Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAC Minutes - 05_11_21Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 1 of 9 Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) Minutes of Video Conference (Zoom) Meeting on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Danby, New York Council Members present: Clare Fewtrell (chair), Joel Gagnon, George Adams, Don Schaufler, Brittany Lagaly, Margaret Corbit, Jonathan Zisk, Mary Woodsen, Council Members absent: none Others present: Elizabeth Keokosky (secretary), Ronda Roaring (Danby resident), Katharine Hunter (former CAC member), Ted Crane (Danby resident) Zoom Meeting was officially called to order at 7:05. Deletions or Additions to Agenda: Solar Array discussion added to agenda item 8 on Low Density Re-zoning Group Report. Adams removed Agenda item 4 on Easement Signs since he had nothing new to add at this meeting. Privilege of the Floor (PoF): Two people in audience spoke: Hunter thanked Lagaly for the Lantern Fly Presentation and said it was helpful. Roaring reminded CAC that they were one member short and should be recruiting. She also described an event at Sycamore Hill in Marcellus which she had attended and which had charged admission for a garden event, donating the money to Baltimore Woods Nature Center. She suggested that CAC might run a special event and similarly raise money for purchase of a property or development rights or just to promote conservation easements and land preservation. Approval Minutes MOTION for April 11, 2020 Zisk moved to approve Fewtrell seconded Unanimous approval except for Lagaly who abstained (since she was absent at April meeting) Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 2 of 9 REPORTS AND UPDATES 1. Spotted Lanternfly Webinar Report – Lagaly Lagaly reported on the Webinar given on April 22. Besides what the group had done, she had advertised it in quite a few places through Cooperative Extension and the Finger Lakes Native Plant Society. She was complimented by several people on her powerpoint on the Lanternfly life stages and its effect on its host plants. 11 people (as reported by Town Clerk who noted the people registered) attended. The recording will be put on CAC web page and the Danby town website will reference it. 2. Easement Zoom Meeting (13th May) last minute check-in – Zisk Presenter Jonathan Zisk, will moderate the program and described his slides as information-intensive. He will discuss some of the pros and cons of easements. Richard and Joan Curtiss, current easement holders, will be there to relate their experiences, and perhaps Dan Hoffman, who is a prospective easement donor. There was some discussion on how to pace the presentation and keep the right time balance between Zisk’s main talk, other easement voices, and the questions/answer section, all within the allotted hour. Zisk arranged with Gagnon to meet early to practice sharing his screen before the presentation begins. 3. Easement Website –Margaret Corbit & Mary Woodsen Corbit had no updates since she has not been able to communicate with Town Clerk, who has been very busy and unavailable. Corbit suggested to Zisk that his final slide at his presentation might show the links to the easement-related documents listed on the CAC webpage. Fewtrell reminded him to use the shortcut to the URL address. 4. Easement Signs – Adams (not discussed) 5. Easement Rack Cards – Woodsen and Schaufler There was continued discussion of how to get hold of the original rack card document so that it could be modified. Roaring suggested that a former CAC member, Jenny Cauldwell, was the person who worked on it with Woodsen, and she might have a copy on her home computer. Schaufler was also going to check with Gnomon copy on Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 3 of 9 the file type of the file that was still on their system, and whether they could make the changes there. Gagnon took on the responsibility to make sure these things happened. 6. Logging Ordinance – Adams, Schaufler & Zisk Adams noted we are now on draft version 5.4 (of the “Local Law to Amend the Zoning Ordinance: Related to Timber Harvesting in the Town of Danby, New York,” as it is entitled). He had given a copy to Steve Cortwright, the Code Enforcement Officer, who had not read it thoroughly enough yet to give a full response, but had reported back after a quick look that he had not seen any “red flags”. The draft states that the permit applies to “anyone desiring to harvest timber in quantities greater than 25 standard cords of wood or 10,000 board feet of timber as measured by the International Log Rule in any one year within the town. The property owner and the logger shall apply for such permit jointly.” (Adams and Schaufler might decrease this to 15 cords or 5,000 board feet). Fewtrell felt it was a significant improvement over the last version. The main question she brought up was on the confusion raised by the difference between the 2 types of applications – basic, and full – and the 3 types of permits – homeowner, basic and full. Adams explained that everyone will initially apply for a permit. He felt it was up to the Code Enforcement Officer to determine whether a homeowner or basic permit was needed. Fewtrell thought it should be more transparent, and that there should be some initial filtering to weed out the homeowner before s/he was required to complete all the paper work and requirements, not afterwards. Adams felt that some oversight was needed, in all cases. Fewtrell said that she would send the rest of her comments and editing to the subcommittee by email. Corbit felt that the current version was much more concise than past drafts. Schaufler brought up the question of how a performance bond worked and asked if the town has the ability to do it - was there an existing mechanism to receive money, put it someplace legal, and give it back if all is well? Adams responded that “that hasn’t been Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 4 of 9 checked out yet.” Gagnon said that there was a law including performance bonds already in the Highway Dept. Adams asked why this law wasn’t used for Santo Oliver (the disreputable logger who had left a mess on Marsh Rd.), and Gagnon said that the existing agricultural exemption (Right to Farm law, which included logging) had stood in the way. Gagnon made the point that the Highway Department could have stopped the logging several years ago - when the incident with Santo Oliver in Deputron Hollow happened (and initiated this whole process of strengthening the regulations on logging), but they were reluctant to do so at the time because the language of the law had made it confusing. He said that this law has since been clarified and used on other occasions. (After-note: from 5/19/21 email from Laura Shawley at Highway Dept. (URLs added): “We were trying to pass some laws that would put restrictions on this activity (Santo Oliver’s misuse of the road). However, they were exempt from everything because it was regulated by the Right to Farm Law (https://agriculture.ny.gov/land- and-water/section-305-review-restrictive-laws ), which lets them do whatever they wish. The only other law that we have is the Road Usage Law (http://danbyny.org/Documents/TownBoard_Law_201104.pdf), which we only enforce if we catch them. Then they come in and give us their load information to see if they would need to post a bond. There is nothing that we can do to stop this at this time. We would like to have a specific law that states that they must get a permit to log and the second would be for them to post a bond, period. A designated amount in the law.” ) Referring to the performance bond, Adams said that it was just insurance by another name. It becomes less important for people who carry insurance already. It was noted that the fine in this version of the logging ordinance has increased from $100 to $1000 to make more of an impact for violations, but Fewtrell thought that it was still too low. Roaring asked who would check the job after it was done. She was told it was the Code Enforcement Officer. Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 5 of 9 (PoF)Secretary Keokosky protested that people who had logged for firewood all their lives (and were in the homeowner category) would be totally put off by these rules, and in doing so would possibly delegitimize the whole effort. Fewtrell also wanted more simplicity for the low-end user. Schaufler reminded them that these were full cords, not face cords, that were being discussed --with the limit being 15 full cords, or 45 face cords, which becomes a commercial enterprise. Zisk asked about the board feet limit and Schaufler replied that the limit of 5000 board feet is more than what is held by a tri-axle truck load of logs, which is 3500 board feet or around 20 tons. These clarifications put the requirements into a better perspective. Fewtrell directed group to send further comments to the subcommittee. 7. Invasive Species Talk for Highway Department – Lagaly Lagaly reported that this talk was scheduled for Thursday, March 20th at 3:30 specifically for the Danby Highway Department to see from a monitor in their break room. It will last around 30 minutes with a Q&A to follow. One part covers how to operate equipment safely around invasive species like giant hogweed which can cause problems like chemical burns for highway department workers. The second part is about measures highway departments can take to prevent the spread of invasive species, such as Japanese knotweed. Places to advertise were discussed and also if the public should be included in this presentation. The value of a presentation for just the Highway Department was considered vs having competing questions from people with a different focus. The final decision was to keep it open to just the Highway Department. Also to record it and put it on the CAC webpage. (PoF:Roaring suggested contacting “Local Roads” to put on their website as well.) It was decided that we would wait until after the event to see if it should be presented a second time, or if the recording was sufficient. Fewtrell and Gagnon also recommended another Zoom recording on ditches (Finger Lakes Land Trust’s Re-Plumbing Roadside Ditches: Simple Solutions to Reduce Flooding, Droughts, and Water Pollution) that will be sent as a link by email to the group and perhaps kept as a link on the CAC webpage. Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 6 of 9 8. Easement Updates – Fewtrell and Gagnon Fewtrell reported the latest on the Wimsatt Easement, which is being worked out for the complicated 3 way split of the property on Marsh Rd. Gagnon, Fewtrell and the Wimsatts’ lawyer have been working on a conservation easement for the whole property which will then be subdivided into 3 lots, one of which will be built on. The least invasive way is getting approval for an Open Development Area (ODA). The conservation easement is required as mitigation for the ODA, with road access at the northeastern corner of the property. Joel Gagnon, Clare Fewtrell, David West (Town Planner) and the James family (prospective buyers) inspected the property with Ruthie Wimsatt and the Wimsatt’s lawyer, Hayden Brainard, some months ago. The ODA was approved last night by the Town Board. Some corretions and inconsistencies need to be fixed in the current draft of the Wimsatt easement. Fewtrell will be sending the group the latest draft (version 13) so that they can see what an easement in progress looks like. She asked them, and also Crane and and any others who have suggestions or concerns, to provide comments. Since they are near the end of what has been a long, involved work, only essential changes and minor corrections should be suggested and the reason for them should be explained. Fewtrell asked that comments or concerns should be sent to her by next Sunday The complexity of this easement and the scrutiny that it has received from members of the Town Board, in addition to the individuals involved in drafting and donating this easement, has created an opportunity to consider a number of improvements, corrections and changes that might be made to the Easement Template. Also, part of the complexity and confusion had ensued because Art James took it upon himself to draft an easement based on the Palmer Easement, rather than our template. Zisk wondered about differences between “exceptional”, “extraordinary”, and “natural values”, as stated in the easement template. He suggested changing this to conservation and natural values. Fewtrell suggested that changes to the Easement Template be put on the agenda for our next meeting. Once the Wimsatt easement is Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 7 of 9 finalized she will compare it with the current template and send the document highlighting the changes to CAC members. 9. Low Density Re-zoning Group Report from Planning Group – Gagnon (last two agenda items switched) Gagnon noted that the topic of a solar farm in Danby is more of a concern of the Hamlet Working Group than the Conservation Working Group. There are not many places to grow in the hamlet and the proposed site for a solar farm on Russ Nitchmann’s land off Bald Hill Road would decrease the hamlet core area even further. However, the Town Planner had suggested that the land might be used for a communal leach field for the hamlet in addition to the solar farm. Fewtrell remarked that solar panels are a CAC clean energy interest but their aesthetic is also a concern. Zisk noted that they are a major disruptor of habitat. Both thought that CAC should be discussing this. Gagnon noted that the only reason that Danby is not inundated with proposals for solar farms is that we do not have a major transmission line. Our early succession fields of brush are perfect locations for that kind of development since they are not good farmland, unlike Lansing and other places. The Bald Hill Road location would be using the distribution line going down 96B and permission to use it has been asked of NYSEG. PoF: Crane noted that the line going down Bald Hill is not sufficient. A solar array is better than a building development, and it is hidden from most views. The visual impact will affect some residents of Bald Hill. Corbit asked about the wetland. Zisk said its not enough acreage for DEC oversight. Corbit said perhaps we could use the area for both a leach field and a solar array. In the Conservation Working Group, Gagnon said that Town Planner David West had taken a second pass at dividing up the low density zone into sub-zones. Most controversial are “pink” areas on the map where rules would be substantially the same as what we have now. Gagnon said that “Betsy (secretary) would have characterized them as a sacrifice zone”. His alternative would be a mechanism for Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 8 of 9 alternative tracks. He would like to go to a minimum Town-wide density of 1 building for every 10 acres. Currently, since every parcel could have 2 buildings, it is more like a density of 1 building every 2½ acres, so this would be a big change. Since that would be a hard sell, Gagnon went on to describe a complicated trading scheme of development rights within a neighborhood that he has proposed. It would also include figuring a balance between development on front and back acreage. One problem he mentioned is that if people could sell development rights, why would they want to give them away? Currently land behind houses is undeveloped since building requires road frontage, but this may change. Gagnon said the new Ag working group was an important addition to the Planning Group, and asked Keokosky (one of the originators, along with Alyssa de Villiers ) to explain it. Keokosky said she was very encouraged by the first meeting. Just people sharing information on what they were doing was extremely important. Agriculture is in transition right now and processing agricultural products can be considered value-added and this has to be accommodated in zoning. For instance, this might mean having a cidery alongside of a apple orchard, or Greek yogurt beside the cows. The group was interested in incentivizing people to do agriculture as well as regulating them. How do you make Danby a place that encourages agriculture? All kinds of Ag-interested people were there. One, Peter Moore, contributes to open areas that we want in Danby by keeping them mowed (he mows 1200 acres). Gagnon asked how we should accommodate business in the town? We don’t want heavy industry. What we need to ask is what we are willing to accommodate and where do we want to put it? Is it only on Rt 96B between Hornbrook and E. Miller? How will it be compatible with the neighborhood, especially if the integration of land and business is essential. Zisk noted that all these decisions are a conundrum and these meetings of the planning group and its sub-groups need the brain power, so we should all attend them. Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 9 of 9 There was no Executive session Next Meeting via Zoom is on June 8th at 7p.m. Adjournment at 9:22 _____________________________________________ Submitted by Elizabeth Keokosky (Secretary)