Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-15 Planning Board Minutes (Draft)1 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting March 15, 2022 DRAFT PRESENT: Ed Bergman Collen Cowan Scott Davis Kelly Maher Jamie Vanucchi Jody Scriber (Chair) ABSENT: Elana Maragni OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member) Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public John Barradas, Doug Bayer, Jake Colbert, Mark Constas, Ted Crane, Joan Curtiss, Rich Curtiss, Barbara Miller Fox, Thresa Gibian, Marty Gold, Katharine Hunter (Town Board member), Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Guillermo Metz, Wendy Millroy, Greg Norkus, Kathleen Norkus, Anthony Panebianco, Ronda Roaring, Barbara Romano, Peter Romano, Joe Schwartz, Doreen Turk, Amanda Walts, Jonathon Zisk This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:02 p.m. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Barbara Romano said that she had submitted an email to the Planning Board regarding the 121 Durfee Hill Rd. case that had attached a petition to keep Durfee Hill a rural neighborhood. The petition had 36 signatures representing 24 properties out of the 29 homes on the road. She read the email aloud and noted 2 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES that the petition articulates six concerns and asks for them to be addressed. Ms. Romano also said that in circulating the petition some residents asked for a return to in-person meetings. Ronda Roaring said, regarding the 108 Marsh Rd. case, it would have been nice if the Norkus’ had offered to put a conservation easement on their property before coming for subdivision. Regarding the Rauch property, the 158 Peter Rd. case, she said that it borders a former quarry in the State forest that is a known toxic waste dump. She said the quarry site is elevated above the Rauch property with water running towards the property, and she emphasized the persistence and toxicity of lead. Marty Gold (105 Durfee Hill Rd.) brought attention to some perceived errors and misrepresentations in Planner West’s March 8th memo regarding the Durfee Hill Rd. case. She said it is not yet clear how much deforestation will take place, there is not adequate spacing between the proposed septic system and their existing well due to mitigating factors including the presence of fractured shale and changes to runoff, and there are not currently well problems or flooding on their property so the potential for harm directly arises from the project rather than preexisting conditions. She added that it is misleading to say the Planning Board is dealing with the landowner’s property rights not the neighbors’ as it also states that allowable uses do take into account the harm and impact a project can have on a neighbor’s property —development in Rural 1 is intended to be limited and requires additional review, which requires the Planning Board to take a more holistic view. She said her final concern was that it is considered acceptable practice that, as a direct result of development, a neighboring property owner is considered responsible for making expensive renovations. The process has helped building on a lot that was never intended to be developed while minimizing the rights and wellbeing of neighbors. She asked that the Planning Board embrace the intent of the zoning, not just the technicalities, to preserve the quality and character of life in Danby. Leslie Connors (Town Board member) clarified that there would be a public hearing later in the meeting on the Durfee Hill Rd. case. Guillermo Metz said, regarding Durfee Hill Rd., the site was clearly never meant to be built on, and certainly not to the extent that is being proposed. Studies checking on water and septic should really be required before anything is moved further. Ted Crane said the building on Durfee Hill Rd. is interesting architecturally, but the point is that this is Rural 1, which is supposed to be a rural area; it was not considered that someone would want to build on such a small plot of land. When the zoning was recently revised, there was no effort made to bench check whether problems like this could happen. The house might be great somewhere else, but if you can build it on this site in Rural 1, you can build it anywhere in Rural 1. He added that only the rules can protect neighbors; without rules that prevent the house being there, it has a right to be there. That makes it an uphill battle for the neighbors whose quality of life is affected by the building of a new house on such a small plot . He said that participating town government is very important, and for those who did not participate in the zoning revision process, while this is not their fault, they opened themselves up to problems like this. 3 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Planner West noted that the new zoning has imposed more restrictions on the site than were there before. He said all zoning the Town has ever had has to allow development on any existing lot because that is a constitutional guarantee; any zoning that did not include that would be unconstitutional. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the February 15th minutes Moved by Cowan, seconded by Maher The motion passed. In favor: Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber Absent: Bergman (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Leslie Connors, Town Board Liaison, shared the following information: • She encouraged Planning Board members to get involved with the work to make additional changes to the zoning on issues that still need to be addressed. • Danby is organizing a Youth Commission and applications are being accepted. • Website work is going to be happening and feedback can be submitted to Janice Adelman (Town Clerk), Sarah Schnabel (Town Board member), or Katharine Hunter (Town Board member). • The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has a program called “Buffer in a Bag” where if you have 50’ of frontage along a stream you can get trees to plant along it. She is willing to help anyone who would like to do that. (https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/77710.html#Bag) (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB-2022-01 108 Marsh Rd. Parcel: 12.-1-5.7 & 12.-1-5.8 Applicant: Gregory and Kathleen Norkus Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review, Schedule Public Hearing, Declare Lead Agency Zone: Rural 2 SEQR Type: Unlisted Proposal: Applicant would like to subdivide off and sell one approx. two acre lot. To do so, applicant must combine their two adjacent lots into a parent lot and resubdivide using cluster subdivision; three lots will be created. Applicant’s description 4 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Greg Norkus explained that they have someone interested in buying two or three acres that front on Hornbrook Rd. that a home would be built on. They have submitted a sketch showing a subdivision into three parcels: one would be the two or three-acre parcel, (the second one would have their house), and the third and southernmost is their wood lot, where they are considering a conservation easement. He said they have no plans for further subdivision or building on the property. Board Questions and Discussion Planner West shared a map of the proposed subdivision and the existing parcels. He said the applicant will need to combine two lots first and then use the cluster subdivision provision to have enough land area to do the subdivision. The draft resource map shows there are not any resources on the parcel with the proposed development, although there is more going on farther south on the property. In response to a question from Davis, West said the cluster subdivision would allow the Planning Board to a pprove one lot that is smaller than ten acres by looking at average density. The other two lots will be much larger than what is required so there is not a “cluster” in the sense of several small lots and one large lot. He added that the cluster provision allows the Board to waive requirements like setbacks, frontage, or lot size as long as the total number of lots is the same or less as what you can get through a conventional subdivision. Davis confirmed that because they have just over 40 acres, they would in theory be able to do four lots total. Kelly Maher asked where the existing septic and well are, and Mr. Norkus said the well is northwest of their house and the septic is to the south; both will be on the parcel with their home. MOTION: Schedule a public hearing for the April 19 th meeting Moved by Bergman, seconded by Davis The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber MOTION: Declare the Planning Board lead agency Moved by Maher, seconded by Cowan The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber SPR-2022-02 158 Peter Rd. Parcel: 22.-1-28 Applicant: Brad and Aleshia Rauch Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review, Schedule Public Hearing, SEQR Classification Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Type II Proposal: Applicant proposes to build a house in the Rural 1 zone where SPR is required under Section 601. 5 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Applicant’s Description As the applicant was not present, Planner West showed the site plan. He said this is a Type II action with regard to the State Environmental Quality and Review Act (SEQR) and no further action is required . He explained that generally an application for a single-family home on a lot would not be subject to site plan review, but with the new zoning, in Rural 1, single-family homes must go through this process with a set of criteria for review. He said the lot is large, has large setbacks, and the nearest house is not close. The site plan is dimensionally accurate and shows the proposed house location, a potential area for clearing for geothermal and septic, and a long driveway. He said the applicant had talked with him and the Town Supervisor about the possibility of a shorter driveway off Travor Rd. to minimize the environmental impacts, but Travor Rd. is seasonal and would then require more maintenance. Board Questions and Discussion Scott Davis asked whether they would be burying a cable along the length of the driveway for electric; Planner West said he would ask the applicant to include that information. Davis asked if they should now always be saying something about retention of trees, and West said anyone on a lot in the Town can clearcut their lot. If the Board was reviewing a site plan and there was a substantial need for a buffer, the Board could require that if they specifically tied it to a potential impact. Davis gave the example that they could ask the applicant to retain the trees along Peter Rd., and West said if it was tied to the site plan criteria of protecting views of the house that could be reasonable. Chair Scriber noted that the parcel is large without substantial visual impacts on surrounding properties. Kelly Maher asked about the neighboring State forest, and West said it is to the north and to the west across Travor Rd. Ms. Roaring added that the quarry is just beyond the northwest corner of the property. Maher also asked about the Board’s ability to require no-build and restricted build areas, and West said that is for major subdivision (three or more lots created), but the Board could ask that the development be moved to a different part of the parcel. In general, the Board can address where and how development is organized and situated on the site. Chair Scriber asked if the Board would need to consider anything regarding the potential geothermal, and West said the applicant would have to file a ground disturbance form if the disturbance was over half an acre, but most geothermal is way less than that. MOTION: Schedule a public hearing for the April 19 th meeting Moved by Bergman, seconded by Cowan The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber SUP-2021-03 1360 Coddington Rd. Parcel: 6.-1-3.31 6 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Applicant: Mark Constas/Wendy Millroy Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval Zone: Rural 2 (note correction from Rural 1) SEQR Type: Type II Proposal: Applicants would like to put a second dwelling (retirement home) on the lot. Due to a condition from a 1992 BZA variance, this was not allowed. Applicant has been granted an amendment of the variance conditions by the BZA and is returning to the PB for consideration of a special permit. Applicant’s Description Mark Constas said they came before the Planning Board in December 2021, but they had to be redirected to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Now they are back before the Planning Board and proposing to put a small second home for their retirement. It has substantial setbacks from all property lines and minimal visual impact. They will be using the existing driveway and extending it to the proposed dwelling and not clearing additional trees. Planner’s Description Planner West showed the proposed house, well, and septic on the site plan. He gave a history of the lot, explaining that in 1992 when the parcel was carved out the parent lot to the south, it was given a variance for road frontage with the condition that there would not be more than one house on the 9.3 -acre lot, in part because the parent lot had a nonconforming four-unit house on it. The current BZA amended the 1992 variance to change the conditions. The new conditions are that there not be a new curb cut and that any house maintains the small size and approximate location of what is being proposed. He noted that this project is the last being considered under the old zoning, which did allow two dwellings on a lot (by special permit). Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 8:02 p.m. Thresa Gibian said she had written a letter, which the Planning Board had received via email. She said she wanted to clarify some misleading statements being made. The lot is 9.3 acres, not ten. It was carved out of a parent parcel with the original 1880s farmhouse, which is now owned by the Gibians. She said in the new zoning only one dwelling or a duplex is allowed. She said the current house did not exist when the lot was carved out, which may have been why the variance was misfiled. The house was built in 1995 and the Constas-Millroy family moved in in 2003. She said they have put in a substantial addition and sensible retirement-home improvements and questioned the need for a second home. She asked whether they could carve out a second dwelling within the existing home. She wondered if they needed a fire truck turnaround being so far from the main road. Based on the comprehensive plan, the current zoning, and being surrounded by Rural 1, she asked that the Board deny the special permit for the construction of a second dwelling. 7 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Constas said that a lot of Ms. Gibian’s perspective was based on personal preference rather than the actual law and regulation. He felt how they choose to live in their retirement and make use of their dwelling was their choice and not the province of a neighbor. He said they do have turnaround room currently available for propane trucks. The public hearing was closed at 8:09 p.m. Board Discussion Kelly Maher said that when she drove by the site it did seem to overlook many properties and thought the Board should discuss buffering requirements. Planner West showed an aerial view. He did not think the proposed house would be very visible due to the topography and existing buffering. Maher thought it was not greatly buffered from the road or the cluster of houses to the north and suggested reinforcing the existing buffer with year-round buffer. Ms. Millroy said that on each side of the proposed house there is a copse of tall, old maple trees. She thought the area that made the most sense to buffer was on the slanted part of the northern property line and said they were interested in doing that anyways because they do not want to see the road. There is a stream there and they are interested in the “Buffer in a Bag” program mentioned earlier. After the discussion, Maher said she was comfortable with buffering not being a condition. Scott Davis asked about whether they would be clearing timber, and the applicant said no, they would not be. He added that they would happily plant more trees if view from the road was the offending element. Ed Bergman said the lighting would likely be more noticeable and important than putting up trees. Davis thought this was sensible and not a large burden on the homeowners. Planner West asked if the applicants were aware of dark-sky-compliant lighting, which they were not; West explained that light fixtures have shields so light goes down rather than shooting up or out. Colleen Cowan said she went up the driveway, although not to the proposed site, and thought it felt pretty secluded and unlikely to impede the neighbors’ sights. Planner West reinforced that the Board was considering this under the old rules in which this lot was Low Density Residential, which allowed a second primary structure on a parcel. The new zoning will be the Rural 2 zone. MOTION: Approve with condition (as written in attached form) Moved by Bergman, seconded by Davis The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber SPR-2022-01 121 Durfee Hill Rd. 8 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Parcel: 11-1-6.4 Applicant: John Barradas and Martha Walker Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Type II Proposal: Applicant proposes building a 2.5-story 22’x22’ house and a 30’x30’ garage/shop in the Rural 1 zone, both of which require site plan review under Section 601. The public hearing was opened at 8:26 p.m. Anthony Panebianco said he was an attorney representing Martine Gold and Douglas Bayer and Barbara and Peter Romano of 105 and 143 Durfee Hill Rd. respectively. He said they are requesting site plan review be denied, stating the reasons given in a letter he had submitted to the Board via email March 14, 2022. He emphasized that the Board is required under the Town’s bylaws to promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, and in Rural 1, which is intended to be more restrictive, to protect more sensitive resources and the long-term rural character. He felt none of these concerns were addressed, and the proposed project would be a significant detriment per these purposes. He said the Board had just considered lighting’s effect on neighboring properties in a previous case and should consider the impact on neighboring properties in this case as well, and specifically the nearby shallow well. He also emphasized that this is a 0.484-acre lot, 1/20th of the required size for the zone, and two behemoth structures are being proposed. He said a home occupation is permitted as incidental and accessory to the home, but the requested garage is for building and manufacturing projects, a business venture, and not incidental. He said the character of the proposed project is not in line with neighboring properties and said there was no environmental analysis of the impacts of the imported fill, deforestation, regrading, or leach field. Leslie Connors (116 Durfee Hill Rd.) said she was glad that at least the new zoning requires that site plan review happen. She read aloud that the Planning Board may require changes to the site plan to promote general health, safety, and welfare of the community, and the Board is “not limited to” the considerations laid out in Section 805. She said the house is as tall as zoning allows, with the height aided by trucked-in fill, and, while beautiful in the right setting, does not fit with the neighborhood. The barn is as tall as the house and has a larger footprint. She questioned what would happen in the barn, saying it sounded like fabrication of building panels, and said the driveway then needs to be big enough for truck access and the applicant mentioned the possibility of hoisting panels out. She thought the plans for the site and the impacts on neighbors should be clarified. She asked if it would be a home occupation and asked if the owner could rent and live elsewhere if that were the case. She said there is at least one well in the local cluster of houses that was impacted by the drilling of an adjacent property’s well. The woods are wet for most of the year, and she expressed concerns about additional activity like digging, drilling, and cutting trees on residents’ water supplies. Also, the incoming fill and change of topology in a water-saturated area is a concern in terms of runoff. She said that Danby has a local stormwater law that aims to minimize harm to 9 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES the environment and it is required for site plan review. She asked the Planning Board not to rush in their consideration. Planner West explained that anything with site plan review must comply with the stormwater law, but the stormwater law says projects with disturbance of less than half an acre do not require a SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) unless near a water body. Katharine Hunter said that, considering the concerns raised with the previous cases on the agenda, impact is important to the Board. She said that the applicant intends to put a lot of fill to make a hill out of a depression. She said she was concerned that this could cause significant issues with water diversion to other properties, and engineering may not predict that impact. The small lot size leaves little to no ability to adjust to unforeseen changes. She suggested not deciding this tonight. Joel Gagnon said he understood that the Planning Board asked the Health Department to look at the context of the septic system design and said he thought that ought to happen as the potential impact on the neighbor warrants a careful examination. In terms of minimizing visibility in this zone, he was concerned that the driveway is 18’ wide and said more buffering and less of a break in vegetation along the road would be beneficial. He added that the color of the building could be taken into consideration as a criterion for minimizing the visual impact as a receding color would be far less visible. Joe Schwartz (85 Durfee Hill Rd.) said Ms. Hunter and Ms. Connors covered most of what he wanted to say. He added that when he first got here in 1985 it was a dirt road with five houses. Since then, there has been stricter and stricter zoning to protect the rural character. This proposal is totally at odds with the spirit of the zoning ordinance and approving it would destroy a lot of the credibility of the Town’s laws. He felt it is so out of place and out of character. Barbara Miller Fox said she agreed with Mr. Schwartz. She moved there because of the rural character, which is very important to her, and she thought the zoning would maintain that. She could not imagine a business being on this street and said she was very much opposed and upset about this. She did not want the project to go forward if possible. The applicant, John Barradas, said it is difficult when folks are designing for someone els e. He felt that if he follows the rules, it should be okay. It is not a factory or a place for manufacturing or a place to sell; it is a place to experiment inside a garage/barn, and the reason for the enclosure is to not make noise. The most that would happen is a large pickup might come to see if panels can be carried. He added that it may come to a point that the barn does not get built for budgetary reasons. But design preference is not something that he felt should be required of him in a free society. He said that in the nearby area, there are accessory use buildings and barns. He intends to live in the house. He said this is site plan review for whether a building can be placed here. He is trying to not disturb the trees beyond the driveway. The well is in the front. The leach field is 110’ away from the north property, but the schematics require more testing when the grounds is good for it. 10 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Board member Davis said there was a collision between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. He felt this was such an egregious collision that it takes a lot of processing. He thought the quality-of-life impact on the neighbors was dramatic. He thought the Health Department absolutely should come out to look at the impact of the leach field on the neighboring well. Ted Crane said he agreed with many things that had already been said, even some from the applicant. He felt the project could be made to comply with the letter of the zoning, but it goes out of the spirit of what is intended in a rural zone. It is a right to build, but he encouraged the Board to put on conditions. He said he would love to see the building somewhere else. If you can build a building here on such a small space, you can build it anywhere, which makes the zoning ineffective. Rules need to be put in place to protect intent. Guillermo Metz said he appreciated the Board’s thoughts to table this to allow more comments. He said in other places that are not this rural zone, he supports infilling small lots. He felt that if the Town created a situation where this has to be grandfathered in because of the letter of the law, it seems there is something the Town failed to do. The notion of this project on this site seems out of the bounds of what is appropriate for the site and neighborhood. Peter Romano said they bought some land on Marsh Rd. a year ago that took a year plus of negotiations to parse out resulting in a 22-acre parcel of land adjacent to them having a very significant, constrictive conservation easement placed on it. Reasons given included it being part of nature, having wildlife trails, and being part of the continental divide in the watershed. That land is about 100’ away from this building project, and just last year the Town was very concerned about conservation and protecting the environment. It is not what the building is, it is allowing a building to go in there that takes away trees and disrupts water flow. The Board discussed leaving the public hearing open , closing it, or closing it and reopening it. MOTION: Close the public hearing for the night and advertise it and reopen it next month. Moved by Bergman, seconded by Maher The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber The public hearing was closed at 9:14 p.m. Planner West said the Board should let him know if there is information they would like to request from him or the applicant. Maher asked that this be put first under the next meeting’s development reviews. (6) PLANNER REPORT The Planner’s report was not given at this meeting. 11 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES (7) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary