Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-29 Conservation Board August 29, 2017 Page 1 of 9 Dryden Conservation Board August 29, 2017 Members Present: Peter Davies (Chair), Bob Beck, Gian Dodici, Craig Schutt, Charlie Smith, Nancy Munkenbeck, Milo Richmond and Joe Osmeloski and Tim Woods (alternate) Liaisons Present: David Weinstein (Planning Board) and Dan Lamb and Kathy Servoss (Town Board) Town Hall Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director Guests: Sarah Osmeloski The meeting was called to order at 7PM. Review of proposed minutes for June 2017: The Deputy Clerk was not able to attend the meeting and the audio recording was unavailable. J. Osmeloski had several suggestions for changes to the account assembled by Chairperson Davies and Planning Board Liaison David Weinstein. In lieu of official minutes, C. Smith moved to accept the proposed account. The motion was seconded by J. Osmeloski and unanimously approved. Citizens Privilege: Sarah Osmeloski I have wanted to make a statement but have not been able to attend due to a prior commitment. I have two topics I would like to discuss. The first topic is to ask the Conservation Board to take the initiative to establish an ordinance in the Town of Dryden to protect our stream buffers from development. I think you, being on the Conservation board, understand the importance of stream buffers. The NYS DEC has a definition of stream buffers as being a strict 50 feet on either side of a stream bank. Based on the fact that we have had multiple blue green algae blooms and hydrilla problems in our lakes, I think we need to start protecting these stream buffers because they are part of filtration process for water that flows into the lakes. I feel that they are under pressure from solar development as well as the other development that is currently going on in the Town. I would like to see an Ordinance that prohibits the removal or damaging any living vegetation that grows in the stream buffers. Removing dead trees and such, that is understandable. I feel that is an important thing that needs to be looked into and you being the Conservation Board, it would be good. I brought in a publication by the DEC and they do mention in it that municipalities can enact local buffer ordinances to protect stream buffers from development. Please see attached. My second point I would like to bring up to the Board, I would like to suggest the Conservation Board start a project since it looks like we will be getting into major solar facilities in the Town, I think it would be worthwhile to document the flora and fauna in and around these areas before the solar installations are put in. Get the species and population numbers and then monitor it and keep collecting data during development and after they have been installed for a while so we can record the changes in the habitat and eco-systems that are going to occur through the solar development. I think we will see that we are going to lose some species and probably Conservation Board August 29, 2017 Page 2 of 9 gain other species. I do think it is valuable information to have when considering future solar development in the Town. N. Munkenbeck - Pointed out that it is important to remember, when advocating for no vegetative removal, that there are sometimes invasive plants that people do need to remove. S. Osmeloski agreed and suggested it could be limited to natural vegetation. She added that restricting access livestock have to the streams. If you drive along Route 38, where the William George Agency is, you will see that they have fenced off the streams that lead into Virgil Creek so that their cows and horses cannot destroy the vegetation on the sides of their streams. From what I understand that is the appropriate thing to be doing to ensure they are not over grazed and the buffering capacity is at its maximum. D. Weinstein concurred that stream buffering is a great idea. He thinks 50 feet is not even wide enough. There is a lot of good work out that that suggests it needs to be at least 100 feet to really remove the impact of erosion. Even better, G. Dodici has a suggestion for a flexible buffer based the width, the function, amount of water it is carrying, etc. There are templates for those kinds of ordinances. J. Osmeloski asked if there are restrictions based on the classification of the stream. D. Weinstein said in the county template that no restrictions per say, but the ordinance can take into consideration the classifications. T. Woods reminded the board that they have discussed riparian buffer zone protection several years ago. We had all these same discussions, they are in the record, and made recommendations. We looked at best practices put out by ag, the DEC and the Feds. P. Davies asked what happened with the recommendations. N. Munkenbeck stated that the Planner at the time decided the best way to move forward was to create CEAs. With the response from the public, it was decided to cut back the CEAs and the first thing removed were the waterways. Stream bank protection: C. Smith suggested a subcommittee with a member from the Ag Committee, Planning Board and Conservation Board. He also recommended adding the information they are able to generate to the NRCP. Dan Lamb suggested working with the County on this project. They have draft legislation on the internet for use by Towns. G. Dodici and D. Weinstein agreed to be the point persons for this project. G. Dodici reminded the Board that there is a significant section on buffers in the NRCP. C. Smith asked the Town Board members present if they would respond to the Conservation Board with advice or direction if the Conservation Board prepares a recommendation. The Board has done a lot of work on things before and gotten no feedback. D. Lamb failed to answer whether the Town Board would look at the material and provide feedback. K. Servoss responded that the Town Board would look at everything the Conservation Board provided. Conservation Board August 29, 2017 Page 3 of 9 D. Weinstein feels the timeliness of this project is great because the State is about to issue the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Cayuga Lake. M. Richmond recommended contacting Rebecca Schneider who is an Associate Professor at Cornell University. She has been doing research on the effect of ditching along the local roads. P. Davies stated he would contact her to see if she is willing to meet with the group. N. Munkenbeck suggested that the Town have group determine where the important view sheds are in the Town of Dryden for purposes of SEQR rather than depend on the County list. Reports and Updates: Planning Board report: D. Weinstein did not provide a report from the Planning Board because he has been advised by the Town Attorney to not write a report because it could be misconstrued. He does not necessarily agree with the attorney since he feels that the information he is able to provide is important and verbally sharing the information at the meeting takes too much of the meeting time. The issues the Board has been discussing include the Planning Board’s responsibilities with respect to asking project developers about their energy efficiency; is the Board permitted to ask specifics about the energy systems that are going to use and whether the Board can strongly encourage a particular form of energy use. There is a development proposed at 802 Dryden Road. It will have 42 townhouses with a residency bonus because the Board has determined the project will achieve LEED. The Board has approved the Sun 8 2150 Dryden Road preliminary plat. The final plat will be presented on September 28th. Another solar installation is proposed for 2323 Dryden Road by Delaware River Solar. The Board also has concerns about development on Mineah Road due to several issues including a dangerous intersection with Route 13 and water quality/quantity. Ag Committee: C. Schutt Agricultural Committee meeting 7 – 12 – 2017 The Ag Committee met for its regularly scheduled meeting on July 12. No representative from Cornell Cooperative Extension was in attendance so the committee spent the entire meeting reviewing the draft Ag Protection Plan for further editing. Agricultural Committee Meeting 8 – 09 – 2017 CCE staff did attend this meeting. This gave committee members the opportunity to ask questions and give direct feedback to CCE staff and voice concerns of the committee about the draft plan. CCE is expecting to have an up-to- date draft before the next meeting. Water Protection Committee meeting 7 – 19 - 2017 Steven Winkley, Source Water Protection Specialist New York Rural Water Association came to town for a meeting and updated the committee on progress of the Source Water assessment he has been working on. He provided new maps with data from the well survey previously completed as well as information concerning the new wells drilled at Dryden Lake for the Village of Dryden water supply. He explained wellhead protection areas and how those are determined. He will conduct another survey to Conservation Board August 29, 2017 Page 4 of 9 determine source water and wellhead protection tools that would be appropriate for Dryden. He also explained more about WQIP grants program and explained the priorities for the program. EMC: S. Bissen no report Consideration of a proposed resolution to prohibit the felling of willows in Willow Creek at 2150 Dryden Road: P. Davies asked Ray Burger to explain the situation with the Verizon tower, Sun 8 and the preservation of the willows along Willow Creek. R. Burger explained that Verizon was given a SUP in April to put a tower at 2150 Dryden Road with requirements for screening. The screening was not specific to the willows along creek. Verizon only has control of the 100 foot square piece of the Pinney property. They do not have control of sections that may be considered screening for the tower. Subsequent to the Verizon SUP, Sun 8 has a SUP for the solar arrays at 2150 Dryden Road. One of the stipulations in the permit is that as long as the Verizon SUP is in place, the trees along the creek have to stay. If the SUP lapses, expires or voluntarily surrendered, then there is no requirement to keep the willow trees along the creek. J. Osmeloski verified with R. Burger that the only thing protecting those willow trees is the Verizon SUP. P. Davies proposed the following resolution: Recommendation for the preservation of Willow trees on Willow Creek A line of willow trees exists at 2150 Dryden Road along the Willow Glen Creek tributary south of the “existing crossing and path” of Lot 5 of the proposed Sun8 subdivision (1 i of the Approval Resolution). Given that: • These mature, very large (6-8 feet diameter at chest height) trees represent specimen trees. • These trees are essential for preventing erosion in said creek. • Being arranged in a north-south direction these trees would cast minimal shadow on adjacent solar panels. The Town of Dryden Conservation Board urges the Dryden Town Board to include in its specifications for granting the solar development permits to Sun8 the prohibition to removing said willows, regardless of the fate of the agreement with Verizon for the installation of a cell tower at said site. The motion was seconded by M. Richmond. Conservation Board August 29, 2017 Page 5 of 9 D. Weinstein verified that the Town Board resolution referred to in the proposed resolution is the SUP approval for Sun 8. C. Schutt stated that the developer had asked, at the Town Board meeting, if the Verizon SUP doesn’t go through, then he can take the trees down, right? D. Lamb pointed out that the land owner is Scott Pinney and he can cut down those trees any time he wants to and there is not a thing the Town can do to stop him. The Town Attorney has confirmed this. He asked the Board to consider what it is establishing by doing this; that we can reach onto someone’s property and tell them what they can do. We better be prepared to do that on a broader basis. That is a slippery slope and he is not comfortable doing that. He guesses his colleagues would not be comfortable with it either. If you are planning to go this direction, he strongly advised having strong justification backed up by other resources, like the County planning department or DEC; something that would indicate these trees are necessary to protect the water flow in the seasonal creek. N. Munkenbeck pointed out that these are the issues that will come up when considering a stream buffer ordinance. C. Smith asked if anyone knows the classification of Virgil Creek where this tributary flows in? J. Osmeloski indicated it a “TS”. It is a trout stream with a breeding population of trout. T. Woods stated that Florida has laws/ordinances that protect certain trees because of their size and age. M. Richmond asked if anyone has talked to Mr. Pinney about keeping the trees. D. Lamb indicated that Mr. Pinney is a business man and he doubts Mr. Pinney would be interested in saving the trees. S. Osmeloski added that if the developer disrupts the stream itself, the DEC will step in immediately due to the effect increased silt will have on the swamp that creek drains into. C. Smith said he is confused because they are not proposing that Mr. Pinney be prevented from cutting the trees but Sun 8. We will be forestalling erosion in the wetland or Virgil Creek or both. These are specimen trees. He doesn’t understand the legal-ease here. We are thinking about stopping Sun 8 from cutting the trees. If Mr. Pinney chose to cut them, that is a whole other issue. N. Munkenbeck asked if the panels will be in the fall range if the trees broke or toppled over. R. Burger said he believes they will be. D. Lamb said that according to Sun 8 there are only a handful of trees that they are concerned about. How many trees are you trying to address in this resolution and how many trees are they actually planning to take out? The tree cutting plan shows the removal of all the trees over 20 feet along the creek. These are 80 foot tall trees at least. R. Burger confirmed that Sun 8 plans on almost complete tree removal from Route 13 to the Petrillose’s property. D. Lamb stated that Sun 8 has told him specifically that they are not taking out all the trees. N. Munkenbeck pointed out that if they leave the stumps, they will get regrowth but it won’t be the magnificent specimens. R. Burger added that the hydrology and erosion functions will be maintained. P. Davies stated that the resolution simply urges the Town Board to act; the Conservation Board has no control over anything. He thinks this is important. If these Conservation Board August 29, 2017 Page 6 of 9 were cut down you would have erosion which would affect the streams and other lands off the property. P. Davies moved the resolution as written. M. Richmond said he will second the resolution if the resolution is written with whereas and therefore (the accepted manner of resolutions in Dryden). D. Lamb stated that what the Board is suggesting would require the Town Board to revisit the SUP and hold another public hearing. T. Woods pointed out the willows are providing a service. If they are cut down, what is going to replace them and the service that they are providing for the landscape? M. Richmond said he supports the ability of people and businesses with making money and the rights of landowners but he has concerns about where to draw the line in terms of putting the environment in harm’s way. D. Lamb is uncomfortable with the fact that the resolution is coming forward after the fact and if not for the Verizon SUP, this discussion may not even be happening. Due to the fact that the trees are tied to the Verizon tower, there is extra time to look at this. Now we are looking retroactively at a SUP. What about the rest of the stream and the willows farther down? Where are we going with this? I don’t like changing the rules or moving the goal posts. M. Richmond asked if the developer is willing to work with the Town to protect the willows? D. Lamb pointed out that Sun 8 is concerned about their product. C. Schutt stated they were just concerned with making money. D. Lamb stated that Sun 8 has a much bigger mission than that and said that Mr. Schutt knows very little about the company. M. Richmond asked why the Conservation Board is so late learning about this situation. He didn’t know about some of this until three months ago. It is a puzzle for him as to what to do. He can see both points of view. D. Lamb stated that it is clear why they are too late (the SUP has already been approved) and that there are people who have not accepted this project and will continue to take shots at it at every opportunity. C. Smith stated that he feels bad about the piece meal way that this project has been done. The fact remains, that except for himself, there has been no biological input. This Board could have been consulted, and he hopes in the future they will be consulted, in advance of decisions made by the Town Board. There are continued inadequacies to the biological components of the SEQR. Based on what he has read and seen, the consultants hired by Sun 8 are not competent to do a biological evaluation. It is not a skill possessed by anybody on the Town Board but is possessed by several on this Board. Had the Town Board done it’s job, we wouldn’t be sitting here today doing this. D. Lamb stated we are proud of what we do, we are fully competent in this process, we have been exhaustive in our public hearings and replying to public comments. You may not like the outcome but we are proud of the process and if we applied your approach to reviewing projects to everything that came before the Town Board, we would be a ghost town. There was a discussion regarding the Conservation Board’s role in projects like this, when they were first aware of the project, and the perceived failure of the Town Board to request the Conservation Board’s input. Conservation Board August 29, 2017 Page 7 of 9 P. Davies stated that this is not going to have an immediate effect, the willows are already protected as long as Verizon is there and this is a continuation of what is already in the SUP if the Verizon tower does not go through. D. Weinstein indicated he feels the Conservation Board had sufficient time to review the application and provide input. The opinions that were expressed may not have been agreed with but there is a difference between a Board hearing you and not agreeing with you. C. Smith argued that the Conservation Board had to impose that on the Town Board. We were not approached by the Town Board at any time that would have given us a reasonable lead time. D. Weinstein stated that there isn’t a pathway that indicates the Town Board should consult with the Conservation Board. C. Smith said that would have been a courtesy. He added that the Supervisor told the Conservation Board in January that discussions of this project have been underway since October. The Board debated the timing of discussions in relation to the Sun 8 project versus discussions about community solar which started in June 2016. D. Lamb stated that this project was brought to the Town Board’s attention in December. He said the company approached the Town and we started considering their project in a fair and open manner; that is our job. We weren’t keeping anything a secret. I think there is some implication that something was being kept secret. K. Servoss - or that we decided where they were going to do it. Or what exactly their business plan was. We can’t do that. D. Lamb - We didn’t do that. And any implication otherwise is just false. B. Beck said that it would have been nice if some consideration had been given to the big trees. It is unfortunate that, given the significance of these trees, it wasn’t somehow built into the approval to Sun 8. He finds it unfortunate that this resolution would ask the Town Board to reopen the review again and hold another public hearing. He doesn’t think that is a wise thing to do at this point. P. Davies asked if a resolution encouraging a discussion with Sun 8 to continue the protection of the willows would be better since the willows are currently protected (and therefore would not require any changes because the willows are protected) and it would not require a new hearing. D. Lamb said he likes the sound of that. Instead of using a club, use a negotiation saying this is important to us. That is how they have made a lot of their compromises already, because they were asked to do stuff to make the project fit the community better. He said he would be happy to start that conversation with them. P. Davies suggested changing the resolution to “discuss with Sun 8 the desire to preserve said willows.” D. Lamb said he would like to talk the County Planning Department which has already looked at this site and this very area and provided advice about making sure they were out of the flood plain. He said he has talked to the Planning Commissioner about this site but this did not come up. Why didn’t it come up in those conversations? D. Weinstein indicated he doesn’t believe the Board can revisit an approval already given. J. Osmeloski said he will vote against the resolution if the wording is changed to a “discussion”. He said he saw the Sun 8 representative approach the Town Board and ask if they can make a deal with Verizon to cut the trees down. Conservation Board August 29, 2017 Page 8 of 9 D. Weinstein pointed out that Mr. Srinivasan has shown flexibility after similar statements. He has been willing to work with the community. J. Osmeloski is not convinced that the Tower is going to be built which is why he is hoping for more protection for the willows. S. Osmeloski is concerned there will be an ecological disaster if the willows are cut down. They are what is holding the stream bank together. They take up a huge amount of water; cutting them down will mess up the hydrology of the area and potentially harm Virgil Creek. D. Lamb questioned how the County Planning Department could have missed this if the “trained experts” on the Conservation Board understand the situation. C. Smith questioned whether the experts who looked at the site might have been looking at the entire site in a large scale and may not have recognized the importance of the stream and the willows. N. Munkenbeck suggested that the trees might be pollared which will eliminate the shade but still allow the trees to provide stream maintenance. P. Davies called a vote on the above proposed resolution. The vote was a tie at 4-4. P. Davies offered the following resolution: Resolution to The Dryden Town Board for the preservation of willow trees on Willow Glen Creek Whereas a line of willow trees exists at 2150 Dryden Road along the Willow Glen Creek tributary south of the “existing crossing and path” of Lot 5 of the proposed Sun8 subdivision (Section li of the approved permit). And whereas: • These mature, very large (6-8 feet diameter at chest height) trees represent specimen trees. • These trees are essential for preventing erosion in said creek. • Being arranged in a north-south direction these trees would cast minimal shadow on adjacent solar panels. The Town of Dryden Conservation Board urges the Dryden Town Board to open a discussion with Sun8 in order to preserve the said willows, regardless of the fate of the agreement with Verizon for the installation of a cell tower at the said site. N. Munkenbeck seconded the motion which was approved 6-0 with 2 abstentions. S. Osmeloski suggested a trade with Sun 8 by giving them the variance to the 50 foot setback they are already requesting in exchanged for the willows remaining. That will preserve the trees but still allow them to have more panels. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9pm. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk Conservation Board August 29, 2017 Page 9 of 9 The following photographic documentation is by Peter Davies. View of willow trees from SW View of a tree from W showing size (vs an electric metering box) View of tree in creek preventing erosion Tree trunk showing size (diameter 8 feet) View of trees from SE at 3:11 EDT on 8/25/2017 View of trees from S in line with creek