HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAC Minutes - 12_08_20Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 1 of 10
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council (CAC)
Minutes of Video Conference (Zoom) Meeting on
Tuesday, December 8, 2020
Danby, New York
Council Members present: Clare Fewtrell (chair), Joel Gagnon, George
Adams, Jonathan Zisk, Ruth Sherman, Brittany Lagaly, Don Schaufler,
Mary Woodsen
Council Members absent: Bill Evans
Others present: Elizabeth Keokosky (secretary), Ronda Roaring (Danby
resident), David West (new town planner), Katharine Hunter (former CAC
member), Margaret Corbit (interested in joining CAC)
The meeting led off with some discussion of where to circulate a contact list
of members. For the time being it was decided to keep it within the group.
Zoom Meeting was officially called to order at 7:12.
Deletions or Additions to Agenda: none
Privilege of the Floor (PoF)
Introduction to Margaret Corbit:
She referred group to her application which had some of the following:
Corbit earned a BA degree from Cornell in Theater Arts and a MS in Plant
Community Ecology, where she trained as a forest ecologist. She has
served as Communications Manager for both the Cornell Plantations and
the Theory Center. She is a member of several science writer
organizations and she developed and ran an online science outreach at
Cornell from 1998 to 2009 for school districts through the Theory Center.
As a graduate student, using GIS, her field research was on the distribution
of native wildflowers in the hedgerows and adjacent forests of Tompkins
County.
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 2 of 10
She has lived in Danby on Howland Road since 1973 and has a 75 acre
wood lot. During this last summer she worked on the Conservation
Working Committee of the Danby Planning Group,
She is deciding whether she wants to join this group. Looking for more of
a focus on the natural sciences.
Approval Minutes MOTION for November 13, 2020
Adams moved to approve
Gagnon seconded
Unanimous approval
REPORTS AND UPDATES
1) Management Plans for Sylvan Lane and Deputron Hollow Road
Town Properties – Jonathan Zisk
Zisk emphasized that management plans come in all different sizes
and complexity. At least 8 people have contributed to this plan so it
has been a group effort. This plan was, in his words “a sweet little
plan”. He thanked contributers and he was thanked, in turn, for his
hard work. Among other things, PoF:Roaring had suggested posting
the property. Gagnon wanted to clarify what posting meant in the
plan. Roaring responded that it could identify the parcel as town
property.
Motion to approve Management Plans
Fewtrell moved to approve
Gagnon seconded
All were in favor, except Woodsen who abstained
2) Logging Ordinance – Code Enforcement and Highway
Department reports - George Adams and Don Schaufler
Adams has been incorporating notes he and Schaufler made on the
edges of the first draft ordinance under C.J. Randall’s (former town
planner) oversight into a revised draft. It still has some rough edges.
When Adams has a fairly unambiguous version he will have a
conversation with the zoning officer and highway department on their
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 3 of 10
involvement, including whether they think we will need a consulting
forester.
He cited the main objective was to keep the town informed about
what was going on with logging. The new version of the ordinance
will require a timber harvesting plan, rather than the more difficult
forestry management plan. This option still leaves room for the town
to have some say and oversight and allows the code enforcement or
water management officer to issue a stop work order if they see a
possibility of erosion.
Adams offered to forward current draft to members since he has
questions and needs some answers. Fewtrell demurred and asked
him if he would like to put in a little more work to send a more finished
version in the next week. Adams confided his problem was seeking a
better balance between forest health and allowing landowners a
reasonable profit from their forest.
Gagnon disagreed with comments that the first version had been
overkill and said a lot of work had been done on it. He was hoping
that Schaufler would be the continuity (between the original working
group and this current one since he had been on both).
Zisk asked when CAC had reviewed the first draft so he could look up
comments on it in minutes.
There was some confusion about when and in what meetings this
older version had been discussed. PoF: Secretary Keokosky said it
had not been in CAC minutes, but in town board minutes – perhaps
at end of 2018 (Afternote: This was incorrect. The logging ordinance
was presented to the town board on March 4, 2019 as a resolution by
C.J. Randall, the town planner at the time. The logging situation had
been under general discussion since a CAC meeting on April 23 2018
when Marsh Rd residents complained about the logging contractor’s
work on Deputron Hollow Rd, and the first subcommittee had been
formed sometime that late spring or summer. But the specifics of the
ordinance were not discussed in CAC meetings and there never was
a CAC motion to send it to the town board.) Schaufler said that he
had not seen the final version before it was discussed at the town
board. He, as a CAC member, didn’t realize what was in it until he
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 4 of 10
got negative feedback from people he knew. Adams, another
member of the subcommittee, also hadn’t seen it. Fewtrell was going
to dig back through the minutes.
Adams said he would send CAC members a copy of the original
ordinance copy presented. He added that the new plan did not
include just a logging ordinance but also options to educate people –
perhaps with a best practices brochure that could be handed out. It
was being developed to have a two pronged effort – communication
to loggers as well as to residents.
3) Easement Updates – Clare Fewtrell and Joel Gagnon
Gagnon said that there might be an easement in conjunction with the
sale of the Wimsatt property (around 100 acres) at the corner of
Marsh and Deputron Hollow Roads but it is early to tell. If it happens
it would have to be moved along very quickly.
Fewtrell said that several people on CAC were interested in
easements with special concerns for forestry that depend on the next
item – a restricted forestry zone added to easement template.
4) Defining a Restricted Forestry Zone for Easements – Sherman,
Schaufler, and Zisk
Report from subcommittee designated at last meeting to develop
language to describe a new easement zone for forests. (Afternote:
this section of minutes is particularly detailed so it could be used by
subcommittee to modify their description – it was sent to them
earlier.)
Discussion was focused on the “Restrictive Forestry Use Zone”
description that Sherman had sent CAC members earlier by email.
This document stated:
“The purpose of the Restrictive Forest Use Zone is to limit
forest activities to those that have a minimal impact on the
forest and restrict significant forest management and timber
harvest activities that fundamentally alter the structural and/or
functional characteristics of the existing forest or disrupt the
surrounding area.”
This description was followed by examples of allowed and restricted
activities – the main distinction being between non-commercial
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 5 of 10
(allowed) and commercial (restricted) activities. Zisk noted that most
of the writing credit went to Ruth. He had only added comments.
Adams wondered if there was room in this description for
“enlightened forest management”?
Discussion followed primarily on what could or could not be done in
this zone and how to state it clearly in an enforceable way. Problems
were mainly with examples given, which, while fleshing out the
definition with specific ideas, also muddied the intent (stated above).
Questions were raised as to what the existing easement template
already prevented.
Gagnon explained that this new zone was for forests whose owners
want them to remain forests. Land could not be cleared for
agriculture. It was more restrictive than the ag and forest zone which
ranked below it but less restrictive than the environmental protection
zone ranked above. He noted that he saw it as reflective of
Sherman’s intent for her own property.
Fewtrell asked if we should add additional requirements for the
Restricted Forestry zone, analogous to those for the Environmental
Protection Zone.
Gagnon said that what was distinctive about this zone is that it can’t
be converted to other agricultural uses. It is intended to protect or
provide for old growth – the problem is how this is done. What
method is used to restrict harvests (without needing to be used in
conjunction with a management plan).
Corbit asked how such things as removing ash trees could be done –
would this need a variance from the Town?
Gagnon replied this zone is for someone who is living in the woods
and wants them for their own use, not for commercial management.
Schaufler brought up that the document lacked a hierarchy of
definitions and someone to interpret them. He began to list the
exceptions that might prove to be problems. For instance, what if a
blow down occurred? Would this zone allow the clearing out of
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 6 of 10
timber to get some profit from fallen trees? Corbit brought up that this
had happened in Smith Woods in Trumansburg and they ended up
taking the logs and leaving the tops as a compromise.
Fewtrell noted that one example given in the document allowed for
harvests that enhance forest health (note: that notation also allowed
harvests that enhanced wildlife, recreation, and other forest benefits).
Schaufler, playing devil’s advocate, said that someone could come in
and say that trees were not receiving adequate light for their health
and the forest should be thinned. Most people would be well
intentioned, but if not, you could play games with a lot of the words
currently used.
Fewtrell said she had been hoping that having him on the committee
would help solve and prevent problems like these, and Schaufler
agreed maybe he could. (He’s been selling Christmas trees and
hadn’t been able to devote much time to the document).
Lagaly (who, like Sherman and some other prospective easement
customers, was very interested in this restricted forestry zone) said
what she really liked was the description at the top of the document
(stated above), where the intent was very clear, but found the
examples vague (i.e., what was the difference between tree and
timber harvests). She thought a justification could be made for
clearing forest to improve animal habitat. She would like to see
language prohibiting clear cutting.
Sherman said that even if it was not a clear cut, just a very heavy
logging job could cause damage. She wondered if maybe the logging
ordinance would help. Gagnon said that language in the easement
might already prevent that. Schaufler said perhaps a minimum
density requirement might help (though people still could cut the best
and leave the worst).
Zisk noted that the real difference in what people were talking about
is the marketing of timber for profit, unless it’s an accidental windfall.
The goal must be forest health.
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 7 of 10
Members felt the word “harvest” invites a profit motive. The worry is
that “management” might be disguised as “harvesting”. Gagnon
suggested replacing the word “harvesting” with “salvage”, which
others agreed with.
Fewtrell suggested a management plan, but Zisk said that a
management plan shouldn’t be necessary for a good zone
description. A management plan is time-limited while the easement
is not.
