HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAC Minutes - 03_08_22Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 1 of 12
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council (CAC)
Minutes of Video Conference (Zoom) Meeting on
Tuesday, March 08, 2022
Danby, New York
Council Members present: Clare Fewtrell (chair), Joel Gagnon, Mary Woodsen,
Jonathan Zisk, Don Schaufler , Katharine Hunter
Council Members absent: Margaret Corbit, Brittany Lagaly
Others present: Elizabeth Keokosky (secretary), Ronda Roaring (Danby resident),
David West (Danby Town Planner), Peter McDonald (Danby resident), Kate
Keresztes (Student in New Visions program, observing)
Zoom Meeting was officially called to order at 7:02.
Introductions: Peter McDonald introduced himself as a recently returned Ithaca
resident now living in W. Danby. He had come from California and is an ardent
environmentalist, also interested in civic engagement. Came to observe tonight.
Kate Keresztes later introduced herself as a High School Student. She is a New
Visions Program student who came to observe a meeting concerning agriculture.
Katharine Hunter also added that she is an excellent musician.
Deletions or Additions to Agenda: Gagnon wanted to bring up the question of
the residency requirement for CAC membership, which was added. Also solar
panels wetland report but Fewtrell said it was already rolled into item 7.
Privilege of the Floor (PoF): Roaring wanted to bring up Lagaly’s talk on Native
Plants but decided to wait until Lagaly was present.
Approval Minutes MOTION for February 8, 2022 minutes
Gagnon moved to approve
Zisk seconded
Unanimous, except for Corbit and Lagaly, who were absent.
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 2 of 12
REPORTS AND UPDATES from Agenda.
1. Status of local implementation of varying easement time lines and
tax abatements from tax abatement subcommittee – Joel Gagnon
Report from subcommittee given by David West. He reported that the
state enabling law (requested by town) allowed temporary as well as
permanent easements, with relatively reduced tax abatement amounts.
Discussions within the subcommittee focused on how much of what the
state allowed would Danby really want to recommend.
Of the 3 categories of temporary exemptions, the largest category tax
abatement was very close to that of a permanent easement so the
subcommittee recommended not enacting that category, and - since
within each category there were differing numbers of years - they
recommended just using the upper-end rather than a range.
Feed-back from county tax assessment director, Jay Franklin, indicated
that he thought abatements were too generous and he couldn’t support
them county-wide. He also was against temporary easements.
County taxes are a significant proportion of property taxes, as are also
school taxes. The subcommittee is planning a conversation with the
Ithaca City School District on the impact of reduced taxes for
conservation easements by supplying data. So far the City has
apparently been unenthusiastic about other abatements.
Fewtrell asked if there has been any progress since this. She asked to
arrange another meeting of the sub-committee to make sure things are
moving.
Gagnon also asked if the CAC as a whole was in favor of 3 tiers: 29, 49,
and permanent. Fewtrell asked for a better report for the next meeting
to continue that discussion.
2. Status of annual easement monitoring and placing easement signs
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 3 of 12
– Jonathan Zisk, Don Schaufler & Margaret Corbit
Fewtrell noted that though many inspections have been done, only 1
writeup has surfaced. Write ups can be brief
Zisk reported that Selin wants to put up his own signs and O’Neal needs
one more.
3. Updates on Proposed Easements: Roaring (Margaret Corbit),
Ravencache/Stein (Brittany Lagaly), Woodsen (Jonathan Zisk),
Hoffman/Karlsen (Joel Gagnon), any others?
Roaring: wants another template zone – for riparian corridors -- a
discussion which was beyond tonight’s scope.
Woodsen: Zisk has maps and extensive notes but had made no progress
so Woodsen volunteered to write it with him. A base-line report is
needed. Corbit also walked property with them; Schaufler had walked
it earlier.
Ravencache: Fewtrell, noting Legaly’s hesitation, suggested excluding
the residential and active use zone from the easement now rather than
putting the easement off to some future date. Gagnon said that fixing
the template might be the answer and clarifying that the residential and
active use zone is the least restrictive and that anything allowed in the
other zones is allowed there might fix Lagaly’s hesitation. Fewtrell
asked Gagnon if he would do that. Fewtrell said she would give Lagaly a
call to encourage her to continue with the easement now and not wait.
Hoffman/Karlsen: David West reported that the owners were working
on final pieces of their subdivision application, which includes a housing
cluster . He hasn’t heard back from them for a couple of weeks.
Fewtrell asked that West keep CAC – particularly Gagnon, who has been
most involved – aware of what is happening. West said that they are
working on putting together a site plan that would make clear the
development density that they are allowed in the location around the
existing house – including such things as how far they should build from
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 4 of 12
the road and the environmental impact of being further back with a
long driveway.
Sherman – Ruth Sherman and her husband would like to begin working
on an easement in the spring. Fewtrell asked who would be willing to
work on that? Gagnon suggested pairing a novice and an experienced
person together on this - perhaps Hunter and Lagaly? Hunter was
willing and Fewtrell said she would ask Lagaly. Since Sherman had
served on the CAC she would be familiar with the process.
4. Status of March 10th Timothy Woods talk on a “A Paradigm Shift to
Bio-Sequestration & Regenerative Agriculture” - Elizabeth
Keokosky
Keokosky mentioned that she still had not met Timothy Woods, since he
had missed coming to both February and March CAC Meeting Zooms.
She had talked to him over the phone and hoped he would be able to
convey that a paradigm shift was happening because she also
considered regenerative agriculture as a paradigm shift. Woods had
approached her to give this talk and CAC had wanted the larger public
involved. She said that advertising had appeared in the Danby
Newsletter and in the Ithaca Quaker Newsletter and among Mothers Out
Front members. Unfortunately, the Quaker presentation of the movie
“Kiss the Ground”, to which Wood’s talk was linked, had had technical
difficulties. (These groups were linked by Keokosky’s connection to
each.)
She noted that all the previous agricultural presentations were now
available on YouTube through links on the Town website. Some extra
information still needs to be added to those. The Woods talk was
scheduled as a Zoom for Thursday, March 10, at 7pm – link available on
Danby Calendar.
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 5 of 12
5. Report of February 10th Native Plants talk – Brittany Lagaly
Lagaly wasn’t present but feed-back on her talk was good. One
comment was that it was an interesting mix of science and practical
order-from-the-catalog info. Lagaly had created her own website for
shared orders of native plants. Since her talk was mostly on perennial
and annual flowers, others felt we still needed another presentation on
native trees and shrubs. (Complaints continued about Japanese
knotweed and other invasives.) Schaufler seconded the idea for a
presentation on native trees. He thought encouraging knowledge of
native trees and where to purchase them was a useful thing.
Speakers suggested
Akiva Silver of Twisted Tree Farm, in Spencer
Cornell Corporative Extension was recommended. Fewtrell asked
Schaufler to find out who in CCE might have this expertise.
Gagnon wondered why we should limit ourselves to a palette of native
plants. Zisk said the question was more how invasive the species were
than native. But it was brought up that one of Lagaly’s major points was
that certain native plants must match certain native pollinators so
native was important for encouraging native insects.
Hunter asked for more positive presentations that had a more hopeful
note.
6. Status of Timber Harvesting law – Jonathan Zisk & Don Schaufler
Discussion of how to pull final threads together of the most recent draft
of the Timber Harvesting Law.
Simplify - Zisk said his table of contents was open to editing. He would
check with the Town Clerk to see if he could use hyperlinks on the
document, but his main intention was to give better accessibility for
people trying to find the part of the law that applied to them.
Bonding – Zisk said bonding for highway protection just needs to be
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 6 of 12
added to current Road Law (see
http://danbyny.org/Documents/TownBoard_Law_201104.pdf Section 4-
9, for definitions of concentrated traffic or heavy haul route that
required bonding)
Gagnon said that in Section 4 logging had been exempted because of Ag
and Markets Agricultural exemption laws. Zisk said it was not logging
but the heavy traffic connected with hauling logs that was the basis of
the bond needed for roads. Gagnon said logging had previously been
removed, but now it needed to be added back to Section 4, part B. The
Highway Department, because of its current exclusion, hadn’t felt they
could interfere in the Deputron Hollow logging fiasco.
Final Version - Fewtrell asked how do we progress forward on this?
Gagnon said that apart from these changes it was ready to be brought to
the Town Board. But there needed to be a legal conversation with Guy
Krogh, the Town Lawyer, and Planner West said it needed be run by Ag
and Markets. Gagnon would talk to Krogh, and Fewtrell asked Zisk and
West for an Ag and Markets review.
Zisk explained that bonding was never part of the explicit law. It was
the responsibility of the managing forester or individual contracting the
loggers to make sure “Best Management Practices” were used. The road
law was different and had it’s own bonding regulations.
Gagnon said that he would bring it to the town board referencing the
town Road Law as addressing bonding adequately. The final version
still needed to include the Highway Department as part of the initial
process, which Schaufler reminded CAC members had been their major
concern. Schaufler agreed to write up a final draft, with Zisk’s help,
including Fewtrell’s edits to Zisk’s table of contents.
