HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-17 Planning Board Final Minutes
Mary Ann Barr 2021
Planning Board Minutes
Tuesday 17 December 2024 at 7:00PM
The Town of Danby
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
danby.ny.gov
Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
December 17 2024
PRESENT:
Jacob Colbert
Colleen Cowan
Scott Davis
Jody Scriber
Jamie Vanucchi
Kelly Maher
ABSENT:
Ed Bergman
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner: Greg Hutnik
Recording Secretary: Cindy Katz
Public (in-person): Leslie Connors (Town Board Member), Ray Van de Bogart,
Kyle Colbert
Public (virtual): Ted Crane, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Ronda Roaring
This meeting was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom platform
[1] CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW
Meeting was called to order to 7:01 p.m
[2] PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Ted Crane spoke against the use of cluster subdivision as a tool to avoid zoning
requirements.
Ronda Roaring also expressed opposition to cluster subdivision, stating that use of
cluster subdivision in this way could cause issues in the future
[3] APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Approve the November 19 2024 minutes
Moved by Cowan, seconded by Vanucchi
The motion passed.
In favor: Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher
[4] TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
Town Board member Leslie Connors, gave a verbal report to the members of the
Planning Board.
Danby has received another CBDG grant that will be used towards housing
rehabilitation for low-income residents. Spread the word!
They discussed income requirements, and how residents can be informed
[5] DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SUB-2024-06 100 Van de Bogart Road Parcel: 20.-1-1.21 Applicant: Ray Van de Bogart
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Review Plat; Determine Environmental
Significance for SEQRA; Schedule Public Hearing
Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Unlisted
Proposal: Minor Subdivision of 1 lot to 2 lots
Maher asked what the changes were to the application since they first discussed the
property, and the applicant explained he was applying for a zoning-permitted 10 acre
lot subdivision (and not the original 5 acre one which would have required a cluster
subdivision approval). Davis began to ask about other potential pathways, and the
applicant expressed a desire to stick with the current deal at hand.
Maher verified this is a minor subdivision, and applicant reminded the board that he is
seeking approval next month (January 2025) in order to reach the required three years
from his previous subdivision. Final action can be taken in January following a public
hearing and environmental review.
The Planning Board together reviewed Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment
Form, noting no environmental concerns.
MOTION: To Approve Planning Board Resolution 27 of 2024 making a negative
determination of environmental significance on a minor subdivision at 100 Van de
Bogart Road, Tax parcel #20.-1-1.21.
PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 27 OF 2024 – DETERMINATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE, MINOR SUBDIVISION, 100
VANDEBOGART ROAD, TAX PARCEL #20.-1-1.21
Whereas an application has been submitted for review and approval by the Town of
Danby Planning Board for a Minor Subdivision of Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 20.-1-
1.21, by Ray Van de Bogart, Owner; and
Whereas the Owner proposes to subdivide the 62.77-acre property into two lots: Parcel
A measuring 52.77 acres to be continued to use for farming purposes and Parcel B
measuring 10 acres with an existing house; and
Whereas the property is in the Rural 1 Zoning District, requiring a minimum lot area of
10 acres and a minimum lot depth of 800 feet; and
Whereas this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the Town of Danby
Subdivision and Land Division Regulations, Article II, § 201 B.2. Minor Subdivision,
Option #1; and
Whereas this is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
and is subject to environmental review; and
Whereas this Board has sole authority to approve subdivisions in the Town of Danby
and declared itself Lead Agency on August 20, 2024; and
Whereas this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review accepts as
adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the
Owner, and Part 2, prepared by the Planning Administrator; a subdivision plat entitled
“Final Plat Showing Portions of Lands of Snow Top farm Realty Partnership, Located on
Vandebogart Road, Town of Danby, Tompkins County, New York” prepared by T.G.
Miller, P.C., and dated 7/11/2024; and other application materials;
Now Therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board, based on careful consideration of the
application materials, determines the proposed Minor Subdivision will result in no
significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of
Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by Cowan, seconded by Scriber
The motion passed.
In favor: Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher
The Planning Board verified that the forms were up to date, and set a public hearing for
January 21 2025.
SUB-2024-10 60 Jersey Hill Road Parcel: 1.-1-21 Applicant: Jacob Colbert
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Review Plat
Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Unlisted
Proposal: Cluster Subdivision of 1 lot to 2 lots
The applicant is a member of the Planning Board and confirmed his intent to recuse
himself from this decision. Applicant explained his intent to keep current structures and
farmland together on the retained parcel, while giving land to a family member. Due to
the location of a gas pipeline through the middle of the property, the requested parcel
on the east side is the only area with potential for development.
Maher expressed a desire for a consistent approach and requirements to cluster
subdivisions. Are cluster subdivisions going to be used to create actual “clusters,” or is
it going to be used as a way to break off smaller bits of land than the zoning would
usually permit?
Cowan asked for a summary of the attorney input. Planner Hutnik summarized the
attorney’s memo, stating that the clustering is intended to provide flexibility and benefit
to the town (through the preservation of open space) when there is proposed
development. He provided an example of a two cluster scenario, and emphasized the
importance of there being actual development proposed, which could be clustered.
Davis expressed his openness to a “one cluster” development, so long as the designated
open space parcel remained undeveloped. They discussed how conditions on where
development can occur are recorded, and Planner Hutnik said any conditions must be
noted on the approving resolution, on the plat itself, and recorded by the county,
stating that the key, according to the attorney, is that people be given notice of any
conditions on the land. They wondered if it is written on the deed. They considered
previous applications where clustering was considered, and discussed the importance
of designating developable land vs non developable land when cluster subdivisions are
being used.
Roaring suggested a shared driveway between the houses, which would make it a
cluster, and suggested a conservation easement for the rest. Davis spoke about the
various conditions that could be applied to the subdivision. They reviewed the map, the
location of the pipeline, and potential configuration of the subdivision.
They discussed if an area variance at the BZA was an option. Planner Hutnik noted this
may be a good path if the Planning Board is concerned about overuse of the cluster
subdivision, or the setting of a precedent. After approval from the BZA, the subdivision
would return to the Planning Board. They discussed the frequency and locations of
pipelines in Danby.
Cowan reiterated the desire for clear parameters to help them handle future similar
situations in a consistent manner. They discussed the gist from the lawyer, that cases
where there is a development proposed is “an easier pill to swallow” when using a
cluster subdivision. When there is an actual development proposed, developable area
can be designated at the time of the subdivision rather than hashed out at a later time.
They continued to examine various iterations of subdivisions using clustering, noting
how development at White Hawk Ecovillage and the Buttermilk occurred.
Hutnik explained that the Planning Board is required to weigh in on subdivisions
should they come before the BZA, and he suggested that they may want to provide a
recommendation to the BZA as to why they think the variance is worth consideration.
Davis wondered what, if anything, should be delineated at this time regarding future
development.
Crane pointed out that this discussion feels very complicated, and his preference that
everything regarding the subdivision be decided at the time of original
review/approval.
Maher requested a survey of the property to show the pipeline. Supervisor Gagnon
noted this would be a good topic for the regulatory review committee [which had
recently been assembled], and stressed this discussion has touched on many topics that
have been raised over the years.
Chair Maher thought the applicants request was possible, but they just needed to be
sure it was done in a way that aligns with the intent of a cluster subdivision. They
discussed a previous one that was bungled, where the conditions did not get recorded
properly. Chair Maher and Planner Hutnik discussed how to avoid that from
happening again.
Hutnik spoke again about the area variance route, and how that would avoid setting a
precedence for a cluster subdivision that maybe did not quite reach the threshold for
such. They could include in their recommendations all the reasons why they felt the
project makes sense to move forward (preserves active farmland, the location of the gas
pipeline, the fact that there are smaller parcels across the street). The Planning Board
members agreed that the BZA seemed like the easiest path and least restrictive one as
well.
They discussed the time-line for the applicant. Potentially, the BZA could approve the
variance in January, it could come back to the Planning Board in February, and have a
public hearing with final action in March. Roaring spoke over Zoom that she felt they
were not addressing the issue at hand. Planner Hutnik read from the subdivision law
that it is the right of the applicant to bring this subdivision to the BZA without the town
planner first denying it, and can request that the Planning Board weigh in. Maher
added they could put in various conditions in the spirit of maintaining open space.
Chair Maher requested a survey that notes the context of the site, where it makes sense
to build, etc be submitted. This could be used by the Planning Board to formulate a
recommendation to the BZA. Planning Board members expressed their comfort about
this path, expressing they felt they did their due diligence. For next meeting the
applicant should bring a survey showing the location of the gas line/easement, lot lines
for the new subdivision, the building location, and the soils/wet areas/forested areas.
Planning Board members reiterated the importance of establishing clear guidelines to
be applied to cluster subdivision for the future.
[6] PLANNER REPORT (VERBAL)
Planner Hutnik provided a verbal report to the Planning Board:
The town has received another CDBG grant and it’s very exciting.
A misleading article in Tompkins Weekly about the Rhize Up community
implied that the development was moving forward when in fact nothing has
been submitted or approved at this time.
They are still planning on the Design Connect project and are coordinating with
the potential future property owner.
The Regulatory Review committee has met once and will continue to do so.
[7] ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:33 pm.
Recording Secretary - Cindy Katz