HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-2025-PlanningBoard Minutes
1
Mary Ann Barr 2021
Planning Board Minutes
Tuesday 21 January 2025 at 7:00PM
The Town of Danby
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
danby.ny.gov
MINUTES
PRESENT:
Ed Bergman
Jacob Colbert
Colleen Cowan
Scott Davis
Jodi Scriber (arrived 7:05pm)
Jamie Vanucchi
Kelly Maher
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner Greg Hutnik
Recording Secretary Cindy Katz
Public (in-person) Leslie Connors (Town Board member), Zach Larkins
Ray Van de Bogart, Kyle Colbert
Public (virtual) Ronda Roaring, Ravinda Kingra, Ted Crane, Katherine
Hunter (Town Board member), Joel Gagnon (Town
Supervisor), Laura Hays
The 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 pm
A discussion on Jacob Colbert’s subdivision was added to the agenda.
(2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Crane requested for camera repositioning in order to see the board better over Zoom,
and Hunter requested that people project for those on Zoom.
(3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Approve the December 2024 minutes
Moved by Maher, seconded by Vanucchi
The motion passed
In favor: Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher
Abstain: Bergman, Colbert
(4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
• Town Board Meeting date has been moved
• Beautification grant is being applied for & may involve pizza, painting & planting
• BOE is looking into closing West Danby polling place
(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 : Public Hearing; Consider Final Action
Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Unlisted
Proposal: Minor Subdivision of 1 lot to 2 lots
Public Hearing
Public Hearing opened at 7:06 pm
No one spoke .
Public Hearing was closed at 7:07pm
MOTION: To approve Planning Board Resolution #1 of 2025 granting preliminary and
final approval to a minor subdivision at 100 Van de Bogart Road.
Planning B oard Resolution No. 1 of 2025 - preliminary and final approval,
minor subdivision, 100 VAN DE B OGART 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– – A large-lot land division is permitted, provided the
following criteria are met:
a. All lots resulting from the land division are (8) acres or more, each with
frontage on a
public road maintained year-round;
b. All lots resulting from the land division meet all other pertinent zoning
requirements;
and
c. No extension or improvement of an existing, or creation of a new public road,
public
utility, or other public facility or area is involved.
d. Compliance with the Stormwater Local Law, if applicable, has been
demonstrated,
including, but not limited to, the preparation and approval of SWPPPs, the
obtaining
of Stormwater Permits, and the design, planning, installation, construction,
maintenance, and improvement of temporary and permanent Stormwater
Management Practices, as each and all of such capitalized terms are defined
within
such Stormwater Local Law; and
Whereas this is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and is subject to environmental review; and
Whereas the Town of Danby Planning Board has sole authority for approving
Minor Subdivisions; and
Whereas legal notice was published and adjacent property owners within 500
feet notified in accordance with the Town of Danby Subdivision and Land
Division Regulations, Article VI, § 601 II.H. Hearing and Notices; and
Whereas the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, did on December 17, 2024
make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the project; and
Whereas the Planning Board held the required Public Hearing on January 21,
2025;
Now Therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary
and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Minor Subdivision of Town of
Danby Tax Parcel No. 20.-1-1.21, by Ray Van de Bogart, Owner, subject to filing
with the Tompkins County Clerk within 62 days.
Moved by Cowan, seconded by Colbert
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher
Planner Hutnik asked the applicant to have the surveyor send the hard copy with the
raised seal , which Chair Maher can sign. They discussed a potential hand -off at work,
as Chair Maher works next to the surveyor.
SUB 2024-09 20 Nelson Road Parcel: 2.-1-17.32 Applicant: Amelia Lefevre/Ithaca
Waldorf School
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Sketch Plat Review; Declare Lead
Agency and Determine Environmental Significance for SEQRA; Schedule Public
Hearing
Zone: Rural 2 SEQR Type: Unlisted
Proposal: Minor subdivision of 1 lot to 2 lots.
Board Discussion:
Applicant gave an overview of the ask, explaining that now that they understand that
there is a conservation area on the southern part of the property, they are no longer
planning on touching that, but are looking to move forward with subdividing out the
one parcel that is ten acres. Planner Hutnik noted there is no minimum road frontage
requirement in this zone district. They discussed a small area of wetlands in the back
that are Federal wetlands. Chair Hutnik explained such would not interfere with
dividing the land, but may impact development.
MOTION: To approve Resolution #2 of 2025 declaring the Planning Board lead agency
in the minor subdivision at 20 Nelson Road.
Planning B oard Resolution No. 2 of 2025 – Declaring lead agency, minor
subdivision, 20 nelson Road, Tax Parcel #2.-1-17.32
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. 2.-1-17.32, by Amelia Lefevre, Applicant, for Ithaca Waldorf School,
Owner; and
Whereas the Owner proposes to subdivide the existing 82 -acre property into two
parcels: one parcel measuring approximately 10 acres each and the second
measuring approximately 72 acres; and
Whereas the property is in the Rural 2 Zoning District, requiring a lot area
minimum of 10 acres and lot depth of 600 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.1. Minor
Subdivision, Option #1 – A large-lot land division is permitted, provided the
following criteria are met:
a. All lots resulting from the land division are (8) acres or more, each with
frontage on a
public road maintained year-round;
b. All lots resulting from the land division meet all other pertinent zoning
requirements;
and
c. No extension or improvement of an existing, or creation of a new public road,
public
utility, or other public facility or area is involved.
d. Compliance with the Stormwater Local Law, if applicable, has been
demonstrated,
including, but not limited to, the preparation and approval of SWPPPs, the
obtaining
of Stormwater Permits, and the design, planning, installation, construction,
maintenance, and improvement of temporary and permanent Stormwater
Management Practices, as each and all of such capitalized terms are defined
within
such Stormwater Local Law; and
Whereas this is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and is subject to environmental review; and
Whereas the Town of Danby Planning Board has sole authority for approving
Minor Subdivisions;
Now Therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of Minor Subdivision
approval for Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 2.-1-17.32, by Amelia Lefevre,
Applicant, for Ithaca Waldorf School, Owner
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Scriber.
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher
Abstain: Cowan
SEQR:
They looked over the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 (SEAF). A new one
had been submitted since the case was last seen by the Planning Board . This one is very
similar to the previous one, but now reflects just the one subdivision. Planner Hutnik
also added “agricultural/grasslands” to question fourteen. They discussed question
twelve b which indicates a historic or sensitive sites is present. The applicant was
unaware, and Planner Hutnik indicated he thought there may be an adjacent site , and
he will look into it. Regardless, such designation is not relevant if they are only
discussing the division of land and not the development of it. They elected to complete
the environmental determination at the next meeting, February 18th, when they have
more details about the (SHPO). At that time there will also be a public hearing .
The planner requested that the applicant have their surveyor send two surveys, signed
and with raised seals, to the planning office.
New Agenda Item for Development Review:
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 reviewed the materials he brought and what they showed on the
property.
Planner Hutnik reviewed the request last time for a survey from the applicant and the
applicant replied that he did know if a full survey was needed, and did not have one
done considering the cost. He wondered if what he brought (an aerial) was adequate.
Planner Hutnik reviewed the December meeting discussion, where the applicant came
to the board asking for a cluster subdivision, and the Planning Board requested more
materials in order to help them decide if this case was best decided here in the context
of a cluster subdivision, or if it were better suited to go to the BZA as an area variance.
Due to a miscommunication, the application did not make it to the BZA this month .
They discussed the pluses and minuses to clusters, the complication of having a two
parcel cluster subdivision, and the need for clarity and to establish precedent. They
discussed delineating locations for existing future subdivision/development , and
removing future potential on development in certain other areas of the property. The
applicant was willing to do that. They considered how that would impact the
landowner in the future. Bergman questioned where those limits would be recorded
and the planner res ponded it would be recorded in as many places as possible ,
including the survey , and if the zoning changed, the owner could argue for that new
zoning to be applied.
Planner Hutnik re-read what a cluster subdivision is from the New York State Law.
They discussed the purpose of a cluster as 1. to reduce infrastructure cost and 2. to
preserve open space. The applicant reviewed why this submission fulfills these goals.
They explored how this benefits the town, what conditions could be set , and the various
potential configurations of where future division could occur (“credits”).
Vanucchi compared this case to the previous one, where they did not permit a
clustering and the applicant had to end up subdividing out ten acres (as the zoning
required). The y noted the difference being that this one involves development, and that
the owner chose to move ahead in that way rather than pursue clustering with the
Planning Board.
Ted Crane spoke that a full cluster plan should be submitted from the state showing
where all the development and lot lines will be. They explore d the question of how one
can submit a plan for a future subdivision without subdivi ding now, and Planner
Hutnik noted an area can be designated for “future development” and another can be
designed for, say, “agricultural use.”
They looked at the aerial view of the parcel , discussed where the different sections
could be , and Planner Hutnik asked the applicant how he felt about referring to one
specific area as the only area with potential to develop.
Gagnon spoke about the idea of clustering without subdividing, and his hope that the
regulatory review committee will be able to come with some guidelines.
They discussed the possibility that a few lots could be clustered, but that the other
allotted “credits” would be regular subdivision according to the zoning. Chair Maher
reviewed the pathway they have come up with today which the applicant is amenable
to and where areas are designated for development and non-development. Hutnik
would like to pitch it to the town attorney to make sure it is airtight . He wondered what
language needs to be created to travel with the plat and maybe the deed so everything
is clear to future buyers .
They discussed the importance of understanding what the land itself can support/allow
before making anything final. They wondered what other restrictions /uses might be
applied, and about other designations, for example game land or recreational land .
They reviewed what a conservation area is and how that would impact development
currently and in the future.
Ronda Roaring objected to the town assuming the cost of the consultation with the town
lawyer. Hutnik responded that it is true that the applicant should assume some of the
responsibility to work with a lawyer in general, but he would still consult with the
lawyer in this case anyway. He is consulting with the lawyer not on behalf of the
applicant but on behalf of the town, the P lanning Board and future
applications/precedents.
Planner Hutnik stated he will do his best to get what they landed on in writing. He
thinks the area for development should be surveyed (not necessarily the whole
property), and that they’ll want a map showing all the different designated areas .
The rest of the process will follow the subdivision process , with notice requirements,
public hearing, and environmental final review in maybe March. They could do the
initial preliminary review next month (February 2025). The planner said he would look
into if site plan review was required.
(6) PLANNER REPORT (verbal)
• The town received a 4.6 -million-dollar grant award for a potential sewer and waste
water treatment project. The town has not yet accepted the money, and needs to explore
many questions before making any decisions.
• The Design C onnect project on the Dobson property is moving forward
• The Regulatory Review Committee is meeting to review zoning and subdivision law s.
Their conclusions will be passed onto the board.
• The town is currently looking into h iring a consultant for the housing rehabilitation
grant.
• They may apply for a beautification grant .
• The planner is also looking at business assistance grants for small businesses.
(7) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35pm.
----------------- Cindy Katz, Recording Secretary