Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-18 Planning Board Minutes (Final)Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting July 18 2023 PRESENT: Ed Bergman Jacob Colbert Colleen Cowan Scott Davis (arrived at 7:10pm) Kelly Maher Jamie Vanucchi Jodi Scriber OTHERATTENDEES: Town Planner: David West Recording Secretary: Cindy Katz Public (in -person): Leslie Conners (Town Board member); Marcus A Williamee; Rachel Kissinger; Ruth and Les Freeman; Shane Spencer; June Spencer; John Augustine Jr; Nate Greenspun; Zachary Larkins; Brandon Augustine; Anthony Augustine; Derek Dougherty; Ariel Rulz; Peter Goodman; Robert Ferris; Kate ONeal; Jethro Forbes Public (virtual): Michael & Ginger Woodson; Ted Crane; Katharine Hunter (Board Member); Guillermo Metz; Theresa Klinger; Aaron Ovios; Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor); Steve Edgar; Kevin Feeney; Patrice Pastor; Carol Bushberg; Toby Dean; Mauricio Medina; Ronda Roaring; Eric Bandford This meeting was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom platform The meeting was opened at 7:03 PM. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Planner West clarified that there will be time before each specific project to speak, and that now is the time for general speaking of up to 3 minutes. Ted Crane commented that he was only able to see five people from the PB via Zoom. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes (May 2023) Motion: Approve the minutes from May 16 2023 Moved by Cowan, seconded by Colbert. The Motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT (VERBAL) Town Board member Leslie Conners approached the microphone and reported on the following items: • Reminded the community that the Farmer's Market will be on Friday at the Fire Pavilion • The Town Board meeting tomorrow July 19th will include three public hearings (CDBG grant, proposed law to switch from elected Town Clerk to appointed, proposed tax abatement law for conservation easement properties). There will also be two interviews of potential Town Board members.She thanked former Town Board member Steve Weissburg for his service. • Five applications for a new Town Planner have been received and she wished to thank Planner West for his service getting the town to a better place now than when he started. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SPR-2023-1 520 W King Road Parcel: 1.-1-3.35 Applicant: Nathaniel Greenspun Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, application review, possible preliminary or final approval Zone: LDR SEQR Type: Type 2 Proposal: Applicant proposes an additional structure containing a home occupation (carpentry) and a second dwelling unit on the lot. Both are uses allowed by site plan review in this zone. The applicant approached the microphone. He explained their need for more space to accommodate his growing business and his mother-in-law. Public Hearing The public hearing opened at 7:11pm Helen Staler, who lives across the road from the applicant, approached the microphone and shared her admiration of his skill and thoughtfulness as a builder. She has no doubt the structure he builds will be amazing. The public hearing closed at 7:13pm Board Discussion: Planner West put the map up on the screen. He explained that both uses of the structure (as a home occupation and a second dwelling/MIL apartment) are allowed by use in this Low Density Residential zone. He clarified the lot lines which had changed at some point. He added that a condition to meet the set -backs may be added and clarified what those setbacks are. Vanucchi asked about the location of the septic and the applicant showed it. Vanucchi asked about the required distance between well and the septic and the applicant stated that the current distance meets the requirements, and explained additional reasoning for the location of the septic. Planner West added that the health department will also be checking on the septic/well set-up, and that they will propose what is needed to the applicant. Davis asked clarifying questions about the infrastructure which the applicant addressed. No other questions were asked. Planner West said this is a type 2 action so it does not require environmental review. They looked at the decision document and added in conditions requiring the well and septic must conform to the county health regulations, and that new building must conform to town setbacks. MOTION: To Pass Resolution 6 of 2023 Granting Approval to the Proposed Site Plan with Stated Conditions. Moved by Cowan, seconded by Colbert. The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber SUB 2023-02 Nelson Road Parcel: 7.4-40.32 Applicant: Brandon Augustine Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application review, Public Hearing, SEAR, possible preliminary or final approval. Zone: Rural 2 SEQR Type: Unlisted Proposal: Applicant proposes a cluster subdivision creating one new house lot. Proposed house would meet the required 300ft buffer from existing adjacent homes. The applicant approached the mic and explained he is proposing