet in September. Reports: Climate Smart Communities Task Force A Clark reported that the Task Force has been pro-solar in regard to the proposed use of land north of Town Hall. Task Force members were taken aback by the lack of available space (see New Business: DRYC Update), but there’s not much anyone can do about that. New Business: DRYC Update The DRYC received four proposals in response to the RFP that they put out for a consultant to develop the land north of Town Hall. Two of these applicants, CHA and EDR, were selected for interviews (on Sept 4 and Sept 11, respectively). Both C Schutt (as Conservation Board representative) and L Sparling (as Town Historian) served on the interview committee. C Schutt reported that EDR came in with a wetlands specialist, who notified the committee that, of the 87 acres of town-owned land behind Town Hall, only the seven (7) acres between Town Hall and DPW could truly be developed. The Class 1 designation of the wetlands by the DEC renders a financial impediment to development elsewhere, given that such a classification is the most regulated. For every one acre of current wetland that is disturbed, three acres would need to be mitigated. The building of a road through the wetland to access the Cornelius property would cost at least $1 million. To get any permits to do anything out there would take a long time and be very expensive. CB 2024-09-24 Page 2 of 5 A number of other issues were also raised. Even though there are four acres of land that could be developed in the northeastern section of the parcel, it cannot be accessed. Boardwalks cannot be built through the wetlands because of DEC oversight; they regulate not only the post holes that are dug into the wetland for boardwalk construction, but also the land that would be shaded by the boardwalk. Given the aforementioned limitations to development, the DRYC decided to reduce the scope of the RFP to the seven acres nearest Town Hall/DPW and push out this revised RFP. J Grace wondered if development behind Town Hall was worth the cost. It might be better to just look for a better site elsewhere in the town. There’s a reason that the land behind Town Hall remains undeveloped. She is boggled as to why the Town is putting development pressure on the only dry seven acres of land within the wetlands. N Munkenbeck echoed her sentiments. T Woods disclosed that DEC’s rules get even tougher as of January 1, 2025. He also related how, based on his observations of the Gutchess Sports Complex, any parking associated with the proposed ballfields would not be able to accommodate the anticipated volume of traffic. G Dodici ventured that the Board just needs to keep on top of this, listen to where the project’s going, and continue to say what they have always been saying. New Business: Tree Planting at O. D. von Engeln Preserve J Grace brought forward the idea of a tree planting at the O. D. von Engeln Preserve to honor Bob Beck and the work that he has done for the community. This would be something that she could help out with, as it is in her wheelhouse. She recalled one time when she walked to the preserve with Bob and talked about the possibility of planting three to five chestnut trees near its entrance. There was not any follow-through with this, however. But there is a nice, open area there, and, from their conversation, it sounded as if Bob had gotten at least conceptual approval for the planting from the Nature Conservancy. She wondered how Board members felt about this idea and if they would want to pursue this. Though uncertain about the specific permissions, policies, and protocols that the Nature Conservancy might have, she proposed in addition a plaque, memorial rock, or something else with Bob’s name on it. Board members thought this to be a great idea. When the question arose about how to contact the Nature Conservancy, A Clark referenced a phone number on one of their signs as a starting point, as that would be local. G Dodici volunteered to reach out to the Conservancy and ascertain the point of contact for this project. Regarding the Nature Conservancy, their permission procedure and their memorial tree policy (if they have one) would have to be determined. For the Board’s part, a few questions need answers. Do they want to just plant a tree, know that they planted it for Bob, and publicize it as such? Or do they want to further acknowledge Bob’s work by placing a marker there with text. In Ithaca, there is a much more formal procedure that one must go through to place a plaque than to just plant a memorial tree. Discussion briefly turned to the number and type of trees to be planted. N Munkenbeck suggested that there be at least three trees. J Grace also thought three trees to be a safe number to estimate, adding that the exact number of trees would be dependent on available funds. A reliance on donations would limit the number of trees that could be purchased, but CB 2024-09-24 Page 3 of 5 she could get the trees wholesale, as one of her responsibilities for her job is to order trees every fall and spring. J Grace offered that, although the chestnut tree was the impetus for her walk with Bob, some other native tree species (e.g., sugar maples) could be planted, depending on what was already in the vicinity. S Bissen added that the trees should be native, but rarer or more interesting than what is typically found. J Grace further stated that cages would have to be put around the trees, at least for a few years. T Woods recommended Z’s Nutty Ridge in Cortland. They have numerous varieties of nut trees and can provide advice on survival rates and which ones need extra pruning, trimming, and feeding. In terms of timing, J Grace thought that things could be aligned for a spring planting. Fall would really be pushing it, as she has already put in her fall order. Board members weighed both options. G Dodici inquired about the possibility of doing a fall (November) planting, and then, if permission is granted by the Nature Conservancy, setting up a plaque or more permanent monument to Bob in the spring or summer to accompany the planting. If J Grace had extra trees available, there wouldn’t be any hindering reason why Board members and other interested volunteers from the Town couldn’t go out and plant them. J Grace confirmed that, once inquiries have been made to the Nature Conservancy regarding permissions and process, she