Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCB 2026-05-26 CB 2026-05-26 1 CONSERVATION BOARD May 26, 2026 Hybrid Present: Anne Clark (co-chair), *Steve Bissen, *Gian Dodici, *Kate McKee, Nancy Munkenbeck, Craig Schutt Absent: Jeanne Grace (co-chair), Andrew Miller, Tim Woods, Naomi Cator-Szymanski (alternate) Liaisons: *Spring Buck (Town Board) Other: Loren Sparling (Town Clerk) “*” denotes attendance via Zoom The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Review and Acceptance of Minutes Two sets of minutes are pending due to personnel transitions and will be completed before the next meeting. New Business A call was made for contributions to the Town newsletter, with the deadline for submissions being the following morning (May 27) at 10:00 a.m. One content idea that was raised pertained to seasonal wildlife; gray tree frogs are currently active and territorial and birds are nesting. A Clark will draft a short seasonal nature piece on tree frogs and nesting birds for the newsletter. The Board revisited its longstanding interest in establishing a dedicated bank account to receive public donations for conservation projects in the Town. A precedent exists with the account for recreation donations. N Munkenbeck has previously raised this with the Town Board, but action has not been taken. S Buck explained that before such an account can be established, clear parameters need to be defined, specifically what the donated funds could be used for and how they would be managed. G Dodici emphasized that the Board itself should define the scope of eligible conservation projects rather than just make an open-ended request. A Clark will add this item to the agenda of next month’s meeting to prepare a draft letter to the Town Board. Members are asked to bring their ideas for defining these fund parameters. Old Business: High School Representatives S Buck reported on the Town Board discussion regarding the Conservation Board’s earlier request to have high school students formally represented on the Board. Adding formal high school student members requires a legal amendment process estimated at three to four months, which would be too cumbersome for near-term action. The Town Board approved a streamlined alternative that recognizes two Youth Liaisons to the Conservation Board. This avoids formal legal amendment while still achieving the goal of youth engagement. The liaison arrangement is flexible as appointments are not fixed term, thus allowing for a graduated senior to continue into the summer or for any interested young person to participate without bureaucratic barriers. S Buck also flagged an anomaly in the existing State law that pertains to Conservation Board membership. The law allows up to two members between the ages of 16 and 21, but those slots are not additive to the regular membership. She felt this wording may be outdated or contain a drafting error, possibly intended to read “two additional members.” The Board agreed this warrants investigation but noted that updating the law would take several months. CB 2026-05-26 2 Old Business: Report on Co-Meeting with Climate Action Committee A Clark, N Munkenbeck, J Grace, and T Woods participated in the joint meeting with the Climate Action Committee (CAC) on May 19, as organized by A Clark and Jack Wright, CAC chair. The session format involved introductions and mission sharing by both groups, followed by small group brainstorming on areas of potential collaboration. Both advisory groups shared significant common ground in the areas of energy, climate, and building standards. Education outreach was widely seen as the highest priority collaborative avenue, including possible use of the new Center for Community for joint speaker series. Repair cafes and community events were viewed as venues for shared conservation messaging. T Woods advocated regenerative agriculture and found a receptive audience. The two high school members of the CAC expressed strong interest in promoting both household composting and organized composting efforts in the Town. G Dodici identified composting as a potential newsletter topic that could draw on resources from Tompkins County Solid Waste and Cornell Cooperative Extension. A Clark will investigate composting content for a future issue or potential talk. No formal joint meeting schedule was established, but A Clark will continue to serve as liaison between the two groups. Old Business: Update on 172 Hile School Rd Development (Trillium Woods) Sketch Plan The Board devoted substantial time to the proposed conservation subdivision update (Article IX of Chapter 240 of the Town Code) that will be advanced by the Zoning Advisory Group (ZAG) under Tony Salerno as early as next week. A ten-page revised document outlining the changes was emailed to all Board members on May 13. The impetus for this was that the Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC) had requested a development moratorium. In exchange, the conservation subdivision article would be advanced on an accelerated timeline. T Salerno intends to send the amended zoning to the Town Board at the next ZAG meeting (slated to occur next Thursday at 6:00 p.m.). Once sent to the Town Board, the article will enter a public comment period before any vote for the purpose of making document adjustments. The Trillium Woods development sketch plan is the most immediately relevant application, though the new conservation subdivision rules would apply broadly to any development of more than four houses. For several reasons, N Munkenbeck stated her desire for there to be a one-month delay in sending the ZAG document to the Town Board for further review by the various advisory boards. She expressed concern that this process is moving too quickly, stating that in her experience, public hearings held by the Town Board typically result in a decision at that same meeting, with limited opportunity for public feedback to meaningfully alter outcomes. S Buck offered a different perspective, noting that the legal process typically takes at least two months from the time the Town Board receives a proposal to final action, providing a genuine window for public input and board adjustments. Members noted that current base maps are outdated, some dating back to before 1950, showing roads (e.g., Baker Rd) that no longer exist. Some Board members reported difficulty accessing the most recent redlined version of the amendment, highlighting the need for a more robust shared document system. The transition to official Town email addresses might facilitate such a shared document system and improve administrative transparency. CB 2026-05-26 3 S Buck noted that a Cornell student had been engaged to develop GIS layers showing agricultural districts, quality soils, and large parcel locations for planning purposes. N Munkenbeck reported that the resulting maps were not shared with her and it was unclear whether the Planning Department found them useful. This gap was noted as a concern, as visual mapping would significantly aid the Board’s review of conservation subdivision impacts. Board members who have reviewed the ZAG document noted several provisions of interest. The draft includes a requirement that 50% of important agricultural lands be preserved in a conservation subdivision, a provision informally supported by the AAC. Language protecting natural areas beyond agricultural land is present but less robust. N Munkenbeck noted the wording may be aspirational rather than enforceable. A DEC letter regarding the wetland UNA on Hile School Rd was discussed. The letter stated there were no state-protected flora in the area, a conclusion that A Clark contested as the globeflower (a state-protected species) had been historically identified there and is documented in Tompkins County’s UNA records. In their letter, the DEC essentially said they would be fine with whatever happens as long as the federal and state wetland boundaries are respected. The Board discussed what could be done to ensure the DEC is aware of historically documented protected species before issuing blanket clearances. G Dodici provided helpful context. The New York Natural Heritage Program’s Database of Imperiled Diversity is the primary repository for rare species data in New York State. (He presumes the DEC gets most of its data from this database.) He noted that the DEC often relies on the Natural Heritage database and may not have the capacity to check every local County list. It was suggested that citizens can independently report sightings to the database to ensure they are flagged during environmental reviews (www.nynhp.org/contribute-data). The DEC’s Environmental Resource Map shows a general polygon over the Trillium Woods site, indicating the presence of rare plants/animals but not specifying species. The DEC likely believes existing wetland protections are sufficient. For a historical record to carry weight, original documentation (e.g., photographs, field notes, or scholarly records) would strengthen any submission. A master’s thesis out of Cornell, passed on to A Clark by Julian Shepherd, lists plants and animals for many local UNAs and may serve as supporting documentation. The Board discussed the legal and political constraints on using UNA designations formally. UNAs are meant to be informational, not legally binding. When the County originally established them, landowners were explicitly told they would not be used for legal or regulatory purposes. N Munkenbeck argued strongly that the Board should honor this commitment and not use UNA designations as the basis for formal DEC submissions. Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs), by contrast, carry no such restriction. They were formally passed by the Board in the past, through later administrative handling led to complications and their eventual rescission by the Town. The Town’s CEAs include species lists compiled by N Munkenbeck and contain much of the same information as the UNAs. N Munkenbeck proposed using this CEA data as the vehicle for informing the DEC. A recent effort to update UNA boundaries used aerial photography to refine lines but did not include a full biological reassessment of species. S Bissen noted that many UNA species inventories are now over 20 years old and would likely not hold up to legal scrutiny without an updated survey. He feels that the EMC will seek funding to reassess at least Tier 1 UNAs and offered to raise the question of sharing UNA GIS layers with the Natural Heritage Program at the next EMC meeting. CB 2026-05-26 4 The Board reached broad agreement on the following approach. The EMC should be consulted before any UNA data is formally shared externally, given the original commitments to landowners. Should their request be denied, the Conservation Board can proceed through CEA data, submitting species lists to the DEC under the CEA framework to flag historically documented species of concern. S Bissen will raise the broader question of GIS layer sharing and UNA reassessment at the next EMC meeting in June. Any formal communication from the Board to the DEC should be coordinated with the Town Board. The ZAG document appears to include provisions to prevent piecemeal subdivision (e.g., splitting off one lot at a time to avoid triggering the law), which N Munkenbeck viewed positively. She flagged that Chapter 270 also interacts with these provisions and that subtle language favoring housing maximization may be embedded across the two chapters (Chapters 240 and 270). S Buck clarified that the document talks about maximizing housing while maximizing green space. N Munkenbeck noted that she has not yet finished reviewing the document and encouraged all members to read it carefully and raise any concerns by next week’s ZAG meeting. A Clark will synthesize any comments submitted to her. There being no further business, on motion made by N Munkenbeck, seconded by C Schutt, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Town Clerk