Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-21 Planning Board Minutes (Draft)1 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2022 DRAFT PRESENT: Collen Cowan Scott Davis Kelly Maher Elana Maragni Jody Scriber (Chair) ABSENT: Ed Bergman Jamie Vanucchi OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Cosmo Alpern, Debbie Benson, Gary Bush, Andy Cove, Ted Crane, Cathy Darrow, Kevin Feeney, David Gould (Sunbeam Candles), Katharine Hunter (Town Board member), Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor, Town Board member), Charles Guttman, Martin Janda, David Kuo, Greg Nelson, Russ Nitchman, John Pfleiderer, Deborah Montgomery-Cove, Norbut Solar team (Austin Goodwin, Jon Stone, David Norbut), Ronda Roaring, Natalia Santamaría, Jennifer Streid-Mullen, Jeremy Thompson, John Vakiner, Ciele, Dennis, Robert, Anon1 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 Ronda Roaring said that, as relates to 127/129 Hornbrook Rd., she liked the idea and thought it would be good for Danby. Regarding the 240 Jersey Hill Rd. parcel, she talked positively about her own attached garage and asked the applicants and others to consider putting an attached garage with an apartment 2 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES rather than a cabin or other structures. Lastly, she asked for an explanation of why the applicant for the Norbut Solar application is listed as Passero Associates rather than Norbut Solar. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the May 17th minutes Moved by Cowan, seconded by Maher The motion passed. In favor: Cowan, Maher, Maragni, Scriber Absent: Davis (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT As Leslie Connors, the Town Board Liaison, was absent, Planner David West reported the following: • At their next meeting, the Town Board will be considering adding two parcels to the Hamlet Neighborhood that are on the edge of that zone. They will also be considering adding light industry as a use in the Commercial C zone, and Tompkins County has provided an opinion that they do not see any problem with this. (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: Consider 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 Planner West reviewed that the Board had previously granted preliminary approval with a sketch plan and had requested a survey, which the applicant has now provided. He showed the survey plat and said the applicants will be combining their two current parcels and dividing such that there will be one large parcel with a conservation easement and three parcels clustered, one of which they will be selling. Kelly Maher noted that parcels 2 and 3 are now separated. She said she was not concerned about this, but it was different than what she remembered. Scott Davis asked if a home could be built on parcel 3; it could. He also confirmed that if parcel 2 is sold, the conservation easement will stay with the deed. Elana Maragni pointed out that the road frontage of parcel 3 is only 67’, and Planner West said that is now allowed in the Rural 2 zone. West also explained 3 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES that it is the clustering that is allowing the lots to be less than ten acres each. He added that a conservation easement usually allows one house, so a house likely could be built on parcel 2, but there are wetlands shown on the adopted resource map that limit where it could go. The Board agreed to the condition that there be no future subdivisions. In response to a ques tion from Davis, West said that the applicants cannot currently subdivide further under the Town’s zoning, but the condition creates additional protection if there is a zoning change in the future. MOTION: Approve the subdivision at 108 Marsh Rd. (Res. 6 of 2022) Moved by Maragni, seconded by Cowan The motion passed. In favor: Cowan, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Scriber SUB-2022-03 88 Gunderman Rd. Parcel: 10.-1-1.34 Applicant: Jennifer Streid-Mullen Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, SEQR Determination, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval 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. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 7:23 p.m. David Kuo, a nearby landowner, asked for a brief description of the subdivision, which was given : the house is with the larger parcel, and 13 acres on the eastern side is being divided off. The public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. SEQR Review Planner West read aloud Part II, and it was agreed that the answer was “no or small impact may occur” to all questions. He pointed out that the 13-acre lot being created is in the Town’s Hamlet Neighborhood zone, where the Town would like to see development. While there is no current plan for development, it would be a good place for that in the future. In response to a question from Maher, West said that the Planning Board would see the lot again only if more than four units were being put on the parcel. MOTION: The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Moved by Maher, seconded by Cowan The motion passed. 