HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-17 Planning Board Minutes (Final)
h ps://zoom.us/j/95808175336?pwd=aE9sODBUQ3hOeXNDUlYzdWJBcGx4QT09
Mee ng 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 Gu man; Leslie Conners
(Town Board member); Jerry Thompson; Joel Gagnon (Town
Supervisor); Pamela Goddard; Tomo Shibata; Warren Cross;
Jamie Sorren no; Carol Bushberg
This mee ng was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom pla orm.
The mee ng 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 addi ons or dele ons 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 rela vely 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 condi ons. He commented that this par cular applicant has a record of
saying one thing and doing another; maybe a number of condi ons 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 unrealis c 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 "guess mates"
there are hundreds. Roaring was cut off a er 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 Organiza onal mee ng was held at the beginning of the month.
Folks were appointed to boards and commi ees, and that will be finished
tomorrow [next TB mee ng].
●The Building and Property Maintenance Code law has been revised and union
nego a ons 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
An cipated Board ac on(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. A er 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 par cular 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
ques ons. 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 mee ng.
SPR-2022-09 105 Beardsley Ln.
Parcel: 2.-1-9.22
Applicant: Jeremy Thompson
An cipated Board ac on(s) this month: Applica on Review, Op on 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 a orney, Charles Gu man. Gu man explained that the
Applicant was unable to appear in person because he had had car trouble during a
trip to Texas.. Gu man drew the a en on of the board to a le er wri en 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.
Gu man also addressed the “Considera ons for the Board” from the hat Zoning Law t
he believed were most relevant, no ng that vegeta on will be planted and many of
these considera ons 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 vegeta on will mi gate noise, that the owner will be
present, and that the applicant owns and manages other proper es- which he does
not even live at- and those proper es have not encountered problems with guests.
He welcomed any ques ons and concerns and noted he did not hear any concerns
a er his client sent the le er 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 le ers were submi ed 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 par culars of the allowed use; how it
lies on the site and to adjust the Site Plan in ways that will make it less impac ul or to
state that this par cular 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, a orney represen ng Hallie Magdon and Virginia Tesi of
151 Beardsley Lane. Marcus read from Danby Zoning Laws and argued that
this is not a permi ed 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 par culars of the condi ons of the permit must be put in
wri ng and be very specific. He also sent a le er.
∙Andrew Purser (127 Beardsley Lane) also sent a le er, and also opposes
the permit applica on 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 clarifica on that guests will only be present
180 days out of the year. Gu man 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 condi on and if a family reunion counts as a
“one family” with mul ple cars. Gu man said yes. They also clarified that longer term
rentals are allowed and encouraged.
Cowan pointed out that people are permi ed to rent out their homes. With
affordability in housing as a crisis now, it’s important to remember this is se ng a
precedent for what is allowed, even with the problema c process that has happened
here. The neighborhood has an HOA and maybe that should be where the stricter
condi ons 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 le er and opposed the applica on, poin ng 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 condi ons could be enforced.
Maher wondered how we would keep track whether or not the applicant was
following the condi ons? 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 condi ons 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 condi on of “single
family” can be enforced.
Davis agreed and stated a180 days condi on is also not enforceable. He wondered if
this structure is “compa ble” 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 inten on of that
neighborhood?
Planner West added that the Town Board determined that this is a permi ed “use” in
this zone and therefore, in general, it is legisla vely allowed. It is, however, possible
that the board could find that this use in this par cular loca on is incompa ble. If PB
wants to go there, the argument needs to be made for why this par cular 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 mul ple 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 ren ng to you based
on a family or not a family.
Gu man said they were happy to submit a copy of the convenants. He added that
there are ways that the condi ons can be documented to the Town. He and Tesi then
disagreed on whether mul ple families in the house is allowed according to the
Board’s determina on.
Deborah Montgomery (111 Beardsley Lane) asked if a tourist home could be defined.
Planner West read the defini on, and then read the defini on of hotel/motel/bed and
breakfast. The main dis nc on 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 ques oned how “primary” vs “secondary” purpose is determined. It
feels like, with 7 bedrooms, this is a home that primarily is for ren ng.
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 mi gated.
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 se ng if we put restric ve
condi ons on this? Planner West explained that condi ons 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 condi ons put on similar
circumstances. Davis clarified that the site plan of a tourist home with one bedroom
would s ll be very different from one with seven bedrooms.
Vanucchi said different vegeta on on a par cular berm would be important. Lavender
isn’t suitable.
Planner West encouraged the PB to consider how they would approach adding
condi ons 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 compa ble with
the neighborhood.
Bergman ques oned 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 s ll many ques ons.
Scriber agreed that more me was needed. Bergman asked to table it, and said the PB
can email ques ons to Planner West which he will address at the next mee ng.
Planner West asked if there is anything specific to ask the applicant for the next
mee ng. Bergman suggested a plan for screening, noise protec on and light
protec on, 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.
Gu man replied that before next mee ng they will have comments on vegeta on,
and ideas on how to deal with ques on of family and monitoring 180 days and
screening. Requested the ques ons from the PB and Planner West before the next
mee ng. Planner West said all the related correspondence will be available. Also
should address ligh ng on decks.
Bergman withdrew his mo on to table.
[Davis went to the restroom]
VAR-2022-09 360 East Miller Rd. Parcel: 6.-1-18.114
Applicant: Tomo Shibata
An cipated Board ac on(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 applica on.
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 reques ng 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 A orney , 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 le ers from the public had previously
been given/read.
The applicant was on zoom and had the opportunity to speak. She asked if her
applica on 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 a endees were asked if anyone had a le er they wanted to
read that had already not been read. None did; they had all previously had their
le ers read.
Bergman expressed concerns about addressing SEQR ques ons 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 ques ons the same as BZA had.
Planner West reviewed the Planning Board’s op ons:
●PB can decline to be lead agency and applica on 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 ac on 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 incompa ble 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 ques ons, 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 considera on 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 demoli on,
reconstruc on, and renova on of proper es deemed uninhabitable, specifically in
downtowns and hamlets. The applica on 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 mee ng and the applica on 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 wri ng. 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 u li es.
●Scriber commented on a recent NYT ar cle on paved vs unpaved roads in Chatam
NY where she is from that the Planning Board members may find interes ng and
relevant.
7.ADJOURNMENT
Mee ng adjourned at 9:16pm
Cindy Katz - Recording Secretary