Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-17 Planning Board Minutes (Final)The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov Planning 13oarcl Minutes Tuesday 17 January 2023 at 7:OOPM https://zoom.us/j/95808175336?pwd=aE9sODBUQ3hOeXN DUlYzdWJ BcGx4QT09 Meeting ID: 958 0817 5336 Password: 245871 Dial in: 1-646-876-9923 or 1-312-626-6799 PRESENT: Ed Bergman (arrived 7:14pm) Colleen Cowan Scott Davis Kelly Maher Jody Scriber (chair) Jamie Vanucchi Jacob Colbert ABSENT: None OTHERATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Recording Secretary Cindy Katz Public (in person) Michael Bianconi; Randal Marcus; Andrew Cove; Melissa Abbott; Robert Goggs; Monica Vakiner; Deborah Montgomery; John Vakiner; Andrew Purser Public (virtual) Leslie Conners (Town Board member); Ted Crane; Katharine Hunter; Ronda Roaring; Charles Guttman; Leslie Conners (Town Board member); Jerry Thompson; Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor); Pamela Goddard; Tomo Shibata; Warren Cross; Jamie Sorrentino; Carol Bushberg This meeting was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom platform. The meeting was called to order at 7:01pm 1. CALLTO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agendas. Planning Board members introduced themselves. 2. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ted Crane had no specific comment about the 1680 Danby Road subdivision but he is sad to see the relatively rural downtown being "carved up:' Also, he does not understand why the East Miller variance is being discussed; the area is open country and should have been rejected by the BZA. He stated he doesn't know how much wiggle room there is regarding the Beardsley Lane SPR and if it can be rejected or if only given conditions. He commented that this particular applicant has a record of saying one thing and doing another; maybe a number of conditions could be given for him to abide by. Pamela Goddard expressed that she was against the East Miller variance as it is not in keeping with zoning or with the character of the neighborhood. Ronda Roaring said the East Miller variance is unrealistic and all of the Town Board members told the owner so already. Roaring then began to speak about short-term rentals in Danby which she began to look into in 2006 with others. She "guesstimates" there are hundreds. Roaring was cut off after 3 minutes and did not finish her point. Katharine Hunter expressed she was glad to see so many people present. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No approval of minutes this month. 4. TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT (VERBAL) Leslie Conners, Town Board Liaison, reported the following: • the Town Organizational meeting was held at the beginning of the month. Folks were appointed to boards and committees, and that will be finished tomorrow [next TB meeting]. • The Building and Property Maintenance Code law has been revised and union negotiations are underway. • She welcomed Jacob Colbert, the new planning board member and added that Steve Weissburg was appointed to the Town Board. • Upcoming: Logging law (draft) which the Town Board will be looking for feedback on. The Restore NY grant is the works. • She added that the Jersey Hill Culvert is being replaced. 5. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB-2022-08 1680 DANBY ROAD Parcel: 7.-1-70 Applicant: Michael Bianconi Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, SEAR, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval Zone: Hamlet Neighborhood SEAR: Unlisted Proposal: Applicant would like to subdivide their 2.2 acre lot roughly in half. Planner West put up a map on the large TV. Applicant Bianconi was present and spoke. He has some land and would like to maybe build a house on it in the future. Planner West added that this map is not a final survey but rather the applicant is looking for feedback before he does a survey. After that, he can come back for preliminary and final approval. Public Hearing Public Hearing was opened at 7:20pm. Ted Crane said he had no particular concern, but he would like to leave areas as open as possible where possible. Public hearing closed at 7:21 MOTION 1 of 2023: The Planning Board will declare Lead Agency. Moved by Maher, seconded by Cowan. The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber, Colbert, Davis. SEQR:: Planner West read aloud Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SHEAF), and it was agreed that the answer was "no or small impact may occur" to all questions. Planner West reminded the applicant that the town has passed the new NY Stretch Code, making energy efficiency guidelines for new builds slightly more stringent. MOTION 2 of 2023: The proposed action will not result in any adverse environmental impacts. Moved by Bergman, seconded by Maher. The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber, Colbert, Davis The Planning Board provided the feedback that it would make sense to divide the land in half evenly. The next steps for the applicant are to get a survey and come back with a platt for the chair to sign. Then, it can be approved at the next meeting. SPR-2022-09 105 Beardsley Ln. Parcel: 2.-1-9.22 Applicant: Jeremy Thompson Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review, Option to Hold or Schedule Public Hearing, Declare Lead Agency, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval Zone: LDR SEAR: Type II Proposal: The applicant would like to use their newly constructed home as a Tourist Home - a use allowed by site plan review in this zone. Applicant Jeremy Thompson, present on Zoom, was given the opportunity to speak. He turned it over to his attorney, Charles Guttman. Guttman explained that the Applicant was unable to appear in person because he had had car trouble during a trip to Texas.. Guttman drew the attention of the board to a letter written by Thompson to residents that he believes addresses many of their concerns. This includes assurances that one family at a time will stay, the house will be rented only 180 days out of the year, and the applicant will be living there. Guttman also addressed the "Considerations for the Board" from the Zoning Law that he believed were most relevant, noting that vegetation will be planted and many of these considerations will not adversely impact the public when viewed from 96B. He said there will be screening so the structure will not be unsightly from Beardsley Lane and will look like any other single family home. He added that the significant distance from property to neighbors and vegetation will mitigate noise, that the owner will be present, and that the applicant owns and manages other properties- which he does not even live at- and those properties have not encountered problems with guests. He welcomed any questions and concerns and noted he did not hear any concerns after his client sent the letter on December 7th. Planner West noted the public hearing can be held today and also held again. He recommended the board consider if have the info they need and if they wanted to open the public hearing. Bergman suggested having the Public Hearing today and then again next month. There are many strong feelings related to this. Planner West added that 8 letters were submitted to the Planning Board, they were distributed to the Planning Board members, and therefore need not be read aloud. Planner West also sought to clarify that we were doing a Site Plan Review here and the role of the Planning Board is to review the particulars of the allowed use; how it lies on the site and to adjust the Site Plan in ways that will make it less impactful or to state that this particular site is different from other sites, that while this use is generally allowed in this zone, in this instance, it is not. Public Hearing The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40pm. The following residents spoke in -person: Randall Marcus, attorney representing Hallie Magdon and Virginia Tesi of 151 Beardsley Lane. Marcus read from Danby Zoning Laws and argued that this is not a permitted use in this zone because the principal use of the seven bedroom home is not as a residence for the owner, rather it is as an investment through short-term rental. Andrew Cove (111 Beardsley Lane) opposed the giving of permit, and stressed that the particulars of the conditions of the permit must be put in writing and be very specific. He also sent a letter. Andrew Purser (127 Beardsley Lane) also sent a letter, and also opposes the permit application on most of the same grounds as others. He stated the use of this structure seems more like a boarding house than a tourist house. No person on Zoom desired to speak. Planning Board Member Davis asked for clarification that guests will only be present 180 days out of the year. Guttman clarified that yes, for 180 days of the years, no guests and no bedrooms will be rented and only the applicant will be present. Davis then asked about the "one family" rental condition and if a family reunion counts as a "one family" with multiple cars. Guttman said yes. They also clarified that longer term rentals are allowed and encouraged. Cowan pointed out that people are permitted to rent out their homes. With affordability in housing as a crisis now, it's important to remember this is setting a precedent for what is allowed, even with the problematic process that has happened here. The neighborhood has an HOA and maybe that should be where the stricter conditions are set. Vanucchi disagreed with Marcus's assessment, saying the use is a principal use of occupancy. Resident Robert Goggs (155 Beardsley Lane) asked to speak and was given permission. He also sent a letter and opposed the application, pointing out that it doesn't meet a series of criteria from the Zoning Plan including that is will be injurious to the enjoyment of the neighborhood, may impact future development of neighborhood, and concerns about traffic. He also pointed out the applicant repeatedly did not follow rules and he wondered how conditions could be enforced. Maher wondered how we would keep track whether or not the applicant was following the conditions? The property does feel very close to 96b and she would push for a more significant buffering between the property and the neighbors. Would like to hear input from the neighbors about what kind of buffering they'd like. Planner West wanted to make sure it is understood that the Planning Board cannot consider anything about