Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-19 Planning Board Minutes1 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting April 19, 2022 DRAFT PRESENT: Ed Bergman Collen Cowan Scott Davis Elana Maragni Jamie Vanucchi Jody Scriber (Chair) ABSENT: Kelly Maher OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member) Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public John Barradas, Doug Bayer, Ted Crane, Barbara Miller Fox, Bill Fox, Julie Fox, Marty Gold, Dan Hoffman, Katharine Hunter (Town Board member), Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Mark Karlsen, Micaela Karlsen, Guillermo Metz, Greg Norkus, Anthony Panebianco, Brad Rauch, Ronda Roaring, Barbara Romano, Pete Romano, Peter Romano, Joe Schwartz, Doreen Turk, Bob Wallace, Amanda Walts, Ruthie Anne Wimsatt Jones, Jonathon Zisk, Tom, Anon1, Anon2 This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:01 p.m. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ronda Roaring thanked the volunteer members of the Planning Board who come prepared for their time and effort, saying it is an important job; she also asked those who do not do what it takes to be productive members to consider resigning. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES MOTION: Approve the March 15th minutes Moved by Cowan, seconded by Scriber The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Vanucchi, Scriber Abstain: Maragni Absent: Davis (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Leslie Connors, Town Board Liaison, shared the following information: • A public hearing on a proposed noise law will be at the May 18th Town Board meeting. A draft is on the Town’s website. • Danby still needs a couple more people for the Youth Commission, specifically somebody from West Danby, an employee of a school, and a youth aged 14 or over. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SPR-2022-01 121 Durfee Hill Rd. Parcel: 11-1-6.4 Applicant: John Barradas and Martha Walker Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Review Site Plan, 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. New documents: Updated site plan, four new analysis docs with contextual information, updated memo from Planner Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 7:11 p.m. Leslie Connors (116 Durfee Hill Rd.) said she lives across from the property in question. She said she had not seen a description of the amount of fill to be brought in and the potential change that might have on the topography of the lot. She said she had been told the neighboring well to the north is not downhill from the septic, but “downhill” might change with the addition of fill. Right now the area is a water-collecting basin. She also said site plan review for the Rural 1 zone offers some protection from what could be offensive development, and it is the size of this lot that makes almost any development offensive. 3 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Anthony Panebianco, representing the abutting neighbors Marty Gold, Doug Bayer, and the Romanos, said he had sent correspondence in which they asked for the recusal of Planner West, and he asked the request be addressed. West said there was nothing to recuse himself from because planners have no vote in approval or denial; he also said the grounds stated in the memo were absurd. Mr. Panebianco asked for confirmation that West wrote the email attached as Exhibit C, and West said he had. Mr. Panebianco reiterated that he felt West should be removed from the project. He went on to say that their concerns remain despite the changes and new site plans as the project is far outside the characteristics of the Rural 1 zone. He felt it would be a detriment to the community, as demonstrated by the submitted petition. He thought the applicant’s goal of building mock architectural experiments was outside the definition of home occupation. He said the Board is tasked with upholding the bylaws and standards of the zone, and the project is visually, aesthetically, and in terms of the home occupation outside those standards. Jonathon Zisk (116 Durfee Hill Rd.) read aloud the letter he had submitted in opposition to the project. He said he has spent much of his life studying environmental sciences and is very opposed to the construction. He emphasized that the Town’s regulation would not be a “taking” but rather within its rights, and it would be remiss not to significantly restrict the construction. He felt the slope, soil, hydrology, the rural character goal as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, and the great opposition by neighbors made the proposed development highly questionable. If more restrictions make the proposed project impossible, then the site it is ultimately inappropriate for the scale planned. Ronda Roaring (South Danby Rd.) said she was the plaintiff in Roaring v. Town of Danby in which the ruling of the judge was that the Town must have a zoning law that complies with the Comprehensive Plan to preserve the rural character of the Town. The current revision was done in order to attempt to make this happen. There is debate in the State legislature and courts as to whether or not an individual has a vested