4 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES In favor: Cowan, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Scriber MOTION: Grant final approval (Res. 7 of 2022) Moved by Maher, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. In favor: Cowan, Davis, Maher, Maragni, 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 . New Documents: Update Site Plan Planner West said there was a new site plan. He noted that the applicant was present along with some consultants. West said he was happy to see a site plan by an engineer listing how the pond and berm should be set up to safely and effectively deal with stormwater. Applicant’s Description The applicant did not have the ability to use audio, only to respond via the “Chat” function. Charles Guttman said he was an attorney working with Mr. Thompson. Gary Bush said he was the engineer who helped put the site plan together. Because the applicant was unable to speak, Planner West described some of the changes: a driveway end that is a T rather than an L, a fence along the driveway to the west, the addition of a circular driveway, the movement of the septic system, the removal of trees in the front to be replaced with shrubs and perennials, and the pond being slightly different in location and profile and approved by an engineer. Maher asked about the drainage concerns expressed at the last meeting. Mr. Bush explained that the slope of the site is predominantly to the north, not to the pond. He said that the berm the applicant is proposing will actually help intercept water from the road and redirect it to the road ditch and around to the north. The pond is fed only by a small area at the back of the property; the chance of the pond overflowing is virtually impossible. Still, they added extra height to the west, on the downhill side of the pond, to prevent any issue. He thought there was virtually no chance of water affecting the neighbors. Regarding the driveway, Mr. Bush said the original driveway did not offer any place to back up to turn around; the proposed hammerhead at the end allows for turnaround. As there was concern about headlights aiming into the neighbors’ house, they are proposing a fence long enough to prevent this. 5 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Bush said he had designed the septic system and been to the site to inspect it multiple times. He added that when a homeowner is doing the installation, he likes to make sure everything is done properly. T hey made a few corrections after settling, but the system now looks very good. Mr. Guttman added that the applicant had to make changes to the original site plan because when he got onto the land, some things just did not work. Davis pointed out that Mr. Thompson should have then come back to the Planning Board, and Mr. Guttman agreed. Mr. Guttman said this is costing more money and more delay, but the applicant is before the Board now. Mr. Bush added that that is a rookie mistake that people sometimes encounter when they are doing a lot of the work themselves. The Board had held a public hearing a t the previous meeting but chose to hold another at this meeting. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m. Andy Cove (111 Beardsley Lane) said the mound is very different than anything in anyone else’s yard on the street. The site plan says it will be seeded to grass, and he assumed it would be mowed. He was concerned about trees and wildflower areas being shown but not what will be done between the plantings. He asked about the plan to make it look neat and maintained going forward. He added that the parking situation has changed many times. On the first plan, all the parking was behind the house ; now there is parking available for four cars. He said he had been in conversation with Mr. Thompson about reducing the amount of parking and having just enough space to back up, but that is not shown. Everyone else has garages. Deborah Montgomery-Cove added that their bedrooms are on the side facing the applicant’s driveway. Regarding the drainage, Mr. Cove said he had been assured that no drainage would affect them, but he had concerns about the ditches and the water from 96B. Ted Crane shared what he remembered from the original public hearing when site approval was given. He said that the parking is now much bigger and there are other buildings planned for the future. He added that the trees already planted are a pleasure and break up the starkness of the landscape. But he thought the Board should nail down that there will be no further changes. He also felt that the application was replete with errors and typos. John Vakiner (114 Beardsley Lane) said he lives immediately across the street. He said Mr. Cove had expressed the majority of his concerns, but another is that the plan is actually executed according to what is approved. He wanted to know what Danby would be doing to ensure the drainage items are built according to the plan. Because the applicant, a novice, is doing much of the work, he worried that there would be no assurance that the plans, specifically the berm and drainage, would be built according to the engineered design. 6 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Dennis, also a resident of Beardsley Lane, questioned why the property would need four to six parking spaces if it is for a single-family home only. Mr. Guttman said the applicant is allowed one building with two dwelling units and cannot do anything that is not compliant with the zoning. Via Chat, Mr. Thompson said that it will be a single-family home with a mother-in-law apartment in one structure Mr. Guttman addressed some of the comments that had been made. He said that in the original subdivision approval for Beardsley Lane the lots on the highway required site plan approval and there was a lot of discussion around Lot 1 being for farm-type use. If the applicant does not construct it the way it is designed, he will not get a certificate of compliance. Regarding the vegetative planting maintenance, the Board has the ability to tell the applicant to replace trees. Regarding the amount of parking, having enough spaces keeps it neat and orderly in the case of guests. Ms. Montgomery-Cove felt the circular driveway could maintain cars; Mr. Guttman did not think that was designed as a parking area. He said the plans for this house were approved by the architectural committee in the restrictive covenant, and they did not require a garage. Mr. Bush thought trying to tell the applicant that he cannot park more cars in the driveway was perturbing and Mr. Thompson has the right to have people over. Mr. Cove felt cars did not need a separate parking area as opposed to parking in the driveway. Ted Crane asked that it be included in the minutes that Mr. Thompson had written via Chat that he was not explicitly intending to have parties, 10 cars, noise, or high traffic. He had also written that it would be built as Mr. Bush had drawn. The public hearing was closed at 8:07 p.m. Board Discussion Davis clarified that there is not a certificate of compliance but a certificate of occupancy (CO). West said that because the current site does not meet the adopted site plan, the applicant cannot get a CO. Davis said he wanted to make sure this site plan was not deviated from. He confirmed that the Board did not need to say anything explicitly to this effect because the assurances were built into the CO. He added that he appreciated the engineer’s explanation. Maher confirmed that no Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) was required because the area of disturbance was small. She felt the driveway seemed excessive but that it was within the applicant’s rights and at least he was proposing fencing to protect the neighbor. She also confirmed that the two additional structures were not shown on the original site plan but are allowed. Chair Scriber asked about the fence, and Mr. Bush said it was put in at the request of the neighbors. Mr. Guttman added that fences are allowed in the restrictive covenant if under six feet tall. Cowan said the applicant could consider losing the circular driveway. She said she understood the practicality of the rest of the driveway but that seemed over the top and more asphalt. The applicant said via chat that it would be limestone crush and run not asphalt. 7 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Secretary de Villiers asked whether the applicant would be allowed to make the driveway smaller if the site plan were approved as is. Planner West thought not fully filling out what was approved would not be an issue but a different driveway location would be. Mr. Bush thought building out the entire T at the end was necessary to make the driveway functional. It was discussed whether to put a condition that the plan must be built as specified, but it was decided that was implicit. MOTION: Approve the amended site plan (Res. 8 of 2022) Moved by Davis, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. In favor: Cowan, Davis, Maragni, Scriber Abstain: Maher SPR-2022-04 240 Jersey Hill Rd. Parcel: 8.-19-2 Applicant: Cosmo Alpern Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review, Public Hearing, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Type II Proposal: Applicant would like to add two structures to the parcels, a 14'x18' cabin/guest suite and a 12'x16' studio. Up to 1200 sq. ft. of accessory structures are allowed per Section 602 of the zoning code, and a cumulative addition of over 400 sq. ft. requires site plan review. Applicant’s Description Cosmo Alpern and his neighbor Ciele explained that he lives at 224 Jersey Hill Rd. and she lives at 240, both of which are parcels that were originally part of his family’s 10 acres . At 240 Jersey Hill they would like to put an accessory building for use as a music studio near Mr. Alpern’s house and a space for family and guests near Ciele’s house. The guesthouse would have a bathroom but no permanent kitchen. Planner West noted that a second dwelling is not allowed on the property because of the lot size . He said the applicant had expressed some urgency so he did advertise a public hearing, but the Board could decide whether or not they would like to do that. Chair Scriber felt that these were small buildings and chose to hold the public hearing. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m. 8 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Greg Nelson said he liked the idea but did not know anything about the topography. He asked about septic considerations from an engineering standpoint. Ciele said they had been approved by the Health Department to tap into her existing septic. Katharine Hunter said she was familiar with the applicant and the area and thought it was an interesting and nice thing. The public hearing was closed at 8:28 p.m. Board Discussion Planner West showed an aerial view. Chair Scriber noted there was a lot of vegetation, and Ciele said you would not be able to see the structures from the road. Maragni asked if there will be a driveway or road going to the studio. Mr. Alpern said he would just be walking over. Maragni said that the application seemed straightforward, simple, and modest. Davis asked how this differs from a second dwelling. West said that a dwelling contains permanent cooking facilities. Davis thought if the applicants might want to put a kitchen in, maybe they should go to the BZA. West said that would be a substantial variance because they have about 10 acres and in this zone you need 20 acres. There was some discussion of the range of things one could still do. Davis asked if they could build a driveway to access this building; Ciele said there may be a parking spot but there is no need for an additional road. West said that this is a Type II action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and no further action is required. MOTION: Grant final approval (Res. 9 of 2022) Moved by Maragni, seconded by Scriber The motion passed. In favor: Cowan, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Scriber PUD-2021-01 Norbut Solar Farm Parcel: 10.-1-21.122 Applicant: Passero Associates Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Site Plan Review, Public Hearing, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval. Proposal: Zoning change to PDZ that will allow three community solar fields (up to 5MW) on a 111-acre parcel. The PDZ has been approved by the Town Board. Public Hearing 9 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES The public hearing was opened at 8:39 p.m. Debbie Benson asked for an update and to see the map. In response, Jon Stone of Norbut Solar summarized the information from a presentation he had given at the last meeting: the planned development zone has been created and the SEQR has been completed, one array has been greatly reduced to provide a significant habitat management area, the point of interconnection (POI) has been moved off of 96B to an area behind the Town Hall, and they have changed the location of the access road. He noted that based on feedback from the last meeting, they are suggesting a second option for the location of the access road , which would keep it deeper into the site and straighter rather than hugging the southern border. Ms. Benson clarified that the access road was still accessing off of Bald Hill Rd. and asked further about the POI location. Planner West said it is still through the Roe property, but now the poles will be more buffered from view and not the prominent entryway marker to the hamlet; he showed this on the map. Greg Nelson asked to what extent the engineering of the POI location needs to take into account the new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood maps. Austin Goodwin explained that when the new interconnect point was designed, the poles were deliberately put outside of the flo odplain border. When the tributary is crossed, they are using an arch pipe that goes over the creek and the road goes over that—it spans from top of bank to top of bank, so the sediment bottom and the flow path is unobstructed and the creek is not disturbed. He did not believe you would overflood the arch pipe even in a 100-year storm. Joel Gagnon said that, with the removal of half the panels in the east-most area, some of the screening in the original proposal no longer makes sense. He suggested the Planning Board revisit the screening plan during their site plan review. The public hearing was closed at 8:51 p.m. Board Discussion Maher felt the proposal for the straighter road made sense since it gives more buffer to the neighbors and is more direct. She asked how far that version of the road would be from the property line, and Mr. Stone said about 470’. Maher thought that long-term, after decommissioning, the internal road could set the site up better for hamlet development because it runs down the middle of the site. Mr. Stone said he thought it was a better design, less road, good for the neighbors and them, and they would welcome a condition to use that version. He added that, regarding screening, they have suggested a condition that they will determine a budget for the screening plan and then allow input from the Town once the project is built in terms of the species and location of the plantings. The Board agreed that should be a condition. West drew attention to the draft resolution provided by the applicant. He read this aloud. He suggested striking the findings and conditions section related to the Town Board’s PDZ resolution because he was not sure these were specifically associated with that resolution. Chair Scriber thought that was fine. These findings were added back in as findings of the Planning Board. West said the Town’s engineer, T.G. Miller, 10 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES suggested making a condition that the applicant be required to address any reflective glare issues. Chair Scriber thought that was reasonable. West also suggested that the decommissioning plan be approved by the Town Attorney and signed by the Supervisor before construction can start. Davis supported that and said he had big concerns around the assumptions in the decommissioning plan; he did not think it would serve and thought it was important that it be reviewed. Mr. Stone noted that decommissioning plans are robust and the plan will be reassessed at a ten-year checkpoint. The Board added four conditions to address screening, glare, the decommissioning plan, and the access road location. MOTION: Approve final site plan (Res. 10 of 2022) Moved by Maher, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. In favor: Cowan, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Scriber SPR-2022-05 127-129 Hornbrook Rd. Parcel: 7.-1-97 and 10.-1-97.13 Applicant: David Gould, Sunbeam Candles Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review, Public Hearing, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval. Zone: Commercial C SEQR Type: Type II Proposal: Site plan review for reuse of warehouse space in Commercial C zone. The Town Board is currently considering a zoning amendment that would make this use allowed by site plan review. Planner West said that there was a problem because the subdivision that created the lot that this application is for was never correctly executed because it was not filed correctly with the County. The consideration of rezoning at the Town Board level was also delayed, so the Board will need to look at the case again in July. He suggested briefly reviewing the application with the applicant and the Town Board will look at approving the zoning change at their next meeting. Then this will come back before the Planning Board to reapprove the subdivision and consider site plan approval. Applicant’s Description David Gould of Sunbeam Candles said they have been located on Mecklenburg Rd. since 2010 but have outgrown their facility. They plan to purchase these properties and move their manufacturing facility to Danby, bringing jobs and fun to the community. He said they handmake beeswax candles and do not have a negative environmental impact. They sell in stores around the country as well as in Ithaca. He has a purchase order signed and will need the rezoning done before moving forward with the financing. He said they will be putting one approximately 12’x60’ concrete pad between the two buildings so they can run a forklift or pallet jack and a photovoltaic array to the south of one building. He noted that the building has been sitting vacant for some time. 11 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Board Discussion Chair Scriber said that this is the type of thing the Town wants to see in Commercial C. Cowan thought it seemed like a good use of the space. Public Hearing The public hearing was not held at this meeting. (6) PLANNER REPORT The Planner’s report was postponed to the next meeting. (7) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary