HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-21 Planning Board Minutes (Final)
Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Mee ng
February 21 2023
PRESENT:
Ed Bergman
Colleen Cowan
Kelly Maher
Jamie Vanucchi
Jody Scriber (chair)
Jacob Colbert
Sco Davis (present via Zoom, joined ~7:11 pm)
ABSENT:
None
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner David West
Recording Secretary Cindy Katz
Public (in person)Charles Gu man, 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 mee ng was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom pla orm.
The mee ng was called to order at 7:03 pm.
1.CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW
There were no addi ons or dele ons to the agenda. Planner West reminded the
a endees that there was not anything to do for the Valley View Road subdivision;
Mary Ann Barr 2021
The Town of Danby
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
danby.ny.gov
Planning Board Minutes
Tuesday 21 February 2023 at 7:00PM
they had been wai ng on the final pla but it has already been approved.
2.PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Ted Crane sought to clarify that the Public Hearing regarding BeardsleyLane was s ll
open (it was).
3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Jan. 2023)
MOTION to approve the Jan 17 2023 minutes
Moved by Scriber, seconded by Maher
The mo on 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 mee ng with IT providers and gathering
informa on and cost es mates. 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 par al property tax exemp on to Danby fire
fighters.
●The TB is con nuing its conversa on on short term rentals. They are
gathering informa on, mee ng, 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
An cipated Board ac on(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 me the Planning Board is seeing this
applica on. Currently the sketch is not compliant with zoning and therefore, it
must first go to the BZA before the Planning Board can take any ac on. This is an
opportunity to provide feedback & ask ques ons.
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 preserva on goal. Under current zoning, this lot could
be divided into 8 separate lots, so thinking about a future owner wan ng to divide
it more adds some complexity, no ng 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 exis ng
house. He concluded a subdivision with a size variance made more sense, and
expected the PB will likely put a condi on on the subdivision where the remaining
larger lot would lose two poten al 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 condi on in the subdivision that no
more than 6 lots could be divided out of the parcel. Scriber asked the applicant if
his inten on 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
An cipated Board ac on(s) this month: Review Addi ons to Applica on,
Con nue and Close Public Hearing, Complete SEQR, 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.
New Documents: Updated site plan, Dra condi ons le er, presenta on
Public Hearing
The PB clarified that the Public Hearing is s ll open for Beardsley Lane and that
one new le er had been received that morning. Planner West read the le er 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 condi ons and restric ons for the house should the appeal be
denied.
Virginia Tesi (151 Beardsley Lane), a real estate a orney, spoke. She brought the
appeal on Planner West's determina on of the house as a "tourist house" to the
BZA. She wants to address possible condi ons on the Site Plan in case the BZA
rules in favor of his determina on.
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 defini on of a
"tourist home lodging home" vs a "tourist home bed and breakfast." She said we
should dis nguish this tourist house from a commercial hotel/motel and set
condi ons to stay aligned with that, no ng that the applicant's a orney had
already started a list of condi ons. She reviewed some of those condi ons, and
suggested ren ng 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 adver sed/available rented nights.” She also suggested an
enforcement provision with escala ng fines for viola ng condi ons.
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 (Cer ficate 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 loca on 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 wri en requirements. The three minutes ringer buzzed and
he asked for more me. He began to review previous buildings that the staff
memo used as previous examples and ques oned their relevancy. Scriber
con nued to tell him his me was complete; he con nued talking and was muted.
Robert Goggs: Wondered if these discussions make more sense a er the BZA
appeal occurs next week. West responded that though the BZA process does
create a delay in gran ng permits, it does not have impact on delibera ons from
the PB. The landowner s ll has the right to a Site Plan Review. If the BZA did find
the use was wrong, it would not ma er if the SPR was done.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:39 PM
Planner West noted that the applicant had some addi ons including a
presenta on, as well as some changes to the plan ng plan (hard copy provided to
PB) according to the PB requests.
Charles Gu man approached the mike and stated that he does know Virginia Tesi
through their work as a orneys. He put up a presenta on on the screen. He
stated that the applicants intent has always been to put reasonable condi ons on
this house. He believes the presenta on addresses all of the issues. He wondered
why drainage issues are being brought up here. He showed the presenta on,
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.
Plan ngs: 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. Gu man 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.
Gu man reiterated that it will be rented a maximum of 180 days and so it’s going
to be less than that in prac ce. He responded to two sugges ons from the public
about having a minimal limit of days for rentals, and only adver sing for 180 days
of rentals, sta ng that both were imprac cal from a business perspec ve. He
added that disrup on 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. Ligh ng,
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 considera ons of
condi ons in the zoning law. She noted instruc ons direc ng 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
residen al code (R3). Tesi clarified that there is an exemp on for lodging houses.
Gu man 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 func ons
as a family is a family. Gu man said that people can lie about being a family but
they will adver se as “for a family.”
Cowan wondered about requiring condi ons 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 op ons are:
a. Tell them to make changes to what he has proposed and come back
b. Approve the site plan with the con ngency 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 condi ons were being
discussed.
d. Or they could decide to put a very specific condi on 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
condi onal approval of this. The applicant sent in a dra resolu on 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 implica ons.
Planner West confirmed that a Cer ficate of Occupancy has been given. Tesi
asked for confirma on that that approval was given for a lodging house and
Planner West confirmed.
He asked the PB on how to move forward. Should they dra their own condi ons
or start with the template brought by the applicant. They could use their standard
approval document wherein he would suggest the PB consider adop ng 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 condi ons. They added the following condi ons, which
Planner West typed in:
All exterior ligh ng, including ligh ng 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 loca on of the fence.
They con nued to cra language as condi ons. They can choose appropriate
plan ng but not the elderberry and the spruce should be shi ed.
Site plan as submi ed before 2-21 mee ng, except elderberry and Serbian spruce on
leachfield to be shi ed, adhered to.
Cowan wondered about pu ng in a condi on that they must follow the
condi ons 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 applica on for occupancy class under the building
code.
Davis wondered if it is beyond their purview to condi on occupancy, especially
because it is not enforceable by the Town, condi ons change for people, and also,
what if the house is sold? It was confirmed that the condi on goes with the land,
not with the owner, so it cannot be condi oned 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 condi on of the site plan
being fines or something like that - these must be condi ons about the site plan.
He noted in other approvals, o en 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 condi on requiring parking to be on-site.
Guest parking must be accommodated on-site.
MOTION to Approve Resolu on 2 of 2023: To approve with condi ons the
Site Plan at 105 Beardsley Lane.
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Cowan.
The mo on passed.
In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Maher, Scriber, Colbert, Vanucchi, Davis
SUB-2022-07 36 Valley View Rd. Parcel: 17.-1-26
Applicant: Tom Westmiller
An cipated Board ac on(s) this month:Final Subdivision Approval was granted in
November 2022 subject to a condi on that applicant designate a u lity right of
way. Final Plat is ready for sign off from Planning Board Chair.
Zone: Hamlet Neighborhood SEQR: 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 por on to be subdivided was added
to the exis ng parcel in 2016.
New Documents: Final Plat
No ac on other than Chair signing the Final Pla .
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. Applica ons 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 men oned
grant will be resubmi ed soon. It’ll focus on the hamlet and housing. There will
be public mee ngs to learn about which grants are available. Planner West is
interested in applying for the NY Forward program, which is for rural
communi es. Even if we do not receive it, it could provide a good avenue to
help the Town figure out its priori es.
●TB has acknowledged that short term rental regula ons don’t make much
sense, and that they plan to really dive into what will be permi ed in the Town
and what folks are concerned about. This is a very fluid conversa on all over
the place, with lots of opinions and it makes sense for the PB to chime in.
7.ADJOURNMENT
The mee ng adjourned at 8:48pm.
Materials for this mee ng are linked to each applica on number in the agenda which is available
on the Town calendar: h ps://danby.ny.gov/event/
Past mee ng materials are available above and at:
h ps://lfweb.tompkins-co.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=2224&dbid=3&repo=Danby&cr=1