Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-20 Planning Board Minutes1 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting September 20, 2022 DRAFT PRESENT: Ed Bergman Collen Cowan Scott Davis Kelly Maher Jody Scriber (Chair) ABSENT: Jamie Vanucchi Elana Maragni (resigned from the Planning Board) OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public (in person) Amy Arsenault, George Arsenault, Pamela Arsenault, Heather Donnelly, Lavante House Public (virtual) Leslie Connors (Town Board member), Ted Crane, Jim Holahan (Town Board member), Katharine Hunter (Town Board member), Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor and Town Board member), Joann Gruttadaurio, Wilma Lawrence, Lori Maratea, Mr. Maratea, Charles Muirhead, Hugh Muirhead, Ms. Muirhead, Ronda Roaring, Jacob Rosewater This meeting was conducted in person with virtual access 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 asked why White Hawk Ecovillage had a building going up that is not going through the Planning Board. Regarding Norbut Solar’s proposal to relocate existing trees on the property to use as screening, Ms. Roaring said that both blue spruce and Norway spruce are non-native species and can be 2 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES invasive. She read from Canada Broadcasting Company’s article , “This invasive species makes a great Christmas tree, and you can get one for free” about blue spruces, and she referenced skaak.org for information about the invasiveness of Norway spruce. She said the Town should not allow invasive species in the solar area. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the August 16th minutes Moved by Maher, seconded by Davis The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Scriber (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT As Leslie Connors, Town Board Liaison, was not yet present, Town Board member Katharine Hunter shared the following information: • On behalf of the Town Board, she thanked Elana Maragni for her service on the Planning Board. • The Town Board meeting tomorrow will open with a public hearing on the Bald Hill Rd. hamlet neighborhood expansion. • Joel Gagnon added that the Town Board passed a resolution of appreciation for Amy Cusimano. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB-2022-05 204 German Cross Rd. Parcel: 4.-1-11.22 Applicant: Charles Muirhead Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, SEQR, Approve or Deny Preliminary and/or Final Plat Zone: Low Density Residential SEQR: Unlisted Proposal: The applicant has received an area variance for frontage and would now like to subdivide. New Documents: Final Plat Planner West explained that this application for subdivision had already gone through a variance procedure, and a variance was granted for frontage deficiency. He noted that there is much more acreage than required for the Low Density Residential zone , which was part of the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision to allow the subdivision. He showed the applicant’s proposed house location. Public Hearing 3 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES The public hearing was opened at 7:13 p.m. Joann Gruttadaurio, a neighbor on German Cross Rd., said she was impressed with the thoroughness of the review and environmental information provided. She felt it was a positive thing for their neighborhood. Ronda Roaring said there have been a number of requests for non -conforming parcels, and the Town is getting into flag lots. She felt this had not been permitted in the past and that the idea of the rezoning included encouraging not building long driveways. She thought this was something unwanted and not good for the Town; applicants getting this kind of building approved by the Town should give something in return, like agreeing not to build any other houses on the parcel and putting a conservation easement in place. Planner West noted that it would be illegal for a town to suggest a quid pro quo in exchange for approvals. Lori Maratea wondered what Ms. Roaring meant by giving back something else. She said that when they bought the 23-acre property, they were told they could have four five-acre parcels and each parcel could have a duplex. She said that one of the first things the Planning Board might consider is stopping the allowance of duplexes on every parcel of land, which would cut down on density and encourage families over college rentals. The public hearing was closed at 7:22 p.m. Board Discussion Board member Davis asked about the lot sizes allowed in the zone, and Planner West said that the average density is five-acre density, so the back lot could be further subdivided if a road was put in to obtain the frontage. Davis added for the record that he did not regard this as a flag lot. SEQR In response to a question from Board member Bergman, Planner West clarified that for SEQR they were considering the house as well as the subdivision of the land. Planner West read aloud Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and 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 Maher The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Scriber Approval To mitigate the potential impact of the development, the Board decided to place a condition that additional outdoor lighting be dark-sky compliant, as suggested by Bergman. 4 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES MOTION: Approve preliminary and final plat with the stated condition (Res. 15 of 2022) Moved by Bergman, seconded by Cowan The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Scriber SUB-2022-06 1496 Coddington Rd. Parcel: 6.-1-11.322 Applicant: George Aresnault Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review, Schedule (with option to hold) Public Hearing, Declare Lead Agency, Option to do SEQR Determination, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval Zone: Rural 1 SEQR: Unlisted Proposal: The applicant would like to subdivide off a 10-acre parcel with 15' of road frontage from their 72.9-acre parcel. The lot currently has 225' of frontage. Planner West showed the parcel in question on the map and the rough location of the proposed subdivision. The parcel owner would like to subdivide the land and sell to his grandson. The grandson would extend the current driveway on the parcel, which goes to his mother’s house, to create access to his proposed home site. West said that the lines have been drawn to meet the 10-acre requirement of the zone. The parcel is in the Rural 1 zone, although nearby parcels along the road are in Low Density Residential. Rural 1 has no frontage requirement, and the applicant is only proposing 15’ of frontage. This does meet NY State’s requirements. He said that there is a hill and an existing hedgerow that the proposed home would be behind. West said that the application requires subdivision and site plan review. The applicant was hoping the Board would be comfortable moving quickly, so he advertised a public hearing, but the Board should consider if they have everything they need for both actions. The Board could go as far as approving a preliminary plat but will need a survey for the final subdivision plat. Applicant’s Description Lavante House, the grandson of the applicant, showed where he would like to put the house and explained his plans and timeline. Board Discussion In response to questions from Davis, the Arsenaults