HomeMy WebLinkAboutTownBoard_Minutes_20161129Danby Town Board, Planning Board,
and Conservation Advisory Council
Minutes of Special Meeting
November 29, 2016
Present:
Councilpersons: Rebecca Brenner (Deputy Supervisor), Leslie Connors, Jim Holahan, Jack Miller
Planning Board: Frank Kruppa (Chair), Naomi Strichartz, Anne Klingensmith, Steve Selin, Jim
Rundle, Jody Scriber
CAC: Joel Gagnon (Chair), Dan Klein, Bill Evans, Don Schaufler, Mary Woodsen,
Matt Ulinski
Excused:
Supervisor: Ric Dietrich
Others Present:
Town Clerk Pamela Goddard
Code Officer/Planner Paul Hansen, CJ Randall
Public Ted Crane, Ronda Roaring, Olivia Vent.
Meeting Opened at 7:05pm
Conservation Advisory Council Work Plan
There was discussion of the CAC work plan for 2017, based on the Purpose and Authority of the
Conservation Advisory Council, as outlined in Resolution #82 of 2010. The CAC was asked the status of
tasks (a)–(f) in that resolution, particularly items (d) and (e) related to inventories and maps of natural
areas, open space, and wetlands. Brenner stated the TB’s interest in having a completed Natural
Resources Inventory. The complete NRI will be a valuable tool in making critical decisions for the Town
of Danby. The NRI would also be useful in various grant applications.
CAC Chair Gagnon stated that the CAC believed that tasks (a)–(f) were “substantially done” but that
depth takes time. Gagnon stated that the CAC had determined to add depth to these inventories on a
parcel by parcel basis as review was needed. Gagnon further stated that Planner Randall had urged the
CAC to add to the resources database and that the CAC was happy to do so.
Klein asked about whether additional items (g)–(p), particularly those related to conservation
easements, were a priority at this time. Klein was under the impression that researching potential
easements was the CAC’s most important task. Deputy Supervisor Brenner stated that these are additional
items for CAC consideration, and while conservation easements are quite valuable for land protection,
tasks (a)–(f) are highlighted in the law as primary tasks.
There was a discussion of what databases and inventories are already available through other sources.
For example, Klingensmith was aware of regional databases of plants from the Finger Lakes Land Trust
and the E-bird lists through the Lab of Ornithology. Planner Randall distributed a sample table of
suggested Inventory Components and recommended data for a Natural Resources Inventory. (This table
was generated in the Hudson Valley.) A similar table of inventory components could be generated for
Tompkins County and the Town of Danby. Randall estimated that 60-70 percent of this information has
already been collected. However, the final 20 percent of the data will involve 80 percent of the
compilation work. This would include field work in the Town of Danby.
There was discussion of the CAC’s collaboration/involvement in Planning Board review of
development proposals. Gagnon stated that the CAC was glad to do so. Brenner noted that the NRI would
be useful in such review.
Gagnon stated that the status of CAC tasks will be reported in the 2016 CAC annual report.
Environmental Quality Review Local Law
Randall presented an information/overview of the proposed amendments to the Town of Danby SEQR
law related to water withdrawals, etc. Randall noted that information compiled in a NRI would be
extremely valuable in reviewing projects under this local law. The amendments to the Town of Danby
SEQR law are related to protections enacted in the Groundwater Protection law earlier in 2016. These
amendments also clarify the application and review process, including fees related to review. Randall
answered questions regarding thresholds permitted through the EQR process. A Public Hearing related to
this law will take place during the December 12 Town Board meeting.
Planned Development Zones
There was discussion of examination, review, and potential actions related to Town of Danby Planned
Development Zones. Randall distributed preliminary maps and information to the Boards. Randall noted
that the information presented is still incomplete. Documentation for some PDZs is hit and miss. This
information needs review and some corrections. Klingensmith noted incorrect information regarding a
PDZ on Muzzy Road. Comments and corrected information may be sent to Planner Randall.
