Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-20 Planning Board Minutes (Final)The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov Planning Board Minutes Tuesday 20 Feb 2024 at 7:OOPM Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting February 20, 2024 PRESENT: Ed Bergman Jacob Colbert Colleen Cowan Scott Davis (arrived 7:05 p.m.) Kelly Maher (arrived 7:10 p.m.) Jamie Vanucchi Jodi Scriber (Chair) OTHERATTENDEES: Town Planner Greg Hutnik Recording Secretary Cindy Katz Public (in person) Zach Palmer, Christa Nunez, Jefferson Colman, Abigail Cleary, Robert Cleary, Mary Martin, Zach Larkins, Heather Coffee, Katharine Hunter (Town Board member), Leslie Connors (Town Board member), Scott Whitham Public (virtual) Greg Nelson, Ronda Roaring, Ted Crane, Brian Caldwell, Aleksandr Mergold, Joel Gagnon This meeting was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom platform. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ronda Roaring requested that her comments which were emailed to the Town Planner and Planning Board be submitted for the record. Ted Crane pointed out the difficulty of farming on steep slopes and wondered about the details of farming the parcel on Hornbrook Road. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: To approve the December 2023 meeting minutes Moved by Cowan, seconded by Colbert The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Vanucchi, Scriber (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Town Board member Leslie Connors approached the mic and spoke the following points: 0 The Town Board is reworking the website and newsletter. Please give any feedback to the Town Clerk. 0 The Town Board is currently looking at the relationships between different boards and committees in the town. 0 Go shop at Elana Maragni's store on 96b. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB-2024-1 140 Updike Road Parcel: 4.-1-3 Applicant: Abigail Cleary & Jefferson Colman Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Sketch Plan Review; SEQR Classification; Schedule Public Hearing Zone: Rural 1 SEQRType: Unlisted Proposal: Minor Subdivision (1 lot to 2 lots) Planner Hutnik provided an overview of the request and put up the parcel map on the main TV screen. He added that Updike Road is a minimally maintained road, and explained that all the dwelling units currently on the property received approval between 1969-1986, thus addressing the concern put forward by resident Roaring in her email. There was no mention of any of the other structures (lean-tos, sheds etc) in the files. The Town probably does not require inspection of those structures before subdivision, but such can be looked into prior to any Public Hearing. The Applicants approached the microphone. They explained they are siblings who inherited the property and are now splitting it for convenience sake. They provided background on the various structures and small roads snaking around the property, including a yurt built with local school LACS. The yurt appears as a "cabin" on the map. Davis explained that an app he used to view the parcel showed it on two separate parcels. The applicants confirmed such must be a mistake as it is, in fact, one parcel. They offered a bit more of the history of the parcel and Planner Hutnik verified that it is all one lot. He also clarified that the proposed subdivision will split the parcel between its eastern and western sides, and not between the road. Cowan wondered if another subdivision would be permitted if another home was built on the other side of the road? It would technically be permitted because the zone requires 10 acres to subdivide, but the land is super steep over there, making such virtually impossible. Planner Hutnik explained that a state stipulation allows an owner to automatically subdivide via the county assessor if they have one parcel on two sides of a road. Therefore, should the owner wish, they could subdivide without even going through the town. Planner Hutnik explained the Planning Board will need to determine environmental significance of the subdivision, as the application is an unlisted action. He suggested reviewing such in order to prepare for a meeting next month with a required public hearing. They reviewed the responses submitted by the applicants in the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Planner Hutnik added to the form that the subdivision is near an intermittent stream but there is no action proposed next to the body of water, nor are there wetlands identified on the site. The planner then reviewed the process and next steps of the subdivision. He noted he has not heard back from Tompkins County yet, but he anticipates they will call out the stream. He therefore recommends adding a fifty foot stream buffer to the site plan. Planner Hutnik next reviewed the process of amending the platt to the applicants and the Planning Board expressed no more questions or concerns. Planner Hutnik stated that if the surveyer can make the changes in time, a Public Hearing, notification of the neighbors, and a final decision can be planned for next month. SPR-2024-010 Hornbrook Parcel: 6.