Dryden Conservation Board discusses enforcement, drainage

The Dryden Conservation Board gathered over Zoom on June 30 to discuss three subjects: violations of the boundaries of a conservation easement, the state of drainage ditches in the town and an upcoming Dryden-wide survey to gauge the public’s approach to protected outdoor space.

The meeting began with widespread concerns about the town government’s ability to enforce conservation easements. Conservation easements are a designation of a plot of land that prohibits development.

The discussion was, in part, prompted by an infraction against the conservation easement in Dryden Bluebird “subdivision,” a cluster of protected areas, according to Town Planning Director Ray Burger. A town resident built a structure inside the protected area, Burger said.

“It’s really unclear to me whether we can go back and fix this,” said David Weintsein, member of the conservation board. “Clearly, the planning department staff would not issue a certificate of occupancy for something that was being built over the line into these conservation zones. It just slipped through the cracks that they are supposed to look at them originally.”

The conservation board considered two options of punitive measures in response to a conservation easement infraction: a fine for the owner of the structure and a request that the structure be dismantled and the site returned to its previous state. But the board did not decide to enact any of them.

The conservation board unanimously expressed the sentiment that issues of property infractions should, as much as possible, be dealt with ahead of time and not after an infraction has already taken place.

“It’s up to us to check up on it once in a while and make sure they aren’t encroaching on the protected easement land,” said Jeanne Grace, member of the board.

Nancy Munkenbeck, member of the board, noted the potential complication in moving forward with enforcement – that building owners could accuse the board of “selective enforcement” if they prohibit future infractions – but did not move to punish previous ones.

“There has to be a follow-up,” Munkenbeck said. “You want to be able to say your shed is hanging over the river, thanks very much.”

Board members discussed improved written guidelines for the development restrictions of conservation easements, which could be presented to both the planning board and the developer to ensure compliance. However, in the case of the Bluebird Subdivision infraction, the planning board had already received these guidelines, and yet the structure was nevertheless built in the protected land, according to Weinstein.

According to Burger, while the Bluebird subdivision was in fact considered a “conservation easement,” its official designation was only a covenant deed: “it was a conservation in name only on the map,” he said.

“Think of it like this, it’s conservation easement capital C versus conservation easement lower case c,” Burger said.

Burger did not have opinions about potential punitive measures that might be taken against someone who violates the guidelines of a conservation easement.

“We’re just waiting to see what’s proposed to the town,” he said.

According to Burger, there are extensive directions for official conservation easements that Bluebird didn’t have.
Following the discussion of the conservation easement infraction, the conservation board discussed deep roadside drainage ditches in Dryden.

Many town residents have objected to the deep roadside drainage ditches, dug by the highway department. Deep ditches can pose danger to cars – in icy or otherwise dangerous conditions, deeper drainage ditches alongside the road can put cars at greater risk, according to conservation board member Craig Schutt. Schutt added that many drainage ditches in Dryden are dug so steep and so close to the road that the edges of some roads are beginning to collapse.

Deep ditches do have some advantages, Schutt said. For instance, deep drainage ditches better stave off pooling of water, which can lead to moisture under the road that later damages the road once frozen.

Besides danger to drivers, a major concern about roadside ditches is that the water flowing through often picks up sediment and pollutants and brings into natural bodies of water. Hydroseeding – planting vegetation in the ditches – is an effective method for trapping pollutants before they flow into natural bodies of water, Schutt said. Another way to address the issue, though less effectively, is to line the sides of ditches with stones.

While these measures are not as severe as banning deep drainage ditches altogether, they do achieve a “happy medium,” Schutt said.

“Our goal would be to show them that if they implemented some of these best management practices they wouldn’t have to ditch so often, and the ditches wouldn’t fill up so often,” Schutt said.

One of the frustrations behind the board’s discussion of drainage ditches, they said, is that the highway department is not communicative and is unwilling to change their approach to digging drainage ditches.

“Let me suggest that the problem is that we have an elected highway superintendent who is in no way responsible to the town board,” said conservation board member Peter Davies. “The answer is to have an appointed highway superintendent who is responsive to the town board.”

Davies added that as it is now, “even if you don’t like what the current highway superintendent is doing … you can’t unelect him.”

Last on the meeting’s agenda was a discussion of the draft of a survey for Dryden residents that aimed to gauge the public’s perspective on protected space. The survey is in conjunction with the Dryden 2045 Town Comprehensive Plan, in which “the people of Dryden will share their vision and hopes for the future of our town,” according to the Dryden 2045 webpage.

The survey draft asked about perceptions of threatened outdoor space, the adequacy of recreational facilities and the extent to which town residents are comfortable with tax-funded conservation work.

This survey is the first town-wide survey since the original survey taken for the comprehensive plan around 2000, according to Simon St. Laurent, a conservation board alternate.

“We don’t do these very often, so we’re trying hard to get this right,” he said.