HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-17 Planning Board Minutes (Final)
A Regular Mee ng 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
Sco Davis
Kelly Maher
Jamie Vanucchi
Joceyln Scriber
OTHER ATTENDEES:
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; Aus n Goodwin; Ronda Roaring;
Kar k Sribarra
This mee ng was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom pla orm
The mee ng was called to order at 7:00p.m.
(1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW
There were no addi ons or dele ons to the agenda during this review process. However,
later during the mee ng, it was decided to discuss cra ing a recommenda on to give to
the Town Board regarding an amendment to the Town's Zoning Law. That discussion was
held following the development review.
Mary Ann Barr 2021
The Town of Danby
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
danby.ny.gov
Planning Board Minutes
Tuesday 17 October 2023 at 7:00PM
(2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Ted Crane would like to speak a er the Ag district presenta on and Chair Scriber
consented. .He also stated, regarding the Vent applica on that she should "go for it"
while also no ng that a variance would be required due to the set-backs. He thinks that
the set-back requirements are counter-produc ve to the rural nature of the community
and it ought to be removed.
Ronda Roaring also requested to have her me to speak a er the Ag District
presenta on. 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 mee ng. The individuals giving a mo ons 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 mo on 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 reduc ons in town happening with more to come
●A new dra of the noise law, with the lawyer's input, is being released
(5) CRYSTAL BUCK. CCE, OVERVIEW OF EIGHT YEAR AG DISTRICT REVIEW
●Le er 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 protec on of farmers & are really mostly
relevant to commercial farming
●We are in the 8 year review of Ag District #2.. This is the only me when
proper es can be removed, although they can be added yearly
●A er 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 ac ve
farm in an Ag District. Also applies to farms that receive ag asessment, even if
not in an Ag District.
●There are public ac on no ce requirements that apply such as new water
lines, land acquisi on or use of public funds (like with solar) that require review
by Ag and Markets and Ag and Farmland Protec on Board.
●Limita ons on local benefit assessments-- if a new benefit area is created in
the ag district, it will be assessed only on its residen al 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
an cipated. That should be considered when looking at ag areas that have
residen al 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 o en added in order to maintain con nuity to larger areas (ie, an island that
is surrounded by ag district will be added to the district)
Currently one addi on proposed -- around West King and Comfort. This is an ac ve
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 addi on. PB member Maher asked when
is the property owner involved in this? Ms Buck replied that happens a er review
from the TB and PB occurs. At that point, no ce 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 implica on of each new property ge ng added a er 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, residen al 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 proper es 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 addi on proposed.
They moved on to discuss removal from the district. Ms Buck explained that this
o en 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 inten ons of
town zoning. The other area (B) flagged for removal is mostly small residen al
proper es 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 ques on of balancing needs. They tried to get the defini on of "commercial
farming" but the defini on 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 s ll 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 ge ng 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 be er 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 proper es rather than removing them.
Farming requires crea vity 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 men oned 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: Applicant: Olivia Vent 10.-1-49.2
An cipated Board ac on(s) this month: Sketch plan review, SEQR Classifica on
Zone: Hamlet Center SEQR Type: Type II
Proposal: Renova ng an exis ng ~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 resolu on
passed by them to seek a Restore NY grant to fund this project. However, that
funding was not received, but her and partner Kar k 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 wai ng for a green lights from
the health department. Planner Hutnik has been helping and they are aware that
they'll need some variances.
Kar k 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 frui on.
Vent explained that her long me hope with all the proper es she holds has been
to develop them into a village center type situa on. 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 apprecia on 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
residen al 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 poten ally in December. Planner Hutnik
encourages the PB to review if the applica on is complete, if it conforms with
zoning requirements, and Commercial Design Guidelines. He commented on how
this is construc on on an already exis ng 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, crea ng 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, commen ng on how
NYSEG and DOT (the Department of Transporta on) 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 renova ons 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 plan ng. He also
explained there is a plan ng exemp on if u li es that are above or below grade
make plan ng not possible, or if the exis ng design of the street does not allow
the plan ng. This would be a ques on for NYSEG and DOT. This is something
they will have to look at with the board, especially considering the parking up
front.
They con nued to discuss where things could be located, and Planner Hutnik
reminded them this was at the board's discre on and needs examina on 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 exis ng tree's drip line when
crea ng 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 problema c 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 exis ng 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
recommenda on 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 ge ng in the drip
line of the pine), poten al buffering from street and greening. Bergman reiterated
that he thinks the setback requirement should not be enforced for an exis ng
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 op on of shrubbery
or pruning trees, and how something colorful would be nice. The PB members
commented on how this was an exci ng 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
ac on, and doesnt require further review. The applicant already provided the
Short Environmental Assessment Review Part 1 which can be reviewed, no ng
that a Public Hearing will also be required. The applicants inquired about a
hypothe cal meline, because ming with the BZA is a bit complicated as their
next mee ng won't be un l a er the next PB mee ng 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 applica on would
require and what to expect, and he told them the applica on should be submi ed
by the first week of November.
PUD-2021-01-AMENDMENT - Norbut Solar Farm Site Plan Amendment
Parcel: 10.-1-21.122; Applicant: Passero Associates
An cipated Board ac on(s) this month: Consider site plan amendment
Zone: PDZ SEQR Type: Type 1 (nega ve determina on issued)
Proposal: An amendment to the approved Site 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
op on will help mi gate stormwater concerns by using already exis ng
infrastructure. Cobb put the site map on the screen and introduced engineer
Aus n 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-exis ng 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 poten al impacts on the neighbors,
no ng 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 exis ng stream crossing which would be
u lized. Goodwin replied that they are "plas c 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
exis ng 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 loca on from the originally approved one, is smaller than the
one already approved, explaining that the reduc on 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 Pollu on Preven on 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 informa on presented lined up with what they
saw in their walk-through. The applicants replied that it was decided that a
sec on 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 reten on area is located. The applicants showed the
plans on the large screen, explaining how the system of swales and outlets
func ons 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 opera on and the maintenance is already
covered in the approved SWPPP. Planner Hutnik added that the applicants
submi ed yesterday an updated opera on and maintenance agreement, with a
few added points on maintenance for bio-reten on area, as per the DEC, which
Planner Hutnik requested as per recommenda on of the Tompkins County Soil
and Water. He can share that with the board.
MOTION: To pass resolu on 11 of 2023 gran ng approval for the amendment to
the approved Site Plan at the Norbut Solar Farm on the condi on that the SWPPP
amendment is updated and submi ed.
Moved by Maher, seconded by Bergman
The mo on 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 recommenda on 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 recommenda on should cover all set-backs, or only be
relevant to exis ng buildings. There are some real reasons why people prefer to
build less closer to the road at this me. Davis pointed out that u lizing exis ng
buildings supports the town's comprehensive plan by permi ng 19th century
buildings to remain, thus contribu ng to maintaining the character of the
neighborhood. They expressed concerns about having no restric ons resul ng 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 addi ons to exis ng buildings would play into this. Planner
Hutnik suggested adding in a line about a percentage of a addi on, maybe 20%. .
Bergman clarified that the PB was only providing a recommenda on here and that
any amendments to the Zoning Law would be made by the Town Board. They
con nued to discuss how addi ons could play out.
Vent explained about the logis cs of her plans. Planner Hutnik clarified a bit of
confusion between parking and set-backs, sta ng that this recommenda on 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, ci ng the intent of
the zoning is to limit parking between the front building plain and the street
(except for residen al areas, which have 2-4 spots in front of the house). There
was some confusion and Planner Hutnik read from the two relevant sec ons, the
second sta ng 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 sec ons of
the code, given by the BZA.
They discussed how this project is "mixed use" property and how parking relates
to the residen al part vs the commercial building. Planner Hutnik explained that
right now the mul -family residen al unit is in compliance, permi ng, he thought,
up to 4 parking spots in front of the building. Bergman tried to clarify his ques on
and asked if the residen al 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 ques oned if parking, sidewalks, and bike lanes
could be allowed on 96b and Planned Hutnik replied that is a conversa on 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 Sec on 605 of the Town's Zoning Law. The Town Board
should also consider similarly exemp ng addi ons to exis ng buildings in the
Hamlet Center Zone District from mee ng the setback requirements of Sec on
605 when they are below a certain percentage of the exis ng 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 ques ons 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 poten al zoning amendments around the corner
(8) ADJOURNMENT
Mee ng was adjourned at 9:01pm.