right to build. She did not think Mr. Barradas has a vested right to build and said he has to follow the new zoning law. Julie and Bill Fox (177 Durfee Hill Rd.) said they built their home in 2017 and there was a list of restrictions they had to follow including minimum acreage, minimum frontage, and setbacks. They wondered how the applicant could build such a massive house and garage on such a small piece of land and still comply with the zoning. They asked why some people have to follow the rules and stick to the zoning and others do not. Planner West said the proposed house meets all current zoning, including setbacks, and is an allowed use, but the lot is smaller than would now be allowed. He felt there had been some misinformation and gave the following corrections: the house is more than the 20’ required from the front of the lot and the garage is not 10’ from the side lot line. Marty Gold (105 Durfee Hill Rd.) said she wanted to share the series of events that explain how a small, vacant property came to be sold as a buildable lot. After delinquent taxes, the lot was reported to the County. The County asked the Town Planner if there were any concerns regarding zoning and strategic land use plans; none were given. Five months later the property was auctioned off and purchased by Mr. Barradas. They have asked to purchase the property, but Mr. Barradas is not interested. She felt the 4 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES process lacks safeguards for ensuring the interest of neighbors and the local community. She also said she has come to feel that her concerns are treated as a nuisance and not given equal concern. She said the proposal is an attempt to squeeze a house, workshop, well, septic system, and driveway onto a 0.48-acre parcel in the Rural 1 zone. There is not enough room to mitigate the impact on neighbors. It is now in the hands of the Planning Board to make sure the mistakes do not continue. Amanda Walts (103 Durfee Hill Rd.) said she wanted to echo what Ms. Gold said. She asked at what point the grandfathering in becomes absurd—in this case, it just doesn’t make sense. The rules everyone else have had to follow seem to have evaporated, which is an injustice, especially to the closest neighbors. She felt the Board really needed to consider the specific impacts of this particular project on this particular road in this particular area. Doug Bayer (105 Durfee Hill Rd.) said his and the neighbor’s understanding was that the lot could not be built upon based on the existing zoning regulations. He said he now understands that perhaps the previous owner would have had the right to build. But he felt the Town had an opportunity when it was asked if this land should have been sold again. He emphasized that you cannot understand the size or distance without being at the site. He showed a number of pictures of the site from his property. Barbara Romano (143 Durfee Hill Rd). said she was opposed to any building on 121 Durfee Hill Rd., which their property adjoins to, as the lot is less than half an acre and does not align with the character of Durfee Hill. She was disappointed that, given the many discussions around the Wimsatt division of property, one parcel of which they purchased, no alarm bells went off when this lot was moved to foreclosure. The Town had the opportunity then to think through more thoroughly how it was located in the Rural 1 zone and what that means. Ms. Romano also spoke on behalf of Rich and Joan Curtiss (29 Durfee Hill Rd.), reading what they had sent her for the meeting. They said they thoroughly supported a more thorough environmental impact evaluation on the proposed development. They highlighted the vision stated in the Comprehensive Plan and said the plan seems more suitable for a subdivision or non -rural landscape and does not conserve rural character. They felt the impact on the environment and neighbors was concerning. They added that the property seems to have a number of natural springs, which may result in water quality issues for neighbors, and there are many hemlocks on the lot. Pete Romano (143 Durfee Hill Rd). said the Board has been misled by omissions. The data that has been given does not give the full context. He said they have worked to inform and expand the Planning Board’s options (through their attorney, Mr. Panebianco) and have submitted a petition in opposition. The Durfee Hill neighborhood has rallied around the issue and demonstrated they care about their neighborhood, their surroundings, and the character of the road. The Planning Board should consider the surroundings, neighborhood character, and the impacts on the neighboring property. 5 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Guillermo Metz (103 Durfee Hill Rd.) said he wanted to reiterate a lot of the good points made. He said, while it would not impact him directly, he thought the direct impact to the neighbors seemed excessive. He thought trucking in that much gravel to make the site buildable seemed outrageous. The site is a wetland most of the year, not just seasonally, and he did not know what that would do to the hydrology. He felt the Town had the option to review the site and did not, and now it is the Town’s obligation to amend that mistake. Katharine Hunter (601 West King Rd.) said she had visited the site and wanted to support what Mr. Zisk had said, particularly the concern for the environment and the impact on the neighbors; the impacts affect more than just that one property. Joe Schwartz (85 Durfee Hill Rd.) said the proposal is totally out of character with the neighborhood and zoning. He said if he wanted to sell a building lot, it would have to be ten acres; to let a building go up on half an acre is just wrong. He agreed with Mr. Metz that mistakes had been made and the Town should take the time to correct them. Barbara Miller Fox (56 Durfee Hill Rd.) said she had bought a five-acre lot in the 1970s and needed more frontage than she had so she had to buy some to build. Given this, she said she did not understand the grandfathering in. Planner West said pretty much all zoning codes have a provision referred to as a constitutional safety valve. In Danby’s code, it is Section 505, which says that a lot that was previously buildable before the current code can be built on if the required setbacks can be met. This lot was created before there was any zoning by the Town’s creation of Durfee Hill Rd., and it was given a parcel number in the 1970s. He said he could not speak to her particular lot, but any lot that exists and was legally buildable in the past can have a home built on it today. John Barradas, the applicant, said there were heated discussions about the words “character” and “compliant to a code”. He said he is following the rules. Character is a problematic con dition where opinion becomes the rage. There were neighbors at the auction to bid on this property. His proposal is for a house that is 22’x22’, a small footprint. He said he wanted everyone to see the drawing, to see the plan, and to see what he is proposing. It is by no means outlandish . This is a compliant drawing for a property that has existed since 1977, and there are surveys as far back as 1988 showing it as a buildable lot. At the request of Chair Scriber, Planner West showed the most recent site plan. West pointed out the main features, a 22’x22’ house and 24‘x24’garage, the setbacks, the septic field, and the distance to the neighboring well. He said best practice is to have a septic field at least 100’ from a well, and this is 111’. The garage has been shrunk twice at the request of neighbors, and the locations of the house and septic system have been adjusted. He said the fill is shown on the elevation drawing, which would be about 4’. Originally the house was proposed further back, but in order to give as much room as possible to the neighbor’s house and well, it was moved down; the applicant has made an alternate site plan to show it further uphill if that would be better. The 6 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES driveway has also been shrunk. The applicant has proposed to leave most of the vegetation that does not need to be cleared for the house or septic. Ted Crane said he thought this was a bad match between the neighborhood and any house; it is a tiny lot in an area where there is decent spacing between houses. He thought any zoning that permits this kind of match is not good zoning. He also thought it was probably not consistent with Danby’s Comprehensive Plan. He said two earlier comments struck a chord with him: the exchange between Mr. Panebianco and Planner West and Ms. Roaring’s comment. Mr. Crane said he thought Planner West does play an outsized role in the proceedings. Not unique to this planner, West makes statements about what the Planning Board should do, and while West may be acting under good legal advice, Mr. Panebianco has come to a different conclusion. Regarding Ms. Roaring’s comments, the Board should have the training and understanding to not need guidance unless it has specific questions. He thought that for this issue, good reasons have been given why the proposal should be turned down or strongly mitigated, and the Board should identify the reason why this is an inappropriate application. The public hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m. Board Discussion Scott Davis said this was a vexing situation and he empathized with the comments made by the neighbors. He said he had spent some time talking with Guy Krogh, who often acts as the Town Attorney, although not formally assigned to this case, and had also read a document about site plan review and the extent to which a planning board can adjust a proposal. He felt a mistake was made in that the lot was not addressed during the zoning revision. Now, an owner of the lot has conformed to all the requirements, and the Planning Board does not have the power through site plan review to radically diminish his plan or to cancel it. If he thought there was a chance the Board could do something drastic that a judge would look favorably on, he would be in favor of giving that a try, but he did not believe they had that power. They can do tweaks. Possibly the Town Board could try to buy the lot, but the legality of even that may be questionable. Ed Bergman asked if when the County contacted the Town it would have been possible to take the building right off of the property. If so, possibly in the future that is something they could look at doing. Davis said in the case law provided by Mr. Panebianco, which did not seem to apply here, it seemed like it was possible to remove a building right in certain circumstances. Planner West said he wanted to be really clear that the County has to consider the greater good of the County in deciding to remove a parcel from an auction list. That requires a significant environmental issue, a parcel being ideal for conservation, or something that has a big impact to a lot of people. There is no world where the County would have withheld this parcel at the Town’s suggestion for being a small lot that someone could build on because that is not in the best interest of the taxpayers. It is the County’s decision, and they have specifically said that in a case where a private party like a neighbor would like an easier chance of getting a lot than it going to auction, it would be totally inappropriate for them to try to give 7 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES someone a leg up. Davis said some concerns were expressed about the process by which the lot was auctioned and asked if there was anything the County did that was not way it was supposed to be. West agreed there have been some complaints that the County did not do everything they should have, but they did do everything they are required to do, which is only to publish in the paper; everything else is a courtesy. Planner West added that it is not a bug in the code that you can develop existing lots. In any code that did not allow this, it would be considered a taking. Planner West said that the Board needs to focus on the site plan proposal and the owner’s application to the Board. Jamie Vanucchi said she, too, lives on Durfee Hill Rd. and is very sensitive to the neighbors and their concerns. From her perspective, she thought people think Planning Board members have more power than they do—they are bound by the law and have to stick to that. She felt the applicant had been very responsive to the Board’s questions and requests, and it was great to see neighbors working together to try to support their neighborhood. She asked about the septic system design, especially given that the lot is extremely wet, specifically whether there was a plan yet. Also, in terms of the vegetation preservation along the road, she noticed there were many ash trees, and she asked about planting additional trees since the ash would likely die very shortly. Mr. Barradas said the septic system will be a raised sand filter. It is possible to do a leach field for one bedroom that is 4’x40’, so for four bedrooms it is 16’x40’, and he shows it as 20’x40’. He cannot put trees there. He is including a buffer that will align with the north prope rty. Colleen Cowan confirmed that the septic system was designed by an engineer, and Mr. Barradas said it was. He said further tests need to be done after the lot is prepared and the weather is fa vorable. He said the field shown on the plan is conservative. Cowan echoed what Vanucchi said, also living nearby, and said she understood where the neighbors are coming from. She reiterated that the Board is limited to looking at the site plan. She suggested evergreens along the road in place of the ash and asked if Mr. Barradas was comfortable with that; he said he was, although he would need to find the right species. Chair Scriber asked the applicant about house color as the applicant had mentioned that previously. Mr. Barradas said it is going to be a darker brown color. Elana Maragni said she was really sympathetic and appreciated all the comments, especially of her fellow Board members, in this tricky situation. She said she was glad that as a Town they were working hard to prevent this from happening again through zoning and proactive thinking for the coming decades. She said she kept coming back to the size of the lot, which is very small, but if it was a ten-acre lot that was long and skinny and the landowner chose to put the house in the same place, this same situation could happen. She thought they were all on board with getting as much screening up as possible and exploring what else they could do to make it as good of an outcome as possible. Conditions 8 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Davis suggested conditions that the house color be earth tones and there is a buffer planted in the front. West said generally the Town doesn’t regulate home color, but if tied directly to mitigating an impact it could be okay, so Maragni suggested mentioning the garage color also. She also suggested a screen on all three sides of the property; this was discussed, and it was decided to only place a condition on the front of the parcel because Scriber thought some screening was existing on other sides and Vannuchi was concerned about ensuring a screen would be in good health. Because it was unclear what would grow, the Board decided not to limit the screen to being evergreen. Bergman mentioned dark sky compliant lighting. West also asked the Board to consider how conditions will be enforced. Davis brought up the two proposed sitings of the house. West explained that he had spoken to a neighbor who thought the Gold/Bayer household’s view might be more impacted with the house in the more-forward- on-the-lot configuration. Chair Scriber asked how that household felt, and Mr. Bayer said he would prefer as much screening as possible and was concerned with the septic field leading to the removal of vegetation. He said if the house is further back from the road, the house, leach bed, and DMATs would be closer to their property line. He thought there were more trees with the current configuration, and Scriber confirmed that he would prefer the drawing they looked at tonight. Vannuchi said she would feel better seeing the design of the leach field and if additional areas need to be preserved; currently it sounded like the applicant only had an idea of sizing. Planner West reviewed the Board’s process options. It was agreed to add a condition that the septic system be as shown, and if there is a change, the applicant would have to come back for further review. Davis asked what would happen if the Health Department denied the septic system, and West said a building permit could not be issued without the approval of a septic system. Cowan asked about conditions related to water runoff, for example making sure water goes into the ditch and not into the neighbor’s yard, as it is a very wet site. West mentioned that to address erosion concerns, the Board could require silt fencing for the duration of construction while there is loose fill on the site. Scriber thought that seemed reasonable. West said the Town does not have stormwater rules for disturbances under half an acre; because the project footprint is so small, the impact is considered minimal. Planner West noted that this is a Type II action for the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). He suggested making a finding of fact motion of the staff memo dated April 11, 2022, which the Board felt made sense. MOTION: Include the staff memo as a part of the decision and conditions Moved by Cowan, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maragni, Vanucchi, Scriber MOTION: Approve the site plan as presented with the conditions as listed in the Planning Board decision document (Res. 2 of 2022) Moved by Davis, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. 9 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maragni, Vanucchi, Scriber Davis noted for the record that Mr. Panebianco accused Planner West of acting as a broker, and he found that assertion to be totally specious after looking over the documentation. 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: Public Hearing, SEQR Determination, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval Zone: Rural 2 SEQR Type: Unlisted Proposal: Applicant would like to subdivide off and sell one approx. two acre lot. To d o so, applicant must combine their two adjacent lots into a parent lot and resubdivide using cluster subdivision; three lots will be created. Chair Scriber stated that she did not believe she had a conflict of interest, but she does know the applicants. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 9:15 p.m. Bob Wallace said he had no problem with Mr. Norkus selling the land next door to him, he was completely fine with it. He is on the corner of Marsh Rd. and Hornbrook Rd. Planner West explained that the Norkus’ are hoping to divide off a small piece of their parcel. They own two parcels, which they would like to combine and then sell parcel 1, keep parcel 2 with their home on it, and put a conservation easement on parcel 3. The Board could approve preliminary approval but not grant final approval as the applicants had not yet done a survey. West showed the plans and draft resource map; the no build and restricted build areas were not where development is proposed. West explained that the proposal uses the Town’s cluster subdivision ordinance, which allows for smaller lots than usual by clustering them; typically lots in the Rural 2 zone must be ten acres. In the new zoning, there is a buffering requirement to put new clusters 300’ away from nearby homes in Rural 2. In this case, the buffer would mean the new house would need to be back in the Norkus’ open field, which all the houses in the area look at. If the house is to stay near the road, the Planning Board could do one of two options: choose to waive the buffer requirement from existing houses, which should be done carefully, or include the neighbor in the cluster, in which case there would be no need to buffer from their house. Davis asked if the neighbor was willing to be included in a cluster, and Mr. Wallace said, “Sure.” Maragni said none of the houses in the area are in each others’ backyards, so it made more sense to her to situate the house close to the road. She said, if up to her, she would waive the requirement rather than lumping 10 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES another property into the cluster development. Mr. Norkus said he spoke with the adjacent neighbor to the west, who also did not object to the proposed house being within 300’ of his home. Ted Crane asked if there was a BZA path that would lead to the same effect so the Board would not need to waive anything. West said, yes, the Planning Board could deny a request to waive anything and the applicant could appeal to the BZA or the Board could suggest the applicant go straight to the BZA. Scriber said she agreed it was better for everybody to have the open field left open. The public hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m. Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor) said that this was the first instance of clustering under the new regulations that would be require the cluster to be located away from existing dwellings. It was distressing to be considering waiving it on the first instance, although he agreed that it did not make sense in this case. As a cautionary note, he hoped this would not be done repeatedly because it would undermine the rule. SEQR Review Planner West said this was an Unlisted Action under SEQR. He reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Part I with the Board and read aloud Part II. It was agreed that the answer was “no or small impact may occur” to all questions. MOTION: The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts . Moved by Bergman, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maragni, Vannuchi, Scriber Preliminary Approval Planner West said that granting preliminary approval to the proposed lot lines would be agreeing to waive or reduce the buffering requirement. He said the Board could ask the applicant to show the location of the proposed house. He said the BZA has a review process for granting a variance that uses a balancing test of the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood. The Board could send the case to the BZA saying that the requirement is there for a good reason and what the applicant is proposing is worse than following the buffer. Or the Planning Board could choose to modify the buffering requirement; in doing so, it would be saying that, rather than a detriment, it would actually be a benefit as proposed and the Board wants the applicant to do it that way. The Board chose the latter. MOTION: Grant preliminary approval of the draft resource map and subdivision plan and the applicant will come back with the full survey (Res. 3 of 2022) Moved by Bergman, seconded by Cowan The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maragni, Vanucchi, Scriber SPR-2022-02 158 Peter Rd. Parcel: 22.-1-28 11 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Applicant: Brad and Aleshia Rauch Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Review Site Plan, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval 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. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 9:41 p.m. Ronda Roaring said that this parcel infringes on Danby State Forest and abuts a known toxic waste site. She felt, for those two reasons, it was an inappropriate place to put a house. She thought the Town should stop allowing people to build on land bordering the state forest and should enforce a setback. She felt the applicant was infringing on the rural character of the Town. Katharine Hunter said she felt Ms. Roaring’s comments were inappropriate. She said Mr. Rauch was aware of the issues. She added that the Danby State Forest belongs to all of us, we all have access to it, and we can all use it. The public hearing was closed at 9:46 p.m. Planner West said this is being reviewed through site plan because it is in the Rural 1 zone. It is a very large lot with the house set back deep in the lot, far from any neighboring houses. It is compliant with all zoning parameters. It is a Type II action for SEQR. Davis asked how big the proposed house will be, and Mr. Rauch said it will be a two-bedroom ranch with a basement and walkout, between 1700 and 1800 sq. ft. max. It will have an attached garage. MOTION: Grant preliminary and final approval without conditions (Res. 4 of 2022) Moved by Davis, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maragni, Vannuchi, Scriber SUB-2022-02 256 Bruce Hill Rd. Parcel: 9.-1-1.1 Applicant: Mark and Micaela Karlsen Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Sketch Plan Conference, Declare Lead Agency, Set Public Hearing Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Unlisted Proposal: Applicants would like to put a four-unit cluster on an approx. 70-acre lot. As there is a requirement for a 600' buffer between a cluster and neighboring houses (se e Section 601-7e of the 12 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Zoning Law), a BZA variance would be needed. During Sketch Plan Conference, the Planning Board lets the applicant know their initial thoughts and what else should be shown prior to Preliminary Plat Review (see Article III of the Subdivision Regulations). Applicant’s Description The landowner, Dan Hoffman, said he bought the property 48 years ago . He gave a history of the property, which included the house catching fire and being damaged beyond repair. He noted that he also owns an adjacent 30-acre parcel in Newfield, so it really is a 100-acre property. The idea is to make it liveable for a small number of people and to use the new clustering concept to keep the buildings close together and to minimize the impact on open spaces and wooded areas. He said they hoping to be an example of how to use clustering successfully to protect natural resources. If the structures have to be further into the property, it will affect the character of the open land. Their intention is to put a conservation easement on all the property with an active use zone that would include the cluster. He would be a co-owner but would probably remain living in Ithaca. Micaela Karlsen showed a map with their proposed plan. She said they had envisioned all the buildings they could ever imagine building and described them. Number 3 is the existing burnt-out house, and they would like to preserve the option to build a smaller residence in its place. Number 1 is where they would like to build their future house. Number 2 would be a separate garage, and they may want to install an apartment over the garage. Number 5 is the proposed driveway. Number 4 is the existing barn site, and their plan is to repair and preserve the barn, and they may want to put an addition onto the back for horses. They also would like to preserve the option of having an apartment in the upper level of the barn. Number 6 would be a small workshop. She said one neighbor expressed some concern about the distance between their house and the cluster. To address that, she showed some pictures that showed the burnt-out house site is likely not visible from the neighbor’s house. Board Discussion Davis asked how many residences total that would be, and Ms. Karlsen said four. He asked what the neighbor’s house is less than 600’ away from, and Planner West said the existing burnt-out house is just over 400’, and the barn is just over 600’. Davis asked if the applicants would have the option to add three more residences in that cluster, given that they have a 70-acre parcel. West said the lot size is such that it would allow that, but they would have to come back for subdivision approval, and the conservation easement they are offering may limit it. Ms. Karlsen emphasized that this is the maximum they would be suggesting, and they would be happy to have a limit put on at four. Vannuchi asked about the protected forest zones. Mr. Hoffman said the conservation easement would probably cover the entire Danby parcel and the entire Newfield parcel. The names placed on the map are within the easement and based on a template the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) has for easements. Gagnon said that with the conservation easement, further development would be precluded. He felt that the most reasonable place to locate the cluster was where it is being proposed, despite the concern about waiving the requirement. 13 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Planner West said he did receive a comment from the closest neighbor, and it was not positive. They were opposed to anything less than 600’ and had concerns about transparency. He thought the neighbor might not allow access though his land on the existing driveway. Mr. Hoffman explained that where his driveway meets Bruce Hill Rd. is not on his property. He added that he has known this neighbor since the neighbor was twelve, and they have had a good relationship. He has apologized for not discussing it in more detail with him sooner, and it seemed like they may be able to work something out. West said that if the Board felt having less of a buffer made this a better project, it is within their purview to adjust that. Alternatively, they could say that this is the rule, and if the applicants want a variance, they should go to the BZA. Davis was initially inclined to send it to the BZA but to give the Planning Board’s blessing because the applicants are making the concession of four residences permanently rather than the seven allowed; he thought the net effect would be positive. Bergman thought it might be more official through the BZA, but they could set a public hearing and decide whether to send to the BZA or move forward at the next meeting. Maragni said she would like to put more thought into it, especially with making sure everything was on the level with the neighbor, so she thought forwarding it to the BZA now was appropriate. Vannuchi thought that in the last case it was much clearer that the development fit with the existing neighborhood. She appreciated that these landowners were willing to do a conservation easement and said she supports clustering, but given the neighbor’s current feelings and the possibility of Airbnb, she thought it needed a bigger conversation . Bergman said he thought it was better to be clustered and in the location suggested, but he also wanted to know the neighbor’s argument against it. West explained the different metrics each board weighs and described the timing considerations of sending the case to the BZA now versus sending it in a month. Davis then said he was inclined not to send it to the BZA because the project was a pretty good outcome—otherwise someone could buy the land, make a longer driveway, and put seven houses right in the middle. MOTION: Declare the Planning Board lead agency for SEQR and schedule a public hearing for the May 17th meeting Moved by Bergman, seconded by Vannuchi The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Vanucchi, Scriber Absent: Maragni (6) ANNEXATION REPORT ANNEX-2022-01 115 Marsh Rd. to 67 Marsh Rd. Parcel: 12.-1-5.21 Action: Administrative approval for annexation on April 4, 2022 Planner West noted that the above annexation had been processed. 14 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES (7) PLANNER REPORT Planner West asked if the Board wanted to schedule a special meeting on site at the Norbut solar farm project; this would be a public meeting with the goal of walking the site. All thought that was a good idea. (8) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary OFFICE USE ONLY Application No.: __________ Date Received by Municipal Clerk: _________ Planning Board DECISION At a meeting of the Planning Board on ______________________________, 20_____, the following motion was made _____________________________________________: (name of planning board member) I move that the Planning Board G deny Gapprove Gapprove with conditions (see below) the application for G Site Plan Review Approval GPreliminary Subdivision Approval GFinal Subdivision Approval GSpecial Use Permit Approval GOther ___________________________________ made by ___________________________________________________ (applicant name) for property located at _________________________________________ . (address / tax map number) Approval of this application is subject to the following conditions: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ G Additional conditions are attached. RECORD OF VOTE Chair Member Member Member Member MEMBER NAME ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ AYE NAY ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __________________________________________________________ Planning Board Chairperson (Date) 22 SPR-2022-01 That exterior lighting be dark sky compliant. That the proposed home and garage be a dark, earthtone color. That leachfield location and sizing comply with the site plan as proposed. April 19 Scott Davis Res 2 2022 John Barradas 121 Durfee Hill Rd. Parcel No. 11.-1-6.4 That silt fencing be installed before fill is brought on site and not removed until loose fill has been seeded and construction is complete That vegetation or evergreen screening be incorporated along the front of the parcel. Jody Scriber Ed Bergman Colleen Cowan Scott Davis Elana Maragni Jamie VanucchiMember Member OFFICE USE ONLY Application No.: __________ Date Received by Municipal Clerk: _________ Planning Board DECISION At a meeting of the Planning Board on ______________________________, 20_____, the following motion was made by _____________________________________________: (name of planning board member) I move that the Planning Board G deny Gapprove Gapprove with conditions (see below) the application for G Site Plan Review Approval GPreliminary Subdivision Approval GFinal Subdivision Approval GSpecial Use Permit Approval GOther ___________________________________ made by ___________________________________________________ (applicant name) for property located at _________________________________________ . (address / tax map number) Approval of this application is subject to the following conditions: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ G Additional conditions are attached. RECORD OF VOTE Chair Member Member Member Member MEMBER NAME ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ AYE NAY ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __________________________________________________________ Planning Board Chairperson (Date) Resolution No.: _________ Jody Scriber Ed Bergman Scott Davis Colleen Cowan Kelly Maher Elana Maragni Jamie Vanucchi 3 of 2022 SUB-2022-01 22April 19 Gregory and Kathleen Norkus 108 Marsh Rd., 12.-1-5.7 & 12.-1-5.8 Absent Ed Bergman Member Member OFFICE USE ONLY Application No.: __________ Date Received by Municipal Clerk: _________ Planning Board DECISION At a meeting of the Planning Board on ______________________________, 20_____, the following motion was made _____________________________________________: (name of planning board member) I move that the Planning Board G deny Gapprove Gapprove with conditions (see below) the application for G Site Plan Review Approval GPreliminary Subdivision Approval GFinal Subdivision Approval GSpecial Use Permit Approval GOther ___________________________________ made by ___________________________________________________ (applicant name) for property located at _________________________________________ . (address / tax map number) Approval of this application is subject to the following conditions: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ G Additional conditions are attached. RECORD MEMBER NAME OF VOTE Chair ______________________ Member ______________________ Member ______________________ Member ______________________ Member ______________________ AYE NAY ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __________________________________________________________ (Planning Board Chairperson)(Date) 22April 19 Res 4 2022 Scott Davis Brad Rauch 158 Peter Rd. SPR-2022-02 Jody Scriber Ed Bergman Colleen Cowan Scott Davis Elana Maragni Jamie Vanucchi Member Member ______________________ ______________________