HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-20 Planning Board Minutes (Final)
Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Mee ng
February 20, 2024
PRESENT:
Ed Bergman
Jacob Colbert
Colleen Cowan
Sco Davis (arrived 7:05 p.m.)
Kelly Maher (arrived 7:10 p.m.)
Jamie Vanucchi
Jodi Scriber (Chair)
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner Greg Hutnik
Recording Secretary Cindy Katz
Public (in person)Zach Palmer, Christa Nunez, Jefferson Colman, Abigail Cleary,
Robert Cleary, Mary Mar n, Zach Larkins, Heather Coffee,
Katharine Hunter (Town Board member), Leslie Connors
(Town Board member), Sco Whitham
Public (virtual)Greg Nelson, Ronda Roaring, Ted Crane, Brian Caldwell,
Aleksandr Mergold, Joel Gagnon
This mee ng was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom pla orm.
(1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW
The mee ng was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
There were no addi ons or dele ons 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 submi ed for the record.
Mary Ann Barr 2021
The Town of Danby
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
danby.ny.gov
Planning Board Minutes
Tuesday 20 Feb 2024 at 7:00PM
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:
♢The Town Board is reworking the website and newsle er. Please give any
feedback to the Town Clerk.
♢The Town Board is currently looking at the rela onships between different boards
and commi ees in the town.
♢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 An cipated Board ac on(s) this month: Sketch Plan Review; SEQR
Schedule Public Hearing Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Unlisted Classifica on;
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 men on of any of the other structures (lean-tos, sheds etc) in the files. The
Town probably does not require inspec on 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 spli ng 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 permi ed if another home was built
on the other side of the road? It would technically be permi ed 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 s pula on allows an owner to automa cally
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 applica on is an unlisted ac on. He suggested
reviewing such in order to prepare for a mee ng next month with a required public
hearing.
They reviewed the responses submi ed by the applicants in the Short Environmental
Assessment Form. Planner Hutnik added to the form that the subdivision is near an
intermi ent stream but there is no ac on proposed next to the body of water, nor are
there wetlands iden fied 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 an cipates they will call out the stream. He therefore recommends adding a fi y foot
stream buffer to the site plan. Planner Hutnik next reviewed the process of amending
the pla to the applicants and the Planning Board expressed no more ques ons or
concerns. Planner Hutnik stated that if the surveyer can make the changes in me, a
Public Hearing, no fica on of the neighbors, and a final decision can be planned for next
month.
SPR-2024-01 0 Hornbrook Parcel: 6.-1-18.25 Applicant: Mary Mar n on behalf of Rhize
Up Community Farm
An cipated Board ac on(s) this month: Sketch Plan Review; SEQR Classifica on
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 presenta on prepared by the Applicants, and Mary Mar n,
the representa ve of Whitham Planning, approached the microphone and introduced
herself, the firm, as well as architect Aleksandr Mergold and Christa Nunez of Khuba
Interna onal. Christa Nunez approached the mic and spoke about their project, called
Quarter Acre for the People, that focuses on engaging children, par cularly 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. Mar n con nued to move through the slides, and the
Planning Board viewed the aerial imagery of the site, building loca on, and the proposed
limits of disturbance. Mar n 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. Mar n again spoke, con nuing to move through the slide-show
presenta on. She showed a slide reviewing the various restric ons on the site, including
the steep slopes, wetlands, and stream as well as the designa on 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 inten on of the development is to impact the site as
li le 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 li le 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 addi onal structures in this plan, so they would not need to return.
Cowan asked if they had go en a sep c plan reviewed by the Health Department
because it looks like a pre y tricky loca on. Mar n 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 skep cal 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 ge ng some sort of tax break that
could cause a burden on others, and if they might give up and move out a er some me.
He is concerned about poten al 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 mee ngs.
Planner Hutnik advised him that in the future, comments like that could go in wri ng and
be spoken during the Privilege of the Floor. The Planner added that this is s ll in the very
early stages and that all the necessary environmental review and stormwater mi ga on
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 sep c is going to be challenging
and expensive and before they spend too much me on the project, they ought to verify
that it is, indeed, feasible in that loca on. 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 regula ng how
many parking spaces can be built.
Planner Hutnik spoke about the need for a Stormwater Pollu on Preven on Plan
(SWPPP), and how there are three different thresholds for poten al plans, from the most
basic one to a full one. Considering the size and loca on of the building, his
recommenda on 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 discre on of the
town (the 120 acre recent solar project had a full SWPPP, for example). Because of the
high poten al to impact the neighboring creek, this project seems a li le "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
discre on 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 delinea on 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
sensi ve areas if we are s ll allowing development on them? She stated this site requires
sensi ve design and pointed out concerns including the well near the road, the challenge
of the sep c and the slope. She says she loves the idea of the project, but it in this
par cular loca on, it needs to be done extremely sensi vely. 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
a orney sta ng that the SEQR ac on not, in fact, be Unlisted, as he had classified it
prior, but actually a Type 2 ac on 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 a orney 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 me to digest it and wasn't prepared to
disseminate the explana on to the Planning Board. Duplexes and agriculture uses are
exempt per SEQRA, but Planner Hutnik said the exemp on may not hold because the
s pula on in Danby's Review of Environemtnal Ac ons Local Law requires heightened
review when developments are in a certain proximity to sensi ve natural areas. He needs
to double check with the a orney, 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 condi on various things
such as a wetlands delinea on 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 sep c 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 sep c 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
connec on to whether there is a farm use in this project. He also clarified that the point
being brought up to the a orney on the type of ac on 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 sensi ve 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 poten al structures on the site
● determining what type of SEQR ac on is required
● a grading plan, showing all sec ons on the site
● Stormwater Pollu on Preven on Plan -- need to se le on which one
is needed?
● sep c plan
● wetland delinea on
● Ground Water Assessment form (current amount men oned 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 loca on makes it tricky, as it goes against the already established inten on
of the zoning.
Planner Hutnik reviewed his inten on of pu ng out a le er 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 clarifica on on the SEQR
status. The Applicant asked if they could work with a biologist to conduct the wetland
delinea on to save money and Planner Hutnik thought that would be fine as long as they
were a cer fied wildlife biologist. They reviewed which borders need to be reviewed,
with Planner Hutnik sta ng it should be the road side of the wet area.
The applicants le .
Colleen Cowan men oned 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 sensi vity 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 mi gate the impact of the uses, as long as
what they ask for is commensurate to the impact. Maher wondered about iden fying
certain animals in that habitat corridor.
SPR-2024-02 1914 Danby Road Parcel: 14.-1-10.2 Applicant: Zachary Larkins
An cipated Board ac on(s) this month: Sketch Plan Review; SEQR Classifica on
Zone: Hamlet Neighborhood SEQR Type: Unlisted
Proposal: Construct a coffee shop and bakery in the first phase and addi onal residen al
housing units in future phase(s)
Hutnik introduced the applicants and disclosed that Larkins works for the town as
facili es 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 condi oned bathroom ed into their exis ng sep c. 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 mi ga ng any poten al nega ve impacts on the land, which includes
wetlands, and their neighbors. Conveniently, a full wetland delina on 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 poten al process, explaining that ideally, the
en re site plan is reviewed for all phasing of development at one me. However, this is
o en difficult to accomplish and it isn't unusual for Site Plans to be amended as plans
change over me. 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, vegeta on/landscapping marked (not
necessarily the species though), and where buffers would be.
Planner Hutnik and the Planning Board discussed the zoning regula on that s pulates
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 con nued 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 meline. The applicants thought possibly spring or
early summer, explaining such is dependent on Site Plan Approval as well as approval
from the Department of Transporta on. They discussed why a SWPPP is required and
which category is needed in this instance. Vanucchi asked what are the restric ons 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 opera ng 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 sep c 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, lis ng things such as improvements,
easements, landscaping, and parking layout. Vanucchi asked them to show delinea on
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 applica on 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 mul -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
addi onal plans. They discussed the need to include ligh ng and signage. Currently free-
standing signs are not permi ed, although that may be changed at by the Town Board.
Planner Hutnik explained the SEQR designa on. Similar to the previous project, he
needs to follow-up on how the Local Law and SEQRA interact in order to classify the
ac on.
The applicants le .
(6) PLANNER REPORT (VERBAL)
Zoning tweaks have taken a bit of a back burner while he works on Special Event
Regula ons for the town. However, they will be back on the table soon. He reported
how the town received the CDBG grant for mul family home repair and will be selec ng
a consulatant soon.
(7) ADJOURNMENT
The mee ng was adjourned at 9:16pm
---Cindy Katz, Recording Secretary