Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCB 2023-07-25 attCB 2023-07-25 Approved Page 1 of 4 CONSERVATION BOARD July 25, 2023 Hybrid Approved September 26, 2023 Present: Jeanne Grace (Acting Chair), Bob Beck, Anne Clark, Kate McKee* (alternate), Nancy Munkenbeck* (arrived 7.49pm), Craig Schutt Absent: Gian Dodici (Chair), Steve Bissen, Andrew Miller, Tim Woods Liaisons: Spring Buck* (Town Board) Staff: Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) “*” denotes attendance via Zoom The meeting was called to order at 7.02 p.m. Review and Approval of Minutes from May 30, 2023 On motion made by C Schutt, seconded by B Beck, the minutes of June 27, 2023 were unanimously approved. Update: Agriculture Advisory Committee C Schutt reported that the Ag Committee met on July 12th. They reviewed parts of the Ag Protection Plan in anticipation of the Zoning Law update. In particular, they reviewed current definitions and made a list of definitions they either feel need updating or ones that are lacking that they feel should be added. They plan to review other sections of the Plan next month so as to be prepared with input as the zoning law is updated. Update: Rail Trail B Beck reported that the Town Board passed two resolutions last Thursday. One was to accept a donation of land from the Knickerbocker Bed Frame Co to be used for construction of one of the ramps for the Rte 13 bridge. The second resolution was to guarantee the backstop for the cost increase to the project, which we anticipated; this a requirement by DOT for the grant. The Town Board voted unanimously in favor of this. We don’t know the exact cost yet because we have not sent out a Request for Proposals; we won’t know until a month or two, when we get responses back from construction companies. Update: Town Board S Buck felt that if there were going to be discussions about developing ballfields or parks for the Dryden community, organizations like Cornell Design Connect should be engaged. The Town Board supported this notion. S Buck reported (via Dan Lamb) that there had been additional conversations with the company interested in putting up electronic billboards. They are on board with keeping to dark sky requirements. Discussion of Wetlands on Town-Owned Property in the Village of Dryden S Buck confirmed the Town Board’s commitment to the wetlands. The access route to the landlocked parcel through the wetlands will be changed so that the wetlands are not infringed upon. From Dan Lamb, she learned that an alternative right-of-way was found, accessing the parcel from another direction, that would not infringe upon the wetlands. The CB 2023-07-25 Approved Page 2 of 4 Town is going to move forward with revoking the original right-of-way and establishing another right-of-way to ensure that the wetlands are properly protected. B Beck asked for confirmation that a wetland delineation was going to go forward. He wondered how much of that land is indeed wetland and whether there should even be development there at all. B Beck informed the Board that Cornelius had a right-of-way to his landlocked parcel from a side street off Lee Rd, but Dryden Village denied this due to increased traffic concerns. A Clark inquired of the scale of Cornelius’ development plans in regard to these concerns. Was it in the range of two houses or many apartments? S Buck has heard that there is no active plan. This is more about a right-of-way should there be interest in building on the landlocked parcel. The Town will do a formal wetland delineation so that the wetlands are not infringed upon. This delineation will transcend property boundaries and not just be on Town-owned property. C Schutt relayed that the DEC vehemently opposes a road going through the wetland. They have already talked with Dave Sprout, who was selected by the Town to get the wetland delineation going. What bothers C Schutt is that the document filed with Tompkins County explicitly defines a right-of-way (ROW) and states that a road will be built on that ROW at the Town’s expense: “5. Town, at its entire cost and expense, upon request of Cornelius, shall construct to the Town’s then-current specifications for a town road, a road upon the Right-of- Way, open to the public and serving Parcel A as depicted on said Survey.” B Beck noted that the document also contained Item 6, which he is confident was put in there as a fail-safe. It is a negotiating strategy for a sensitive negotiation. Item 6 states that if the Town provides an alternate ROW, it will revoke the original ROW: “6. In the event that the Town should notify Cornelius in writing that it intends to construct a road across remaining lands of the Town running north from East Main Street to and serving in part Parcel A, upon the completion of said road Cornelius shall surrender the Right-of-Way to the Town and said Right-of-Way shall cease to exist.” Paraphrasing Dan Lamb at the last Town Board meeting, S Buck offered that the Town has the right to revoke the original ROW, provided that another route to the landlocked parcel is identified; that is what we need to do, and that is what we are going to move forward with. J Grace asked if it would be helpful for the Conservation Board to send a message of support or encouragement to the Town Board. S Buck answered that it would be great if it was a message of support. We’re all on the same page. She wanted the Conservation Board to know that there was never any intent on the Town Board’s part to do environmental damage. A Clark thought it would be nice to have a friendly, supportive letter denoting that they understand that the Town is taking the wetland seriously, that the Conservation Board fully supports a delineation, and that it’s viewpoint be considered when outlining the best possible alternative route to satisfy Cornelius. A Clark acknowledged Cornell Design Connect as a great group through their work designing nature trails at the Binghamton Zoo. Depending on how extensive the proposed wetland project is for Design Connect, it might be good to possibly involve TC3 students as well. She suggested that TC3 be contacted for potential faculty advisors to assist with that. S Buck added that if we get any of these groups involved, we might want to think about scope. A smaller scope would focus on, for example, a raised walkway or education about the CB 2023-07-25 Approved Page 3 of 4 wetlands. K McKee mentioned that the Ithaca Children’s Garden has a small version of this, educating the public about the wetland and its importance. B Beck cautioned that it may be too soon to bring in Design Connect now as the wetland delineation has yet to be completed. (The Design Connect deadline for fall semester projects is August 1.) Another round of Design Connect applications will occur in December, though, for spring semester projects. Regarding the timeframe for the delineation and who will do it, C Schutt said that DEC can undertake a delineation, but probably will not be able to do so this year, given the amount of work they currently have to do. The Town can hire, however, a certified delineator. It is S Buck’s understanding that this is what the Town will do, and then have the DEC ensure accuracy; she added the caveat that she has yet to receive confirmation for this course of action and does not want to misspeak. C Schutt had inquired of Charlie Smith, a former Conservation Board member, what he knew about the wetland as he had previously surveyed it for plants. Several years ago, Smith had visited the wetland at the east end of Neptune Drive with Bard Prentiss, another former Conservation Board member, and determined that the wetland is home to flora rare in New York State. Said plants are obligate wetland species, meaning that they do not grow outside of wetland habitats. More importantly, one of the plants mentioned is the larval food for a moth species that has only been found in minerotrophic fens. The wetlands are also classified as a Unique Natural Area by Tompkins County. S Buck cautioned that publicity of these rare plants might lead to theft by collectors. In light of this, A Clark suggested that the Board not specify the flora in its letter to the Town Board, but rather keep the language vague. A Clark then put forth the proposition of sending a supportive letter to the Town Board that recognizes its intent and commitment to preserving the wetland. The motion was seconded by J Grace, and the measure passed with a unanimous vote. A Clark will draft the letter this week and send it out to Board members for comment, in the hope that a final version will be presented to the Town Board by their next meeting. Other Information Items S Buck informed the Board that she had met twice with Rick Young. Young showed her the streambank stabilization project. He is saving tree balls/root wads for a project with US Fish and Wildlife, whereby trees will be woven together along the creek by the Pinckney Rd bridge. At last week’s Town Board meeting, Young reported that they are struggling because they have the grant and a lot of supplies, but the state permits are slow in coming. He is pushing to get that moving. S Buck also reported that there were discussions around the need to create a new website for the Town. This might be an opportunity for the Conservation Board to provide additional web content or educational items than what is currently provided. C Schutt commented on an email that S Buck had sent out to Board members, specifically in regard to DPW actions on a beaver dam near Purvis Rd. He felt misled by Rick Young’s statement that equipment was not used in there; the ruts that went down into the creek suggest otherwise. No one else would have gone in there like that. S Buck reiterated what Young had said to her, that there is nothing the Town has that wouldn’t sink when put down there. We would have no way of getting it out. S Buck did not CB 2023-07-25 Approved Page 4 of 4 have the sense that there was any dishonesty on Young’s part and raised the possibility that someone unaffiliated with the Town might have gone down there. C Schutt redirected the conversation to ditching, stating that the Conservation Board has made numerous attempts to collaborate with Rick Young, but he basically ignores us. S Buck acknowledged these past interactions and stated that maybe having a new path forward with him will help. She understood that there had been an agreement last year for DPW to do a pilot project with the Conservation Board in regard to ditching practices. This should be well documented, and a follow-up should be undertaken next year to see how this collaboration went in order to capture good work done and open up a back-and-forth dialogue. S Buck asked if there was a list of ditching sites that had been previously vetted by both the Board and Rick Young. Gian Dodici was trying to get that list made but was unable to meet with Young. A Clark suggested that one approach might be to see if Young already had a mental list that he could share with the Board. S Buck said that after her next meeting with Rick Young, she will help coordinate with the Board so that they can review a site list and start providing input. Board members were pleased with this course of action, calling it a potential big break towards getting things done. S Buck added that if there were roads of concern that the Conservation Board thinks should be on the list, to email her. Even if they are not slated to be done this year, they will be in the queue. Last month, Tim Woods reported that beavers had plugged a culvert in Freeville, causing flooding to occur on residential property. B Beck met with Rick Young and was told that the culvert had since been cleaned out. To avoid a major washout from occurring at this location in the future, Young will arrange for one of his staff to periodically clean out the culvert. C Schutt (via L Sparling) distributed by email a packet (see attached) that contained the following: 1) Local Law No. 4 (2000), which created the Conservation Advisory Council; 2) Local Law No. 1 (2004), which established the Conservation Board and stated its purpose; and 3) Conservation Board Rules and Procedures, approved by the Dryden Town Board on February 16, 2012. He wanted to provide those Board members who had not seen it with a copy. B Beck recalled a time when new Board members were provided with a binder containing such information. A Clark suggested that these and other basic reference documents be put on the website. Given that nothing was currently pressing, the Board decided to tentatively cancel its August meeting (scheduled for August 29, 2023). There being no further business, on motion made by A Clark and seconded by B Beck, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Deputy Town Clerk