Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-26Dryden Conservation Board September 26, 2017 DRAFT Page 1 of 7 Conservation Board 1 September 26, 2017 2 3 Members Present: Milo Richmond (acting Chair), Bob Beck, Steve Bissen, Craig 4 Schutt, Joe Osmeloski, Charlie Smith, Gian Dodici and Nancy Munkenbeck (at 5 7:30PM) 6 Guest: Craig Anderson 7 Liaisons: David Weinstein (Planning Board), D. Lamb (Town Board) at 7:45PM 8 9 Review and approval of minutes from August 29, 2017: 10 The Board discussed changes to the minutes that were requested via email to the 11 Deputy Clerk and decided that the minutes can stand as presented. They also 12 provided editorial changes. 13 B. Beck moved to approve the minutes with the suggested edits, the motion was 14 seconded by C. Schutt and the minutes were approved 6-0 with S. Bissen abstaining 15 due to absence. 16 17 During the discussion regarding the minutes, J. Osmeloski asked the Chair and the 18 Board, in general, about the proper procedure by the Board while considering a 19 proposed resolution in relation to the role played by liaisons present during the 20 consideration. Should/are the liaisons permitted to participate in discussions 21 regarding resolutions on the table? The Board did not reach a decision on this matter. 22 23 Ag Committee: C. Schutt 24 The regular scheduled meeting of 9–13–2017 was postponed for a week because 25 Cornell Cooperative Extension had not supplied the committee with an up-to-date 26 draft of the Ag Protection Plan prior to the regularly scheduled meeting. Another draft 27 was completed and the entire meeting was used to go through that yet one more time. 28 It is expected that a final draft will be available to other boards and the public 29 following the October meeting. Final approval needs to be completed by the end of the 30 year. 31 32 Planning Board: D. Weinstein 33 The Planning Board has not met since the last meeting. 34 35 EMC: Steve Bissen 36 The EMC met on 9/14/2017 and the majority of the meeting was a roundtable 37 discussion on the focus of the Climate Adaptation sub-committee. 38 39 On the West Dryden Pipeline front - 4 pressure boosters are to be added to existing 40 lines. If these boosters work, the pipeline will not need to be built. The boosters are 41 not like a compressor stations and do not create the noise associated with compressor 42 stations. 43 44 The NYS Association of Conservation Commissions will be having their annual New 45 York State Conference on the Environment, Nov 17-18, in Kingston, NY. 46 The theme will be "Living Local". Information can be found 47 here: http://www.nysaccny.org/2017-conference-on-the-environment 48 49 Dryden Conservation Board September 26, 2017 DRAFT Page 2 of 7 We did receive an updated for 2017 framed color Unique Natural Areas (UNA) map, CD 50 containing each UNA, and UNA information brochures. These were given to each 51 municipality representative for their municipality. I asked for and was also given a 52 large UNA map for the Town of Dryden. These maps, the CD, and the brochures were 53 passed along to Ray Burger. 54 55 Rail Trail: B. Beck 56 Mr. Beck was part of a meeting today with the DEC representatives from Albany, 57 Game Farm representatives and staff and sportsman councils. It was a long meeting 58 during which they worked toward an agreement to put the trail through the Game 59 Farm. He gave D. Lamb credit for leading the meeting and he feels they made good 60 head way. 61 B. Beck has also talked with the DOT regarding crossing Route 13 near NYSEG which 62 appears may lead to positive results. 63 64 NRCP: 65 - P. Davies has asked the Board to review the executive summary. 66 - There are two maps still missing: the conserved areas in the Town and a trails 67 map for the Town. 68 - Energy section to the plan? It was determined that would not fit nicely with the 69 plan and might be better as a separate document. 70 o M. Richmond asked D. Lamb if he could take it back to the Town Board 71 and ask them to charge the Conservation Board if the Town Board 72 wishes them to explore renewable energy in the Town. 73 - C. Anderson thanked the Board for their work on the NRCP. He sees gaps in the 74 zoning law and feels the NRCP will fill several of those maps by providing 75 definitions to terms that are not clearly defined in the law. He asked the Board 76 to consider this plan as a guidance document for future development (similar to 77 the Commercial and Residential guidelines). He also suggested a subcommittee 78 of the Ag Committee, the Conservation Board and the Planning Board to work 79 on “combining” (organize) all of the plans out there for the benefit and guidance 80 of development in the Town. 81 - C. Anderson stated that he can provide a list of the terms in the zoning law that 82 need additional defining. 83 84 Scenic views? C. Schutt 85 - Calling a view a “scenic view” is very subjective. What one person sees as a scenic 86 view worth preserving might not be considered a worthwhile view to someone else. The 87 NRCP is peppered with references to scenic views. How should the Board deal with 88 that? The recent solar applications demonstrates the issues that the lack of a 89 definition of scenic views can create. 90 - C. Anderson pointed out that the County has started a list of scenic views but they 91 didn’t define what a scenic view actually is. 92 - D. Weinstein agreed that there are a lot of places in Dryden that are great viewsheds 93 that the County did not identify but that he thinks are great views. 94 - B. Beck asked whether they could start developing a list of views, a catalogue to 95 include as part of the plan. 96 - G. Dodici pointed out that the other sections of the plan don’t have a list of 97 resources. No where else in the plan have the resources been listed or ranked. 98 Dryden Conservation Board September 26, 2017 DRAFT Page 3 of 7 - D. Weinstein agreed with G. Dodici but indicated that the challenge is in the 99 implementation of the terms when reviewing a project. Without a firm idea of what is 100 considered a view shed, it is hard to determine where to draw the line in terms of 101 protection. 102 - B. Beck indicated that the Town does have UNAs which provide extra protections. We 103 could start a list of unique scenic views in a similar fashion as the UNAs. 104 - C. Schutt expressed concern that the NRCP will not even be considered when 105 decisions are being made. 106 - N. Munkenbeck suggested following the guidance of SEQR and start generating a list 107 of views that are important to the Town of Dryden. 108 - C. Smith asked to what end are we reaching to define scenic views because there is a 109 perception in the Town (real or not) that the Town may be interfering with private 110 property rights. 111 - G. Dodici suggested that the document in and of itself is useful because it supports 112 the idea that the Town has a positive attitude toward these resources and wants to 113 preserve them. 114 - C. Anderson pointed out that in the design guidelines, Route 13/366 from Varna to 115 the Cortland County border is considered a scenic road and has its own guidelines. 116 - S. Bissen suggested that the members put together a list of characteristics they feel 117 are a viewshed. They can then combine the common characteristics to create a general 118 definition. 119 120 Status of Mr. Pinney’s large willows?/Stream Bank protection 121 - Last month the Conservation Board forwarded a resolution requesting protection for 122 the willows to the Town Board. 123 - M. Richmond asked D. Lamb if there has been any further discussion with Sun 8 or 124 Mr. Pinney regarding the willows. 125 - D. Lamb indicated that further conversation has occurred. He said he sent an email 126 to the Board the day after he followed up with Sun 8. He said he has talked to Sun 8 127 and they were receptive. Looking at the map, TC8 section on map 105, it does 128 appear that they will be clear cutting but Sun 8 assured him that they are not clear 129 cutting; they will leave some vegetation and they will not cut all of the willow. Some 130 of them will have to come down because the original array was closer to the property 131 to the east. That property owner requested that the arrays be moved farther away 132 from the property line which put them within range of the willows which means the 133 some of the willows have to be cut. If the original layout had been maintained, none 134 of the willows would have to be cut down. 135 - N. Munkenbeck asked how many of the trees will be cut down. 136 - D. Lamb indicated the number is between 12-15. Most of them will be cut although 137 the one farthest from Route 13 and those closest can be maintained. 