Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 06 15 Planning Board Minutes1 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting June 15, 2021 DRAFT PRESENT: Ed Bergman Scott Davis Kathy Jett Kelly Maher Elana Maragni Bruce Richards Jody Scriber (Chair) OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member) Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Ted Crane, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Katharine Hunter This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:03pm. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW Nothing was added to the agenda. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Elana Maragni reminded everyone of the upcoming “Something Special” event, which will be Friday, June 18th from 4–7 p.m. This will be occurring monthly through the fall on the third Friday of each month. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the May 18th minutes Moved by Richards, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. 2 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES In favor: Bergman, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber Abstain: Jett Absent: Davis (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Leslie Connors (Town Board member) shared the following information: • At last night’s Town Board meeting, the Board voted to have the Supervisor sign the conservation easement agreement with the Wimsatts, so that has passed. • There has been talk about updating technology at Town Hall, both for staff and for meetings. The Town will be continuing to offer residents the opportunity to attend meetings virtually. They also hope to make positive changes to the email system and website with new technology, but they will need to find the money to do that. It is possible the Town will get some money related to COVID relief and some could be used for this. • On the following Monday, the Town Board meeting will be exclusively to discuss progress made to date on the zoning revision. She encouraged people to attend. • The Town Board is expecting to receive an application for a waiver to the subdivision moratorium this month. • The State legislature passed a law allowing Danby to enact conservation easement agreements with residents that include tax exemptions. The Governor still has to sign it, and then it will come back to Danby for the Town to consider approving a law. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW There were no development reviews. (6) REVIEW/DISCUSS PREVIOUS PLANNER RECOMMENDATIONS Kelly Maher said she had started going through the zoning audit questions starting at the top. She explained that her approach was to look at the Town of Ithaca, the Town of Dryden, and the Town of Lansing as comparable and neighborly towns and see what they do in terms of similar town laws. Section 200 – Purpose Maher said Danby does have a general introductory statement, and it references state law by saying “under and pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.” Some other towns also only have the general blanket statement, but one other town referenced federal regulations, which they could consider adding. Saving Clause 3 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Maher said that a saving clause states that if the town makes a ruling on one thing , it does not affect other parts of the ordinance. Maher said she did not find that in Lansing or Dryden’s zoning. The Town of Ithaca has eight statements about how if they make a change to the ordinance, it does not affect a series of things including projects currently under review and things previously approved. Because Danby is rezoning, she thought adding something along these lines might be worth reviewing with the Town Attorney. Section 402 – Zone Boundaries Maher said that for zone boundaries Danby pretty much covers what other towns cover, but it does not specify what to do if a boundary does not follow the listed rules. Other towns list a specific person or Town body that would be responsible for determining the boundary in that case. Section 1100 – Enforcement Maher noted that this section needs a change so it references the Town’s current law. Planner West said he also noticed there is an issue in that section with its reference to the Code Enforcement Officer as that has been confusing as to who it means. Planner West said all the proposed fixes were helpful and straightforward and he did not see any issue with them. Maher said she planned to get through the definitions for next meeting, and she could email her work out in advance of the next meeting. She said she was also open to working in a committee. Maragni thanked Maher for her work and said it seemed she had an efficient process. She suggested touching base in a week and seeing if Maher was wanting help from a committee. Other Board members also thanked Maher and said an email in advance of the meeting would be really helpful. (7) ZONING UPDATE Planner West gave an update on the zoning revision. He said he still expects substantive change, but there has been a decision about the new zones being created—it is a new start for the Town, with new zones in the hamlets and four zones replacing what is currently Low Density Residential. It is a big change in terms of that almost every parcel in Town will have a new zoning designation going forward. Bruce Richards said he thought the maps made a lot of sense to him. He was concerned that the proposed solar installation (on Bald Hill Rd.) crowds what could potentially be for the hamlet, but this might be a time thing because the solar array is likely to only sit for 25–35 years, so it is not a direct conflict nor a forever thing. He liked the start on the core hamlet and the hamlet neighborhood descriptions, which seemed to be exactly what they had been looking for over the years. Nothing triggered an emotional or negative response for him. He added that the goal of the moratorium and the rewrite was looking to be doable. Chair Scriber agreed with Richards about the central hamlet being what they had talked about—giving a nice corridor. But, compared to where the hamlet is now, she thought some of the uses seemed like a big stretch and she wondered how much they could realistically bring to the hamlet. Planner West said the 4 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES hamlet is small and the market is small. The Town would definitely not get all the things that are allowed, but the purpose is to be open to what people may want to do, particularly in terms of sma ll businesses. The Town would be allowing a broad variety of things so as not to be constrain ing. West said it is a common feeling for people to imagine everything they want in the hamlet. In reality, the Town can enable those businesses, but it is not building this stuff—it is setting the table for private property owners to do what works for them and laying out the palette of opportunities. He said that with so little there now, it is hard to understand the scale of a traditional hamlet and compare the sizes of things. In terms of scale, he was talking with someone who mentioned the Dobson property (at the north end of the central hamlet), and he pointed out that that is a mile away from the proposed core hamlet zone. He said that just Ms. Vent’s two parcels next to the entrance to Dotson Park are, at 800’, the street frontage length of some village’s entire downtown; there is actually a lot of space if it were used more effectively. However, there will not be dramatic change fast, if ever. Scriber thought it was important to be realistic about that. Scriber said she thought trees versus electrical lines versus solar power was an interesting discussion also as that would need to be looked at as a whole picture plan. West clarified she was talking about the requirement for street trees. He said this elicited a lot of questions from property owners in the hamlet. In terms of having a requirement for street trees, there is a process for getting around it if is not possible, but it was something that came out of early conversations of what people want the hamlet to feel like. Street trees are important for creating an atmosphere—they good at slowing down cars, providing environmental services, and creating a place that feels like a neighborhood. Scriber mentioned that Chat ham, NY was mentioned in Travel and Leisure’s “The Best Small Towns in NY.” She said Chatham has a fairly small main street, and she felt the pictures helped her think of what things could potentially look like in Danby. Planner West said that what has been proposed so far is that commercial is available in the hamlets and the rest of the Town is residential or ag. He said the concern was raised that there should be more options for commercial businesses in the rest of the Town. He put together a survey of uses and places and is asking people to look at it and think about, in the areas outside of the hamlets, what uses are appropriate and where and with what level of review. He said the survey is on the Facebook group and has gone out to the email list; responses are beginning to come in. It seems so far there is agreement that industrial development should not be allowed everywhere. But there is some openness and interest in having businesses throughout the Town, especially offices, personal services, and day cares. Maragni pointed out that how big an office was not specified on the survey, and Maher agreed that specifying the sizing of the uses would be helpful. Scriber noted that downtown Ithaca daycares are often expensive and/or full and there is a lot of traffic and parking to contend with. Maher said it was a tough balance between getting development in the hamlet versus the inconvenience and annoyance to neighbors of having something in the more rural parts of Danby. Scriber agreed there is a balance there. West said it will be interesting to think about which of the propos ed zones some of these commercial uses could be in. He showed a picture of a corporate office in Ulysses that is in a building disguised as a barn with elevators in what appear to be silos. West noted that in the current system, for anything larger than a home occupation, if you are not in the commercial zone, you have to do a Planned Development Zone 5 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES (PDZ). There was a brief discussion of past businesses and PDZs. Supervisor Gagnon said that scale is important, and Leslie Connors thought it currently depends on who lives in your neighborhood. Ed Bergman said some people taking the survey might not be thinking of the use being next door to them. Kathy Jett mentioned tractor or buggy signs and noted that people drive very fast on E. Miller Rd. She asked about right to farm signs to remind people there might be large animals or tractors. Leslie Connors said the Highway Department is looking at signs to slow down traffic. Secretary de Villiers mentioned that right to farm signs had come up at the previous Ag Working Group meeting and that someone had asked for more farming signs. She thought the signs also could be about showing that farmers were appreciated by the community. Connors said she would ask Highway about right to farm signs. Scriber added that there are lots of children on the bottom of Gunderman Rd. and a sign to that effect might be good. Planner West said he could use feedback on a clear set of standards for site plans. The zoning is not very clear about what is needed, and there is currently no predictab ility. He thought the amount of documentation needed should be tied to scale—you don’t need the same documentation for a single-family house as for a subdivision of 20 houses or a tiny car sales lot compared to Maguire’s. Scott Davis added that environmental impact is a risk, and they might want more documentation for lots that are high risk. Davis asked how to get to a proposal on this, and West thought a committee would be great. Connors noted that there is currently no site plan review for ag activity and this could be taken into consideration at the same time. Davis, Richards, and Maragni said they would be willing to form a committee. Maragni asked West to email documents previous planners had put together regarding site plan review as a starting point, and he said he would also include some examples from other places. Gagnon pointed out that some businesses generate more traffic than others and asked about the interaction between that and site plan review. Connors mentioned SEQR. Maher asked if general traffic standards are available without having to do an official traffic study. West said there are standards, although they are not very good. He said a book called “Trip Generation,” created by ITE, used to be the resource municipalities would use to determine parking requirements. However, they now say municipalities should not have minimum parking requiremen ts as there is not enough data to back them up and they have a lot of negative outcomes. Towns cannot always be accounting for the maximum traffic any business could generate because most businesses are not at that maximum. Crane asked about businesses using up neighborhood parking spaces for their customers as a way to save money. West said the general thinking is municipalities’ job is to manage the parking that exists rather than the amount that should exist. As long as there are more parking spaces than people parking, you do not have a parking problem. Maher said the issue in this case would be cars driving back and forth too fast in neighborhoods, not parking. Regarding drive-throughs, Scriber mentioned that Dunkin’ Donuts in Ithaca is a hazard in the mornings. West explained that his initial proposal in the hamlet did not allow any drive-throughs, and there was some pushback from people who felt that some businesses may need a drive-through to make enough money. West said where they ended up is not having them in the hamlet core and working on really strict rules that 6 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES could possibly permit them in the hamlet neighborhood along 96B. Ted Crane said that a small coffee shop or food place could be ideally located next to the bus stop next to Dotson Park. Richards said he was a little confused about some of the form requirements for roofs and roof brackets in the hamlet neighborhood zone proposal. West said he got feedback from Gagnon that he did not like the requirement for a steeper roof pitch, and Gagnon said that was because roofs that steep are not really seen in the hamlets. Maher noted that steep roofs also make the buildings taller. West shared a picture comparing roof pitches. He also explained that there was the option of brackets supporting a pitched roof or having a cornice. West said the purpose of those requirements is to ensure some quality through basic parameters while the Town is allowing more in terms of density and making it easier to build. The focus on the front is because they are looking at how th e building reacts to the street. He shared an example picture. Chair Scriber said they would continue to have discussions like this at the Board’s regular meeting time. (8) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary