HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 10 20 Planning Board MinutesTown of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 20, 2020
PRESENT:
Scott Davis
Elana Maragni
Bruce Richards
Jody Scriber
Jim Rundle (Chair)
ABSENT:
Ed Bergman
Kathy Jett
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Interim Town Planner John Czamanske
Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member)
Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers
Public Satya Celeste, Ted Crane, Corinna Farbmen, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor),
Earl Hicks, Katharine Hunter, Nigel Martin, Ralph Nash, Kim Nitchman, Russ
Nitchman, Evan Schapiro, Hamsa Stainton, John Zollweg, Gopi, Dave, Anon1
This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform.
The meeting was opened at 7:07pm.
(1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW
Nothing was added to the agenda. John Czamanske was introduced as the interim Town Planner.
(2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Ted Crane said that he often mentions considering the long-term effect of certain actions—for example, if
there is a second dwelling being added, is it placed so that if the land is later divided it will work. He noted
that today there was a case for a second dwelling. He said subdividing sometimes creates situations that
will require special handling, and the Board should be careful about that. He noted that the sketch plan
1
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
subdivision on the agenda would need two BZA variances, and he discussed the house siting. He
suggested the Board look at the big picture so it can give good advice to the applicants.
(3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Approve the September 15th minutes
Moved by Richards, seconded by Rundle
The motion passed.
In favor: Davis, Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
(4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
Leslie Connors (Town Board member) shared the following information:
• An interview committee comprised of Town Supervisor Joel Gagnon, Town Board member Matt
Ulinski, Bookkeeper Laura Shawley, and Planner John Czamanske has started interviewing
applicants for the Planner position.
• On September 23rd, the Town Board interviewed for the position of Town Clerk, and Janice
Adelman was appointed.
• The Town Board is doing budget review. Connors said she has interest in staying under the tax
cap if possible.
• At one of their previous meetings, the Town Board decided to turn off the “Chat Room.” She said,
while it can be helpful for webinars and trainings, in an in-person meeting people would not be
having conversations in the audience. She suggested the Planning Board might consider this if the
chat room becomes distracting.
(5) PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Special Permit (SPP-2020-03) and Site Plan Review (SPR-2020-03)
Location: 133 Jersey Hill Road, Tax parcel 8.-1-4.2
Zoning: Low Density (LD) Residential Zone
Applicant: Satya Celeste Stainton
Proposal: Establish a second dwelling on a 56 +/-acre parcel by converting approximately 480 sf
of an existing1200 sf the barn into a single family dwelling. The remaining approximately 720 sf of
the barn will continue to be used for storage. A new well and septic system will be installed. The
existing single family dwelling will remain.
SEQR: Type 2 action, no further environmental review is required
Ag District: NA
County 239 referral: Pending
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
The public hearing was opened at 7:21 p.m.
The applicant, Ms. Stainton, said both she and her brother were present. She explained that they own the
property, which has a single-family dwelling and an existing structure, built about a decade ago, that is
being used as a storage barn. With the arrival of 2020, they have been thinking about what they want to be
doing; she is currently an artist living in Brooklyn, NY. They are proposing taking the back half of the barn,
which has interior walls built out already, and finishing it off. She showed the proposed layout, including the
location for a new septic and well. An electric line runs along the driveway, and they plan to pull power from
that.
Ted Crane said that very often a second dwelling becomes a second lot, and he questioned whether the lot
could be subdivided easily. He thought yes in terms of space and frontage, but the proposed dwelling is
close to the access road, so the Board could consult the applicant regarding that.
Katharine Hunter said a neighbor, Gopi, was going to try to join the meeting. Ms. Stainton said they knew
Gopi, and she was able to show where Gopi’s property is located. When she was able to join, Gopi said
she had nothing to say except she loves the person who wants to convert it to a home.
The public hearing was closed at 7:34 p.m.
b) Minor Subdivision (SUB-2020-10)
Location: 986 Steam Mill Road (Route 96B frontage), Tax parcel 14.-1-22.2
Zoning: Low Density (LD) Residential Zone/Aquifer High Vulnerability (AHV) Overlay Zone (partial)
Applicant: Ralph Nash
Proposal: Subdivide a 141 +/-acre parcel into Parcel A (16 +/-acres) for a proposed dwelling.
Parcel B (125 +/-acres) will retain the existing dwelling. The proposed new parcel meets the
minimum requirements of the LD District.
SEQR: Unlisted action, Planning Board is Lead Agency
Ag District: Tompkins County Ag District #1
County 239 referral: NA
The public hearing was opened at 7:44 p.m.
Planner Czamanske brought up a map of the subdivision. Mr. Nash tried to speak, but there were
significant technical difficulties, and it was not possible to hear him. At the previous meeting, Mr. Nash had
said he was representing the property owners, the Nitchmans. The Nitchmans were present and their
connection was functioning.
Ted Crane said he saw no problem with the subdivision, but from the large view he was sorry to see even a
small chunk broken off one of the large, heritage properties in Danby.
3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
The public hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m.
(6) REVIEW AND DELIBERATION
a) Review and consider action on SPP-2020-03SPR-2020-03 above
Bruce Richards said he thought it was a nice use of a portion of the barn, it fit okay, the neighbor did not
object, and he did not see a reason not to approve it. He later added that he had taken into account
Crane’s point about the future if the property was broken up, but this really seemed like a natural, worthy
project.
Jody Scriber agreed with Richards. She thought it was a nice use, a reasonable solution, and there was
already a building there. She said she did not have concerns.
Elana Maragni echoed the thoughts of Richards and Scriber. She said some people would try to do this
under the table, and she was pleased to see the applicants going by the books and following the
appropriate steps.
Scott Davis said we love artists and welcome to the neighborhood.
Chair Rundle agreed with the other Board members.
MOTION: Approve Res. #20 of 2020 approving the special permit
Moved by Richards, seconded by Scriber
The motion passed.
In favor: Davis, Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
b) Review and consider action on SUB-2020-10 above
Chair Rundle noted that the proposed subdivision intersected with the aquifer high vulnerability (AHV)
overlay zone and the County’s unique natural area (UNA) designation. Planner Czamanske showed maps
of the property and the Town’s AHV overlay zone, the County-designated UNA #172 (Danby Fir Tree
Swamp), and the County’s wetland mapping. Mr. Nitchman said the road frontage area was not in the AHV
overlay zone, but the backland is. He said there was nothing being done with the subdivision that would
conflict with the aquifer restrictions. Rundle said the question for the Board was whether there should be
any conditions placed on the subdivision.
Jody Scriber clarified that this was for a subdivision, not a house at this point. Rundle said his assumption
was that a house was being built. Scriber said it seemed almost half the proposed subdivision was in the
4
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
AHV zone, UNA, or wetland. Ted Crane said he thought about 6.5 acres out of the 16 acres was in the
swamp.
Scott Davis asked when the UNA designation would come into play, i.e. whether it was in the Board’s
approval process or whether it was already embedded in the zoning. Planner Czamanske said there is the
State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process, where environmental impacts are considered, and
the criteria in the subdivision regulations. He added that certain uses are not permitted in the AHV overlay
zone, but residential is not prohibited. Czamanske said the Board could consider the siting of a house,
which should be outside of a wetland area, and perhaps with some buffer distance. He noted that Part 1 of
the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) did not pick up the AHV zone or the UNA because they
were not in their database. He explained about the “Unlisted action” status under SEQR, which only
requires the SEAF rather than the long form.
Town Supervisor Gagnon said the AHV overlay zone is limited in its effectiveness to trying to prevent
surface contamination of the aquifer. He did not think there was any conflict between the residential
subdivision and the AHV overlay zone. He said, as of yet, there is no Town regulation that would give the
County UNAs any additional protections or considerations. He added that the wetlands are regulated by the
State and you cannot build in them.
Mr. Nitchman said that the potential buyer, Mr. Martin, was present. He said they had done a test hole with
the Health Department and the wetlands are well away from where the septic would be. The buyers want to
keep the house back off the road so the view from the road and the beauty of the area would be unchanged
except for a driveway, which was important to him and to them. He said that tax burden influenced their
(the Nitchmans’) choice to subdivide and sell, but they decided to make one larger parcel rather than three
lots lining the road. The new owners would have the potential to break off another lot, but he did not think
they would want a neighbor on top of them; they wanted a chunk of land because that was their dream, and
they set up the proposed property lines together.
Rundle and Gagnon asked if the buyers might be willing to do an easement so that the land would remain
no more developed than what they are creating now. Mr. Martin said he and his wife have spoken about it,
but they need to do more research to learn all the implications. He and Gagnon exchanged emails for
further discussion. Rundle said he was trying to look down the road to see whether the property would be
protected in the future given that it might change hands; he noted the current owner was concerned about
that too. Rundle said he thought the UNA was more of an issue than the AHV zone given how Gagnon had
explained it. He wondered if there was a way to protect the UNA that would not be harmful to what the
applicant was trying to do. Gagnon said it was great that Mr. Nitchman had talked to the buyers about doing
the subdivision in an environmentally and aesthetically sensitive way, but there was nothing to protect the
property going forward.
Elana Maragni said she wished they had more of this information at their last meeting so they had more
time to digest the environmental implications. Rundle said they could defer to the November meeting, and
5
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Davis asked how the applicant would feel about that since he felt similarly to Maragni. Mr. Nitchman said
that would be a hardship because the buyers would like to close on November 1st. He said he was
surprised this issue had been glossed over at the previous meeting.
Scott Davis said he thought the threat was via surface runoff, and a natural buffer would help with this, so
he asked if the Board could dictate that part of the back portion of the property would remain a natural area
buffer. Scriber said she had also been considering the possibility of adding language to the approval to
provide protection. Czamanske said the Board could do this. He noted it would be easier to place a
condition and describe it if the feature the Board was trying to steer development away from was shown on
the plat. He said it would be costly to do a wetland delineation, so it did not need to be that, but mapped
data could be used to show something on the plan.
Bruce Richards said he shared Rundle’s concerns about the future, but he did not see anything in the
environmental concerns to deny the subdivision. He suggested picking a line, say 500’ off the back property
line, to act as a buffer for the UNA and the wetlands; if that could be defined quickly, it could be done at this
meeting. Mr. Nitchman said there is currently a buffer of alderbush as you get towards the wetlands, and
the new owners do not want to mow that out. He said he would be agreeable to the 500’ Richards
suggested or, say, staying 150’ away from the wetland line. He added that there was a natural portion
along the road, which could also be included. He said the surveyor overlayed where the wetlands are on
the map with a wavy line. Mr. Nitchman said that Sue Beeners, formerly Town Planner, had told him how
inaccurate the wetland maps are because of the scale they are drawn at. He added that the wetlands are
far away from the proposed housing location.
There was discussion of how to successfully and specifically apply a condition. Planner Czamanske
thought it best if it was shown on the plat and it would be hard to describe in words. He said the wetland
line on the survey did not necessarily align with the mapping from other agencies. Only the surveyor could
edit the plat. He thought that the final plat should be in front of the Planning Board before they granted
approval. Kim Nitchman emphasized that the wetlands were already shown on the plat.
Elana Maragni asked about approving the subdivision with site plan review for future development; Planner
Czamanske recommended against this based on some communications from the Town Attorney. Ted
Crane said the subdivision regulations say the submission should include a map with wetlands shown on it.
He thought if an application met the subdivision requirements, it was by right. Katharine Hunter said the
discussion showed a problem the Town has been trying to address and down the road they would not want
to come back and say, “Why didn’t we, why didn’t we…” Rundle brought up the idea of not wanting to
regret a decision made in haste due to time pressure.
The logistics of adding a condition like a no-build zone in the back were further discussed. Gagnon said the
wetland is protected by nature of being a wetland. Richards said that if that was the case, maybe they did
not need to incorporate that into their resolution. Davis thought a buffer was essential and did not need to
be exact. Maragni said she was not an expert to say how runoff would occur, and she felt out of her depth
6
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
about the size and location of a buffer. She thought they would be estimating or guessing, and it seemed a
little arbitrary. She said she felt happy knowing there were wetland protections in place and with the
assurances from the landowner and future owner that the land would be treated respectfully; she felt like it
would be hard to accomplish more at this meeting. Scriber said she felt similarly, and this was informative
about what they should have noticed last time. She thought if writing something in would not accomplish
their goal, it would not make sense to do. Rundle agreed that he was not sure how they would draw a
meaningful and defensible line, although he thought Davis’ point about a buffer was good. Davis said he did
not disagree with everyone’s points, but he also thought that he would feel good about using the line on the
survey and imposing a liberal buffer.
Rundle asked Czamanske to comment, who said it was unfortunate the Board did not have more
information on this at their first meeting and that there were not more features shown on the plat, as
described by the subdivision regulations. He reemphasized that, from a process standpoint, the Board
should have the final plat before it before it considers final subdivision approval.
The Board went through the SEAF Part 1. For question #14, they felt both “wetland” and “early mid-
successional” needed to be checked. Regarding question #18, Mr. Martin said they were interested in
putting in a future pond; the Board did not feel this affected the answer of “no.”
MOTION: The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Moved by Scriber, seconded by Richards
The motion passed.
In favor: Davis, Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
Rundle said he wished they had more time on the application. Mr. Nitchman said his understanding from
Planner Czamanske was that this would be a straightforward process for a simple subdivision. Czamanske
apologized that he did not realize that this discussion had not yet occurred. Scriber asked about getting a
plat with the requirements fulfilled before the closing date because she still had questions but felt
uncomfortable with making it impossible for applicants; she asked about the possibility of a special meeting.
Czamanske said this was a possibility. Richards said he was ready to vote on just the issue of the
subdivision and made a motion to approve. He thought the surveyor had delineated the wetlands, although
they may disagree with it, and the needed information was there. He suggested discussing buffer zones if
the motion got voted down.
MOTION: Approve the subdivision as proposed and let the wetland regulations protect the wetlands
Moved by Richards, seconded by Maragni
The motion passed.
In favor: Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
Absent: Davis (due to a computer issue)
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
c) Review Sketch Plan Minor Subdivision
Location: 89 Layen Road,Tax parcel 8.-1-1.13
Zoning: Low Density (LD) Residential Zone
Applicant: Corrina Farbman
Proposal: Subdivide a 4+/-acre parcel into Parcel A(2+/-acres) that will retain the existing dwelling
and Parcel B(2+/-acres) for a proposed dwelling. The proposed new parcel would not meet the
frontage requirement of 200’and the remnant parcel would not meet the setback requirement of
50’, which would require the granting of two area variances by the BZA.
SEQR: Unlisted action, Planning Board Lead Agency
Ag District: Tompkins County Ag District #2
County 239 referral: pending
The applicant, Ms. Farbman, said the property in question is her parents, and she has been hoping to
afford housing in the area. Her parents are gifting her some land and she is trying to find a way to make it
work so she can put a house on the property.
Chair Rundle discussed the map and asked for clarity. The applicant explained that she was trying to leave
her parents with a conforming lot; “Option 2” would take more land away from them. She said she tried to
do as much measuring as she could on her own. She would like to put a double-wide on a basement
foundation lengthwise on the property.
