Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-08 Town Board MinutesRoll Call : Town of Danby Town Board Regular First Monthly Board Meeting Monday, 8 March, 2021 at 7:00 PM via Zoom Video Conferencing Meeting Minutes Town Board Town Justices Town Planner Town Code Enforcement Officer Town Bookkeeper County Legislator Recording Secretary 1. Call to Order at 19:01 Joel Gagnon, Supervisor Leslie Connors Jim Holahan Sarah Schnabel Matt Ulinski Garry Huddle David West Steve Cortright Laura Shawley Dan Klein Janice R. Adelman, Town Clerk 2. Additions/Deletions to Agenda 2.1. Dan Klein County Legislator Report to Item 6.4. 2.2. Remove Item 10.2. WPV update 2.3. Remove Item 10.5. Stretch Code 2.4. Schnabel has questions around attorney fees in the general fund; remove Gen Fund warrant from consent agenda and place as Agenda Item 8. 3. Privilege of the Floor 3.1. Ted Crane spoke in opposition to pursuing the Open Development Area (ODA) and in favor of the previously proposed solution he offered during last week's special meeting. Like many people, Crane does not want to see the Deputron Hollow area developed, but if there must be development, he would like to see it done in a minimally invasive way. 3.2. Betsy Keokosky made a statement in support of a land -use moratorium, given the Planning Group and the subcommittees who are currently discussing changes and easements and zoning, and suggesting that in this transition period the town should halt any further action until decisions on these issues have been made. 3.3. Hayden Brainard, attorney representing the Wimsatt family in the current subdivision and ODA proceedings, said that he and his clients support the ODA and want to move forward. 3.4. Ronda Roaring spoke in response to Mr. Brainard's comments, noting that she and others have been asking for a moratorium for a number of years and is not a targeted action toward Brainard's clients; Roaring continued by stating that the town has serious problems with its zoning ordinance and previously sued the town to fix it. 3.5. Councilperson Schnabel reminded everyone that privilege of the floor is a time to address the Town Board and not any other attendees who are present. 4. Correspondence Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 4.1. Email 17 Feb 2021 re Planning Board 4.2. Letter 1 Mar 2021 re Ag District Contestation 4.3. Email 3 Mar 2021 re Howland Rd 5. Announcements 6. Reports 6.1. Code Enforcement Officer 6.2. Town Planner 6.2.1. Prior month focused on preparing the materials for the proposed moratorium, planning board approvals, and the water district operating policy. 6.2.2. This month West is beginning to issue letters of enforcement to four town properties, some of which have had a long history with the town. 6.2.3. Persuing the tax reduction for conservation easements, he met with staff from NY State Senator Peter Oberacker's office; Oberacker supports the initiative and will move forward the legislation proposed by the tax committee within the Planning Group and supported by the Town Board before West was hired. 6.2.4. Planning Group work continues with the conservation committee; Supervisor Gagnon brought a draft zoning proposal to start thinking about more restrictive zoning and some conservation focus areas. The Committee will continue to focus on improving and coming up with alternatives to this draft. 6.2.5. The Hamlet Group will be meeting this month where West will propose a first draft, at a conceptual level, of some zoning updates for the Hamlet. He is looking to fix a lot of issues where the zoning and subdivision laws don't match the comprehensive plan. 6.3. Town Clerk 6.4. County Legislator, Dan Klein 6.4.1. After the last meeting when Klein discussed his support for the vaccine registry being debated in the county legislature, the county initiated a waiting list for people seeking vaccines; 8,500 county residents signed up in the first week of its existence. 6.4.2. Danby will receive some amount of funding from the latest Federal stimulus bill for expenses associated with public health emergency and its negative public impacts. Exact amount to be determined; however, the Town should start brainstorming around how it can put the money to use. 6.4.3. Last August, Governor Cuomo called for a report by April 1, 2021 from every municipality with a police force under the Reimagining Public Safety Initiative. The report should offer plans as to how to reinvent or modify policing to address racial disparities. Tompkins County has spearheaded this initiative; the City of Ithaca spent many months with focus groups and consultants resulting in a draft report that is over 100 pages long covering a large number of recommendations. The County Legislature is actively looking at this report and its recommendations to decide a course of action moving forward by the April 1 deadline. Klein highlighted a few recommendations: 6.4.3.1. The first is controversial; to eliminate the Ithaca Police Department and replace it with a new agency that would be a combination of armed officers and unarmed officers (e.g., social workers). Klein identified two issues he sees with Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 2 of 12 Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 this recommendation: (1) Tompkins County does not oversee the Ithaca Police Department, so the county may not get to vote on it directly; and , (2) if County Legislature does vote on it directly, Klein would not support that proposal as it seems like a misguided idea to him. 6.4.3.2. There are eighteen more recommendations in the report, many of which Klein believes are good ideas worth trying and would support. For example, having more social workers involved in emergency calls without the potential for sending unarmed people into dangerous situations. There are many instances where people who have specialized training in mental health and behavioral health might be able to accomplish things that the police don't want to be spending time doing. 