a two acre lot for a house he will build at some point in the next few years. Public Hearing opened at: 7:23pm Patrice Pastor on Zoom spoke and asked to see exactly where the parcel is. Zoom crashed and Planner West said yes, it was possible, but we would have to wait until Zoom came back. She wondered about the watershed/septic and felt that previous newly built houses had resulted in drainage onto her property, which caused her expenses. The Applicant sought to understand where she was located. It was clarified she is on East Miller which the Applicant stated is a mile away from him. Ted Crane on Zoom spoke and commented that the map isn't to scale and isn't the full parcel. He wondered why is this at the PB for a cluster and not at the BZA for a variance for smaller lot in a 10 acre /parcel zone. He referred to the parcel as a "flag" He wondered about these "clusters" and if they can be an attempt to get around subdivision minimums. Carol Bushberg on Zoom agreed with what Crane said, and as a real estate agent she would not encourage anyone to try to build a house on a two acre lot in the Rural 2 zone. She encourages the PB to reject the application. The Public Hearing closed at 7:31pm Board Discussion: West clarified that a survey was not yet submitted so the board cannot give more than preliminary approval. The PB also clarified that there are two applications from people with the last name Augustine today but they are for different parcels. The owner of the land, who lives on 340 West Miller, clarified where his house is, that it is a separate parcel from the parcel discussed, but that it connects to the parcel in discussion. He disputed that it is a flag parcel, as claimed by Crane earlier and showed where the frontage is, and answered where the road access potentially would be. The PB asked why not subdivide the parcel into a larger 10 acre plot and he answered because the applicant is a "kid" and doesn't want to pay the taxes. Vanucchi asked what the left over land would be used for and the answer is hunting. The PB asked why this is a cluster subdivision. Planner West explained how it fits the criteria of a cluster because the parent lot is greater than 5 acres and the end density is no higher than would be allowed without cluster (in this case, 3 lots, but they are only proposing 2). He added that the town has used this provision many times before his time. He can't say if it meets the spirit of the law, but it does meet the requirements. The TB has not at this time removed that provision or changed the zoning to not allow it. Planner West said the next step is for the Applicant to get a survey and if they don't put on any conditions when he comes back, the PB will be required to approve it. Davis asked if a parent lot can serve as a parent lot again? Planner West clarified they could subdivide the remaining parcel in half or create a cluster again, but only for 2 lots. They wondered about the stream and if another lot could be fit in with access. They clarified that there isn't a road frontage requirement in this zone. The 300 feet buffer is required for houses, and the Applicant is comfortable with that. Cowan asked for clarification about the number of lots remaining and they discussed where another house could be built in regards to the stream. They discussed the neighbor to the north who sent a letter requesting the border between the properties be treated "sympathetically" with perhaps a larger buffer in case they wanted to create another lot in that area in the future. SEQR They reviewed SEQR Part I provided by the applicant. Planner West repeated that the home will need to reach the Stretch Energy Code which is more stringent that NYS energy code. The form looked in order. They went through the Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) , and it was agreed that the answer was "no or small impact may occur" to all questions. They noted some clearing would be required but that it was small. Bergman wondered if there are any wetlands. West said nothing came up in the state review but he checked in the county and nothing showed up through any of the levels of government. Planner West filled in the document. Motion: To Pass Resolution 7 of 2023 that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Moved by Cowan, seconded by Scriber. The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber West encouraged them to give feedback to the applicant for them when they come back for final approval. Davis wondered about additional subdivision and Planner West clarified that only 2 more lots could be subdivided out from the left over 30 acres. They added one additional subdivision was permitted as a condition. Davis suggested they discuss the buffer and the Applicant approached the mic. He wondered why someone with 160 acres of land needed a buffer, expressing that it seemed a bit ridiculous to him. The Applicant and the PB discussed options and the applicant explained that they plan to disturb as little as possible of the trees. The Applicant agreed that not clearing within ten feet of the lot line was OK. They discussed the stream buffer and access to the remaining lot. They requested as a condition that the final platt show reasonable access to that lot without going into the stream's buffer. Scriber wondered if they should address Zoom questions. The PB did not feel they had time and that the people had their chance during the public hearing. MOTION: To Pass Resolution 8 of 2023 Granting Preliminary Approval to the Proposed Subdivision with stated three conditions. Moved by Colbert, seconded by Vanucchi The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber SUP 2023-01 2288 Danby Road Parcel: 20.-1-1.6 Applicant: Solar Power Network LLC Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Sketch Plan Review, Informal public feedback, possibly schedule public hearing, feedback to applicant on additional info needed for SEAR. Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Type 1 Proposal: Applicant proposes major subdivision (4 lots) for multiple adjacent community solar projects totaling about 20MW. Applicant Aaron Ovios was on Zoom as representative of Solar Power Network LLC. He explained the company is looking to reconfigure the property to build 5 new lots, each for a community solar array. Planner West addressed the in -person audience, asking them to please keep it down and also asked Mr Ovios to please speaker slower. He explained that NYSERDA restricts the amount of solar that can be produced per lot, so that is why you need multiple parcels in order to get to a total of 17 MW of power. He said that the company is looking for input from the board and the community before they come back with a full application. He added a few details about the project; namely, that they are trying to use open agricultural field and minimize any clearances as much as possible within NYS guidelines that require topsoil preservation. They intend to have minimum impacts with steel piles as well as trackers that follow the sun. He stated that they are open to working with the community to find mutually agreeable solutions to any concerns. Planner West explained this is not a formal public hearing. Maher clarified the location. The PB asked if they wanted to discuss among themselves first or if they wanted to hear from the public first. Planner West said this is a very early sketch and that everyone involved wanted to hear the public thoughts. Board Member Leslie Conners asked if this company has any other solar farms in NYS. Mr Ovios explained the company is Toronto based and they have six fully approved farms and a few others in the process although none are currently up and active. They also have others in Canada, Asia and Europe. Marcus Williamee from the Rights Haven Farms spoke and said the solar plan would be entirely behind his property, and that the sketch showed the farm going straight through his barn where he works out. He supports green energy and solar but is upset by theses sketches apparent disregard for people's properties and lives. It feels very unfriendly and unneighborly. Rachel Kissinger at 2350 Danby Road with Marcus Williamee spoke and explained her professional experience, which includes Code Enforcement among other related fields. She had a prepared Powerpoint procedure that she put up on the screen. She seconded his concerns about proximity to the house. She said these sketches, if they happened on the ground, would impact her mental health, the character of the area. She questioned why this would be allowed since if we were discussing development, only one house could be built on ten acres. She brought up other concerns including water run-offs, and poles on or near people's property. She encouraged the company to try harder in their next round. Kissinger sat down because she surpassed her three minutes, but the PB invited her to return to finish her presentation. She continued to express concerns, including how the solar farm would be maintained. Derek Doughtery, also a resident on Danby Road spoke. He also expressed concern about the sketch -- pointing out that the (loud) transformer is 100 feet away from his bedroom, and that this sketch shows a fence going straight through a cemetery behind his house. He also wondered about the capacity of the lines in that area, since the NYSEG map shows just phase two but phase three will be needed to connect to the grid. He also said that he supports solar, has solar panels on his house, but there has been no care in this plan. Planner West clarified that part of the applicant's process will be to apply to NYSEG for a "seat on the train" to plug into the grid. West asked Ovios if they have started that process and he said they working on it and hopefully will have more info on what is needed at the next meeting they are present at. Kate O'Neal of 2275 Danby Road spoke and explained her property is under a NYS conservation easement which she believes would be barrier in regards to any run-off, for example, that might go on the property. She has no confidence in this company and is dubious of any process that may have approved them. She