will look into what she has already ordered and see if there would be any extras available; if not, she will add a red maple, a turkey oak, or whatever the Board desires to her order. Old Business: Chaffee & West Lake Roads The Conservation Board has discussed this intersection at several prior meetings, but it has resurfaced as a topic of discussion due to an email sent to A Clark and forwarded to Board members. The author of the email, Dan Antonioli, was present at the meeting to provide any further insight. D Antonioli related that he bikes the Rail Trail every day and has seen the problem on that parcel grow. He knew that Board members had previously discussed the property, but that there wasn’t much that could be done about it. Once he hit his threshold for acceptance, however, he wrote his email to A Clark, which was enough to sway some people in charge into action. As he bicycled past the triangle a few days ago, he was pleasantly surprised on seeing that the Town of Dryden had put up temporary safety fencing and orange safety cones around the triangular parcel, as well as other protective measures. Upon closer inspection, he noted that the site was much more of a danger than he had originally anticipated. The property owner had created a dramatic, cliff-like drop off the road by excavating into the public right-of- way. For the first time in weeks, D Antonioli saw the owner’s combination backhoe/front loader parked and not being used to push things around. He surmised that someone issued him with a stop work order. Board members responded by saying that the property owner has been served with multiple stop work orders that have been ignored. T Woods expressed concern about the integrity of both the road and the Rail Trail, given how close and how deep the activity is to these thoroughfares. D Antonioli agreed, citing that because the area is so steep due to recent weeks’ undertakings, there is now an opportunity for erosion to start encroaching nearer the road and trail, ultimately leading to a destabilizing of CB 2024-09-24 Page 4 of 5 the road. That land is adjacent to three public rights-of-way, and they are all structurally jeopardized right now. After some discussion, Board members determined that the best way to find out what the Town is doing to address the issue in the long run was to ask Spring Buck, their liaison to the Town Board. Putting up cones is not addressing the problem. What recourses does the Town have at this point to have the landowner remediate the impacts he might have caused? Will the Town require the property owner at his expense to undertake reparative and restorative engineering methods for the damage created? There has been a long history of legal interactions with this individual. Cease and desist orders have been ignored, fines have been levied, all sorts of things, and yet he continues on with impunity. T Woods will speak to Rick Young about this. J Grace reaffirmed contacting Spring, as she would be better able to find out such information as whether a stop work order was issued and who at Town Hall the public could contact to report further transgressions. D Antonioli divulged that he had been reluctant to reignite the issue, given its longstanding nature. G Dodici dispelled this doubt, firmly stating that leadership in the Town needs to hear from citizens. It’s not just the Conservation Board complaining about certain practices, but that these practices are also affecting people in the Town. Frankly, your voices weigh a lot more than ours do to Town Board members. C Schutt expressed his willingness to talk with Dave Sprout to see what Code Enforcement has done. With this being decidedly a public safety issue, J Grace offered to write Spring Buck (as liaison), and copy Jason Leifer, Ray Burger, Rick Young, and Dave Sprout to that email. Board members thanked D Antonioli for his diligence. Old Business: Johnson Road Update T Woods reported that the beaver trapping permit was approved by the DEC. Two trappers will begin trapping this week. Live trapping the beavers and moving them elsewhere is not permitted. The permit that was acquired does not limit the number of beavers that can be trapped or shot (note that beavers can only be hunted with a nuisance permit), but it does establish a time limit; two years are given to trap the beavers. The Army Corps of Engineers also gave their approval to take down one level of dams at a time (four levels total) so as not to overwork or overflow the natural drainage pattern. The timing between these takedowns will depend on the flow of the water (slow in winter, quick in spring). Beaver deceivers will be utilized to empty the ponds all the way through next spring. The process is multi-step. Only after the beavers are removed (via trapping) can the deceivers be installed to empty the pond. Once the pond is emptied can the dam be removed. J Grace recapped the Johnson Rd discussion from July’s meeting. For hundreds upon hundreds of years, the land was wetland, and then it was drained and farmed for dozens of years. Now it wants to go back to being wetland, which is what it has been for longer than it was drained farmland. It seems as if this will be a constant battle between property owners and nature. T Woods responded by stating that that is the reason for their reports to the DEC and US Army Corps of Engineers. They want to know if and when the problem is solved. Are there still foundational problems? J Grace countered that the problem may be that the land wants to be wetland and not drained farmland. CB 2024-09-24 Page 5 of 5 T Woods informed Board members that there is a natural drainage pattern there that has been there since the Civil War. When the beaver dams are brought down, the drainage flow will return to its natural state. It is going to be what it was in the 1990s, and the three landowners there will once again use the land for agricultural purposes. (Currently, the water table is at the surface.) The property owners also offered to mitigate the loss of those beaver ponds with much larger beaver ponds. J Grace understands T Woods’ perspective but feels that it is a monumental effort to prevent something from being a wetland, when clearly that is what it wants to be. There being no further business, on motion made by N Munkenbeck and seconded by S Bissen, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Deputy Town Clerk