Loading...
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)