7. Update on Proposed Solar Panel Farm/Wetlands – Joel Gagnon,
Jonathan Zisk, Margaret Corbit
The Town Board had asked the CAC to come up with recommendations
on how wetlands on land where a solar farm is proposed should be
dealt with. Zisk and Corbit had inspected the proposed Norbut solar
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 7 of 12
panel farm land and generated a report examining the different areas
that had been designated as wetlands in 3 separate wetland
delineations.
Zisk explained that the Wetland report (for Solar Farms)was broad
enough to explicitly address Norbut’s plan and still be generally
applicable. Fewtrell wanted the large table in the report explained, but
Zisk said it was just the incidence of species that were wetland type
indicators. She also wanted a map relating it to the Norbut property, to
which Zisk agreed. Gagnon said that one of the best things to come out
of it was pointing to a Vermont Cooperative Extension UVM document,
“Literature Review of Monitoring Methodology and Wetland Impacts
from Solar Facilities (2018)”
Zisk noted that criteria for making determinations vary, since wetlands
vary in quality. One caveat, very easy to ignore, is that BMP (Best
Management Practices) wants to allow vegetation to stand no higher
than bottom of solar panel. Mowing at end of season is OK, but
constantly cutting wetland species weakens them so make sure there is
a clause that owners do wetland BMP for pathways in-between the
solar panels.
The determinations (delineations) of the 3 contractors had different
conclusions, each working at non-ideal times. So the two most recent
contractors will put together a consensus report. The proviso says that
wetlands cannot be approved for panel arrays unless Planning Board
and CAC think it is appropriate.
Fewtrell asked if Gagnon (as representative of town board) accepted
this report (with map pasted in). West suggested that it go to Planning
Board as well as Town Board.
Gagnon moved to send the Wetlands Report to Planning
Board and Town Board (with minor corrections and map -
see Appendix A for sent version)
Zisk seconded the motion
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 8 of 12
Approval was Unanimous
Fewtrell felt CAC consensus was that CAC members thought Norbut
Farm would be good for Danby.
Residency requirement Gagnon brought up the CAC residency
requirement for CAC membership in relation to Brad Rauch’s (still only
a land owner since he lives in Dryden) appointment to CAC even though
he is not yet a Town resident. Gagnon proposed to the Town Board that
Danby should to rescind or amend the requirement for residency, but
the Board asked him to get the opinion of CAC. It was brought up with
strong feeling that CAC functions as a cooperative group and part of that
is being neighbors and understanding the town. The alternative
argument is that we need a person with background expertise and
interest, who might not live in Danby. But the point was made that we
represent the residents, the community, and the town might not like
outsiders to represent their interests.
Fewtrell made a motion that the CAC recommends that the Town
Board not extend CAC membership to non-residents.
Zisk seconded the motion
5 votes for motion, with Gagnon abstaining
There was no Executive session
Next Meeting via Zoom is on April 12th 2022 at 7p.m.
Adjournment at 9:12
_____________________________________________
Submitted by Elizabeth Keokosky (Secretary)
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 9 of 12
Appendix A
Solar Panels in Wetlands, Considering the Proposed Norbut Solar Farm (NSF) on the Nichtman
Property (Bald Hill Rd., tax parcel 710-1-21.122), and Generally Advising on Other Possibilities in
the Future
Jonathan Zisk and Margaret Corbit (with input from Town Planner David West) as requested by the
Danby Town Board that the Conservation Advisory Council recommend guidelines for placing solar
arrays in wetlands.
Solar panels can be minimally or entirely nondestructive to the functions of certain types of wetland, if
guidelines are followed. Current research consistently supports this conclusion. A compendium from
Vermont DEC, “Literature Review of Monitoring Methodology and Wetland Impacts from Solar
Facilities (2018)” points to the following BMP’s :
1. Soil disruption should be avoided, including compaction, transfer, and/or replacement.
2. Equipment with minimal impact should be used.
3. Design should be chosen to cause the least possible damage.
4. Spacing between rows should be equal to or greater than the “width” of the panels’ projected
shadow, in order that enough vegetation can grow.
5. Zero chemical control of flora, and only mechanical control for sun-blocking height in the spaces
between rows—to allow development (or cultivation if necessary) of appropriate native wetland
species.
6. Wildlife corridors to minimize the restricted areas should be built—whether a scrub/vegetative
buffer, a greenway, or some other type of swath that allows wildlife travel between properties.
Not all wetlands are the same. There are large-tract, thriving, biodiverse, rich wetlands, and there are
smaller, fragmented, incomplete wetlands, with much less diversity and ecological value.
The total value of a wetland is its aquifer-filtration, habitat, and aesthetic features. Rating the Nitchman
property on these, it would have importance as filtration for the local aquifers and feeders to Buttermilk.
But wetland vegetation is not extensive (see chart) and very few obligate wetland plants were identified,
along with a number of invasive species—this is a sparse, problematic wetland. The habitats and wildlife
supported would be few and transitory. Examples include Canada goose, redwing blackbird, heron,
ducks, migratory passerines, herptiles, coyotes, and mustelids. The scrub, forest, cattails, low shrubs and
sedges/grasses will remain accessible if BMPs are followed. Consideration could be given to integrating
a wildlife corridor in the design, outside of the northern fence but within the boundaries of the property.
Furthermore, on aesthetics, this is a largely inaccessible block of uncultivated fields and fragmented
underdeveloped wet areas, with a few scrubby, early secondary growth forested fragments—so the
“recreational value” to the public is questionable.
This is not a precious wetland; it is not even, strictly speaking, a “natural” wetland. It was originally
forest which was cut for farming, probably largely pasture. The farmer(s) dug several cattle ponds along
the streams. The gentle slope (generally 2-8%) to the streams and the cleared forest promoted a sort of
anthropogenic-wetland. The pre-farm forest would have attenuated wetland development.
An analysis of the Nichtman property by Delta-EAS used the approximate boundaries of the earlier BME
Associates evaluation. It confirmed status and extended the perimeters into the scrubby, forested parts of
the tract. It used soil hydrology, vegetation, and inundation data. The analysis lists much of the wetland
as scrub-shrub and forested, with inherently restricted variety of wetland species. Looking at the history
of the tract, these wetlands were probably a response to accidental, short-term inundations, with attendant
vegetation changes, that you will find in other not formally wetland tracts in Danby (the Sylvan Lane
Town property, for example, is an upland secondary growth forest that is so wet it supports wetland
vegetation). For this reason, the borders of Nitchman’s wetlands are not clear.
David West wrote (JZ, 2/10/22 email): “The solar farm avoids the wetlands in the BME delineation and is
only impacting those in grey in the Delta delineation. Much of that is currently forest… It's hard to
separate the impact of cutting down the forest from the impacts associated with it being a
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 10 of 12
wetland…” The areas where NSF wants to build are not thriving wetland nor rich forest land; and NSF
plans to avoid the most distinct wet areas.
In any case, the perimeters are only one part of the equation, particularly since NSF is willing to follow
appropriate BMPs—as in the VT list above, using minimal impact equipment and installation
methods/techniques, and sustaining wetland vegetation with mechanical control only for height above the
panels. Even if the disputed perimeters were the greatest estimate and wetlands of the highest quality, the
NSF solar farm could avoid destruction of viability and ecological functions, if they do adhere to those
BMPs.
Incidence of Flora Species at Potential Wetland Sites
See map that follows…
(W) is FACW, facultative wetland, not a strong indicator species; all unmarked are FAC (facultative-
either; not indicators); OBL is obligate wetland, a strong indicator species; (U) is FACU, facultative
upland, contra-indication of a good wetland. Note relatively few OBL and relatively many FACU.
Note invasive species, which are more problem-species than indicator-species. Note how many
ostensibly different species are actually very closely related (E.G.: three species of goldenrod do not
imply “rich habitat”).
Stream ID# Wetland ID#
A D E S W Y 3 4 A B C F G H I J K L M N O P Q R T U V X Z
black willow (OBL) X
silky dogwood (W) X X X X
gray dogwood X X X X X X X X
white dogwood (W) X
red maple X X X
European crabapple (INV) X
shagbark hickory (U) X
red oak (U) X X
alder X
sugar maple (U) X X
American elm X X
American hornbeam
honeysuckle, sp? (INV?) X X
multiflora rose (INV, U) X X
broadleaf cattail (OBL) X X X X
narrowleaf cattail(INV, OBL) X
bottlebrush grass X
reed canary grass (INV, W) X X X X X X
tussock sedge (OBL) X
fox sedge (OBL) X X
woolgrass (OBL) X X X
sensitive fern (W) X X X X X X X X X
spotted knapweed (INV) X
giant goldenrod (W) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
grassleaf goldenrod X X X X X X X X
canada goldenrod (U) X
redtop (U) X
mugwort (U) X X X
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 11 of 12
water pepper X
soft rush X X
poison ivy X
(Map on next page.)
Town of Danby Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Page 12 of 12