Fewtrell also suggested that the definition should specify that
everything applies that is in Ag and Forest zone, plus these additional
restrictions. Zisk said this sounded backwards to him – what we are
allowing is a few more permissions than what is in the most restrictive
zone – the environmental zone. The progression is downward.
Gagnon thought that the restriction, no commercial harvesting, would
not be a difficult restriction to enforce on a Conservation Easement
property. Sherman noted that a category (zone) like this would
encourage others to use it. Zisk said that the second to last bullet
needs to be polished.
Schaufler warned against using words that weren’t specifically
defined. You have to be careful with the word “salvage” and be
specific on what “salvage” includes. He explained that mill lots want
younger, fast-growing, straight trees, not older trees, but bad
harvesting can compromise the genetic future of that wood lot. It
becomes compromised by species and quality and variety
combination.
Zisk suggested attaching “windfall” to the word “salvage” to nail it
down. Gagnon asked what about Emerald ash borer (EAB)?
Schaufler said that you would want to harvest ahead of the
infestation. Others said this could be part of the term “forest health”
to prevent EAB. Corbit noted that this can still include a very
responsible job. Gagnon shared that Bruce Richards had invited a
group over to see his harvest and Gagnon had been astonished at
the cleanup and responsible job done by the logger. The land was
basically undisturbed because equipment had balloon tires and the
weather had been dry. It was just more open. Corbit described a
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 8 of 10
slope of dense trees they owned and a harvest that had been very
“strategic” leaving the understory relatively undisturbed. Schaufler
noted it can be done, but it is tough to enforce.
Fewtrell drew the discussion to a close and asked if others had
anything else to contribute. She was concerned that saying no
“shooting ranges” raises questions as to why other unwanted
activities aren’t specifically listed, such as no ATVs. Gagnon said all
terrain vehicles were already prohibited in the easement so it didn’t
need to be here.
She asked do we actually need any of these restricted activities
listed, and Gagnon responded that if timber harvests are pinned
down, then no.
Zisk said that you have a preamble, then clarifying examples, then
you can reiterate at the end that no “commercial” timber harvests are
allowed.
Gagnon reminded group to make the language of this new zone
consistent with existing easement zones(comes before 2.0.4) so it
can be plugged into the template.
Fewtrell was still uncomfortable with the idea that the only restricted
activity was commercial timber harvesting. Sherman replied that she
had concluded, at the end of the description above, that things that
disrupt the surrounding area should be limited, and a shooting range
(which they have next to them) does disrupt the surrounding area.
People were shooting 8 hours a day all summer long. She suggested
a noise restriction. Gagnon said that the town has backed away from
a noise restriction. He reiterated that nuisance use of all-terrain
vehicles is already prohibited in easements (though allowed for
legitimate management of property – even in an environmental
protection zone).
Corbit asked if the noise actually violated the esthetic purpose of the
forest use zone? Sherman said not actually the esthetic, but the
quality of life. She said she would think about that and put the right
wording in there.
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 9 of 10
PoF:Roaring mentioned shooting ranges are illegal in Danby because
they violate the local zoning ordinance. The problem here was
because it was informal, not commercial. Gagnon said it was a grey
area.
Since this is Sherman’s last meeting as a member, she will make
another draft, before passing on the responsibility to Zisk and
Schaufler, after incorporating suggestions in discussion.
5) Inspecting Current Easements – Ruth Sherman
Sherman reported that annual monitoring of current easements was
done. The Palmer easement was not inspected because of delays
that took them into hunting season. It will be inspected next year.
Fewtrell asked Sherman to send her the .pdf and Word files of the
reports on each property so they can be stored in one place.
6) Easement Signs – George Adams
Adams revealed a major problem. The grayscale of the picture made
the price prohibitively high ($25/sign) because it had to be digitially
printed (a more expensive process) rather than printed using a
silkscreen process (cheaper, but requiring a 2 color scheme - any
two colors cost the same).
Fewtrell asked if there is any way to convert Camille’s picture into
something we can use?
Zisk suggested it was possible to Photoshop pictures from greyscale
to binary colors. Adams said that Camille was old school and didn’t
use computers, but said he could possibly give it a try.
Fewtrell brought up the question of setup charge and how it affected
price per sign and how many we should get. Adams asked if heav y
grade aluminum was still what group wanted. Fewtrell brought up the
fact that if paint only lasts for six years why do we need 25 year
aluminum? Adams was unsure what options apply to silkscreening
since previous fact-finding had been for digital printing. Now it was
back to the drawing board.
Fewtrell thanked all members – especially Ruth Sherman, who was leaving
CAC – for all their work and wished all Happy Holidays safe from Covid.
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 10 of 10
Gagnon said that the town board would be interviewing prospective CAC
members at the January meeting. Even if Margaret Corbit joined, there
was still an open slot for one more member.
There was no Executive session
Next Meeting through Zoom is on January 12th at 7p.m.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
_____________________________________________
Submitted by Elizabeth Keokosky (Secretary)