6.4.3.3. Other recommendations involve better data collection to determine to what degree there is racial disparity in policing here and where we find it to see if it improves over time as we implement various practice changes. 6.4.3.4. The County Legislature will review and send recommendations to the State on the first as is required; those recommendations will not be greatly detailed but more of a goal to run toward. For example, one recommendation might be for increased police training around cultural sensitivity. This does not spell out what that looks like exactly yet because all of these recommendations together are too much to make final decisions on in the month that the County Legislature has remaining before submitting the report. Klein hopes to send the work as a whole and then continue spending time on it over the year to talk about how to accomplish these goals and what any changes will look like. In the meantime, Dan Klein and the County Legislature remain open to receiving feedback. 7. Approval of Consent Agenda 7.1. Warrants 7.1.1. Genera' Fend nbStFaet 5: V....,.h eFs 63 :75 fOF cow roc o� 7.1.2. Highway Fund Abstract 5: Vouchers 44-51 for $44,736.24 7.2. CAC Management Plans Councilperson Connors proposed an amendment, which was accepted by the mover as friendly, to remove the word "merely" the three times it appears in the document. Resolution 50 of 2021 To Approve Consent Agenda Moved By: Schnabel Seconded By: Connors Vote: Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 3 of 12 Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Gagnon X Resolution 50 approved. 8. General Fund Abstract 5: Vouchers 63-75 for $37,986.81 8.1. Councilperson Schnabel raised some concern around the amount of legal fees we were billed in January 2021, almost $17,000, when our annual budget line was set at $17,500. She anticipated that February's bill will be just as high if not higher. Schnabel wants to address this as well as address who has access to the town lawyer and whether they need to have approval from the Town Board prior to seeking said counsel. Schnabel acknowledges that the expenses are necessary, despite their enormity, given that the town is currently being sued. Would it be enough to start with the AOT attorneys with questions to save on time and money? 8.1.1. Councilperson Ulinski notes that the town attorney will be the one to represent us in court; attorneys may not always agree, so while it may be beneficial to ask AOT, ultimately, we still need to get the town attorney's response as someone representative of Danby with a lot of knowledge and wisdom. 8.1.2. Supervisor Gagnon sympathized with Schnabel's concern and suggested we address it in the next meeting agenda. Resolution 51 of 2021 To Approve General Fund Warrant Abstract 5 Moved By: Connors Seconded By: Holahan Vote: Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon X Resolution 51 approved. 9. Old Business 9.1. Correspondence Policy, Revised 9.1.1. Discussion focused on the scope of the policy as to whether it should address town -wide correspondence versus correspondence to the town board. 9.1.2. Additional discussion included what to do with anonymous correspondence, and whether and how correspondence is placed on Town Board meeting agendas. 9.1.3. The policy document was modified accordingly during the discussion. Resolution 52 of 2021 To Approve Correspondence Policy Moved By: Schnabel Seconded By: Connors Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 4 of 12 Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Vote: Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon X Resolution 52 approved. 9.2. Initiate Open Development Area (ODA) consideration and refer to Planning Board re Marsh Road property? Supervisor Gagnon introduced the item, noting that the special meeting held the week prior to allow the Board more time to be briefed on and review the situation regarding the Wimsatt property had occured. Gagnon brought the item back, suggesting that it would be a good thing for the town to do because it would allow access to the three lots in the proposed subdivision of the property by right of way, rather than requiring that there be road access — which would enable the existing driveway and a new driveway to be built in a way that's adequate for fire access but not require street specs. The rather important concern that was raised in the last Board Meeting was whether creating this mechanism would make it easier to subsequently subdivide the property because one wouldn't have to put in roads; one