Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-28Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Page 1 of 11 Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Members Present: Peter Davies (Chair), Milo Richmond, Craig Schutt, Charlie Smith, Gian Dodici, Steve Bissen, Bob Beck, Nancy Munkenbeck, Joe Osmeloski and Tim Woods (Alternate) Liaisons Present: David Weinstein, Planning Board and Jason Leifer, Town Board Review and approval of meeting minutes from February 28, 2017: C. Schutt moved to approve the minutes with the suggested editorial changes. S. Bissen seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Citizens’ Privilege: The following letter from Sarah Osmeloski was read into the minutes. Dear Conservation Board Members, I am unable to attend your meeting tonight but I have a few comments I’d like to express during ‘Citizens Privilege’ regarding the proposed construction of two solar farms in Dryden. While I am not against solar farms, I feel the high concentration of solar panels over a large area as proposed in these projects will be very detrimental to the environment. The same amount of panels dispersed over a larger area (as implied by the solar law) and placed on carefully selected locations would have much less detrimental impact on the vegetation, wildlife and climate. However, in view that it is not likely to happen, there are two areas in these projects that I feel should not be developed or at least have greater set backs than the 50’ required in the solar law. At 2150 Dryden Rd., parcels 1&2, the arrays should be relocated elsewhere. There should be no development around or along Virgil Creek. In parcel #3 the set back around the pond should be increased to 150’. While this is a man made pond its has become an important location for various species of waterfowl in the area, especially since with the construction of the trail off of Spring Rd. the flooding of the fields owned by George Junior along Rt.38 has been corrected. The waterfowl that utilized the flooded fields have moved to this pond. My concern is to have buffer around the edge of the pond for nesting and I’m concerned about sediment entering the pond. My second area of concern is Dodge Rd. in the Ellis plans. The locations of arrays there will destroy the grasslands that Cornell has maintained for many years. I feel they are a very unique habitat for many species as they are grassland in an area where most of our fields are farmed, scrub brush or forest. Particularly disturbing is the pending destruction of a stand of Norway Spruce on the corner of Dodge Rd. This is a very unique habitat that houses owls among other birds of prey. It has been there as long as I can remember (I moved to Ellis Hollow in 1961). To cut down these trees would be devastating to the local ecosystems. I ask that the CB members who have never seen this stand of trees go to Dodge Road and have a look, they are very unique. Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Page 2 of 11 Thank You, Sarah Osmeloski, 2180 Dryden. Rd., Freeville, NY I would like the CB to bring these matters up with the Town Board for their consideration of sparing these critical environmental areas from development. In addition I have two other suggestions to make these solar farms more eco-friendly. The 50’ set back from the property line of each sub divided parcel (as outlined in the solar law) should be enforced. Each parcel should be individually fenced and that would allow the migration of wildlife between and around these arrays thus easing the impact on the larger mammals. Secondly by raising the fencing a foot or so off the ground will allow the smaller mammals and rodents a way of migrating through this vast net of fencing. I understand from the town meeting that the TB has not asked for recommendations from the CB regarding this project, but I feel it would be a disservice to the residents of this town if the environmental impacts as viewed by the CB were not considered. Reports and Updates: Ag Committee: C. Schutt The Ag Committee met for its regularly scheduled meeting on March 8. Most of the meeting was spent reviewing data contained in the DRAFT Ag Plan. There was a concern about the accuracy of some of that data. Committee members asked for better verification and references for the data. There was also continued discussion on the farmer list that CCE provided. The Committee members still think that list needs further refinement, some of which was done at the meeting but more work is needed. That will be worked on at the next meeting along with prioritizing recommendations for the plan. Progress is slow but some was made. I shared the CB draft plan with the committee in hopes it would encourage them. I believe it helped. Planning Board: D. Weinstein Report from the Planning Board meetings of 3-1-17 and 3-23-17 1. The meeting on 3-1-17 was held at the Varna Community Center focused on the proposed Planned Unit Development at 1061 Dryden Road, just east of the F.H.Fox bridge outside the hamlet of Varna. The meeting consisted of comments from the public and a question and answer session between the board and the developer and consultants. Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Page 3 of 11 Prominent among the issues raised were (1) the desire of several members of the board to have the developer thoroughly explore the possibility of using air-source heat pumps as their heating source instead of natural gas, and (2) the additional desire to see the number of units reduced markedly so that more open plan areas could be contained within the project to make it more family-friendly. The public raised a number of other issues. A general feeling from the public was expressed that as a Planned Unit Development, that would re-write our zoning for a particular property, the town should get more in the way of compensation that helps it achieve its stated goals than just the donation to the town of the portion of the trail that runs along a border of this property. The board members compiled these comments into a list of questions to be addressed by the developer in time for the next meeting, on March 23rd, when the board had to render its recommendation on the project to the town board. 2. The meeting on 3-23-17 focused on (1) the recommendation for the 1061 project, and (2) comments from the public on the proposed solar farms on the property north of the Willow Glen Cemetery, Dodge Road, and Turkey Hill Road. a. The recommendation from the Planning Board on the 1061 project was that the developers need to show they are making a maximum effort to install alternative energy options into the project and to create open space for a family friendly environment, including reducing the number of units, among other items. I will forward the full text of this resolution once we have it written up. b. Many, many comments were heard on the solar farm proposals. The board took no action on these proposals (it will eventually have to approve (or not) subdivisions to allow the solar farms to be built because of the Public Service Commission's dictum that no more than 2MW can be placed on any given tax parcel of land. I have included a compilation of the letters the town received on the solar farm proposals, put together by Ray Burger. c. It was pointed out at the meeting that it would be highly beneficial for the Conservation Board to comment on the environmental issues connected with these proposals. I was remiss in my role as liaison in not sending relevant documents on to you for this purpose. I will dig them out and send them along. Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Page 4 of 11 D. Weinstein added that the Planning Board will be considering a 16 cottage proposal on Mineah Road. EMC: S. Bissen The EMC met on 3/9/2017 and the main topic was Cornell's plan to go carbon neutral by 2035. A talk was given by Todd Cowan, Professor of Civil and Env. Engineering, about their main focus which is the "Earth Source Heat" project. In this project, 2 holes will be drilled to around 2 miles down where heat from the earth (Temps between 250-284 degrees F) will heat water that will then be used for heating buildings. If proven feasible, this project would remove 110,000 metric tons / year of carbon from Cornell's carbon footprint. It was asked if Cornell would be using the same piping that they use for Lake Source Cooling -- they will not. Test drilling should begin soon although no date was given. Contrary to some reports this is an open loop system and one potential problem will be the porosity of the bedrock at that depth. Here are some links if you want to explore this more: Earth Source Heat at Cornell Report offers options for achieving carbon neutrality by 2035 - Cornell Chronicle Kotlikoff Q&A: Next steps toward campus carbon neutrality - Cornell Chronicle Options for Achieving a Carbon Neutral Campus by 2035 - Analysis of Solutions - Cornell University Senior Leaders Climate Action Working Group New and Continuing Business: Geothermal project could warm campus, expand energy study - Cornell Chronicle Proposed amendment to Town Law regarding alternates to the Conservation Board: C. Smith - The proposed amendment is not the same as the Board viewed and approved in January (see attached resolutions for comparison) - The term of service is not specified – are they appointed for one year, two years, 6 months, etc. - C. Smith has written a letter to the Town Board explaining where the discrepancies are (see attached). - D. Weinstein explained the manner in which the Planning Board handles alternates. Included in the enabling legislation are rules for the appointment, term and expectations of an alternate (that section is attached). - B. Beck asked about the hierarchy of the alternates; that is part of the amendment that changed as well. Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Page 5 of 11 - The Board agreed that a letter should be written to the Town Board by the Chairman expressing their issues with the revised amendment. Report on workshop on local government in NYS: C. Smith - C. Smith attended a workshop on local government and recommended the Conservation Board members also attend if one is offered again. He also shared some of the handouts he received at the workshop and provided the following website where the Board members can get more information: www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications-html NYS environmental funding for farm manure retention projects: C. Schutt - The email that C. Schutt shared regarding about manure storage and funding was basically for information. There are some newer, strict laws regarding the spread of manure that will soon be approved and there is money available to the farmers to help them accommodate the new law. Large Scale Solar farms in Dryden: J. Osmeloski J. Osmeloski shared maps of the proposed solar installations on Dryden Road, Dodge Road and Stevenson Road. − this is a type 1 action which means an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) is more likely and a SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) is required. − The Dryden Road project will have coverage on 72 acres. − J. Osmeloski pointed out that the Solar law encourages the protection of prime farmland – there are 37 acres of prime farmland at the Dryden Road site, 32 acres will be covered with solar leaving just 5 acres of prime farmland. − Two of the proposed solar arrays will be located in a 100 year flood zone. o D. Weinstein indicated that he has walked the property including the area that is supposedly in the flood zone but he saw no evidence of a flood zone. − There are numerous wetlands on the proposed sites and, although the developer is not putting panels on the actual wetlands, they will be encroaching. − C. Schutt said that the trees along the wetlands will be removed. J. Osmeloski said 20 acres of trees will be removed. − N. Munkenbeck wanted to know how close the developer will come to Virgil Creek – D. Weinstein indicated that there is a 100 foot buffer along the Creek. − J. Osmeloski said he wanted to piggy back on what C. Smith proposed (through his personal communication with the Town Board and while expressing his personal position) to the Town Board that a complete survey to be done of what is going to be disturbed on the property including vegetation, wildlife, etc. so we have a good scope of what is going to be disturbed. − N. Munkenbeck asked what information the Town Board (as the declared lead agency) needs to review the SEQR. D. Weinstein indicated they can receive feedback from the Conservation Board and the Planning Board. Any of the Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Page 6 of 11 boards can go through the SEQR and mark up the items that they don’t agree with. Part one of the application is filled out by the applicant. The Town Board (the lead agency) fills out parts two and three. If they determine, based on the information in the SEQR, that there is no negative environmental effect caused by the proposed action, then they will provide a “negative declaration”. If they find that there are potential negative environmental effects, then they will provide a “positive declaration”. Small potential environmental issues can be mitigated. − Part one of the SEQR is poorly completed. There is little information provided. − C. Smith indicated that it is impossible to determine the possible effects due to a lack of information available. Animals like the salamanders moving from one wetland to another could be smashed by the equipment installing the solar panels. o One of his concerns is that they are trying to fast track the solar projects. − The developer is planning to graze sheep under the panels. − G. Dodici sent around an email detailing how other projects have reseeded the land with natural wildflowers to encourage continued wildlife. o The question of reseeding was brought up with the developer who indicated they have no intention of reseeding. − C. Schutt said that the developer is proposing to knock down the knoll at the rear of the cemetery to reduce the view of the panels. − N. Munkenbeck said that the grass under the panels will not grow as well as without them. D. Weinstein said that does not appear to be the case on the Snyder Road array. N. Munkenbeck pointed out that was planted to native flowers and grasses and it looked to her that the vegetation was spotty. − T. Woods indicated that he drives Johnson Road and George Road and he has seen just in the last couple of days that area is wet with standing water. − C. Smith asked D. Weinstein if this is being fast tracked and if so, why. − D. Weinstein indicated that this is not being fast tracked in terms of giving the project a thorough review but NYSEG has told the developer that they have to start building by the end of April or else they won’t approve it until the start of 2018. Delaying the building until next year undermines the developer’s ability to get funding. The environmental issues are the rule of the day. He really believes that if the community feels it is too great an impact then this should not be built. The Solar Law says that these developments should be limited to a 2mw array per parcel due to the State PCS rule. There was never an intention to limit the systems to 2mw – there wasn’t any discussion of preventing the connection of several 2mw systems. The economics are such that small systems are not feasible with the tie in to NYSEG. He agrees that the project should go through strict environmental review and the input from the neighbors should be strongly considered but on the flip side, if we intend to meet the goals put forth by the County regarding how much solar needs to be implemented in the County to reduce our impact on the climate and the shift from fossil fuels to Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Page 7 of 11 solar, then we need to think in terms of large installations. He also said we need to not think about putting the panels someplace due to the lack of visibility, we need to remember that they have to hook into the system. − The cost of hooking into the electric grid is determined by NYSEG and according to the developer, each time they talk, NYSEG increases the cost. − C. Smith said he has heard people suggest lots of parking lots that could have solar panels above them. o D. Weinstein explained that it would be too expensive. NJ has a program that rewards companies for putting them above parking lots but NY doesn’t. − M. Richmond asked why this wasn’t proposed for the top of Mount Pleasant road where Cornell has plenty of vacant land. D. Weinstein said the cost to upgrade the line is prohibitive (it has to be 3-phase) and then they have to hook into a distribution station the closest of which is on Maple Avenue (Ithaca). − P. Davies indicated that there has been sufficient conversation and asked the Board what they wished to do at this point. − If the application is received tomorrow (Wednesday March 29), the Town Board will review the SEQR on April 6th. The developer will then go to the Planning Board for subdivision approval for the 2150 Dryden Road site. The application will then return to the Town Board for final approval. − N. Munkenbeck feels the SEQR is was not completed with concerns for the environment or wildlife. She believes this should not be approved without significant environmental review. − B. Beck agrees that this is happening too fast although he is torn between being pro-solar and happy with the project and his concern for the natural environment. − D. Weinstein told the Board that this project was presented in a public forum at a Planning Board meeting last fall. When we don’t know about things that are happening, we feel that things should slow down. But we don’t want to string it along just because some folks were not aware it was happening. He said the best thing this Board can do is to consider ways to mitigate the issues; are there any accommodations that can be made that would reduce the environmental impacts to the level that will make them acceptable? − C. Smith said that not knowing what is there, it is impossible for him to make a judgment. He believes the letter of the law should be followed. No one on the Town Board has the experience/background to know what is there that might be impacted. He believes the developer will indicate no environmental impact and that the Town Board will accept that. o His greater concern is that there have not been clear communications from the Town Board regarding what their intent is, what their time line is or what information they need. o He doesn’t know who gets the money from the PILOT. o What is the benefit or disadvantage to the Town? Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Page 8 of 11 o We (the Town residents) shouldn’t be disadvantaged in order to “green wash” ourselves. − D. Weinstein asked C. Smith if he knows whether the Dodge Road site is a unique habitat for birds. C. Smith indicated that he could not tell without spending time on the site. He has heard that the long eared owls have a preferred environment in a row of pines on the site. − J. Leifer pointed out that these solar projects and the PILOT associated have been discussed at several board meetings. o C. Smith said there has not been sufficient information, even to this group, that is clear, concise and helpful. He doesn’t have the time or patience to attend all of the meetings. − D. Weinstein said the question is whether there is a middle ground. Is there a way to make these projects work for everyone. − N. Munkenbeck said it would be best for grazers (sheep), it would be beneficial to have the individual installations have their own fencing and a space for the animals to travel through with gates. Rotational grazing is preferred. − D. Weinstein said that the developer and Cornell agreed to attend the April 6th meeting to do a presentation to defend why they selected the sites that were chosen. The developer will try to lay out what was governing their decisions and where they might be flexible to meet neighbors’ concerns. − M. Richmond wondered why we find ourselves in the stampede to catch up. If we need more time to review the SEQR, then we should ask for it. Some things are easy to object to – this is ag land and what evidence do we have that shows Dryden is going to benefit. He is in favor of solar energy but he needs to see the actual benefit. − J. Leifer pointed out that we don’t have a complete application and we won’t act on anything until we have that. We don’t have a set timeline. − J. Osmeloski pointed out that in the initial application, the applicant only listed six (6) species that would be affected by the solar installation. C. Smith said the Dryden Road location is embedded in two breeding bird atlas blocks. There are 118 different species in that block. Only a site visit by a highly qualified expert can determine whether the populations would be altered. The only species listed on the applications are those that you hunt. − C. Smith pointed out that they are talking about removing brush, he calls that shrub land which is one of the most productive land cover type available – the vertical stratification of the shrub land provides an environment for insects, food for small mammal and nesting site for birds. − B. Beck asked, considering the number of acres involved in this project, would the Town allow any other kind of major change like this without considerable further study for the EIS. o This is a major change in land cover and land use. Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Page 9 of 11 − J. Leifer shared that Iberdrola (the Spanish company that owns NYSEG) managed to get a law passed in Spain banning Residential Solar. The project proposed will permit residents to buy directly from the solar company, bypassing NYSEG, which is part of why NYSEG is not helpful (high cost of connections, etc). An individual cannot buy an actual panel but can buy the electricity at 10% less than NYSEG. NYSEG is forcing Distributed Sun to pay for the grid upgrades. − M. Richmond asked what R. Burger’s (Planning Director) take on the proposals is. D. Weinstein indicated that Mr. Burger’s job is not to provide an opinion, he simply deals with the facts. − M. Richmond asked if the panels will be on both sides of Dodge Road. No. − On Dodge Road, on the west side, the first 30 feet of Spruce trees will be removed. − Issues: The Dryden road project has two sections in Conservation zones, the Town would never permit a box store or a CAFO onto this site, they are building in a 100 year flood plan and they are removing brush and trees. As D. Weinstein pointed out the Solar Law was written in such a way that many of those issues and the laws related are superseded. − J. Osmeloski asked that part of the conversation between the Town Board and Distributed Sun include a strongly worded suggestion that they take every precaution possible to do the least amount of damage to any part of the environment they are impacting. o N. Munkenbeck said that the developer will agree with that suggestion but the Boards, like the Conservation Board, need to provide the expertise to determine what precautions should be used. M. Richmond offered the following motion for consideration: The Conservation Board encourages the Town Board to carefully review the information provided by the developer for the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). Further, the Town Board is being encouraged to reach out to the company, the Conservation Board, the Planning Board or other people with the proper expertise to ensure they have the right information from the developer and that they understand the information being provided. The motion was seconded N. Munkenbeck and unanimously approved. N. Munkenbeck offered the following motion for consideration: The Sun8 Solar developer should install fencing in such a way to create wildlife corridors between each subdivision at both the Dodge Road and Dryden Road sites. C. Smith seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Page 10 of 11 Each subdivision will require a 50 foot setback from the panels to boundary of the property lot. The fencing will need to be 6-7 feet from the panels leaving an approximately 80 foot corridor between tax lots. NRCP: - P. Davies reminded the Board that they have sections/projects that they are supposed to be working on. Borger Station: J. Leifer - At this point, the Town lawyer (Susan Brock) will be looking into the SUP issue. The question regarding whether the FERC order can occupy that field. If it does, the town cannot do anything. Even if the Town has the chance to issue a SUP, there is little chance that they could deny it. Bottom line is that the Town really has no say in this; we can make them follow the laws but denying a permit would, most likely, end in being sued. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20PM. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk Except from the Planning Board’s enabling legislation: 15. Alternate members. a. A town board may, by local law or ordinance, or as part of the local law or ordinance creating the planning board, establish alternate planning board member positions for purposes of substituting for a member in the event such member is unable to participate because of a conflict of interest. Alternate members of the planning board shall be appointed by resolution of the town board, for terms established by the town board. b. The chairperson of the planning board may designate an alternate member to substitute for a member when such member is unable to participate because of a conflict of interest on an application or matter before the board. When so designated, the alternate member shall possess all the powers and responsibilities of such member Dryden Conservation Board March 28, 2017 Page 11 of 11 of the board. Such designation shall be entered into the minutes of the initial planning board meeting at which the substitution is made. c. All provisions of this section relating to planning board member training and continuing education, attendance, conflict of interest, compensation, eligibility, vacancy in office, removal, and service on other boards, shall also apply to alternate members.