Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-17 Planning Board Minutes (Final) hps://zoom.us/j/95808175336?pwd=aE9sODBUQ3hOeXNDUlYzdWJBcGx4QT09 Meeng 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 Sco Davis Kelly Maher Jody Scriber (chair) Jamie Vanucchi Jacob Colbert ABSENT: None OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Recording Secretary Cindy Katz Public (in person)Michael Bianconi; Randal Marcus; Andrew Cove; Melissa Abbo; Robert Goggs; Monica Vakiner; Deborah Montgomery; John Vakiner; Andrew Purser Public (virtual)Leslie Conners (Town Board member); Ted Crane; Katharine Hunter; Ronda Roaring; Charles Guman; Leslie Conners (Town Board member); Jerry Thompson; Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor); Pamela Goddard; Tomo Shibata; Warren Cross; Jamie Sorrenno; Carol Bushberg This meeng was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom plaorm. The meeng was called to order at 7:01pm 1. CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW Mary Ann Barr 2021 The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov Planning Board Minutes Tuesday 17 January 2023 at 7:00PM There were no addions or deleons 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 relavely 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 condions. He commented that this parcular applicant has a record of saying one thing and doing another; maybe a number of condions 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 unrealisc 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 "guessmates" there are hundreds. Roaring was cut off aer 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 Organizaonal meeng was held at the beginning of the month. Folks were appointed to boards and commiees, and that will be finished tomorrow [next TB meeng]. ●The Building and Property Maintenance Code law has been revised and union negoaons are under way. ●She welcomed Jacob Colbert, the new planning board member and added that Steve Weissburg was appointed to the Town Board. ●Upcoming: Logging law (dra) 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 Ancipated Board acon(s) this month: Public Hearing, SEQR, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval Zone: Hamlet Neighborhood SEQR: 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. Aer 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 parcular 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 quesons. 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 pla for the chair to sign. Then, it can be approved at the next meeng. SPR-2022-09 105 Beardsley Ln. Parcel: 2.-1-9.22 Applicant: Jeremy Thompson Ancipated Board acon(s) this month: Applicaon Review, Opon to Hold or Schedule Public Hearing, Declare Lead Agency, Consider Preliminary and Final Approval Zone: LDR SEQR: 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 aorney, Charles Guman. Guman explained that the Applicant was unable to appear in person because he had had car trouble during a trip to Texas.. Guman drew the aenon of the board to a leer wrien by Thompson to residents that he believes addresses many of their concerns. This includes assurances that one family at a me will stay, the house will be rented only 180 days out of the year, and the applicant will be living there. Guman also addressed the “Consideraons for the Board” from the hat Zoning Law t he believed were most relevant, nong that vegetaon will be planted and many of these consideraons 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 vegetaon will migate noise, that the owner will be present, and that the applicant owns and manages other properes- which he does not even live at- and those properes have not encountered problems with guests. He welcomed any quesons and concerns and noted he did not hear any concerns aer his client sent the leer 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 leers were submied 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 parculars of the allowed use; how it lies on the site and to adjust the Site Plan in ways that will make it less impacul or to state that this parcular 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, aorney represenng Hallie Magdon and Virginia Tesi of 151 Beardsley Lane. Marcus read from Danby Zoning Laws and argued that this is not a permied 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 (111 Beardsley Lane) opposed the giving of permit, and Cove stressed that the parculars of the condions of the permit must be put in wring and be very specific. He also sent a leer. ∙Andrew Purser (127 Beardsley Lane) also sent a leer, and also opposes the permit applicaon 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 clarificaon that guests will only be present 180 days out of the year. Guman 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 condion and if a family reunion counts as a “one family” with mulple cars. Guman said yes. They also clarified that longer term rentals are allowed and encouraged. Cowan pointed out that people are permied to rent out their homes. With affordability in housing as a crisis now, it’s important to remember this is seng a precedent for what is allowed, even with the problemac process that has happened here. The neighborhood has an HOA and maybe that should be where the stricter condions 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 leer and opposed the applicaon, poinng 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 condions could be enforced. Maher wondered how we would keep track whether or not the applicant was following the condions? 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 condions he heard discussed: o 180 days/year limit, single family at a me, 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 condion of “single family” can be enforced. Davis agreed and stated a180 days condion is also not enforceable. He wondered if this structure is “compable” 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 intenon of that neighborhood? Planner West added that the Town Board determined that this is a permied “use” in this zone and therefore, in general, it is legislavely allowed. It is, however, possible that the board could find that this use in this parcular locaon is incompable. If PB wants to go there, the argument needs to be made for why this parcular 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 mulple 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 renng to you based on a family or not a family. Guman said they were happy to submit a copy of the convenants. He added that there are ways that the condions can be documented to the Town. He and Tesi then disagreed on whether mulple families in the house is allowed according to the Board’s determinaon. Deborah Montgomery (111 Beardsley Lane) asked if a tourist home could be defined. Planner West read the definion, and then read the definion of hotel/motel/bed and breakfast. The main disncon 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 quesoned how “primary” vs “secondary” purpose is determined. It feels like, with 7 bedrooms, this is a home that primarily is for renng. 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 migated. 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 seng if we put restricve condions on this? Planner West explained that condions need to be ed 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 condions put on similar circumstances. Davis clarified that the site plan of a tourist home with one bedroom would sll be very different from one with seven bedrooms. Vanucchi said different vegetaon on a parcular berm would be important. Lavender isn’t suitable. Planner West encouraged the PB to consider how they would approach adding condions 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 compable with the neighborhood. Bergman quesoned this, stated the applicant will be living there, and felt the need to do some more research and thinking. Davis agreed that more me was needed to address what, really, is this structure? There are sll many quesons. Scriber agreed that more me was needed. Bergman asked to table it, and said the PB can email quesons to Planner West which he will address at the next meeng. Planner West asked if there is anything specific to ask the applicant for the next meeng. Bergman suggested a plan for screening, noise protecon and light protecon, 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. Guman replied that before next meeng they will have comments on vegetaon, and ideas on how to deal with queson of family and monitoring 180 days and screening. Requested the quesons from the PB and Planner West before the next meeng. Planner West said all the related correspondence will be available. Also should address lighng on decks. Bergman withdrew his moon to table. [Davis went to the restroom] VAR-2022-09 360 East Miller Rd. Parcel: 6.-1-18.114 Applicant: Tomo Shibata Ancipated Board acon(s) this month: Declare Lead Agency or provide feedback to BZA on SEQR Zone: Rural 2 SEQR: 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 applicaon. 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 requesng 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 Aorney , who noted case law precedent that if a denial is Krogh clear, SEQR can be skipped because it is a "big li." Planner West also noted that this lot was previously eight acres and was divided in half in accordance with the zoning law at the me, and also that many leers from the public had previously been given/read. The applicant was on zoom and had the opportunity to speak. She asked if her applicaon 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 aendees were asked if anyone had a leer they wanted to read that had already not been read. None did; they had all previously had their leers read. Bergman expressed concerns about addressing SEQR quesons regarding water and sewage. Planner West shared the dra of Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) that BZA filled out to see if the PB felt similarly. PB expressed they would Part II answer the quesons the same as BZA had. Planner West reviewed the Planning Board’s opons: ●PB can decline to be lead agency and applicaon 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 acon without doing SEQR. ● Provide feedback for the BZA with them as lead agency ●Take on lead agency and then have to do SEQR 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 incompable 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 quesons, 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 consideraon 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 dra 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 demolion, reconstrucon, and renovaon of properes deemed uninhabitable, specifically in downtowns and hamlets. The applicaon 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 meeng and the applicaon 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 wring. 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 ulies. ●Scriber commented on a recent NYT arcle on paved vs unpaved roads in Chatam NY where she is from that the Planning Board members may find interesng and relevant. 7.ADJOURNMENT Meeng adjourned at 9:16pm Cindy Katz - Recording Secretary