138 - N. Munkenbeck verified that means 4 willows will be left. 139 - D. Lamb would not confirm a number but he asked them to take this as a priority 140 for the Town Board. The developer confirmed that there are one or two trees that 141 won’t be cut. 142 - M. Richmond asked if D. Lamb had expressed the Conservation Board’s concern 143 regarding the role the willows play in the conservation and stream bank protection? 144 - D. Lamb said he also discussed the situation with County Planning. 145 - N. Munkenbeck asks D. Lamb if pollarding had been discussed. 146 Dryden Conservation Board September 26, 2017 DRAFT Page 4 of 7 - D. Lamb said he does not think that will be an option. 147 - N. Munkenbeck explained what it means to pollard a tree and D. Lamb indicated 148 that might be worth discussing since the project has not started yet. 149 - D. Lamb reminded the Board that the stream is a seasonal tributary; it is not a 150 named stream. He said he has shared the resolution with the Town Board and that 151 they take these things seriously. 152 - G. Dodici disagreed, respectfully, with the statement that the Town Board takes the 153 resolutions seriously because if they say they are still going to cut most of the 154 willows, they are not taking into account the recommendations from the 155 Conservation Board. 156 - D. Lamb said they will have further discussion with the developer and try to get 157 them to leave at least a third of the trees. He said even getting them to open a 158 conversation is a win since they don’t have to engage in a conversation; they could 159 have just said no. 160 - M. Richmond understands that neither the developer nor the land owner has to 161 preserve the willows; he was hoping they understood the logic of trying to preserve 162 the trees. Saving some of the trees is better than cutting them all down. 163 - C. Smith stated that the goal is to remove the risk of erosion of the stream, the 164 siltation of the wetland to the north and Virgil Creek. A good soil scientist could tell 165 us how many trees are necessary to achieve that goal. 166 - M. Richmond reminded the Board of the previous work done on stream buffers and 167 the fact that the Board has already discussed inviting Rebecca Schneider to attend a 168 meeting to provide more input. He suggested a crew to gather information. 169 - C. Schutt shared a draft document from 2009 called the Town of Dryden Water 170 Resource Protection and Management local law which was almost complete before 171 the Board turned to the CEAs. He suggested it would be a good start. Please see 172 attached. He also has other documents from other entities for guidance. 173 - G. Dodici stated that there is no question about the benefits of stream buffers and it 174 is more a matter of determining what the purpose of the document is that they are 175 considering creating. 176 - D. Weinstein suggested using the document C. Schutt provided as the starting 177 point. 178 - C. Anderson pointed out that the Zoning Law has some protections. Most of the 179 stream corridors in the town are within the Conservation District which allows some 180 control of growth. 181 - The Board discussed the reasons they desire buffering, the benefits to the water 182 supply and how they can achieve a workable guideline. 183 - C. Anderson pointed out the “dangers” of a buffering law. It could create angst on 184 the part of groups like the farmers who will not be happy with a large buffer along 185 streams through their property. He encouraged the Board to consider ways to 186 achieve the same goal without the appearance of infringing on private property 187 rights. He recommended adding stream buffering to the design guidelines. 188 - G. Dodici again suggested that the Board needs to identify what they are trying to 189 accomplish with the document. 190 - M. Richmond suggested the Board bring forward materials that they might have to 191 the next meeting. He also strongly asked the Board to contact P. Davies in regard to 192 his request for feedback on the NRCP. 193 Dryden Conservation Board September 26, 2017 DRAFT Page 5 of 7 - C. Anderson asked if Rebecca Schneider is able to attend a Conservation Board 194 meeting, that the Planning Board be notified in case any of them wish to attend. 195 196 Large Scale Solar moratorium: C. Schutt 197 - The Town is currently facing two lawsuits in regard to the proposed solar farm at 198 2150 Dryden Road. He recommended that the idea of a moratorium be reconsidered 199 until the lawsuits are settled and proposed the following resolution: 200 201 Whereas, the Town of Dryden is now facing multiple legal challenges regarding 202 installation of Large Scale Solar facilities; and 203 Whereas, multiple Town of Dryden advisory boards (Planning Board, Agriculture 204 Advisory Committee) have previously passed resolutions recommending similar action; 205 and 206 Whereas, the Town of Dryden is now receiving additional plans and applications for 207 additional Large Scale Solar facilities; 208 Be it resolved that the Town of Dryden Conservation Board recommends to the Town 209 Board of Dryden that it institute a 6 month moratorium on Large Scale Solar Facilities. 210 211 - D. Weinstein asked what would happen in the 6 months that would make the Town 212 less vulnerable? 213 - C. Schutt suggested reviewing the solar law, tightening it up. 214 - D. Weinstein stated that the lawsuits are not related to the solar law. 215 - C. Schutt agreed but pointed out that the lawsuits were over errors in procedures. 216 - D. Weinstein does not believe the procedures are going to be changed during the 217 moratorium. 218 - D. Lamb stated that the merit of the lawsuits needs to be taken into consideration. 219 Just because someone sues the Town does not mean that there is any merit to the 220 lawsuit. He feels that this is a big step since the Conservation Board is independent 221 of the lawsuits; he doesn’t feel the lawsuits require the Conservation Board to act. 222 The Town Board is taking the lawsuits seriously but they feel they are in a good 223 position. He urged the group to not get swayed by the antics of those that don’t want 224 solar. 225 - C. Schutt pointed out that nowhere in the lawsuits does it indicate the plaintiffs 226 don’t want solar. 227 - D. Lamb reminded the Board of who is filing the lawsuits. 228 - C. Schutt argued that saying the plaintiffs are against solar is a big leap. They are 229 against the siting process and the antics that have helped to get the proposal 230 passed. 231 - G. Dodici stated his problem is the failure to articulate what the moratorium is 232 going to accomplish. He referred to D. Weinstein’s comments that this appears to be 233 just kicking the can down the road to avoid making decisions that need to be made. 234 - J. Osmeloski pointed out that more applications are being presented and if we find 235 out through the lawsuits that errors are being made, we don’t want to make the 236 same errors. He suggested reading the lawsuits to see what is broken. 237 - D. Lamb responded that the lawsuit will show what someone thinks is broken not 238 what is actually broken; there is a big difference. 239 Dryden Conservation Board September 26, 2017 DRAFT Page 6 of 7 - B. Beck agrees with G. Dodici and D. Weinstein. He doesn’t know what would be 240 different after the moratorium. 241 - J. Osmeloski asked C. Anderson or D. Weinstein to explain why the Planning Board 242 passed a resolution supporting the moratorium. 243 - C. Anderson asked D. Lamb if it is ok to discuss the moratorium based on the 244 current lawsuits. 245 - D. Lamb responded that he does not see the point of discussing the reasons for the 246 moratorium and further pointed out that the Planning Board is also being sued. 247 - C. Smith respectfully stated that he understands that the Town Board is in a 248 difficult position and he doesn’t expect D. Lamb to provide an objective opinion. He 249 feels that if the Board can understand why the Planning Board initially 250 recommended the moratorium, that would be an improvement. 251 - D. Weinstein stated that they cannot comment due to the lawsuit the Planning 252 Board is facing. 253 - C. Anderson said he can explain why he voted in favor of the moratorium because it 254 is all part of the public record. When the Planning Board looked at the Zoning Laws 255 last year, they were focused on 2mw and under. They didn’t understand that they 256 could daisy chain the installations. Now they are concerned with setbacks and the 257 fact that they are trying to put a solar farm into a residential model. There were 258 issues coming up and he thought that they should put the brakes on and study the 259 daisy chaining of these installations. 260 - D. Weinstein pointed out that the resolution does not include any reference to daisy 261 chaining. 262 - C. Anderson responded that the daisy chaining was one of his concerns. 263 J. Osmeloski seconded the proposed resolution. 264 - M. Richmond asked what the consequences of passing or not passing the resolution. 265 - D. Lamb responded that the Conservation Board has asked repeatedly for direction, 266 input and to work with the Town Board. This seems to be a resurrection of an issue 267 that has already come up and we have already made clear how the town board feels 268 about this issue. To bring it up again seems more of a stunt than anything else. 269 - C. Schutt stated that it bothered him that the Town Board never discussed the 270 resolutions regarding the moratorium in the public. 271 - D. Lamb responded that the proposed moratorium was not something they ever 272 thought was appropriate for the town agenda; it is not something that is on our 273 agenda. We don’t feel that it is needed. 274 - C. Schutt pointed out that it would have been appropriate for the Town Board to 275 acknowledge recommendations from the advisory boards. 276 - D. Lamb responded that the Town is trying to move projects and they don’t want to 277 put artificial road blocks in the way. It would have created a delay and uncertainty 278 for businesses that are trying to negotiate in good faith with us. If they wanted a 279 moratorium, they would pass one. They do not need this group to tell them to do it. 280 - C. Schutt responded that indicates that the Town Board does not listen to their 281 advisory boards. 282 - D. Lamb questioned whether the advisory boards listen to the Town Board. 283 - C. Smith agreed that there is little collaboration between the boards and the 284 Conservation Board has asked for it. 285 Dryden Conservation Board September 26, 2017 DRAFT Page 7 of 7 - D. Lamb indicated that is why he has been attending the past couple of meetings. 286 - C. Smith reminded him that there has not been normal attendance by a liaison. 287 - C. Schutt pointed out that he is a town resident and these lawsuits are going to cost 288 the town money. We should be able to suggest a way to mitigate the issue. 289 - D. Lamb responded that the lawsuit is without merit and will be short lived. It is 290 unfortunate that they have to pay the town attorney to do the prep work for the 291 case. The town Board feels they are on a strong legal footing. 292 - M. Richmond asked D. Lamb if the Town Board has a reaction to the daisy chaining 293 approach that will allow more panels in the area than they thought would happen. 294 Is that disturbing at all? 295 - D. Lamb indicated that daisy chaining is NYS suggestion, the PSC, the NYSRERTA 296 has encouraged this. 297 - M. Richmond asked what the benefits will be to the local residents from the solar 298 farms. 299 - D. Lamb replied that the Town will absolutely benefit from this. 300 - M. Richmond asked if the electrical power generated will actually be used in Dryden. 301 - D. Lamb explained that the electrical power goes on the grid and people have to 302 purchase the right to use renewable energy as a customer in community solar. 303 There are costs and benefits to Town actions. They understand that for some folks 304 there is a cost of aesthetic value in regard to views but they have heard from other 305 residents that wanted cheaper power and to expand the tax base. There will also be 306 an $8 million benefit to the taxing authorities over 20 years. 307 - C. Smith pointed out that there is another approach. He was able to save 10% on 308 his electric bill (which does not amount to much) simply by insulating his home to 309 the recommended conservation energy standards. What the Town Board has not 310 done but could do it define for people what the path to conservation is that would 311 further reduce their energy consumption and their impact on the environment. 312 - B. Beck said he is pleased with the Town Board members that are willing to do that 313 job and think carefully about the decisions they make knowing that some people are 314 not going to be happy with the decisions made. He thanked the Town Board for the 315 work they do. He will have to vote no to the resolution because he doesn’t know 316 what will be different after 6 months and the Board needs to proceed. 317 318 The Chair called a vote. 319 The resolution failed to pass with a 4-4 tie. 320 M. Richmond advised D. Lamb that he should take that information back to the Town 321 Board even though it was a tie vote. 322 323 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:53 324 325 Respectfully Submitted, 326 327 328 Erin A. Bieber 329 Deputy Town Clerk 330 331