Town Board_Minutes_20161129 • Tuesday, December 6, 2016 Page ! of !1 3
Randall stated that property owners of some dormant PDZs have contacted her regarding zoning
changes. The current development zone status is hampering their use of their property. Randall suggested
that such input might help inform future action on those PDZs.
There was a brief discussion of the legal process of dissolving a PDZ. Randall noted that this would
be legislative zoning action. Some were passed by local law and others were passed by resolution. There
was a related discussion regarding appropriate action for inactive and active PDZs. Some will not need
any change. Some will be easy to revert to the surrounding zoning. Some will need more careful
consideration.
The information will go to the Planning Board for full review and recommendations. Randall
suggested that this would be the most appropriate board for prioritizing the areas for different levels of
action. It is hoped that a preliminary prioritization of these PDZs may be complete by the end of the first
quarter of 2017. The Town may want to hold a PDZ public information session sometime in the spring of
2017. Members of the TB confirmed that this is a priority for 2017.
Natural Resources Inventory
There was further discussion of the importance and value of a full Natural Resources Inventory.
Planner Randall provided detailed information. One element of interest and importance is that a complete
NRI would allow the CAC to become a Conservation Board. Conservation Board status would mandate
its involvement, as an involved agency, in project development review. Randall noted the value in the
level of environmental knowledge in this Board.
In addition, the Town of Danby could establish Conservation Subdivision rules. A formalized NRI
would be an essential tool in this process and could be used to deny development in inappropriate places
and/or direct development to where it makes more sense. Finally, a formalized NRI could be useful in
making a case for funding purchase of environmentally sensitive areas for protection.
There was a related discussion of Critical Environmental Area designation. CEA designation carries
more legislative power than Unique Natural Area designation. Work has already begun to research
potential CEAs in the Town of Danby.
Resource Management Plans
Discussion of item (o) in the CAC charge; develop and implement management plans for Town-
owned conservation land. Currently there are two such parcels, on Deputron Hollow Road (10 acres) and
the Water District land (24 acres) on Sylvan Lane in West Danby. A three page memo, prepared by
members of the CAC, was distributed to the Town Board. This memo outlined arguments for and against
cutting trees on the Water District property in West Danby. The memo includes estimated market value of
timber on that property. The CAC asked the TB to make a decision on this management plan, whether to
cut timber or not. Public input is required prior to the TB adopting management plans for Town-owned
conservation land. In addition, the plan would trigger an environmental quality review.
Climate Smart Communities
An update on the Climate Smart Communities initiative was given by Randall and Holahan. They
have begun the process of reviewing a checklist of actions and baseline information recognizing things
that have already been done to meet “Climate Smart” goals/certification. Holahan informed the boards
that there will be several resolutions to come before the Town Board for consideration. The Town may be
eligible for followup energy audits on the Town buildings. Once Danby is certified as a Climate Smart
Community, major grants funds become available to further future initiatives such as replacing street
lights with more efficient bulbs, install charging stations, incentives for energy efficient municipal
vehicles, etc. Various inter-municipal projects are being explored in Tompkins County.
Holahan provided related information about a TCOG “Community Choice” group which is in the
beginning stages of exploring and drafting a plan for municipal bulk purchase of electricity. A local law
would need to be put in place to make this possible.
Hamlet Development
There was a substantial discussion regarding potential development opportunities in the main Danby
Hamlet and related zoning changes which would be required. Randall explained that Danby and
Tompkins County is experiencing a demand for increased housing. Tompkins County has identified the
potential of 80–100 new housing units in the Danby Hamlet, a development focus area. She informed the
boards that there is funding which can be applied for to install wastewater systems and a water district.
This might be appropriate for the Danby Hamlet.
There was a discussion of previous Hamlet planning efforts, prior to 2010. Klein stated that he was
“not excited” about Hamlet planning as he did not think that it, “would change anything.” Gagnon noted
that the element which had support was the “cottage cluster” behind the Danby church. He wondered if
there was community consensus as to what is wanted. Connors remembered a mixed use proposal which
she found exciting. Development with streetscape changes might improve community perception of a
proposed project.
There was a preliminary discussion of what types of housing would be desirable in Danby. Several
people expressed support for inclusionary housing that would be affordable to various income brackets
and would also be accessible, through “universal design,” to the elderly and disabled. Having housing
available on an accessible public transportation route was seen as a plus.
Town Board_Minutes_20161129 • Tuesday, December 6, 2016 Page ! of !2 3
There was a discussion regarding what obstacles may be in the way of such development happening
at this time. Zoning constraints were discussed. Olivia Vent described her unsuccessful attempts to
develop property across from Danby’s Town Hall some years ago. In her words, “All conditions need to
be together.” There was a preliminary discussion regarding possible financial incentives which might
facilitate development in the Hamlet area.
Randall asked the Town and Planning Board for its views as to how to move forward. There was
general support for Hamlet development. This will be an on-going discussion between the boards.
Members of the Planning Board stated that, prior to further consideration on their part, they needed
specific guidance from the Town Board as to where to focus energy regarding zoning changes to be
considered, what incentives might be possible, and what the next steps would be.
Rural Design Standards
Planner Randall provided information about Basic Rural Design standards/guidelines. Such standards
might include types of setbacks, required plantings or vegetative screening, or other measures to retain the
rural character of Danby. There was discussion of the same.
Selin asked if this is just, “about what things look like?” He and others advocated for rural design
standards that would better preserve open space and farmland. Others agreed and advocated for placing
houses and structures closer to the road in order to preserve open space and farm land. Klein stated a view
that “experience from the car” is valuable. Connors and others disagreed. Several people noted that the
two standards need not be mutually exclusive. Brenner and Randall noted that a Natural Resources
Inventory would be useful in setting policy and rural design standards for Danby.
Green Buildings Initiative
Information was provided about possible Green Building incentives. Randall distributed information
about possible tax breaks through Real Property Law. Randall noted that this might not be the right time
to address this, due to new standards coming in the building energy code. Randall noted that there are
various green building standards, in addition to LEED, being developed for older homes as well as new
homes. The boards held a preliminary discussion regarding what standards should look like for Danby
and what incentives might be offered.
Hansen noted that the new building code addresses energy efficiency for new construction. What to
do for drafty older homes is a more tricky question. It was noted that using LEED certification for older
homes is not cost effective. There was discussion of other incentives which might be used. This will be an
ongoing discussion for the boards.
Wind and Solar Zoning
Randall provided information regarding Wind and Solar Zoning being considered in other local
municipalities. Other municipalities are currently drafting stringent site plan measures for large ground-
mounted solar arrays. Preliminary work on Zoning for large scale wind and solar installations had been
started some years ago. Randall suggested that it would be good for Danby to get ahead of the curve
regarding large scale wind and solar installations. Brenner expressed support for a process which would
increase local power of environmental and site plan review for installations of over three megawatts.
Members of all three boards/councils agreed that it was timely to review Danby’s options.
Stream Setbacks
Randall provided information regarding a program to establish stream setbacks based on stream order.
She distributed a map of named/numbered streams in Danby. She noted that the Town of Ithaca has put a
good program in place. There is concern regarding siltation runoff during the construction phase of
developments. Randall stated that this would be a good time to consider stream setbacks, due to potential
flooding issues from increased precipitation. (Such flooding was experienced in 2015.) New zoning local
laws and/or amendments would be needed to establish stream setbacks. Such a law would be in support of
the Danby Stormwater Protection Law.
Board Chair Rotation
There was a brief discussion of whether it would be a good idea to rotate Board Chairs? Brenner
asked, on behalf of the Board, whether long-term chair-ship is a burden? Members of the Planning Board
expressed happiness with the current leadership. Gagnon stated that the CAC might benefit from a new
chair.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm. !!!!
______________________________________
Pamela Goddard, Town Clerk
Town Board_Minutes_20161129 • Tuesday, December 6, 2016 Page ! of !3 3