could just run driveways to additional lots. Gagnon clarified that he would not have proposed this consideration if the applicants had not been willing to combine the possibility of an ODA with a commitment to doing a conservation easement on the entire property which would limit the development to the limited number of dwellings based on discussions between the parties. The Buyer has indicated a willingness to limit himself to one single-family dwelling with a possibility to have an accessory dwelling. As such the town is not looking at multiple houses, but essentially one house. An ODA request could be part of an application by the sellers to the Planning Board; it would be reassuring to the sellers if an initiative that could originate with the Town Board actually came from the Town Board. Therefore, Gagnon asked the other members of the Town Board if they would be willing to do so. Resolution 53 of 2021 To Approve Initiation of Open Development Area Consideration Moved By: Gagnon Seconded By: Connors Councilperson Connors stated that she seconded the motion so that it could be discussed. The discussion on this topic was extensive, lasting about fifty (50) minutes. Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 5 of 12 Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 9.2.1. Several Town Board members believed that an application was necessary to initiate the discussion/consideration and thus felt that the Board didn't have the information they needed to make this decision. Several spoke about feeling like the Board was being asked to push something through without concrete things from an application to talk about. 9.2.1.1. Clarification: the action before the Board was not to actually create the open development area, but rather to refer it to the Planning Board to consider the possibility. As Planner David West explained, there are two ways to get to an ODA consideration. One is that the requesting party submits an application. The other way is for the Town Board to proactively investigate the option for an ODA in a two step process: (1) The Town Board refers the concept to the Planning Board; and, (2) The Planning Board then deliberates and arrives at a set of criteria and requirements that they recommend be applied to the property and reports that back to the Town Board. The bottom line is that this action simply enables the Planning Board to start thinking about the option. What would come back to the Town Board from the Planning Board might very well be different from what was initially proposed. Another way to think of it is like a rezoning application where a landowner requests to rezone the land for a particular reason. On the flip side, a town can be proactive with the idea that something could be done better or with less impact or in some other way that is advantageous to the town. Many towns have such policies in place for addressing open development areas. The Town of Danby does not, likely because no one has thought about it before. This is part of New York State law that is available to property owners; many towns have an application to do this with a process in place. 9.2.1.2. Several Board members asked why the Planning Board can't refer it to the Town Board? Why does the Town Board have to jump through hoops and make this sprint right now? Some members acknowledged feeling like they are trying to push something through without an application. West explained that the way it is written in Town Law is that it starts at the Town Board who refers it to the Planning Board. The Planning Board considers all the details and authors a report with considerations, mitigating circumstances, and parameters to use for reviewing the application. With that it comes back to the Town Board for a decision. 9.2.1.3. Supervisor Gagnon suggested that the reason for the Town Board to initiate the consideration of an ODA is to enable the consideration as part of the proposal for how this property would be subdivided and what the legal framework for it would be; it reassures the sellers that the Town is serious about taking this route to approval by creating the context for what they would apply for. That is, that development limited to one dwelling on the eastern -most lot is an adequate level of development that the town in not trying to obstruct. This is still far less than what the owners are entitled to do; to minimize the environmental disruption of even that scale of development, the access by easement enables the driveways to suffice. If the position of the Town is going to be that it doesn't want anything there, Gagnon is not in agreement as he said he did not believe it to be a reasonable response and also a rather expensive position to take. Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 6 of 12 Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 9.2.2. Several Board members continued to express hesitation stating that the process is moving too fast without enough time to consider all of the details. Planner David West noted that should this consideration move forward, there will be two public hearings in the future. Moreover, doing the ODA consideration would be the most publicly open and transparent route to a decision, because the Town Board would be a party to the SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) process; it would be a joint SEAR between the Planning and Town Boards. 9.2.3. An additional concern raised was that the Town Board should not be making decisions for the landowner; rather, the landowner should make the application that makes sense to them. 9.2.3.1. Supervisor Gagnon stated that the landowners are willing to make concessions including considering a conservation easement which is a voluntary relinquishing of a landowner's development rights. On the 90 acre parcel in question, the landowners have an 18 lot development right. Because of the community discussion and response that four lots was too much, the buyer and the sellers have been willing to scale back any future development by an approval that would be the least cost to the sellers and the least disruptive to the environment. 9.2.3.2. Further discussion centered around timeliness and the timeline of the applicant submitting the request for an ODA consideration versus the Town Board initiating it. Planner West noted that having the applicant submit the application would slow the process down and would not offer additional information to the Town Board other than having the ODA consideration request come from the applicant. The Planning Board could not move on an application without the ODA because they'd be proposing something that's not allowed because they need the ODA or they have to build a public or private road; it is a stumbling block that would slow things down. Ultimately it's the Town Board's decision to make whether to approve an ODA or not. 9.2.4. Final details were discussed around the entire process of approving the resolution to consider an ODA. 9.2.4.1. Planner West explained that the way that this process is written is that the Town Board's consideration of an ODA is passed on to the Planning Board with a request that the Planning Board study the option. That culminates in a Planning Board report that addresses such important issues as what the town should be preserving; and what criteria should used to evaluate the site. Until going through this exploratory study process, it doesn't make sense to consider any proposals because the board hasn't decided what is important. 9.2.4.2. Theoretically, approving an ODA doesn't per se require the Planning Board to approve a subdivision. However, the Planning Board needs good reason for denying a subdivision and the landowner is currently well within their rights to subdivide 9.2.4.3. The public is able to weigh in on the matter during the Planning Board review and when it comes back to the Town Board. 9.2.4.4. Passing this resolution is not an assumed approval for either an ODA or a subdivision, it is genuinely seeking information from the Planning Board. Resolution 53: To request a report from the Planning Board on an ODA for the Marsh Road property with an opportunity for public comment in the process. Vote: Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 7 of 12 Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon X Resolution 53 approved. Resolution 54 of 2021 To Declare the Town Board Lead Agency in a Coordinated State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) in consideration of an ODA and subdivision of the Marsh Road property with CAC as an involved agency Moved By: Gagnon Seconded By: Ulinski West noted that if the Town Board didn't declare lead agency, we could wait to hear if the Planning Board would like to be lead agency; however, it makes more sense at the Town Board level because the public can connect more easily. That said, when you declare lead agency, you're not actually the lead until no one contests it. Vote: Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon X Resolution 54 approved. 9.3. Reschedule public hearing: Local Law to expand the pool of those eligible to serve as Deputy Highway Superintendent Resolution 55 of 2021 To Reschedule Public hearing to the 17th at 7pm Moved By: Gagnon Seconded By: Schnabel Vote: Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 8 of 12 Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Gagnon X Resolution 55 approved. 10. New Business 10.1. Consider moratorium on subdivisions to revise zoning and highway laws 10.1.1 Draft resolution to schedule public hearing Resolution 56 of 2021 To Schedule Public Hearing on March 17 for Consideration of Moratorium on Subdivisions Clarification that this is a moratorium on subdivision in the low -density zone; not a moratorium on construction. Discussion revolved around the anticipated timeline and work commitment from the Town Planner. Moved By: Gagnon Vote: Councilperson Aye Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon X Resolution 55 approved. Seconded By: Holahan No Abstain 10.1.2 Draft moratorium local law was reviewed and edited during the meeting. 10.3. Water District Operating Policy Resolution 57 of 2021 To Schedule Public Hearing on a Local Law that would adopt the Water District Operating Policy for April 12, 2021 at 7pm Moved By: Schnabel Seconded By: Connors Vote: Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon X Resolution 57 approved. Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 9 of 12 Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 10.4. Consider whether to comment on requested Danby property additions to Ag district 10.4.1. Gagnon began consideration by saying that if the Board can agree on what comments should contain, David has written a resolution that would include Board comments in a letter to the Ag & Farmland Protection Board 10.4.2. The Ag & Farmland Protection Board will review our comments in addition to the set of criteria they have for accepting additions into the area; they are not under any requirement to follow the town's urging., There is a willingness to listen, but ultimately, the County Legislature has the authority to make the final decision. There will be a public hearing at the County Legislature meeting, but not at the Ag & Farmland Protection Board. The Protection Board has already discussed this but agreed to delay making their formal recommendation to the county until they have heard from Danby. 10.4.3. Councilperson Schnabel requested clarification on additional protections that being in the Ag District would convey as opposed to the right to agricultural activities law. Planner West responded that being in an Ag district gives an agricultural operation the ability to file a complaint with Ag & Markets regarding restrictive zoning that is perceived to conflict with their right to operate; Ag & Markets has a lot of power to overrule town zoning, to force the town to change zoning, or to accept a use that it doesn't want if it meets the Ag & Markets definition of an agricultural operation. Currently, Danby doesn't have a separate Ag zone for things in Ag District which has created a difficultly in interpreting the zoning. West explained the utility in having a separate zone for things that are in the Ag District, where agriculture is defined using the Ag & Markets definition; then having a more strict definition of agricultural uses in other districts. The way zoning is interpreted now, the Planner has to treat all parcels the same whether they are in or out of the Ag District, even though it may not always be the case that the two parcels are the same. Ag & Markets offers more protection to larger scale operations which would afford a level of protection that is inconsistent with Danby's zoning. 10.4.4. Councilperson Ulinski conveyed his concern that the two properties currently under consideration for the Ag District had been in negotiations with Danby, with the parties being unhappy with the negotiated outcome thereby leading them to seek Ag Distrcit inclusion. 10.4.4.1. Supervisor Gagnon's concern, was that the definition of agriculture has evolved — things that would not previously have been considered agriculture now are, which can be tied to the unintended consequences of the Estate Winery Law. The expanded scope of agriculture is being used to expand into event venues, such as restaurants and other places that host musical events. 10.4.4.2. Further discussion continued around the location of the properties—e.g., one on a state road, the other in a small neighborhood. 10.4.5. Supervisor Gagnon brought Jason Leifer into the discussion as the attorney representing the new owner of the Howland Road property and the person the owners are planning on leasing the property to. Mr. Leifer offered to bring everyone Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 10 of 12 Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 up to speed on the owner's and lessee's perspectives. The next 30 minutes focused on discussion between Mr. Leifer, Jerry Myrick (the operating manager); and two neighbors on Howland Rd. Highlights included what the county considered the history of the property, and the neighbors' emphasis on the distrust and secrecy that has surrounded the operations on the property, as well as threats made toward the neighbors. Resolution 58 of 2021 To Show No Objection for the Cidery on State Road 96b Receiving Ag District Status Moved By: Gagnon Vote: Seconded By: Holahan Councilperson Aye No Absent Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon X Resolution 58 approved. Resolution 59 of 2021 To Object to the Howland Road Property's Inclusion in the Ag District. Resolved: to request that the Howland Road Property NOT Be Included in the Ag District this year in light of the history of industrial activity as previously conducted, with copies of the resolution sent to the following agencies: Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board; the Tompkins County Planning, Energy, and Environmental Quality Committee; and the Chair of the Tompkins County Legislature. Moved By: Gagnon Seconded By: Connors Vote: Councilperson Aye No Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski Gagnon X Resolution 59 approved. Absent X Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 11 of 12 Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Resolution 60 of 2021 To Direct the Town Planner to Prepare a Letter Summarizing the Town Board's comments on Ag District Additions Moved By: Gagnon Seconded By: Connors Vote: Councilperson Aye No Absent Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon X Resolution 60 approved. 11. Discussion of Next Meeting Agenda 11.1. Comment on re -imagining public safety before April 1 deadline. 12. Adjourn at 22:45 Submitted by Janice R. Adelman Town Clerk Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 12 of 12