Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 12 21 Planning Board Minutes1 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting December 21, 2021 DRAFT PRESENT: Ed Bergman Collen Cowan Kelly Maher Jody Scriber (Chair) ABSENT: Scott Davis Elana Maragni OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member) Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Chris Camadella, Mark Constas, Katharine Hunter, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Sean Greany (on behalf of Norbut Solar), Theresa Joseph, Wendy Millroy, Alexandra Moore, Margaret Pough, Ronda Roaring, Ray Van de Bogart, Jamie Vanucchi, Stephen Vulcas, Michael Woodson, Caleb, Dave, Patty, Anon1 This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:10 p.m. *A quorum was not met until later in the evening, so the agenda order was adjusted to accommodate this.* (1) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Michael Woodson said that he lives right across the street from Ray Van de Bogart (subdivision at 100 Van de Bogart Rd.). He said it seemed like a good idea to him, he saw no downside, and he thought it should happen. Sean Greany updated the Board on the Norbut Solar project. He said th e next step procedurally is to close the public hearing of the Town Board. Norbut Solar has made significant changes to the application. These include a re-delineation of the wetlands, a corresponding redesign of the site plan, and shifting the interconnect location off of Danby Rd. Mr. Greany screenshared the new site plan showing the newly 2 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES delineated wetlands, done by a different team, which he said more closely adheres to the County mapper. He noted there is a shift in the laws governing wetland delineation that went into effect September 2021. Their first delineation met the 2020 water rule; now the law has reverted to the 2015 water rule. He also showed the previous and newly proposed location of the interconnect facility (POI). It will now be tucked behind the Town Hall, where it will not be as visible from the road. He said that the shift in th e POI came at massive expense, and they had to remove panels from the solar field, which has put the financing of the project in jeopardy. But they have tried to listen to the Town’s foremost concerns—wetlands and the POI— to provide a project Danby can be excited about. (2) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Leslie Connors, Town Board Liaison, shared the following information: • There will be two public hearings at the December 22nd meeting. One will be on the updated revised Zoning Ordinance minus the portion involving transfer of development rights (TDR); they will do a second public hearing on the TDR in January. The second hearing will be on cannabis dispensaries and on-site consumption sites. The State has set a deadline of December 31st to opt out; if no action is taken, the Town has to allow both. The Board decided to opt out of the on -site consumption sites at the last meeting and is now following up with a public hearing. • The Town Board interviewed Jamie Vanucchi for a Planning Board position and will be voting on her application at the December 22nd meeting. (3) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB-2021-7 & SPR-2021-5 Danby Rd. Parcel: 14.-1-10.2 Applicant: Franklin Land Associated LLC Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Sketch Conference Proposal: Simple subdivision and development of general retail building Stephen Vukas, on behalf of Bohler Engineering, was there to present the development project. It is located on the west side of 96B with a 10,600 sq. ft. building proposed. It is considered dry goods retail; food preparation and foul odors are not to be expected. Access is proposed to be a two -way entrance that is under NYDOT jurisdiction. The development includes 38 parking stalls, which they are trying to push to the side and rear to fit in with the Town’s guidelines. He said they do not typically need that many and prefer green space and less impervious surface. They will be using LED-lit, dark-sky-compliant lighting. He showed images of a Dollar General store in Bennington, VT, and he asked for feedback on building type and aesthetics. He also asked if this will meet what the Town is looking for with the proposed zoning update; in the future, other development could go on next door to create clustered development. 3 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Board member Maher asked for more information about the shared access and the septic system layout for the actual submission. She asked if the odd shape in the back was a truck turnaround; it was. She noted that the southwest corner of the building encroaches on a line on the map; Mr. Vukas said the building can be pushed back if needed. Maher said the Bennington store seemed to show the style but also seemed to be a larger building. Mr. Vukas said that, in fact, they are the same size building, and this is a mirror image of that one. Planner West said that in the Bennington model, the second story is fake with faux windows to improve the aesthetics, a common requirement in communities trying for a traditional look. West said that the Town’s Design Guidelines discourage fake windows but also ask for a building in a historic style, and historically commercial buildings of this scale would be more than one story—to get a building appropriate for a hamlet main street, that verticality is useful. Mr. Vukas asked if they wanted to get rid of the windows, and West clarified that what the Guidelines mention is real windows because they give visibility into the space, particularly on the front, to improve the pedestrian orientation. Chair Scriber suggested greenery in front of the lower band of concrete on the building to soften the impact of the siding. Maher added that there is not a lot of brick on the main stretch of 96B now, but places like downtown Ithaca have a lot. This could introduce the language of a masonry building type for commercial spaces if desired. Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor) asked if the applicant had looked at other possible architecture styles. Mr. Vukas said they could try to accommodate clapboard if that is what Danby wants. West said that Dryden has a new Dollar General with clapboard and a corner entry, but he thinks it looks cheaper and lower quality than the brick. West suggested the applicant bring precedents that the design is based on. Ronda Roaring said she thought the concrete band at the base was related to shopping carts; she said she thought this would be a cluttered space. Scriber said she could see shopping carts out front being unpleasant, and Mr. Vukas said they do not typically store shopping carts outside. Scriber asked about alternatives to the yellow and black signage. Mr. Vukas said he would have to ask, but softer looks might be possible. West showed a typical Dollar General sign and said the Bennington store is significantly toned down comparatively. Board member Cowan noted that the parking area is bigger than the building itself and the parking lot is close to wetlands—it seemed like a lot. West said the applicant has proposed the amount of parking the Town requires, which he felt is too much. He said he supports that at the back the applicant has proposed 5 spaces as green space, and then that land is set aside if needed in the future. Planner West shared his comments on the architecture. He said it has a nicer trea tment for the entry corner and the cornice is proportioned correctly for a historic building, but he would like to see the cornice across the entire front. Between losing the strong cornice and having small top windows it looks squat, so more fenestration on the front façade would help. He thought it was good they were breaking up the massing with vertical pieces, but it is still a little wide for historical proportions, which would probably have four bays rather than three. More of a store-front treatment on the front would give a historic main street feel. He 4 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES appreciated that they have invested visual interest in the top and bottom. Also, having a corner entrance allows them to split the difference between having a pedestrian front and the reality that most people will be arriving by car. The Design Guidelines say 15% of the front must be window you can see into, which is small, but may not be met currently. Maher said they could consider larger window openings on the ground floor and smaller windows with more repetition on the second floor. West added that Dryden’s has window punches with shutters for non-real windows, which gives interest without wasting resources. He said he appreciated the sills around the windows with the brick veneer. He said the Board could consider how members feel about fake awnings. Gagnon asked if the new zoning would allow for less parking. West said yes, but it would not allow a building of this size. This zone is proposed to be Hamlet Neighborhood, where only small retail will be allowed in order to push larger stores to the hamlet center. Maher confirmed that the application is being submitted under the existing zoning. Ms. Roaring pointed out that it will be on a curve in the road where the speed limit is 55 mph and asked about mitigating and preventing accidents. Mr. Vukas said they will be following Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements and examining sight lines on site. Planner West said that the first step of the project will be subdivision: it is a 7-acre lot and they would like to subdivide off two acres. (4) PLANNER REPORT Planner West reported the following: • The Town will be delayed in adopting the revised zoning because it was slow receiving feedback from the County and the transfer of development rights (TDR) system needs to go through a more comprehensive environmental review. Thus, the zoning revision will be separated into two actions with the Town Board adopting the revised zoning without the TDR first and then following with the TDR later in 2022. West said he thought there was significant support for the zoning as proposed. • With the anticipated new zoning, the Planning Board will need a training for the new system. • In response to a question from Chris Camadella about whether the new zoning would affect the Dollar General project, West said he expects the Town in adopting the new zoning will be grandfathering in projects already in the review process to be considered under the code they applied under. Dollar General has already started the process with sketch review. (5) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW The meeting was called to order at 8:15 p.m. The previously discussed sketch conference was removed from the agenda. 5 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES (6) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the November 16th minutes Moved by Maher, seconded by Cowan The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Maher, Scriber (7) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB-2021-05 100 Van De Bogart Rd. Parcel: 20.-1-1.2 Applicant: Ray Van de Bogart Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, SEQR, Vote to Approve/Deny Preliminary and Final Subdivision Proposal: Subdivide 184 acre parcel into 2 pieces approximately 63 acres and 126 acres Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 8:19 p.m. Mr. Van de Bogart was present and available for questions, but there were none. Michael Woodson said he is a neighbor on Van de Bogart Rd. directly across from the applicant and he fully supports the project. The public hearing was closed at 8:21 p.m. SEQR Review Planner West read aloud Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) per the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act. It was agreed that the answer was “no or small impact may occur” to all questions. MOTION: The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Moved by Bergman, seconded by Maher The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Maher, Scriber MOTION: Approve the subdivision (preliminary and final approval) Moved by Maher, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Maher, Scriber 6 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES SUP-2021-3 1360 Coddington Rd., Millroy Constas Residence Parcel: 6.-1-1.31 Applicant: Mark Constas Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Refer to BZA (an existing variance includes a condition baring adding a second dwelling on this lot) Proposal: Grant special permit for second dwelling on a lot Planner West explained, prior to a quorum, that the applicant has requested a special permit to add a second dwelling, a retirement home, on their approximately 10 -acre lot. He said he had shared with the Board a letter from a neighbor, which included concerns about a previous condition placed on the lot by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in 1992. West explained that when the lot was initially divided, it did not have enough frontage and so had to get a variance from the BZA. At that time, the parent lot had a non - conforming four-plex on it. The BZA felt that, because there were already more dwelling units than allowed, the newly created lot should be capped at one unit. He said that the applicants were not aware of this, and nor was he due to a filing error, but the neighbor remembered the condition. Mr. Constas noted that the four-unit dwelling is no longer there; it is now a single-family home. West said the Town’s attorney thought the best way for the application to proceed was for it to be referred to the BZA to rehear the conditions of the variance. The BZA will need advice from the Planning Board on what they think is important with regard to having a second dwelling on the lot, if it were to be allowed. Public Hearing The public hearing was not held at this meeting. Board Discussion Maher asked about the condition for future subdivisions, and West said that the proposed new zoning for the area is 10-acre zoning, so if that passes it would not be subdividable. Maher also asked about the proposed building size and said that limiting size could be good; it is approximately 850 finished sq. ft. on a 24x32 footprint. Scriber mentioned screening as a possibility. Bergman said he liked the idea of a setback so another house was not right next to the road or on top of a neighbor’s property line, which could make screening harder. Cowan asked about whether the neighbor who had written would be able to see the proposed structure. She supported the idea that screening would be important. The discussion was summarized as size, screening, and setbacks. No one expressed strong thoughts on lead agency for SEQR. MOTION: The Planning Board recommends that the BZA reconsider the variance with requirements for maximum size of additional dwellings, setbacks from surrounding lot lines, and requiring screening. The Planning Board would then support not having a condition that n o further buildings could be added to the lot. Moved by Bergman, seconded by Cowan The motion passed. 7 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Maher, Scriber Ronda Roaring said she felt the discussions around the zoning update had promoted shorter driveways that would be shared when possible and when people wanted more space they would try to position that space on or near the existing dwelling to cluster structures. (8) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary 8 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES