Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-17 Planning Board Minutes (Draft)1 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting May 17, 2022 DRAFT PRESENT: Ed Bergman Collen Cowan Scott Davis Kelly Maher Elana Maragni Jamie Vanucchi Jody Scriber (Chair) OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Andy Cove, Bill Evans, Dan Hoffman, Katharine Hunter (Town Board member), Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor, Town Board member), Micaela Karlsen, Kim Nitchman, Russ Nitchman, Norbut Solar team (Austin Goodwin, Jon Stone, Norbut Solar), Ronda Roaring, Jennifer Streid-Mullen, Jeremy Thompson, John Vakiner, Anon1, Anon2 This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:02 p.m. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW Planner West said that a survey had not yet been received for 108 Marsh Rd., which was the item the Board was waiting on to consider final approval. He said the Board could remove the agenda item or do a conditional approval. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR No comments were made during privilege of the floor. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the April 19th minutes Moved by Vanucchi, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Vanucchi, Scriber 2 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Abstain: Maher, Maragni (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT As Leslie Connors, the Town Board Liaison, was absent, Town Board member Joel Gagnon shared the following information: • The Town Board has created a Youth Commission. • The Town Board is considering enacting the stretch energy code; there is a public hearing on June 7, 2022. • Agreements were approved with non-governmental organizations, as recommended by court directive and auditors. • The Town Board is considering a local law to allow remote attendance by board members. • The Norbut solar farm project is advancing. • A public hearing on a proposed noise law will be held at the May 18, 2022 Town Board meeting. It is a contentious issue that will likely generate some changes before being considered for passage. • The Town Board is considering revising the dog law in response to a recommendation from the SPCA that would allow for the deletion of the words “under voice control.” (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB-2022-03 88 Gunderman Rd. Parcel: 10.-1-1.34 Applicant: Jennifer Streid-Mullen Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review, Schedule Public Hearing, Declare Lead Agency Zone: Hamlet Neighborhood SEQR Type: Unlisted Proposal: Applicant would like to divide the property into an approx. 13-acre parcel fronting on Gunderman and a 33-acre parcel Applicant’s Description Jennifer Streid-Mullen said she would like to carve off the eastern 13 acres of her property, which is undeveloped and has road frontage on Gunderman Rd. The remainder of the property is 33 acres, has the existing house, and is currently up for sale. She plans to hold onto the 13-acre property and have it developed in the next 5–10 years. Board Discussion Planner West shared the survey with the Board, pointing out the subdivision line and that the parcel is a unique shape. He said the newly created lot is conforming and in the Hamlet Neighborhood zone. No Board members had questions. 3 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES MOTION: Schedule a public hearing for the June 21st meeting and declare the Planning Board lead agency (for SEQR) Moved by Maher, seconded by Cowan The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Vanucchi, Scriber 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 do so, applicant must combine their two adjacent lots into a parent lot and resubdivide using cluster subdivision; three lots will be created. New Documents: Survey (will be added to electronic folder when available) As the survey had not been received and no one from the project was at the meeting, Board member Bergman suggested waiting until the following meeting. No action was taken. SUB-2022-02 256 Bruce Hill Rd. Parcel: 9.-1-1.1 Applicant: Mark and Micaela Karlsen Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, SEQR Determination, Consider Buffer Requirement, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval of Cluster Subdivision and Site Plan 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 (see Section 601-7e of the 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). Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 7:17 p.m. Planner West said he had spoken to two neighbors. The closest neighbor, who was not able to attend, would like to recommend that the Board not approve any reduction from the required 600’ buffer requirement. The other neighbor he spoke with said they had no problem with the project. 4 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Joel Gagnon (Town Board member) said that, absent the clustering that is enabling the four units where proposed, the existing house could be located exactly where it is now without having to go before the Planning Board or BZA. He felt that the location where the houses are being proposed minimizes the adverse environmental impacts by minimizing the visual impact to the viewshed and maintaining the largest amount of useable agricultural land; therefore, he thought it was reasonable to entertain waiving the 600’ buffer requirement. Board member Bergman asked what actions had been taken to work with the closest neighbor. West said he believed there had been communications where the neighbor had suggested some ideas that would make him more comfortable, but these were not specifically mitigations of the impact. Katharine Hunter (Town Board member) said she was excited for the project but also heard the issue with the neighbor who is unhappy. She asked where the Fingerlakes Trail crosses Bruce Hill Rd., and this was explained. She said she hoped the project could be worked out since she liked the idea that people were thinking in this way. The public hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m. Applicant’s Description Dan Hoffman, the landowner, explained that he has owned the property for 48 years, has known the nearest neighbor since he was twelve, and has always allowed the neighbor to hunt on the property. He noted that when he bought the property and was living in the (now-burnt) house, the neighbor’s house was not there and he could see no houses from his porch—the neighbor chose to locate his house the 450’ from the existing house. Now the Karlsens would like to be co-owners and live on the property. He said they have all met with the neighbor and discussed the project. The neighbor would like to continue to hunt in the westerly edge of the Danby parcel. Mr. Hoffman said he would be willing to give a written lifetime right to hunt in that area, but he was not willing to subdivide and sell that area. He felt it was rare to have large parcels like this not subdivided and wanted it to remain an intact parcel. He thought the neighbor found most of the building sites acceptable but was concerned about where the existing, damaged house is. Mr. Hoffman noted that anything the Karlsens build at the house site would be smaller than the existing house. He added that the intention is to cluster the structures in an area that has already seen some development historically, which will preserve the splendid open feeling of the field. You would not see any buildings until you got close to that area. He said he was committed to continue having conversations with the neighbor and to continue a friendly relationship. Micaela Karlsen showed pictures from the porch of the existing house showing that you cannot see the neighbor’s house. She reiterated that the separation between the houses was set when the neighbor chose to build his house there. She said they love the property and are excited to protect it and keep it intact. Board Discussion 5 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Board member Davis wondered if the neighbor was aware that the parcel could be divided into seven ten- acre parcels with seven houses. Planner West said he had talked to the neighbor about how the proposal is less than the total allowed density. Davis said he felt there was such a strong case to be made for the proposal and that it could be the best situation for the neighbor, which could be explained further. West pointed out that the Karlsens’ and Mr. Hoffman’s property rights are not contingent on the neighbor’s agreement. Chair Scriber said it is an incredible view and piece of property and she felt this was a good use of it while leaving so much of it open. She felt this was positive over having a bunch of houses in there. Board member Cowan said that because there is so much vegetation and the curve of the road, it does not feel on top of the neighbor. Board member Maragni said that the original house was built right there. If the applicants were trying to move it closer than it is, there would be more to discuss, but they are using the existing footprint. She thought it was a good use of the property. As a nearby resident, she said she has wondered what would happen with the lot and feels excited for the project. Board member Bergman asked about site plan review for the existing house site before building as a protection for the neighbor. West said that in this zone site plan review is a requirement. The Board could consider the subdivision plan as the site plan, but it is more scant than most site plans; the Board can request any amount of detail they deem appropriate. Planner West asked the Karlsens if they had any building plans at this point. Micaela Karlsen said they did not as they are waiting to close before investing money in architectural plans. They would like to apply for permission with the Town and work out the details first. Board member Vanucchi said she wished the neighbor had attended the meeting as they were only hearing his views through others. She also said she would appreciate seeing a more fleshed out site plan review when the time comes. Board member Maher said she supported this, but having both this case and the Marsh Rd. case on the agenda (which both asked for reductions from the cluster subdivision buffer requirement) made her wary of where the 600’ number came from in the new zoning. Davis asked if the building locations are locked in at this point in the process. West said this is a subdivision, even though it is not dividing the lot, and any site plan should substantially comply with these locations. Davis said he was concerned about the worst-case scenario of someone else coming in and doing something very different than what is approved; he wanted to make sure the language was specific enough. Others agreed with being clear on that. West said the Board could make a condition of subdivision approval that site plan approval is required on the lot even if the rule for the zone changes. 6 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES 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 noted there was one box ticked, 12(b), asking, “Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory?” He said he contacted SHPO and the reason this is automatically checked yes is because there is a buffer along the stream valley where there were First Peoples communities. This does not take into account that the property is up a cliff, and SHPO was not concerned about the buffer touching the property. West read aloud Part II, and it was agreed that the answer was “no or small impact may occur” to all but one question: number 2, “Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land?”, was answered “moderate to large impact may occur.” The Board agreed this was mitigated by the clustering, vegetation, distance, and that two of the four are building sites are already existing. MOTION: The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Moved by Bergman, seconded by Maher The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Vannuchi, Scriber Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Planner West reviewed the Board’s action options. The Board agreed that they were comfortable granting final subdivision approval contingent on future buildings completing site plan review. Conditions The Board placed three conditions. To ensure that the future buildings would be as proposed, it was agreed that proposed buildings would be subject to site plan review and their locations would be in substantial compliance with the approved cluster subdivision plat. Sciber confirmed that the applicants could come before the Board again if something needs to be built differently. Vannuchi asked if the applicants would have the ability to develop more on the property in the future, and West said they have rights to six homes, but their proposal is to put a conservation easement on the property that would limit them to the four proposed. Davis felt strongly that only having four houses was one of the reasons he considered allowing a variance on the 600’ and that that should be the limit. Scriber confirmed that if they did not do a conservation easement they could come to the Board to amend their subdivision plat and put up more structures. Mr. Hoffman said his intention is to have a conservation easement and they are advanced in the concept already. Planner West said the conservation easement was considered in SEQR; if that changed, it would trigger reopening SEQR. He said it was good to consider an easement in terms of impacts but not to try to extract one unless it was a needed mitigation. Davis did not feel it was extraction. He said that when this was proposed, the applicant was asking for a waiver of the 600’ buffer, and there was clear language that there would be a conservation easement; he 7 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES was not willing to support the waiver without it. This was developed into a condition stating that the waiver was contingent upon the property being placed in a conservation easement as proposed in the application. MOTION: Pass Res. 5 of 2022 (granting preliminary and final approval with conditions) Moved by Bergman, seconded by Davis The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Vannuchi, Scriber SPR-2022-03 105 Beardsley Lane Parcel: 2.-1-9.22 Applicant: Jeremy Thompson Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review, Public Hearing, Consider approval of amended site plan Zone: Low Density Residential SEQR Type: Type II Proposal: Applicant would like to amend the site plan approved at the January 2020 meeting. Changes are proposed for landscaping, driveway, and drainage Planner West explained that he asked Mr. Thompson to come back before the Board because what he was constructing did not match the site plan West had on file. West advertised a public hearing because it had already been reviewed by the Board in the past; however, neighbors had only an abbreviated amount of notice. He said that, in reviewing the document history, he believes the Board approved Planner Haremza approving the final site plan and so the Board may not have all seen the final version. Applicant’s Description The applicant showed slides describing the changes he wanted to make around the house and in the farm pond area. He would like to move the parking area and make the driveway circular to improve accessibility; he had difficulty with the septic system and has finally passed final inspection, but it is moved from the original site plan; there is a net gain in trees but he would like to omit some in the front and where the septic field is. In terms of drainage, he is diverting water from the light pole; he wants a water feature in the middle of the circular driveway, which cannot drain into the DMAT; he is proposing a French drain under the driveway to drain into the neighborhood culvert; he needs drains around the house because the original site excavation was 9–12” too deep; the farm pond is pushed east; the berm is reduced in size and he would like the berm to divert into the farm pond. He noted the house does not have a garage attached. He wanted to get approval for the location of a detached accessory building, which would be a studio above a garage. He also wanted a big greenhouse next to the farm pond as another accessory structure. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 8:49 p.m. 8 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Andy Cove (111 Beardsley Lane) said he had sent a letter. He said one of his main concerns was that right now the site plan does not show the extent of the leach field in the southwest corner, which is quite an eyesore currently and should be properly stabilized and something done aesthetically. When the project was originally allowed through site plan review, there was a great deal of conversation about maximizing the buffer between the properties, including making the driveway so cars did not turn towards their house with headlights. He said he and the applicant had talked, and Mr. Thompson had proposed a fence. Mr. Thompson said he was willing to build a fence higher than six foot if allowed. Mr. Cove said he knew Mr. Thompson had done a lot of work to try to make the drainage work, but it is really important that no outflows come towards their property. He said he was concerned about the French drains leaving outflows on the west side of the property as there is a lot of slope in the street. Ronda Roaring said she had a number of concerns. Based on the mention of a farm pond she wondered if the applicant would be filing a Schedule F and running the operation as a farm. She said that if the applicant wanted to put fish in the farm pond, he should know that koi are a non-native invasive species that are not allowed to leave the pond alive as regulated by the DEC. She also hoped non-native invasive species would not be planted on the property and thought a fence could impede the flow of wildlife. She added that it looked a lot like someone was playing. John Vakiner (114 Beardsley Lane) said he lives across the street. He thought Ms. Roaring’s comment that it seemed like a playground was appropriate. Without offense meant, it has seemed like a make-it-up-as- you-go-along process with the plan changing several times, including significant changes to the septic system and the driveway, and the foundation being too low was a problem from the get-go. The public hearing was closed at 9:03 p.m. Board Discussion Davis said he was on the Board when the original site plan was proposed. The Board was specific about headlights not shining into the neighbor’s house. He thought they should take the neighbor’s concerns quite seriously; this is unsettling and the moving around of the septic field is equally disquieting. Bergman was also on the Board when the site plan was approved. He said it now feels and looks very different. He said he was not clear on the ask at this moment; the requested changes are unclear other than for the changes already made. He said it has been under construction for some time and it looks like there is more still to come. He felt for the neighbors as this is not what they had supported. He asked Planner West what the Board’s options were. Maragni said this came before the Board when she had just joined. She said she would not be able to make a decision at this meeting. She suggested re-opening the public hearing or talking about it again at the next meeting to absorb what they have learned. Maher added that some neighbors may not have gotten the notification and may have more opinions to add. 9 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Scriber said she needed time to sort out what was approved, what has happened, and what are “maybes.” She, too, had concerns for the neighbors. She asked for guidance in this situation where changes kept going on when it was not what they had approved. Planner West said he was disappointed to hear that there were things planned that are still not being shown in the drawings. He said he went through some rounds of discussions with the applicant, and it is a lot of changes. The main things he identified were the berm, the circular driveway, and removing approved trees. He also had stormwater concerns with the pond as the original drawings were stamped by an architect and the Town needs to know someone competent has said it will be okay. As a Planner, he could have issued a stop work order, but he thought it best for the applicant to come before the Planning Board. He thought the applicant understands that some of the things he has done that were not to plan are at risk and it is up to the Board to decide what is acceptable and what is not. He said the Board could give guidance as to what additional information and details they want to see for the following meeting. Maher asked for dimensions. Scriber suggested someone with expertise determine accessibility if the applicant truly wanted that. Bergman thought it would be best to have the changes made clear before another public hearing. He wanted to see a more detailed plan of what is happening, who designed it, what the specs are, and how does it compare to the original. Cowan said she was concerned if work continues without approval; this is a lot of disturbance to the landscape and that has consequences. She felt the applicant needs to stick to the original plan or have an organized presentation to the Board for discussion. Bergman said maybe it was time to do a stop work order. Davis said they needed to see the original plan, in scale, next to the extant development of the site, in scale, absent any development that is not crucial to the deliberations. He thought the stop work order seemed harsh, but it seemed appropriate for the situation. West said that a stop work order is within the Board’s rights. It would delay a certificate of occupancy, but the project is out of compliance with the site plan. He thought fixes like changes to the ditch and stabilization should continue, but the Board had been clear that any further changes should be stopped except for what the Board already approved. PUD-2021-01 Norbut Solar Farm Parcel: 10.-1-21.122 Applicant: Passero Associates Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Update on application, consider recommendation to Town Board on SEQR, consider comments on Site Plan. Proposal: Zoning change to PDZ that will allow three 5MW solar fields on a 111 acre parcel. New Documents: Full application package - additional changes are still expected Applicant’s Description Jon Stone of Norbut Solar gave a presentation. He described the most recent site plan changes, including the relocation of the point of interconnection (POI), a significant reduction to the third site, and the addition 10 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES of a northern harrier habitat management area. He said they have listened to comments from the Town’s engineers, residents, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and Tompkins County Soil and Water. They now have a substantially complete application. He elaborated on the changes: o The POI will now be behind Buttermilk Creek and roughly behind the Town Hall. o The project as designed now is not built on any wetlands on the site. Wetlands have been delineated by two companies, one a representative for Norbut Solar and one a representative for the Town, and a joint report has been agreed on. o The access road has been moved to the west to accommodate neighbors and allow for more natural screening as well as the path of the road being moved off of the southern border to maintain another vegetative buffer. o The most substantial change is with array three, which is now greatly reduced in size. This area will be reserved for habitat preservation and management; the change is a little over 20 acres. The total undeveloped area on the site is 54 acres. He said they would be quiet neighbors and are habitat-minded. Board Discussion Planner West said this will return to the Planning Board for site plan review as soon as the Town Board approves the planned development zone, which could be as soon as next month. They are no longer proposing subdivision. He mentioned that there had been a site visit with three Planning Board members. Bergman said there have been a lot of changes made for the Town, neighbors, and the environment that he appreciates. He felt the applicant had done everything that was asked of them so far and said he was in favor. Davis said he did the site walk and was very impressed with the changes and the general tone of cooperativeness. He was also pleased that Danby has a 50’ buffer from the watercourse there. He said the project had his full endorsement. Cowan agreed it looked good and was in favor. Being on the site visit, she found it isolated from the neighbors, and she hoped they would find it that way also. Maher, who had also attended the site visit, agreed. Scriber said the buffer for the neighbors was really positive. The fact that it is tucked back and won’t be very visible was great; she was in favor also. Vanucchi said she appreciated the sensitivity—it is hard to make this much solar this unobtrusive. She asked what the lifespan was and what happens after. In terms of screening, she said she did not get the tree species proposed as some were quite small, even shrubs, there were spaces in between, and arborvitae gets browsed by deer. She asked how the species were chosen and whether they would be open to changes. 11 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Stone said there is a base duration of about 25 years, at which point the solar panels have degraded to 80% of their original efficiency, but he thought 35 to 45 years. They do have a decommissioning plan and agreement with the Town. A bond will be set aside to allow for the removal of the arrays and for the site to be returned to preconstruction condition. He said they were open to modifying the types of trees. They are not selecting the final species now but are open to there being a condition of site plan review that the applicant be open to sharing a budget and allowing the Town to make some decisions on species and locations later in the process. Russ Nitchman, the current property owner, wondered why the road heads south and then west making a backwards ell rather than being more angular (on the diagonal), which would be less road and further from the neighbor. He said the company is doing a great job with the project. Planner West confirmed that the Board agreed with sending the message to the Town Board that the Planning Board is in support of the project moving forward and a finding of no or minimal impact. (6) PLANNER REPORT Planner West said he is bringing to the Town Board a proposal to add two parcels to the Hamlet Neighborhood zone on Bald Hill Rd. They are the first parcels over the current line dividing the Hamlet Neighborhood, and the owner wants to do cluster housing, so it may make sense to put them into this zone. A potential business asked for a review of the Commercial C zone, the least restrictive commercial zone. The Town currently has no light industrial allowed and a very strict definition of light industry. The Town Board will be considering whether the proposed use can be allowed in the Commercial C zone to allow the reuse of the Ithaca Auto warehouse as manufacturing. (7) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 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 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 SUB-2022-02 5 of 2022 May 17 22 Ed Bergman (second by Scott Davis) Mark and Micaela Karlsen 256 Bruce Hill Rd. 1. Proposed buildings are subject to site plan review. 2. Proposed building locations are in substantial compliance with approved cluster subdivision plat. 3. The Planning Board agrees to reduce the 600' cluster spacing requirement so long as the parcel is placed under conservation easement as proposed in the application. Member Member