said that the total acreage of the existing parcel is 72.95 acres and they plan to subdivide ten acres of land. Board member Maher confirmed that there is no existing structure on the part to be subdivided. She also asked if there was clearance between the stream and the next property to the south, which there was. Bergman asked if something in writing regarding the driveway access was needed, and West said that a shared maintenance agreement is something the Board could require as a condition of approval. One of the Arsenault family said that, in talking with Planner West, a shared driveway was in his planning book, and that is why they switched to it. Board member 5 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Cowan said that it has less environmental impact and less cost. Davis asked if the remaining land could be subdivided into ten-acre parcels, which it could. He described the idea of clustering houses to the applicant so they would know it is an available option. Public Hearing Bergman said he felt comfortable doing a public hearing, and no one objected. The public hearing was opened at 7:58 p.m. Ronda Roaring asked what the percent slope is and asked how the applicants would be addressing that in terms of the driveway washing out. Ted Crane thought this definitely would be considered a flag lot. He pointed out that this sort of thing is permitted under the recently revised zoning and asked what the worst-case scenario for the future is for the parcel. He wondered about choosing a shape to either facilitate or prevent future subdi visions. The public hearing was closed at 8:01 p.m. Mr. House said he did not want to pave the driveway. The driveway in existence has been working fine; they are familiar with managing it for stormwater runoff. The added driveway will be less sloped than the existing one, and where they want to put the house is not sloped very much. In terms of future subdivisions, the family said they did not currently plan to subdivide further. Davis requested to see the whole ~70 acres with the 10 acres delineated on a map for next meeting. The applicant will come back with a survey for the following meeting. SEQR MOTION: Declare the Planning Board lead agency Moved by Cowan, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Scriber SPR-2022-08 1496 Coddington Rd. Parcel: 6.-1-11.322 Applicant: George Aresnault Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review, Schedule (with option to hold) Public Hearing, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval Zone: Rural 1 SEQR: Type II 6 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Proposal: Applicant would like to build a house. In the Rural 1 zone, site plan review is required for this action under Section 601. West said the house is up slope and behind an existing line of shrubs, which the Board might want to see on the site plan. He asked if the Board would like to see additional screening and noted that the site did not seem close to neighbors’ views. There is an indication of the driveway on the site plan , and West asked the Board if that would be enough. He said the Town has stated that it prefers shared driveways. Maher said she would like to see an approximate location of where the septic system will be. The Board discussed a shared driveway agreement, and they decided they did not need to see one. PUD-2021-01 Norbut Solar Farm Parcel: 10.-1-21.122 Applicant: Passero Associates Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Consider Amending Site Plan Condition Proposal: In Planning Board Resolution 10 of 2022, Condition 1 states that Norbut Solar team will work with a subcommittee of the Planning Board on screening plans after panels are built. The applicant would like to transplant some of the existing trees on the property now instead (see screening plan). Planner West read the condition the Board had placed on Norbut Solar earlier in the year, as stated in the agenda. Since then, the applicant designated 20 acres of habitat area, resulting in most of the areas that had requiring screening no longer having panels on them. He said the applicant has now submitted an email request that the Board consider whether they could move existing trees on site now rather than planting new ones when the project is complete. The tradeoff is that the applicant has requested that their proposed screening plan replace the adopted plan and the requirement to work with the Planning Board after the panels are built. He showed on a map where there is existing vegetation, where there is a stream corridor with preserved vegetation, and where the applicant would like to place the trees. He noted that the staging area for the project will still not be screened by this plan. West added that if there are glare issues, the Board has up to a year after panels are installed to address that separately. Maher said her gut reaction was, “Please stick with the original plan.” Davis thought some trees that you would plant could be larger than those being moved within a few years and he was not sure what the success rate for transplanting would be. On the other hand, Scriber thought anything the applicant puts in would be very small, so it would take a long time to act as a screen. Bergman thought it could be okay as long as the neighbors are screened, but the Board needs to maintain some final say. The original proposed screening was reviewed. It was noted that now that the panel locations have moved, and the panels will now be much better screened by existing vegetation. Davis felt that the applicants were asking to only do screening to the north, rather than the north and south. He thought that would be fine 7 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES now, but he did not see the point in trying to dig up existing trees. The Board’s overall feeling was that if they want to move the trees, fine, as long as the site is well-screened in the end. But they were not comfortable giving up the ability to review the screening after the solar panels are in place. MOTION: The Board is presenting two options: (1) keep the proposed screening plan as is or (2) the Board will let the applicant move 13 trees rather than the 25 originally proposed and reserve half of the screening budget in option one to be implemented at the end of the project if more screening is needed . The landscaping notes on the original landscaping plan would continue to be in place. This also would not have any impact on the screening for the point of interconnect. (Res. 16 of 2022) Moved by Bergman, seconded by Davis The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Scriber (6) PLANNER REPORT Planner West reported the following: • He processed two annexations/lot line adjustments at 552 King Rd. • The Town Board is still considering expanding the Hamlet Neighborhood zone one parcel further down Bald Hill Rd. That will be before the Town Board tomorrow. • The Town, along with most other municipalities in Tompkins County, has submitted a grant for Safe Streets for All, a road-safety project. • The Town submitted a $500,000 grant for low-income homeowner home renovations. • He is hoping to get support from the Town Board to apply for a County grant to get a grant-writing consultant, which would be used to help win grants for the hamlet. (8) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary 8 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES