Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-17 Planning Board Minutes (Final)The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov Planning Board Minutes Tuesday 17 October 2023 at 7:OOPM A Regular Meeting of the Town of Danby Planning Board will be held at 7PM on Tuesday, October 17 2023 In -person & via video conference (Zoom) PRESENT: Ed Bergman Jacob Colbert Colleen Cowan Scott Davis Kelly Maher Jamie Vanucchi Joceyln Scriber OTHERATTENDEES: Town Planner Greg Hutnik Recording Secretary Cindy Katz Public (in person) Leslie Connors (Town Board member and liaison); Oliva Vent; Christel Trutmann; Debbie Benson Public (virtual) Ted Crane; Nate Cobb; Austin Goodwin; Ronda Roaring; Kartik Sribarra This meeting was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom platform The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agenda during this review process. However, later during the meeting, it was decided to discuss crafting a recommendation to give to the Town Board regarding an amendment to the Town's Zoning Law. That discussion was held following the development review. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ted Crane would like to speak after the Ag district presentation and Chair Scriber consented. He also stated, regarding the Vent application that she should "go for it" while also noting that a variance would be required due to the set -backs. He thinks that the set -back requirements are counter -productive to the rural nature of the community and it ought to be removed. Ronda Roaring also requested to have her time to speak after the Ag District presentation. Chair Scriber consented. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES (August 2023) The Planning Secretary explained that the minutes were taken via Zoom recording because she was not present at the meeting. The individuals giving a motions and a second were not always not discernible to her. The Board discussed that they are comfortable approving the minutes as is. MOTION: Approve the August 2023 minutes. Moved by Vanucchi, seconded by Cowan. The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Vanucchi, Scriber Abstain: Davis, Maher (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT (VERBAL) Town Board Member Leslie Connors gave her report including the following items: • The Town Board will hold a Public Hearing tomorrow on the Tax Cap override • Speed limit reductions in town happening with more to come • A new draft of the noise law, with the lawyer's input, is being released (5) CRYSTAL BUCK. CCE, OVERVIEW OF EIGHT YEAR AG DISTRICT REVIEW • Letter to Planning Board • Danby AgDistrict#2 Map Ms. Buck approached the mic and passed out a hand-out to PB members. She explained the significance of the Ag District and the map of the district was put on the large screen for all to see: • Ag Districts are important for the protection of farmers & are really mostly relevant to commercial farming • We are in the 8 year review of Ag District #2.. This is the only time when properties can be removed, although they can be added yearly • After the PB and other feedback, the proposed changes will eventually go to the County Legislature for a Public Hearing and approval • Being in an Ag District protects commercial farm from unreasonable laws that would limit it -- so local laws don't apply to it. This includes zoning laws, noise laws, dust laws. A "nuisance suit" cannot be filed against a commercially active farm in an Ag District. Also applies to farms that receive ag asessment, even if not in an Ag District. • There are public action notice requirements that apply such as new water lines, land acquisition or use of public funds (like with solar) that require review by Ag and Markets and Ag and Farmland Protection Board. • Limitations on local benefit assessments-- if a new benefit area is created in the ag district, it will be assessed only on its residential piece • Real estate disclosure does apply to non commercial areas, meaning any home bought must be informed it is in an ag district and smells, noise etc should be anticipated. That should be considered when looking at ag areas that have residential parcels adjacent. PB Member Davis asked to clarify regarding benefit assessment districts and she clarified if a new benefit district was made, it would not assess the ag pieces of the area. Smaller maps were distributed and the PB reviewed them. Ms. Buck explained that areas are often added in order to maintain continuity to larger areas (ie, an island that is surrounded by ag district will be added to the district) Currently one addition proposed -- around West King and Comfort. This is an active ag area that is not receiving an ag assessment but is adjacent to the ag district. Ms Buck solicited feedback from the PB on this addition. PB member Maher asked when is the property owner involved in this? Ms Buck replied that happens after review from the TB and PB occurs. At that point, notice will be sent to the owner, giving them 3 weeks to reply. Davis noted that the proposed property was mowed and bailed this summer. He wondered about the implication of each new property getting added after its neighbor gets added? Ms Buck explained that they visually look at the area, consider the municipal zoning, as well as any natural divisions (streams, residential areas etc) to decide what is added. She noted the area under discussion has good soil, is being used for agricultural purposes, and isn't zoned for something contradictory. Davis disclosed his home is to the south of that area and he wondered if it might be included at some point. They discussed what properties were not included because they were in the other ag district. Ms Buck said that she is hearing that the Planning Board is generally comfortable with the addition proposed. They moved on to discuss removal from the district. Ms Buck explained that this often happens when there is an island parcel that is in an ag district but no others around it -- like area A in the map, or the ag district is counter to the intentions of town zoning. The other area (B) flagged for removal is mostly small residential properties in West Danby. Those being in an ag district feels contrary to the town's zoning, which they had reviewed. Vanucchi wondered if being removed could cause hardship if any of those individuals are in fact farming. Ms Buck replied that yes, it could and may result in them needing to do Site Plan Review or the like, and that this is question of balancing needs. They tried to get the definition of "commercial farming" but the definition is not totally defined and taken case by case by Ag and Markets. This is in contrast to receiving an ag assessment which requires a farm to make more than $10k, but this does not apply to the ag district. Davis wanted to go back to West King area, where his property is located. He wondered if his property would be added to the ag district. It is not happening this year but technically it could happen any year. The PB inquired if anyone from the town did ask to be added. Ms Buck replied that two people did ask, but that they were both already in the district. Cowan clarified that we are still a "right to farm" town which we are. Ted Crane was given his opportunity to speak: He stated his property is an ag district and he thinks it's great. He pointed out that commercial farming can now include things that you may not consider farming. For example, running a restaurant serving what you grow or the wine you make. He stated these are more like business than farming. He wondered how many of the people getting added to the district asked for it and are, in fact, farming? He thinks there needs to be a real reason to add in areas to ag district, not just do it for no reason. He recommended that the PB NOT recommend the inclusion of the yellow areas, specifically the Bed and Breakfast. He commented that she has a small Christmas tree farm and he speculated she may try to open a restaurant. He is concerned about more and more development. He suggested only adding to the district when people specifically request it. He agrees with all the removals. [Secretary note: Crane mistakenly referred to Ms Buck as "Cheryl." Her name is Crystal.] Ronda Roaring was given her opportunity to speak. She stated that she had wondered how she got into an ag district and now she knows that Ms Buck did it! Roaring went on to state that if they weren't in a public forum she would tell her where to "shove" her ag district and that she (Ms Buck) had better remove Roaring from the district TOMORROW! At this point the PB muted Roaring, commented that she was behaving rudely, and apologized to Ms. Buck. Cowan commented on the benefit of adding properties rather than removing them. Farming requires creativity to be viable/sustainable, and that is why she supports agro-tourism. Board Member Conners pointed out that the property across the street from the one mentioned by Crane is a large horse farm. The Planning Board thanked Ms Buck for her work. (6) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SPR-2023-02 - Danby Food and Drink Address: 1843 Danby Road Parcel: 10.1-49.2 Applicant: Olivia Vent Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Sketch plan review, SEQR Classification Zone: Hamlet Center SEAR Type: Type I I Proposal: Renovating an existing -950 square foot garage into a full -service market/cafe. Chair Scriber asked if Applicant Olivia Vent could speak about the proposed project. Vent approached the mic and reminded the PB of a previous resolution passed by them to seek a Restore NY grant to fund this project. However, that funding was not received, but her and partner Kartik decided to move forward on the project anyway. She explained she is going into debt to make this market happen, that they received code approval and are waiting for a green lights from the health department. Planner Hutnik has been helping and they are aware that they'll need some variances. Kartik Sribarra, who plans to manage the market, spoke over Zoom. He explained that he has been working with local groceries for ten to eleven years now. He believes in the "magic" that small markets can bring to small towns, and he is grateful and excited for this chance from Vent. He also added that the business model is based on Brookton's Market (in Brooktondale) and the Mainstreet Market (in Trumansburg). It will be a small "catch-all" type place, with coffee service, prepared food, and gathering space. They have lots of big plans but many of those will take years to come into fruition. Vent explained that her long time hope with all the properties she holds has been to develop them into a village center type situation. This has not happened though and it has taken her since 2008 to get to where she is now. She commented that she had been looking for investor, and then Sribarra came along with the idea of the market and the charisma to make it work. She added that she has tenants who are aware of the project, that she wonders if there may be a way in the future to incorporate the old barn on the property, although it too would need a variance. Davis stated his appreciation and wondered if maybe the Planning Board and others would be interested in a trip to the King's Ferry store, where he knows the guy who started it. He also commented that they have gas pumps there, which would be helpful. Vent stated her goal to set-up the building up to commercial code, although maybe at some point to have electric chargers. Vent expressed confusion over how the project would work due to its nature of being mixed residential and commercial. Sribarra stated that he was unable to hear anything and the Board tried to re- arrange mics and speak more directly into them. The PB asked for Planner Hutnik to review their role in this. He explained that today they can hear the overview, and prepare the Applicants for future Site Plan Review. They discussed that if variances are needed, that would first go to the BZA, followed by Site Plan Review potentially in December. Planner Hutnik encourages the PB to review if the application is complete, if it conforms with zoning requirements, and Commercial Design Guidelines. He commented on how this is construction on an already existing building so maybe less is needed in order to fit the design guidelines. At the behest of Maher, Vent clarified that the drive -way would be in the big semi -circle, and that a new area may also be created for tenant to park in They contemplated if the sketch fits with the town's commercial guidelines and agreed that it did; since it is a building already in existence, it already fits with the character and blends in. The Applicant explained the building was probably originally a machine shop for the farm. Vent added in that it has three levels, and therefore an ADA ramp would be required. They discussed what would be needed in terms of landscaping, and visual screens. Planner Hutnik read the landscape requirement from the Zoning law. Vent commented on the pine tree, the garden, creating a visual barrier between the apartments, the commercial area, and the road. Planner Hutnik brought up the landscape requirement from the zoning and read from, commenting on how NYSEG and DOT (the Department of Transportation) also will have needs, and added how it may be a "give and take" to work out the landscaping and greening especially if the parking is right up front. Vent expressed uncertainty around how more trees could be planted due to the size of the one large pine. Planner Hutnik added the zoning has a landscape requirement for renovations of over 50% of building value requiring that there be an average of one tree for every 30 feet of frontage, and that trees be 3 inches diameter at breast height at planting. He also explained there is a planting exemption if utilities that are above or below grade make planting not possible, or if the existing design of the street does not allow the planting. This would be a question for NYSEG and DOT. This is something they will have to look at with the board, especially considering the parking up front. They continued to discuss where things could be located, and Planner Hutnik reminded them this was at the board's discretion and needs examination of what is on the ground. They clarified that there are electric lines which can prevent trees, so maybe buffers would be needed. Maher brought up that this may play into the bigger long term vision of having sidewalks present. She also pointed out the importance of not digging around the already existing tree's drip line when creating the parking lot. Chair Scriber asked if they are working with someone on ADA and Vent clarified the engineer and architect have put that into the plans. Davis asked if the PB can officially recommend that the Applicant seek a variance. Planner Hutnik replied yes, the PB can tell the applicant that they cannot approve something now because a variance is needed, and also that the PB cannot seek to influence the BZA. Cowan commented on how problematic the set back requirements seem to be for the hamlets in Danby and West Danby. They discussed how the law could be amended to account for the hardships of the set -backs for existing buildings, and how this would be something that the PB could recommend to the Board. Town Board Member Conners said she would bring it up to the board, and the PB wondered if they ought to add this to the agenda in order to give a formal recommendation to the Town Board. The PB stated that before Site Plan Review they would like to see a slightly more detailed site plan with more details on parking, (and without getting in the drip line of the pine), potential buffering from street and greening. Bergman reiterated that he thinks the setback requirement should not be enforced for an existing building. Vanucchi commented on screening and the general desire for 96b to not be filled with parking lots on its side, and they discussed the option of shrubbery or pruning trees, and how something colorful would be nice. The PB members commented on how this was an exciting project. Planner Hutnik pulled up the site plan checklist. Maher wondered if they had to claim lead agency and Planner Hutnik said they could wait since this is a Type 2 action, and doesnt require further review. The applicant already provided the Short Environmental Assessment Review Part 1 which can be reviewed, noting that a Public Hearing will also be required. The applicants inquired about a hypothetical timeline, because timing with the BZA is a bit complicated as their next meeting won't be until after the next PB meeting in November. Planner Hutnik suggested that it might be in their benefit to come to the PB in November with a more detailed site plan just to get any more feedback or even preliminary approval. This way, they can aim for a December approval if the BZA grants the variances in November. Planner Hutnik explained what the BZA application would require and what to expect, and he told them the application should be submitted by the first week of November. PUD-2021-01-AMENDMENT - Norbut Solar Farm Site Plan Amendment Parcel: 10.-1-21.122; Applicant: Passero Associates Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Consider site plan amendment Zone: PDZ SEQR Type: Type 1 (negative determination issued) Proposal: An. amendment.to.the. approved. S ite.Plan.to.reduce.the. footprint. of the. site's. internal. driveway.by. locating. it. along. an. existing. farm. road.. Nate Cobb, Project Manager, provided an overview to the amendment, explaining that they are seeking approval for an amendment that they believe will be more environmentally friendly as it proposes using a farm road that already exists. This option will help mitigate stormwater concerns by using already existing infrastructure. Cobb put the site map on the screen and introduced engineer Austin Goodwin who was also on the call and available for feedback. Maher asked why this is coming up now and not two years ago? They replied they were previously unaware of this road and pre-existing stormwater management there. The Planning Board wondered how that was possible since they had all walked the property together - perhaps it was overgrown or hidden. They also tried to remember what was present at the stream crossing and if it protected the waterway. The PB then clarified that the proposed solar layout is not changing, only the access road. Cowan wondered about potential impacts on the neighbors, noting that this proposed road is less "on top of them" than the currently approved one. The applicant explained that the DEC has approved the site plans and the impact will be less on the land and surrounding area. Member of the public Debbie Benson asked if they already built the road and the applicant replied no. PB member Bergman asked if this would involve any changes in access from Bald Hill and the answer was no. The PB asked for the details on the existing stream crossing which would be utilized. Goodwin replied that they are "plastic pipe", already in place, in two places, already compacted soil, ready for heavy vehicles to go over them. By using these already in place, they do not have to install new crossing. He added this is the "safest bet" they could ask for. Maher commented that this road is closer to some of the wet areas but speculated that the impact would not change. Vanucchi asked for details on the existing storm water management that the applicants previously referenced. The applicants replied that the driveway which they are now seeking approval for, though in a different location from the originally approved one, is smaller than the one already approved, explaining that the reduction of the drive -way size will therefore not contribute to increased run-off entering the tributary. Planner Hutnik reminded the applicants that they do need to submit an updated SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan). They affirmed they would go back to the DEC and come back to the town with an amended SWPPP to be filed. Cowan tried to remember how the information presented lined up with what they saw in their walk-through. The applicants replied that it was decided that a section originally planned to have solar array on it would not have solar panels on it. Therefore, that area is now available for them to use, which it hadn't been before. The Planning Board and the Planner reviewed the decision document. The PB wondered where the bio retention area is located. The applicants showed the plans on the large screen, explaining how the system of swales and outlets functions in order to prevent the wetland from overflowing. The applicants clarified that this has been approved by the DEC, that it will be reflected in the amended SWPPP. He added that operation and the maintenance is already covered in the approved SWPPP. Planner Hutnik added that the applicants submitted yesterday an updated operation and maintenance agreement, with a few added points on maintenance for bio-retention area, as per the DEC, which Planner Hutnik requested as per recommendation of the Tompkins County Soil and Water. He can share that with the board. MOTION: To pass resolution 11 of 2023 granting approval for the amendment to the approved Site Plan at the Norbut Solar Farm on the condition that the SWPPP amendment is updated and submitted. Moved by Maher, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber (6) DISCUSSION: RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD RE SETBACKS IN THE HAMLET CENTER ZONE DISTRICT The Planning Board discussed what recommendation to give to the Town Board regarding amending the set -back requirement in the town's Zoning Law for the Hamlet Center Zone District. The PB wondered if the recommendation should cover all set -backs, or only be relevant to existing buildings. There are some real reasons why people prefer to build less closer to the road at this time. Davis pointed out that utilizing existing buildings supports the town's comprehensive plan by permitting 19th century buildings to remain, thus contributing to maintaining the character of the neighborhood. They expressed concerns about having no restrictions resulting in more Dollar Store proposals, with large front parking lots. Planner Hutnik suggested adding the word "new" to the part on set -backs for commercial buildings. Maher asked how additions to existing buildings would play into this. Planner Hutnik suggested adding in a line about a percentage of a addition, maybe 20%. . Bergman clarified that the PB was only providing a recommendation here and that any amendments to the Zoning Law would be made by the Town Board. They continued to discuss how additions could play out. Vent explained about the logistics of her plans. Planner Hutnik clarified a bit of confusion between parking and set -backs, stating that this recommendation to the board is about set -backs and not parking requirements, as they are two different things. They read from the Zoning Law about parking, citing the intent of the zoning is to limit parking between the front building plain and the street (except for residential areas, which have 2-4 spots in front of the house). There was some confusion and Planner Hutnik read from the two relevant sections, the second stating that parking is not allowed in buffer zones. He clarified that for Vent's Market project, a variance would be needed from both of these sections of the code, given by the BZA. They discussed how this project is "mixed use" property and how parking relates to the residential part vs the commercial building. Planner Hutnik explained that right now the multi -family residential unit is in compliance, permitting, he thought, up to 4 parking spots in front of the building. Bergman tried to clarify his question and asked if the residential parking spots would count in with the commercial spots. Planner Hutnik explained that there is no parking requirement in this zone, only a requirement for where the parking lot can be located. Planner Hutnik checked the zoning code and read the requirements for parking, and clarified it would allow up to 4 spaces for residents. He clarified that he would interpret a "drive -way" as different than "parking lot" when Cowan wondered how visitors play into that. Vanucchi questioned if parking, sidewalks, and bike lanes could be allowed on 96b and Planned Hutnik replied that is a conversation for the DOT and that 96b is a state road. MOTION: To Recommend to the Danby Town Board that buildings already in existence within the Hamlet Center Zone District be exempt from the setback requirements stated in Section 605 of the Town's Zoning Law. The Town Board should also consider similarly exempting additions to existing buildings in the Hamlet Center Zone District from meeting the setback requirements of Section 605 when they are below a certain percentage of the existing building's gross floor area. Moved by Kelly Maher; seconded by Colleen Cowan. [Note: Roll was not called] (7) PLANNER REPORT (VERBAL) Planner Hutnik gave his verbal report. • He's been working with property owners on basic questions about what is possible on their land. • There are a few larger projects that he is looking guidance on from the Town Board -- a grant from Tompkins for boardwalks at Dotson Park for example • The CBDG Home Rehab project is being managed by the Town Clerk, Janice Adelman There may be some potential zoning amendments around the corner (8) ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:01pm.