-1-18.25 Applicant: Mary Martin on behalf of Rhize Up Community Farm Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Sketch Plan Review; SEQR Classification Zone: Rural 2; Overlay Zone Districts - Aquifer High Vulnerability; Habitat Corridor; Riparian Buffer SEQR Type: To be determined Proposal: Construct a duplex and operate a farm Planner Hutnik put up the presentation prepared by the Applicants, and Mary Martin, the representative of Whitham Planning, approached the microphone and introduced herself, the firm, as well as architect Aleksandr Mergold and Christa Nunez of Khuba International. Christa Nunez approached the mic and spoke about their project, called Quarter Acre for the People, that focuses on engaging children, particularly ones who have not had access to land or farms, and teaching them about living on the land. The proposed project is a two family dwelling with a basement for mushroom growing agricultural use. Other farming uses of the land will be low impact, possibly including chickens, bees, but no ruminants. Martin continued to move through the slides, and the Planning Board viewed the aerial imagery of the site, building location, and the proposed limits of disturbance. Martin also noted the various bridges, walkways, parking, and driveway off of Hornbrook. Next, Mergold spoke over Zoom and reviewed the lay -out of the duplex. Martin again spoke, continuing to move through the slide -show presentation. She showed a slide reviewing the various restrictions on the site, including the steep slopes, wetlands, and stream as well as the designation of the parcel with a Habitat Overlay Area, which is the reason Site Plan Review is required. There was also a slide showing the boundaries of the wetland, which ends near the tree line, and she explained that 2% of the site is slated for impervious cover. She stated that a tree survey of the area where the proposed development is slated showed the presence of Red Oak trees. This indicates, they believe, the start of a hardwood forest and the end of the wetland. She explained the general intention of the development is to impact the site as little as possible. They seek to achieve this by having a compact footprint, no auxiliary buildings, building as near to the road as possible, and regrading as little as possible. She thanked the Planning Board and took her seat. Davis wondered if they should choose a place for a chicken coop, seeing as the lot is tricky. Planner Hutnik explained that the trigger for site plan review in this instance is that the plot is in the Habitat Overlay Corridor. If not for that, all the work and building on the site would just go through him and the code office, without the Planning Board. However, due to the Habitat Overlay Corridor, any new building of impervious surface (including a chicken coop) will require Site Plan Review. Therefore it would be prudent to include any additional structures in this plan, so they would not need to return. Cowan asked if they had gotten a septic plan reviewed by the Health Department because it looks like a pretty tricky location. Martin replied that this was in their next steps. Member of the Public Zach Palmer raised his hand and was called on to speak. He approached the mic. He wondered how something referred to as a community farm can operate without any outbuildings. He also commented on how the area is very marshy and that it is upstream from a family farm. He is familiar with the land and is skeptical of it being a hardwood forest and not a wetland. He wondered who are these families, if they are people who are being "brought in," if they are getting some sort of tax break that could cause a burden on others, and if they might give up and move out after some time. He is concerned about potential run-off to the family farm downstream and hoped that the appropriate environmental review will occur. He thinks other locals also are concerned but may not be able to come out to the meetings. Planner Hutnik advised him that in the future, comments like that could go in writing and be spoken during the Privilege of the Floor. The Planner added that this is still in the very early stages and that all the necessary environmental review and stormwater mitigation will be undertaken. The public will also be invited to speak at a Public Hearing. Maher asked if this a different property from the one that was subdivided last year and they concluded that it was. Cowan pointed out that the septic is going to be challenging and expensive and before they spend too much time on the project, they ought to verify that it is, indeed, feasible in that location. Planner Hutnik added that the first step is Site Plan approval and before building permits are given, approval from the Tompkins County Health Department will be needed, and that might be expensive and/or challenging. The applicant verified that Planning Board members should contact the planner should they wish to walk the property. Cowan asked if driveway will be asphalt or gravel as that makes a difference for the stormwater. The applicant replied that this is To Be Determined. Cowan clarified that there are ten parking lots and Planner Hutnik explained there is nothing regulating how many parking spaces can be built. Planner Hutnik spoke about the need for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and how there are three different thresholds for potential plans, from the most basic one to a full one. Considering the size and location of the building, his recommendation is for the basic SWPPP, with phased development for stormwater controls as the building goes up. A basic or a full SWPPP is up to the discretion of the town (the 120 acre recent solar project had a full SWPPP, for example). Because of the high potential to impact the neighboring creek, this project seems a little "in-between." They reviewed the differences between the Full Environmental Assessment form vs the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and which one that is required is at the discretion of the Zoning Officer. Planner Hutnik told the Planning Board that he thinks requiring a basic SWPPP is appropriate, and can be requested from the applicants before final approval. They discussed the wetlands. Planner Hutnik recommended a wetlands delineation be conducted because at least four acres are Federal wetlands and it is important to be sure they are not encroaching on any wetlands. Vanucchi commented that the slope would indicate where the wetlands end. She wondered why these overlay districts exist for sensitive areas if we are still allowing development on them? She stated this site requires sensitive design and pointed out concerns including the well near the road, the challenge of the septic and the slope. She says she loves the idea of the project, but it in this particular location, it needs to be done extremely sensitively. Maher agreed and expressed compassion with the difficulty of purchasing land and then being limited on what can be done with it. Hutnik added that it makes sense to wonder why they have these overlay districts and that the board is within their power to require a high level of review. He reiterated that if this area had not already been designated a Habitat Overlay Corridor through a previous town process, it would not require Site Plan Review at all. Planner Hutnik explained he received an email just a few hours ago from the town attorney stating that the SEQR action not, in fact, be Unlisted, as he had classified it prior, but actually a Type 2 action due to it being a duplex and a farm. If this were the case, it would result in no further environmental review being required. Davis asked if the attorney provided the logic behind that call. Planner Hutnik said it has to do with "how a town can amend a Type 1 or Type 2 list:" Hutnik went on to explain that because he got it at such a late hour, he did not have time to digest it and wasn't prepared to disseminate the explanation to the Planning Board. Duplexes and agriculture uses are exempt per SEQRA, but Planner Hutnik said the exemption may not hold because the stipulation in Danby's Review of Environemtnal Actions Local Law requires heightened review when developments are in a certain proximity to sensitive natural areas. He needs to double check with the attorney, and he wanted the board to be aware of this. The Board agreed that they needed more clarity on this. Planner Hutnik then reviewed the differences between the processes involving SEQR review and the Town's Habitat Corridor Overlay District process. He emphasized their ability to condition various things such as a wetlands delineation and a stormwater plan because any impervious building in Habitat Corridor Overlay District requires Site Plan Review. Cowan asked if it was OK to ask for septic design and Hutnik said yes, it is going to have to happen anyway. Davis also spoke to the importance of having the details of the septic fleshed out sooner rather than later. Mr Palmer spoke again, and expressed concern about classifying this based on them calling themselves a farm. Planner Hutnik explained that their Site Plan Review has no connection to whether there is a farm use in this project. He also clarified that the point being brought up to the attorney on the type of action required is not based on farm use, but rather on the fact that the work is happening on a duplex that is within 250 feet of a locally, state, or federally designated sensitive area. Even if the mission of the project changed and it was no longer about farm use, it would not significantly affect the review by the Planning Board. Maher added that understanding all the grading would be helpful to see the project and the impact on the ground. Planner Hutnik reviewed his list of what was needed: • inclusion of all potential structures on the site • determining what type of SEQR action is required • a grading plan, showing all sections on the site • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan -- need to settle on which one is needed? • septic plan • wetland delineation • Ground Water Assessment form (current amount mentioned is below the threshold requiring more review) Hutnik read the requirements for the groundwater assessment form and where the threshold is to trigger more assessment. He read aloud from the Ground Water Data Statement, and what needed to be included with it. The Applicant explained that they used an average daily water use number to calculate their water use. Maher advised them to consider if other water uses on the property might come into play (for instance, agricultural use of water). Cowan encouraged the Applicants to think about size and trying to reduce their overall impact. She stated the hamlet and other areas would be more suited to a project like this and that this location makes it tricky, as it goes against the already established intention of the zoning. Planner Hutnik reviewed his intention of putting out a letter to the Applicant with the Board's requests. Once they have those, they can discuss further. He doesn't intend to schedule a Public Hearing yet, adding that they needed more clarification on the SEQR status. The Applicant asked if they could work with a biologist to conduct the wetland delineation to save money and Planner Hutnik thought that would be fine as long as they were a certified wildlife biologist. They reviewed which borders need to be reviewed, with Planner Hutnik stating it should be the road side of the wet area. The applicants left. Colleen Cowan mentioned she believed that the Planning Board had previously been informed of an earlier revision of this project during Planner David West's tenure. They discussed the size of the parking lot. Planner Hutnik suggested they approach the size by thinking that the public would come to a farm, for example, for farm days or other reasons like picking up a CSA. They discussed the sensitivity of the site and how he previously had communicated to the Applicants that the bar is very high for building on this site. There is a path forward for them, but it might be costly. Maher said it would be helpful for the Planning Board to understand what they need to do and what is within the Planning Board's rights to push back against. Hutnik explained that with SPR, the uses are allowed, but the town is allowed to mitigate the impact of the uses, as long as what they ask for is commensurate to the impact. Maher wondered about identifying certain animals in that habitat corridor. SPR-2024-02 1914 Danby Road Parcel: 14.-1-10.2 Applicant: Zachary Larkins Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Sketch Plan Review; SEQR Classification Zone: Hamlet Neighborhood SEQR Type: Unlisted Proposal: Construct a coffee shop and bakery in the first phase and additional residential housing units in future phase(s) Hutnik introduced the applicants and disclosed that Larkins works for the town as facilities manager. They reviewed the site plan on the large TV screen. They discussed the Applicants desire to set up a coffee trailer with a required commercial drive -way off 96b, limited parking and possibly a conditioned bathroom tied into their existing septic. This would be a precursor to building the brick and mortar coffee shop/bakery. They discussed some of their long-term ideas for using the space that incorporate community needs, and are mindful of mitigating any potential negative impacts on the land, which includes wetlands, and their neighbors. Conveniently, a full wetland delination was already done by Dollar General. Bergman confirmed that the coffee trailer would be park and walk-up (as opposed to drive up). Planner Hutnik reviewed the potential process, explaining that ideally, the entire site plan is reviewed for all phasing of development at one time. However, this is often difficult to accomplish and it isn't unusual for Site Plans to be amended as plans change over time. Right now, the priority for the Applicants is to approve the coffee shop/bakery on the Site Plan. Other pieces of the project may be added later on. He reviewed what could be added by right without Site Plan review, and what would require a Site Plan amendment. Hutnik encouraged the Applicants to decide what exactly they want approved by the Planning Board. The applicants spoke a bit more about their plans and hopes for the land. Cowan clarified that the black line is a driveway and wondered if there will be enough for people to turn around and get out. Planning Board members commented that they would like to see the parking plan fleshed out, vegetation/landscapping marked (not necessarily the species though), and where buffers would be. Planner Hutnik and the Planning Board discussed the zoning regulation that stipulates that all restaurants to be only on corner lots. That means they need to build a road. They discussed if the applicants could get a variance from that requirement and what the applicants had previously received a variance for. The applicant expressed his confusion over this requirement, and they continued to discuss the requirements. Planner Hutnik added he was unsure if it would qualify as an area variance. Perhaps it would be a use variance, which can be very hard to prove as you need to show a hardship that is not financial. They next discussed the applicants timeline. The applicants thought possibly spring or early summer, explaining such is dependent on Site Plan Approval as well as approval from the Department of Transportation. They discussed why a SWPPP is required and which category is needed in this instance. Vanucchi asked what are the restrictions if they proceed only with the trailer-- does that need to be on a corner lot? Planner Hutnik replied that would need: health department approval and an operating permit from the Danby's Code Enforcement. In regards to if a full site plan review is needed, Planner Hutnik would interpret that it would not be required since it is a temporary structure. Maher suggested checking the code for what is required with temporary structures. Cowan asked them to mark the septic and well on the site plan, and the applicant asked if they wanted other infrastructure marked as well. Planner Hutnik noted that he can provide a list of what should be included, listing things such as improvements, easements, landscaping, and parking layout. Vanucchi asked them to show delineation between the parking and the driveway. Planner Hutnik returned to discussing the three different levels of SWPPPs and the circumstances under which each is required. They touched back on which one is required for the previous application discussed. Planner Hutnik stated he is comfortable with a simple SWPPP for land development that is under an acre. The applicant will put together something for the Planning Board to look at prior to Site Plan Approval to show what the building will look like, as the commercial design standards are part of the Hamlet review process. The Planning Board reiterated that the applicant should solidify what they want to be approved. Having everything figured out might help with receiving financing. The applicant spoke about his plans to figure out the final layout of the building, which will include three rooms, including a multi -use one and a kitchen/bakery. They established that it seems like the applicants won't be ready to have the floorplans to show in the next few months, so the goal should to seek to approve a site plan for the coffee trailer/landscaping, and then the applicants can come back at a later date for their additional plans. They discussed the need to include lighting and signage. Currently free- standing signs are not permitted, although that may be changed at by the Town Board. Planner Hutnik explained the SEQR designation. Similar to the previous project, he needs to follow-up on how the Local Law and SEQRA interact in order to classify the action. The applicants left. (6) PLANNER REPORT (VERBAL) Zoning tweaks have taken a bit of a back burner while he works on Special Event Regulations for the town. However, they will be back on the table soon. He reported how the town received the CDBG grant for multifamily home repair and will be selecting a consulatant soon. (7) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:16pm ---Cindy Katz, Recording Secretary