Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-21 Planning Board Minutes (Final)The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov Planning Board Minutes Tuesday 21 February 2023 at 7:OOPM Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting February 212023 PRESENT: Ed Bergman Colleen Cowan Kelly Maher Jamie Vanucchi Jody Scriber (chair) Jacob Colbert Scott Davis (present via Zoom, joined -7:11 pm) ABSENT: None OTHERATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Recording Secretary Cindy Katz Public (in person) Charles Guttman, Jeremy Thompson, Jeremy Knout, Sanford Miller, Virginia Tesi Public (virtual) Ronda Roaring, Ted Crane, Katherine Hunter (Town Board member), Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Hallie Magdon, Margot Chiuten, Robert Goggs, Leslie Conners (Town Board member), Bruce Richards The meeting was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom platform. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 pm. 1. CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. Planner West reminded the attendees that there was not anything to do for the Valley View Road subdivision; they had been waiting on the final platt but it has already been approved. 2. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ted Crane sought to clarify that the Public Hearing regarding BeardsleyLane was still open (it was). 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Jan. 2023) MOTION to approve the Jan 17 2023 minutes Moved by Scriber, seconded by Maher The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Maher, Scriber, Colbert, Vanucchi 4. TOWN BOARD LIASON REPORT (VERBAL) Town Board member Leslie Conners reported the following: • The Town Board (TB) has been meeting with IT providers and gathering information and cost estimates. They hope to make a decision in the next couple of months on a user- friendly, secure, and affordable choice. • The TB passed a law giving a partial property tax exemption to Danby fire fighters. • The TB is continuing its conversation on short term rentals. They are gathering information, meeting, and surveying to understand what the residents desire. 5. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB-2023-01 229 E. Miller Rd.. Parcel: 7.-1-43.42 Applicant: Jeremey Knout Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Schedule Public Hearing, SEQR Lead Agency, Review Sketch Plan and Provide Feedback to Applicant Zone: Rural 2 SEQR: Unlisted Proposal: Applicant would like to subdivide their 82 acre lot into 3 pieces, one of which is smaller than allowed under the current zoning (they are pursuing a variance). Planner West noted this is the first time the Planning Board is seeing this application. Currently the sketch is not compliant with zoning and therefore, it must first go to the BZA before the Planning Board can take any action. This is an opportunity to provide feedback & ask questions. The Applicant Jeremy Knout spoke about the plans - the current owner of the 82 acres, Sanford Miller, would like to keep 3.5 acres (with the house) and give his daughter eleven acres, leaving the applicant the other 67 acres. Planner West put up the map and explained that the smaller plot, with the house on it, is less than the 10 acres required by zoning in that area. Because this is a three parcel subdivision, it triggers a review of natural resources on the land in order to ensure they are being as best preserved as possible. Planner West showed a map of the resources and said he believed the breakdown of the site seems to comply with that preservation goal. Under current zoning, this lot could be divided into 8 separate lots, so thinking about a future owner wanting to divide it more adds some complexity, noting there is frontage but some of it is not very accessible due to steep slopes. Planner West explained he did consider if a cluster subdivision, which would allow for smaller lot sizes without needing a variance, would have made sense. He concluded that in that event, a variance would probably have been needed anyway due to the buffer requirements around new house build and the existing house. He concluded a subdivision with a size variance made more sense, and expected the PB will likely put a condition on the subdivision where the remaining larger lot would lose two potential divisions due to the removal of the 3 acre lot and the 10 acre lot. Cowan asked where the house would be built, and the applicant responded. Bergman clarified that they could put the condition in the subdivision that no more than 6 lots could be divided out of the parcel. Scriber asked the applicant if his intention was to "keep the natural stuff natural" and he said it was. The PB said wished luck to the applicant going for the variance at the BZA. SPR-2022-09 105 Beardsley Ln. Parcel: 2.-1-9.22 Applicant: Jeremy Thompson Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Review Additions to Application, Continue and Close Public Hearing, Complete SEAR, 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. New Documents: Updated site plan, Draft conditions letter, presentation Public Hearing The PB clarified that the Public Hearing is still open for Beardsley Lane and that one new letter had been received that morning. Planner West read the letter and put it up on the screen. It was from Deborah Montgomery and David Cove (111 Beardsley Lane) and Monaca and John Vakiner (114 Beardsley Lane) and suggested possible conditions and restrictions for the house should the appeal be denied. Virginia Tesi (151 Beardsley Lane), a real estate attorney, spoke. She brought the appeal on Planner West's determination of the house as a "tourist house" to the BZA. She wants to address possible conditions on the Site Plan in case the BZA rules in favor of his determination. She thinks it is arbitrary and unfair to go forward with this without knowing what a lodging house is. There are building codes, but not a very clear definition of a "tourist home lodging home" vs a "tourist home bed and breakfast." She said we should distinguish this tourist house from a commercial hotel/motel and set conditions to stay aligned with that, noting that the applicant's attorney had already started a list of conditions. She reviewed some of those conditions, and suggested renting to people as a "cohesive unit" instead of to a "family". She passed out a prepared paper with notes and suggested instead of 180 rented nights, it be "180 advertised/available rented nights." She also suggested an enforcement provision with escalating fines for violating conditions. Ted Crane: He noted there is a 180 days maximum rental but wondered about a minimal rental? He proposes a minimum rental stay - a weekend, perhaps. House has received a COO (Certificate of Occupancy) but the address of the owner is incomplete and he finds that odd. He pointed out that the Powerpoint stated this is a good location for a tourist house because it is close to the road, but he wants to remind people that this spot was originally for agricultural use. He commented on the ambiguity of the word "family" and reiterated that enforcement will not happen unless there is written requirements. The three minutes ringer buzzed and he asked for more time. He began to review previous buildings that the staff memo used as previous examples and questioned their relevancy. Scriber continued to tell him his time was complete; he continued talking and was muted. Robert Goggs: Wondered if these discussions make more sense after the BZA appeal occurs next week. West responded that though the BZA process does create a delay in granting permits, it does not have impact on deliberations from the PB. The landowner still has the right to a Site Plan Review. If the BZA did find the use was wrong, it would not matter if the SPR was done. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:39 PM Planner West noted that the applicant had some additions including a presentation, as well as some changes to the planting plan (hard copy provided to PB) according to the PB requests. Charles Guttman approached the mike and stated that he does know Virginia Tesi through their work as attorneys. He put up a presentation on the screen. He stated that the applicants intent has always been to put reasonable conditions on this house. He believes the presentation addresses all of the issues. He wondered why drainage issues are being brought up here. He showed the presentation, which addressed: Drainage: A long berm, now with elderberry on it, as well as French drains, will direct water into a ditch along Beardsley lane and not down the hill towards the neighbors. Plantings: Plants will absorb water and grab it before it goes down hill. Forsythia and other plants as well as an orchard on the south side will provide screening and absorb water. Margot Chiuten from Landscape Architects spoke on Zoom and gave plan details. Guttman noted the photos of the current fence (in the PB packets) which will block headlights. He added that evergreens on the west side of the house will add visual and noise screening, and the slope the house is on will also provide some noise screening. Planner West realized that what he put up on the screen was an older version than what the PB members had. Noise concerns: The applicant's presence will discourage noise. As the eastern most property, visitors' cars will not pass houses or go down the road. Since families will be staying, he equated the traffic level with any other single family home. He explained the layout, that the owner will be on the lower floor and will use the upper floors as well when there are no guests. Guttman reiterated that it will be rented a maximum of 180 days and so it's going to be less than that in practice. He responded to two suggestions from the public about having a minimal limit of days for rentals, and only advertising for 180 days of rentals, stating that both were impractical from a business perspective. He added that disruption to the neighborhood will be limited, with just people leaving their car and going inside, as there isn't much room to hang out outside. Ted Crane asked if he could comment and Scriber said no. Planning Board Discussion: Vanucchi stated she doesn't think elderberry are drought tolerant enough to do well on the berm. She also wondered what happens to the area further down (south) the berm, and commented that a Serbian Spruce on the leach field ought to be moved farther west. Chiuten responded that they can look at the elderberries, and confirmed that the south berm will have meadow seeding. Maher commented that not much is going to shield the windows and the roof, though the fence previously suggested would be sufficient. She wondered if the newly proposed trees were not north enough to catch all the headlight traffic, which probably would not make an impact shielding light from the house itself. Also commented on how people talk about forsythia being invasive. Bergman asked for clarity on what parameters can be put on the house. Lighting, dark -sky, deck lights, what else? Planner West responded that any SPR requirement must be ancillary to the use. This means it must address a concern of the use in a reasonable way, but it does not actually change the use. Scriber referenced Planner West's memo to look at general considerations of conditions in the zoning law. She noted instructions directing people on where to park, and commented that there had been no discussion on pedestrian and bike traffic - less relevant because the house is not in the city - as well as on accessibility. She wondered if accessibility provisions were required. Planner West explained that ADA doesn't apply to homes (many SPR are for commercial sites). He was unsure what requirements would be because they are under the residential code (U). Tesi clarified that there is an exemption for lodging houses. Guttman said that the main floor is ADA assessable although it was established that there are steps to get inside. Scriber worried about using the term "family" and Planner West explained that the zoning is very inclusive and broad, so anyone who lives together and functions as a family is a family. Guttman said that people can lie about being a family but they will advertise as "for a family." Cowan wondered about requiring conditions that are more severe than other similar cases. She asked if anything previous SPR would carry over, and Planner West clarified this site plan will replace any previous ones. Current possible procedures options are: a. Tell them to make changes to what he has proposed and come back b. Approve the site plan with the contingency that certain more general changes will be made and brought back to Planner West and he'll check for compliance. c. They could elect to not care about whatever specific conditions were being discussed. d. Or they could decide to put a very specific condition in the Site Plan. He commented that the level of detail currently under discussion is on the edge of how specific Site Plans usually get. Planner West reviewed a bit of the history of the Site Plan Review and how that has connected to screening. Bergman stated the concern was screening for the neighbors and less so for 96B. He wants to make sure that what they plant near the neighbors will block light and noise for the neighbors. Planner West asked the PB to consider if they were close enough to consider a conditional approval of this. The applicant sent in a draft resolution that the PB has in front of them, with edits made by Planner West. Those edits were mostly regarding floor numbers, because this is a three story building with a basement, not a four story building. This is important to make clear due to code implications. Planner West confirmed that a Certificate of Occupancy has been given. Tesi asked for confirmation that that approval was given for a lodging house and Planner West confirmed. He asked the PB on how to move forward. Should they draft their own conditions or start with the template brought by the applicant. They could use their standard approval document wherein he would suggest the PB consider adopting a set of findings, possibly the two staff memos or other findings. He said the applicant's findings, aside from the floor concerns, are reasonable though very dense and specific. They decided to use their own document. West asked if they felt ready to make a decision tonight and they said yes. Planner Wets put up the PB Decision document on the screen and suggested they begin to fill out the conditions. They added the following conditions, which Planner West typed in: All exterior lighting, including lighting on the roof top decks, will be dark sky compliant, light sources will be completely shielded from view from the property line and beyond. Vanucchi wondered if storm water needed to be addressed and Planner West said only if there is a change - it was previously addressed. They discussed how parking could be screened from neighbors' view and the location of the fence. They continued to craft language as conditions. They can choose appropriate planting but not the elderberry and the spruce should be shifted. Site plan as submitted before 2-21 meeting, except elderberry and Serbian spruce on leachheld to be shifted, adhered to. Cowan wondered about putting in a condition that they must follow the conditions that they set (although, Cowan pointed out, those are more strict than what they would otherwise impose on anyone else). The applicant confirmed they were comfortable with this. Compliance with requirements set in application for occupancy class under the building code. Davis wondered if it is beyond their purview to condition occupancy, especially because it is not enforceable by the Town, conditions change for people, and also, what if the house is sold? It was confirmed that the condition goes with the land, not with the owner, so it cannot be conditioned on the applicant. Could a future owner come back and ask for a new site plan review with different requirements? Planner West said yes. West said he is dubious of a condition of the site plan being fines or something like that - these must be conditions about the site plan. He noted in other approvals, often included is the size of sign, that all parking needs to be met on site. There was one circumstance where the occupancy was limited. He clarified what the proposed occupancy class allows for. Maher suggested a condition requiring parking to be on -site. Guest parking must be accommodated on -site. MOTION to Approve Resolution 2 of 2023: To approve with conditions the Site Plan at 105 Beardsley Lane. Moved by Bergman, seconded by Cowan. The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Maher, Scriber, Colbert, Vanucchi, Davis SUB-2022-07 36 Valley View Rd. Parcel: 17.-1-26 Applicant: Tom Westmiller Anticipated Board action(s) this month:Final Subdivision Approval was granted in November 2022 subject to a condition that applicant designate a utility right of way. Final Plat is ready for sign off from Planning Board Chair. Zone: Hamlet Neighborhood SEAR: Unlisted Proposal: The applicant would like to subdivide off 1.7 acres to create a viable building lot. The current lot is 2.28 acres. The portion to be subdivided was added to the existing parcel in 2016. New Documents: Final Plat No action other than Chair signing the Final Platt. 6. PLANNER REPORT (VERBAL) • Crazy month! They have completed the start-up for the housing grant. This grant will provide 10-14 Danby homes with grants. Applications from the elderly, veterans, and from very substandard homes will get an extra bump. The Town Received a grant from Tompkins County to hire Thoma in Cortland to run the program. Each project will come to the board for approval before it starts. • Related: The grant received to hire help to write the previously mentioned grant will be resubmitted soon. It'll focus on the hamlet and housing. There will be public meetings to learn about which grants are available. Planner West is interested in applying for the NY Forward program, which is for rural communities. Even if we do not receive it, it could provide a good avenue to help the Town figure out its priorities. • TB has acknowledged that short term rental regulations don't make much sense, and that they plan to really dive into what will be permitted in the Town and what folks are concerned about. This is a very fluid conversation all over the place, with lots of opinions and it makes sense for the PB to chime in. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:48pm. Materials for this meeting are linked to each application number in the agenda which is available on the Town calendar: https://danbv.ny_.gov/event/ Past meeting materials are available above and at: https://Ifweb.tompkins-co.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=2224&dbid=3&repo=Danby&cr=1