the specific applicant in Site Plan Review - their past history cannot be considered. This is in order to assure equal treatment. The PB does not determine what a use is or interpret the zoning plan; Planner West has determined this is a tourist house. This is land -use approval which will stay with the land regardless of ownership. He reviewed the various possible conditions he heard discussed: 0 180 days/year limit, single family at a time, and Site Plan adjustments o It would also be reasonable to ask for a new site plan since the current one is for a single family house and this is a tourist home use. o He also clarified that "tourist house" is an allowed primary use, which is different from other short-term dwelling uses because it is ALSO a home for a family (and that is the difference between other types of BnB's which would not be allowed) Chairperson Scriber wondered how we define family? Planner West says it includes the general idea of it and also broader use of it - a certain number of people who live together and operate as a family. Scriber wondered then how the condition of "single family" can be enforced. Davis agreed and stated a180 days condition is also not enforceable. He wondered if this structure is "compatible" and if issues would have arisen if the applicant had started out by saying they intended to build a house and then made it a tourist home. He asked if we can look at the [HOA] covenants to understand the intention of that neighborhood? Planner West added that the Town Board determined that this is a permitted "use" in this zone and therefore, in general, it is legislatively allowed. It is, however, possible that the board could find that this use in this particular location is incompatible. If PB wants to go there, the argument needs to be made for why this particular lot is worse than other lots, in general, in this spot, other than the fact that the neighbors don't like it. Virginia Tesi (151 Beardsley Lane) argued that the primary use of the structure is as a rental, not a home for the applicant, and therefore it is not a "tourist home" but a hotel/motel/boarding house. The PB is being asked to approve the use of a single family house for multiple families - does not it need approval as a bnb or as a two family house? She also added that there is no way limit who is renting to you based on a family or not a family. Guttman said they were happy to submit a copy of the convenants. He added that there are ways that the conditions can be documented to the Town. He and Tesi then disagreed on whether multiple families in the house is allowed according to the Board's determination. Deborah Montgomery (111 Beardsley Lane) asked if a tourist home could be defined. Planner West read the definition, and then read the definition of hotel/motel/bed and breakfast. The main distinction is that in the tourist home, it is a primary dwelling for a family, and that tourist home with more than 10 beds are not allowed in this zone. Montgomery questioned how "primary" vs "secondary" purpose is determined. It feels like, with 7 bedrooms, this is a home that primarily is for renting. Bergman expressed his desire to discuss how can we make this not an issue for the neighbors? He reviewed many factors and how their impact can be mitigated. Planner West responded that the Site Plan can be reviewed, and we have a good amount of leeway here while also being mindful to keep it similar to anything we would apply to any other tourist house. Planner West and Bergman discussed some of the factors including paving the driveway and how the run-off and the stormwater would be considered and what any changes to the Site Plan might be. Cowan wondered what sort of precedent we are setting if we put restrictive conditions on this? Planner West explained that conditions need to be tied to something real about the use and that it needs to be reasonable/feasible. Regarding precedent, there has to be a level of consistency between conditions put on similar circumstances. Davis clarified that the site plan of a tourist home with one bedroom would still be very different from one with seven bedrooms. Vanucchi said different vegetation on a particular berm would be important. Lavender isn't suitable. Planner West encouraged the PB to consider how they would approach adding conditions to the applicant. Davis expressed that he felt that Planner West was nudging the PB towards Planner West's beliefs, but he wants to explore formally the concern that the owner living here is a secondary use and not the primary use, and therefore isn't compatible with the neighborhood. Bergman questioned this, stated the applicant will be living there, and felt the need to do some more research and thinking. Davis agreed that more time was needed to address what, really, is this structure? There are still many questions. Scriber agreed that more time was needed. Bergman asked to table it, and said the PB can email questions to Planner West which he will address at the next meeting. Planner West asked if there is anything specific to ask the applicant for the next meeting. Bergman suggested a plan for screening, noise protection and light protection, and what the plan is for having more people there in general. Scriber added the fencing, and would like to see a plan for how they can be held accountable for the number of days it is rented. Guttman replied that before next meeting they will have comments on vegetation, and ideas on how to deal with question of family and monitoring 180 days and screening. Requested the questions from the PB and Planner West before the next meeting. Planner West said all the related correspondence will be available. Also should address lighting on decks. Bergman withdrew his motion to table. [Davis went to the restroom] VAR-2022-09 360 East Miller Rd. Parcel: 6.4-18.114 Applicant: Tomo Shibata Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Declare Lead Agency or provide feedback to BZA on SEQR Zone: Rural 2 SEAR: Unlisted Proposal: The applicant would like to divide a four -acre lot into four one -acre lots. The minimum lot size requirement for the zone is ten acres. The BZA has requested Planning Board input on the SEQR and application. Planner West provided a summary of the variance request. Applicant came to the Town Board for rezoning and the TB said no. Applicant is now requesting a variance to divide their four acre lot into four separate, one acre lots. This is a ten acre minimum lot area. Applicant went to the BZA previously, which sent it back to PB because they didn't want to be lead agency on SEQR or EIS. Planner West reconnected with Attorney Krogh, who noted case law precedent that if a denial is clear, SEQR can be skipped because it is a "big lift:' Planner West also noted that this lot was previously eight acres and was divided in half in accordance with the zoning law at the time, and also that many letters from the public had previously been given/read. The applicant was on zoom and had the opportunity to speak. She asked if her application packet was distributed to the PB? Planner West replied it had. The applicant asked for the name of the case law that said that SEQR can be skipped? Planner West did not have the case law name. The applicant asked if there was a lawyer present to answer. Planner West replied there was not. In -present and zoom attendees were asked if anyone had a letter they wanted to read that had already not been read. None did; they had all previously had their letters read. Bergman expressed concerns about addressing SEAR questions regarding water and sewage. Planner West shared the draft of Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Part II that BZA filled out to see if the PB felt similarly. PB expressed they would answer the questions the same as BZA had. Planner West reviewed the Planning Board's options: • PB can decline to be lead agency and application goes back to BZA, if BZA says also don't want to do it, it could go to DEC, but they would likely take an action without doing SEAR. • Provide feedback for the BZA with them as lead agency • Take on lead agency and then have to do SEAR Maher pointed out this variance would end the meadow currently there, changing the character of that area. Other members agreed. MOTION 3 of 2023: To send the action back to the BZA as "not an appropriate variance" as it does not fit zoning. Moved by Bergman, seconded by Vanucchi. Discussion: The PB agreed this request is highly incompatible with the recent zoning law. Planner West added that while he agrees with the SEQR "yeses" in the moderate/large impact in the first three questions, it would be very unusual for a four acre subdivision to cause moderate/large impact in the other SEQR items, simply due to its minor size. They discussed if possible "yeses" on those items would impact precedent for other discussions on other pieces of land. Davis pointed out that a consideration is that this problem appears created by the applicant, perhaps more than others. The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber, Colbert, Davis 6. PLANNER REPORT (verbal) Planner West reported the following: • A draft of the logging law has moved from CAC to the TB and back to planner and town lawyer. He hasn't looked at it yet but would love the PB comments on it and will also share it with the state forest as it is highly relevant to them. • Grant updates: 1. Working on an grant app to "Restore NY" funds for demolition, reconstruction, and renovation of properties deemed uninhabitable, specifically in downtowns and hamlets. The application is to renovate a garage space on Olivia Vent's property to be a market. Public Hearing will be held tomorrow at the Town Board meeting and the application is due next Friday. 2. Received grant for 13 homes to be renovated. Currently we have an RFP out to find a consultant to manage the project. 3. The Town received a grant from Tompkins County to do more grant writing. Planner West plans to have public events for community to express their thoughts on how to use the funds. • They are moving forward on the hamlet sewer study for which they received a study grant to see what infrastructure would be needed for utilities. • Scriber commented on a recent NYT article on paved vs unpaved roads in Chatam NY where she is from that the Planning Board members may find interesting and relevant. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:16pm Cindy Katz - Recording Secretary