is also concerned about NYSEG using imminent domain, which they have the right to do. She said maybe HALF of what they are proposing would be OK, but this proposal impacts peoples' lives too much. Bob Ferris loves those hills and does not want to look at solar panels like that and neither do others Wes Friedman was mad when he saw the proposal but everyone has already said what he was thinking. Ariel Ruiz at 2225 Danby Road lives with Derek Dougherty is concerned about proximity to 96B, She explained how she reviewed the math of how many homes can be powered by how many megawatts of power, and concluded that it seemed to her that the Norbut Solar Project should generate more than enough of the energy needed by Danby. She was also curious if more detailed documents were available, as the Norbut Solar Farm included many but she could not find any here. Peter Goodman has lived for 40 years in Danby and spoke as a representative of the Danby Volunteer Fire Department. The Fire Department expressed questions about safety, education, access, availability to help, and differences between different models and operations, all of which need to be addressed. Jethro Forbes explained he is here also in his professional capacity with the Danby Fire Department. He stated that the Fire Department had sent a letter, expressing concerns about safety, access to homes, and responses to different types of fires (commercial vs residential), as well as the major concern regarding the forest to the south of the property. He explained that the fire department would ask the company to provide funds to help education the fire department on working with the project. He added that water access is also a struggle in these areas and that the fire department suggested a few ways that water could be provided. The Board moved to hear comments from people on Zoom. MP person (full name unknown) wondered if this project is tax deferred and if so, the Town would be losing 125 acres of taxable property. Does this mean the community has to pay more taxes to make up for those lost taxes? Planner West clarified they were not near a tax deferment, and it is not clear if such a thing would happen, he thinks the revenue would increase. They also sough to clarify that the farm would be five parcels in total. Michael and Ginger Woodsen live across from Kate on Van De Bogart. He supports people doing what they want on their own property so long as it doesn't impact their neighbors, but he believes this project could impact his land and other land around him in various ways. He supports solar and wind but is concerned about this current sketch Ted Crane said he hopes he can have five minutes like Rachel did. He and other people he knows like how solar arrays look. He wondered if the wires be buried under the ground? That front lot isn't giving much power,and is very close- can it be removed from the plan? Can a visual barrier be added? Maybe it would decrease the taxes, and he thinks someone should run the numbers. He continued to speak past 3 minutes and was muted. Derek Dougherty asked why NYS law requires them to subdivide into five acres parcels. Planner West replied that NYS gives different treatment to "community solar" which must be five megawatts or less So, in order to be considered "community solar" they divide into different parcels all five MW or less. No more members of the public wanted to speak. Board discussion: Planner West encouraged the Board to consider what guidance they could provide to the applicants, and what things they would want to see going forward. Bergman said the applicants need a better map, that incorporates feedback from the neighbors and considers what is actually there on the ground. Maher agreed and suggested to maybe remove that front lot that is closest to neighbors and 96B. She also mentioned other considerations that need to be incorporated, including buffering for the mobile home park, considerations of water ways, and the cemetery. Bergman would like to see the incorporation of natural buffering (trees etc). Planner West commented on how natural hedgerows have been kept, but they will need details on where clearing will occur. Cowan commented on how this proposal is right on top of neighbors land, pointing out how that differs from Norbut [another solar array in Danby] where you could not see a neighbor's house. . Scriber commented on how it is important to not bother the cemetery, and Davis said he would like to see a representative from the company here in person, considering the cost of this project. They wondered if the applicant had walked the land in person and the applicant replied that the owners of the company had visited and that as the process continues more site visits will happen. Davis added they had a very helpful tour of the Norbut farm and he would like that here. Planner West clarified what that sort of tour would look like, what the notification and requirements would be for notice. The applicant agreed that it sounds like a good idea and something they could look into. Maher also added that they must take into consideration the concerns and comments brought by the Fire Department. The applicant thanked everyone, said he understood the concerns and that they look forward to considering them and getting something more detailed submitted. Many members of the public, present for the solar discussion, left the meeting room. SUB 2023-03 548 Troy Road Parcel: 4.-1-41 Applicant: John Augustine Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Sketch review Zone: Rural 2 SEQR Type: Unlisted Proposal: Applicant proposes a cluster subdivision creating one 6.5acre lot around existing house to sell while retaining remaining land 35.6 acres. This subdivision previously received a variance for frontage and was approved by the Planning Board under the old zoning with Sue Beeners. Unfortunately it was not correctly filed with the county and became void after 1 year. Planner West clarified that this is just a sketch review. Applicant Augustine explained to the Board that he received a variance many years ago but was given some bad information and he now has to return to do it again. He would like to take care of this and have it all submitted in order to secure everything is set for his wife and children in the future. Planner West clarified this happened under the old zoning, he had received a variance which he was told would last forever. However, this isn't actually what the law says. With the new zoning, he no longer needs a variance for the frontage. What he is proposing is a cluster subdivid for two lots, though he could propose up to four lots. This is an opportunity to let the applicant know if he needs to do anything else. If not, they can go ahead and schedule a Public Hearing as is required. The Planning Board asked if there have been any improvements (changes) since this map from 1996. The applicant answered there have not. Planner West then clarified to the applicant that he needs to return because a Public Hearing is required and there was not enough time to schedule one for this meeting. The Planning Board expressed no concerns and offered to make sure that he is higher in the agenda when he returns. [61 PLANNER REPORT Planner West informed the Planning Board that he had accepted a job to be the Director of Planning at the City of Genecva. He will be with the Town of Danby for another 1.5 weeks. The Town Board will hopefully be approving tomorrow an offer given to a candidate to become the next planner in Danby. He hopes this person will be present at the next Planning Board meeting. He is leaving behind a memo with cuirrent statuses on all the on -going projects The Planning Board expressed hope that the new person would be able to lead them during meetings well and also help with technical support. Planner West provided a summary of on -going projects: 1. They are near the end of the Hamlet septic study. They expect to have a draft soon with several sets of ideas in various size configurations on how amenities might be provided to the center of the Hamlet. They have heard about some very innovative projects and are seeking to get more details on how those projects played out on the ground. 2. The homeowner housing rehabilitation project is bringing its first vetted project to the agenda of the Town Board meeting tomorrow. There are currently 19 applications, representing more than we have available slots. The Town wants to get more than we have available though as that raises the chances of receiving more funds in the future. We are also hoping to receive funds for an application for multifamily homes where the tenants are low-income households. Hopefully this grant application will be done before David leaves 3.The Town Board is working on STR legislation. The committee is looking for something very simple that addresses the difference between "tourist homes" where the owner lives, and full rentals. Currently tithe burden is higher on tourist homes than on full rentals, and that should be flipped. The TB is looking to have STR be registered with the Town. Tents, yurts and other accessory structures would be allowed on most parcels. The feedback from the survey was to come with a light touch. 4. Planner West mentioned possible updates around route 34 and the West Danby Hamlet. He is going to suggest more flexibility for new houses being built there. 5. Hopefully people saw the article in Tompkins Weekly on three new businesses potentially starting in Danby. He's excited about that and hopes the PB will help keep that momentum. Bergman asked why this job burns through so many people? Planner West assured him that he really enjoyed the job, was proud of what he accomplished, but he is looking forward to working with a city where he can focus on some of his big areas of interest such as walkability, bicycle considerations, and other urban issues that he focused on during his education. Scriber commented that she felt like they made meaningful progress during this time and she hopes the institutional knowledge will travel to the new person. [7] ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 9:27pm.