Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCB 2025-09-30 CB 2025-09-30 Final 1 CONSERVATION BOARD September 30, 2025 Hybrid Present: Gian Dodici (chair), *Steve Bissen, Jeanne Grace, Kate McKee (arrived late), *Andrew Miller, Nancy Munkenbeck, Craig Schutt, *Naomi Cator-Szymanski (alternate) Absent: Anne Clark, 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 Acceptance of Minutes RESOLUTION #9 – ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM JULY 29, 2025 C Schutt offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board of the Town of Dryden hereby accepts the meeting minutes of July 29, 2025, as written. 2nd A Miller Roll Call Vote G Dodici Yes S Bissen Yes J Grace Yes A Miller Yes N Munkenbeck Yes C Schutt Yes N Cator-Symanski (alt) Yes Report: Town Board S Buck reported that significant progress is being made with Dryden Fiber. It’s new vendor has completed all pre-assessment and engineering work, and a rapid rollout of fiber into Freeville is expected to begin shortly. With budget season upon the Town, the budget will be the primary focus of the Town Board’s regular meetings in October. Two additional meetings dedicated solely to the budget have also been scheduled for the month. Report: Agriculture Advisory Committee C Schutt reported on significant concerns from the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) regarding a proposed animal control law. The Committee identified several critical issues with the draft legislation. The draft was modeled after legislation from Colonie, New York, and contained provisions the Committee deemed highly problematic. These included what the Committee viewed as excessive penalties (e.g., potential fines of $250 a day and potential jail time of up to 15 years for your cattle being at large). The law would also grant every animal control, peace, and police officer of the Town of Dryden the authority to seize livestock from private property. The law applies to a wide range of livestock, including sheep, goats, horses, swine, and ostriches. CB 2025-09-30 Final 2 The AAC reviewed the draft and recommended that most of the punitive measures be removed, viewing them as both unnecessary and impractical. The primary objective of the law, as stated in its text, is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the residents, minimize conflicts, and ensure responsible livestock management, but the enforcement mechanisms are viewed as excessive. Despite the Committee’s extensive markup and request for changes, an uncorrected version of the draft was circulated to the Planning Board and is scheduled for discussion at the upcoming Zoning Advisory Group meeting. S Buck was unaware that this draft was in circulation. K McKee arrived at 7:11 p.m. N Munkenbeck expressed grave concern, stating that she knows several farmers who have been put out of business by laws like this. G Dodici postponed further discussion on this to an agenda item later in the meeting. Report: Environmental Management Council (EMC) S Bissen stated that he had nothing new to report from the Council, as he was unable to attend the most recent meeting. Old Business: Memorial Garden for Bob Beck J Grace reported that the Memorial Garden project is progressing steadily, with key preparations complete. Donation goals have been met, and the project’s budget is in good standing to cover all anticipated costs. A variety of trees and shrubs have been ordered, including red maple, sugar maple, serviceberry, and a white oak; an additional linden tree is being donated by The Plantsmen Nursery. All trees are bare root. As the trees are expected for delivery in mid-October, the Board made the decision to set the planting date for Saturday, November 1, 2025; if needed, the following Saturday (November 8) would be used as a backup. A start time of 9 a.m. or 10 a.m. was proposed. The planting will take place at the von Engeln Preserve’s entrance on W Malloryville Rd. J Grace will forward this information to The Nature Conservancy. The Board outlined a clear plan for preparing the site and managing the volunteer planting event. The first step is to request permission from The Nature Conservancy to mow the field at the project site before planting. The proposed plan is to use a brush hog to clear the area (possibly borrowed from the Cornell Botanic Gardens or the Town DPW), making it easier to see the space and position the trees correctly. To recruit volunteers, the event will be advertised through several targeted channels, including the Town’s website and newsletter, the Rail Trail’s Facebook page, the Conservation Board’s social media, and direct communication with the Rail Trail Task Force. A significant portion of the discussion was dedicated to the design and installation of a permanent memorial plaque and bench. The Board evaluated two distinct options for the plaque, weighing cost against material and availability. This plaque will be affixed to the bench. OPTION 1 Material: Cast brass Size: Traditional memorial-style Cost: Several hundred dollars Availability: May not be ready in time for the planting CB 2025-09-30 Final 3 OPTION 2 Material: Silver-colored metal Size: Postcard-size Cost: Blanks are free courtesy of the Friends of Stewart Park, with engraving to cost in the range of $40-$50 Availability: Available immediately The Board will work via email to finalize four lines of text for the plaque. For the bench, the Board discussed the following: • Bench design. A simple, sturdy Leopold bench was proposed. • Building material. Black locust wood was suggested for its durability and weather- resistance. • Security. To prevent theft while allowing for maintenance, the Board considered using duckbill-style ground anchors. This system would secure the bench with a cable but allow it to be shifted for mowing underneath. Old Business: Dryden Lake Dam The Board discussed a significant new development concerning the future of the dam at Dryden Lake. The conversation centered on the recent discovery of a binding legal agreement with the State and the subsequent debate over the Town’s best strategy to ensure the dam’s preservation. S Buck reported that the Town has located a contractual agreement, signed by New York State approximately 10 years ago, that legally obligates the State to maintain the dam at its current quality and water levels for 25 years. This places responsibility for the dam on the State for at least another 15 years. At a recent meeting, State representatives, who may not have been aware of the decade-old agreement, were formally reminded of their obligation. This development has created a new legal foundation for the Town’s position. Two distinct and conflicting strategies emerged from the Board’s discussion on how to leverage this contract: • Legal enforcement. The Town Board is currently pursuing a hardline approach, intending to use the contract to compel the State to fund the necessary repairs (estimated at $3.5 million). This legal strategy is challenged by the DEC’s limited maintenance budget – reportedly $7 million annually for over 300 dams statewide – making it unlikely the State could dedicate half its annual budget to a single, non-hazardous dam. It was argued that the legal approach can be justified, as the DEC has owned the dam and failed to perform adequate maintenance over the years. As a counterpoint, the point was raised that structures have a finite life and there is a limit at which degradation will outpace maintenance. • Collaborative fundraising and engineering. An alternative strategy was proposed by G Dodici, who suggested a more proactive and collaborative approach. This would involve forming a dedicated “Save the Dam” committee to seek grants, fundraise privately to help the State, and work with engineers to develop more cost-effective rehabilitation solutions, such as using sheet piling instead of poured concrete. S Buck noted that if a fundraising committee were to be formed, the Conservation Board would be the logical body to lead it. However, G Dodici stated that he would not personally lead such an effort, indicating that a dedicated group of interested citizens would need to step up and take the initiative for this grassroots campaign. The discussion also CB 2025-09-30 Final 4 touched upon the Town Board’s decision not to hold a public meeting on the issue, citing a need to gather more information before engaging the public. Old Business: Zoning Rewrite The Board conducted an in-depth analysis of proposed zoning amendments to regulate data centers, a discussion prompted by the impending expiration of an 18-month moratorium. The debate highlighted the fundamental tension between accommodating potential economic activity and mitigating significant environmental and community impacts, such as high energy consumption and noise pollution. N Munkenbeck reported that the proposed zoning law currently sets specific limits on data center development, but these limits are the subject of intense debate within the Planning Board. The draft legislation would limit data centers to a 5,000 ground sq ft footprint and a maximum height of 35 ft. It would also permit one such facility in each of the two designated light industrial zones of the Town. A faction within the Zoning Advisory Group is advocating for a much larger size limit of 20,000 sq ft. An informal straw poll indicated this is a contentious issue, with four votes for the larger size, three for the current 5,000 sq ft limit, and two votes for an outright ban. The Board engaged in a thorough cost-benefit analysis of allowing data centers in the Town. The discussion revealed a significant imbalance between the potential negative impacts and the tangible benefits to the community. Potential Benefits Increased property tax base for the specific parcel - A building (warehouse) on the site would be assessed and taxed, based on its size. Rental income for the property owner Potential Costs / Negative Impacts High electricity consumption – Electricity consumption was predicted to be stunningly large with the potential to increase electricity rates for all residents. High water consumption – Water would be required for cooling, drawing from the Bolton Point system. Noise and air pollution – Air-cooling systems (e.g., fans) create noise pollution and backup generators produce diesel fumes. Very low job creation – Data centers require few permanent employees (estimated at 1- 2) after the initial construction phase. Minimal increase in the tax base relative to resource consumption – Although a building (warehouse) would be assessed and taxed, it was argued the assessment would be low and unlikely to offset infrastructure costs. Direct conflict with the Town’s Climate Smart Community goals – The high energy draw is seen as contrary to the Town’s commitments as a Climate Smart Community. Data centers would cut into the gains made through sustainability efforts. Opportunity cost – Using limited light industrial space for a low-employment facility prevents other, potentially more beneficial, businesses from locating there. In its final deliberation, the Board acknowledged the “Not in My Backyard (NIMBY)” rationalization. This was countered by the argument that since residents of the Town use data/AI services, the Town has a civic responsibility to host the required infrastructure rather than shifting the burden elsewhere. The argument was also made that Dryden has made specific public commitments as a Climate Smart Community, yet allowing high-energy, low- benefit facilities would directly undermine those goals. CB 2025-09-30 Final 5 Board members identified several difficulties in regulating these facilities effectively. The draft law prohibits cryptocurrency mining, but members questioned how the Town could practically enforce what type of data is being processed. Zoning law cannot regulate the source of electricity (e.g., mandating renewables) or the total amount consumed. After a comprehensive discussion, the Board reached a consensus on a formal recommendation for N Munkenbeck to present to the Zoning Advisory Group. Rather than advocating for an outright ban, the Board proposed a compromise tied to its conservation mission. The Board’s recommendation aims to align any potential development with the Town’s established environmental commitments, advocating that Town zoning should reflect the values that come with it being a Climate Smart Community and only allow data centers which offset energy usage with renewable energy inputs. New Business: Proposed Animal Control Law Board members revisited the proposed animal control law discussed earlier. This law would regulate landowners’ ability to let livestock roam free. Such livestock would include “ovine (sheep), bovine (cows, cattle, bison), caprine (goats), equine (horses, ponies and donkeys), and swine (pigs and hogs) families; emus, rheas and ostriches; all poultry (chickens, roosters, turkeys, ducks, geese and the like); and any other animals raised for food, product or sale.” G Dodici read the following extract (Section 1. Purpose and Intent) from the proposed law: The purpose of this law is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Town of Dryden, New York. This law aims to minimize conflicts between agricultural operations and neighboring properties, protect environmental quality, and ensure responsible livestock management. By setting standards for the confinement of livestock and requiring sufficient setbacks for fencing and structures, the Town seeks to foster harmonious land use and maintain the rural character of the community. As a non-farmer, he thought it reasonable that, if you own animals, you need to keep them secure and not allow them to venture onto other people’s property. If a neighbor is being unneighborly and unresponsive to requests to keep their animals confined, there should be some such regulatory ordinance in place. S Bissen suggested a system of graduated fines for multiple offenses in regard to loose livestock. The consensus among Board members is that the Town should formally solicit and incorporate input from the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the broader farming community before proceeding with this proposed law to ensure that it is not overly restrictive. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8.51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Deputy Town Clerk