Rundle asked about setbacks for the house. Planner Czamanske said the applicant will need a surveyor’s
plat, but that is expensive, so she was hoping to have an indication of whether it might be approvable or
not. He agreed it was difficult to determine anything definitive from the sketch. The applicant said she was
not aware of how detailed a sketch needed to be; she was hoping this would be enough to keep it moving it
on to the next step. Czamanske said she would at least need a measured drawing before it goes to the
BZA, although a survey would be better. He said it was at least possible to get a sense of what was being
proposed, and he asked the Board whether they had any comments or direction to the applicant and if they
wanted to make any comments to the BZA. Ms. Farbman said, if she has a month before the BZA, she
could prepare something with more information. She said her timeline is to have something done by
December or January. Czamanske said he had explained that it is at least a three-meeting process: a
Planning Board meeting, the BZA meeting, and then another Planning Board meeting with a public hearing.
It was agreed that Planner Czamanske would help the applicant to prepare a measured drawing for the
next meeting. This would show the setbacks, but it would be hard to show the areas. Scriber thought this
was a good plan. Richards wondered how likely this would be to be approved with all the existing
challenges, including area, road frontage, and setbacks; he wanted to be clear about the likelihood of
success and not lead Ms. Farbman on. He brought up the possibility of a special permit rather than a
subdivision, although that would not give Ms. Farbman title to her own property. Rundle said he also had
8
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
9
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
concerns, although he was sympathetic to what the applicant was trying to do. It was agreed to return to
the issue at the next meeting.
(7) OTHER BUSINESS
It was agreed to postpone this to the next meeting.
(8) PLANNING GROUP UPDATE
It was agreed to postpone this to the next meeting.
(9) SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE
It was agreed to postpone this to the next meeting.
(10) PLANNER’S REPORT
It was agreed to postpone this to the next meeting.
(11) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m.
___________________________________________
Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary
Planning Board Resolution #20 of 2020, SPP-2020-03/SPR-2020-03
Town of Danby
Planning Board Resolution Number 20 of 2020
October 20, 2020
Approval, Special Permit SPP-2020-03/Site Plan SPR-2020-03
133 Jersey Hill Road, Tax Parcel 8.-1-4.2
Zoning: Low Density Residential District (LD)
1. Whereas an application for a Special Permit has been submitted for the property at 133 Jersey Hill Rd,
tax parcel 8.-1-4.2. The proposed project is to establish a second dwelling on the 56 +/- acre parcel by
converting approximately 480 sf of an existing 1200 sf the barn into a single family dwelling. The
remaining approximately 720 sf of the barn will continue to be used for storage. A new well and septic
system will be installed. The existing single family dwelling will remain. Per Zoning Ordinance 600-
3m, installation of a second dwelling unit in a separate building requires Special Permit approval in the
LD District; and
2. Whereas a site plan shall be submitted when applying for a special permit, per Zoning Ordinance
Section 801 and the site plan, when required, shall be approved per Zoning Ordinance Section 901-11;
and
3. Whereas legal notice was published and adjacent property owners within 500 feet notified in
accordance with the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance, Section 904; and
4. Whereas the Planning Board held the required Public Hearing on 10/20/2020; and
5. Whereas per the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (6 CRR-NY 617.5(c)(11)), as well
as Local Law #2 of 1991, Section VI (Providing for Environmental Review in the Town of Danby), this
project is a Type II Action and no further environmental review is required; and
6. Whereas the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability reviewed this proposal per
the requirements of Section 239 of New York State General Municipal Law and found the proposal has
no negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts; and
7. Whereas the provision of water and the onsite treatment of waste water is subject to review and
approval by the Tompkins County Health Department; and
8. Whereas the Planning Board carefully reviewed the submitted Site Plan as well as the 12 Special
Permit considerations per Zoning Ordinance Sections 901 and 902; and
9. Whereas the Planning Board finds the proposed Site Plan adequate for the partial barn conversion to a
single family dwelling and the finds the project meets the 12 requirements for granting a Special
Permit.
10. Now Therefore, be it Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board does hereby approve the Site
Plan and grant a Special Permit for the property at 133 Jersey Hill Rd, tax parcel 8.-1-4.2.
Approved October 20, 2020
________________________________________
James R. Rundle, Chairperson