Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-2025-Planning Board Minutes Mary Ann Barr 2021 Planning Board Minutes Tuesday 15 April 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 Jody Scriber Kelly Maher ABSENT: Jamie Vanucchi OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner: Greg Hutnik Recording Secretary: Cindy Katz Public (in person): Leslie Connors(Town Board member); Marnie Margaret Kiechgessner; Scott Foti, Kyle Colbert; Zachary Larkins; Katharine Hunter (Town Board member); Mike Rowell; Linqing Rowell Zoom: Ted Crane; Ronda Roaring; Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor); Raphael Akrofi [1] CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW The meeting was called to order at 7:01 pm. There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. [2] PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Marnie Kiechgessner, 74 West jersey Road gave her support to the site plan review at 91 Townline Road. She appreciates the innovative idea and that it is affordable. Ronda Roaring expressed her desire that the Colbert property be put in a conservation easement. [3] APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the March 18 2025 minutes Moved by Bergman, seconded by Scriber The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Scriber, Maher Abstain: Colbert, Cowan [4] TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT (VERBAL) No report was given. [5] DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SPR 2025-01 91 Townline Road Parcel: 1.-1-1.12 Applicant: Michael Rowell Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Review Application; Public Hearing; Consider approval Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Type 2 Proposal: Build single family residence on vacant lot They briefly reviewed the site plan on the large screen, and Planner Hutnik explained there had been no changes since the last meeting. A member of the public (Scott Foti) asked if approval had been given for a stormwater channel that was dug. The Planner recommend we wait to address the question at the public hearing. The applicants arrived at 7:07 p.m. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 7:07 p.m. Chair Maher asked the applicants if work had already been done on the site, referencing the comment made by the audience member. The applicant responded that they had restored the original ditch and swale present at the southern property line near the western end near the house. Planner Hutnik put the satellite image on the large screen, and they identified the location being discussed. Foti responded that when it rains the ditch fills with mud. He wondered if anyone talked to the applicants about erosion prevention. The applicant said he planned on putting some riprap down and can also do seeding. The neighbor suggested that even haybales would help. Planner Hutnik suggested that Foti follow up with the applicant regarding erosion control. He explained that if the site plan is approved, the planner’s office is responsible for making sure the stormwater plan is in place. Marnie Kiechgessner (74 West Jersey Hill Road) spoke again and repeated her support for the build. The public hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m. Board Discussion: They discussed adding a condition that stormwater controls be in place before any new work is done. MOTION: To Pass Resolution 5 of 2025 Granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the Property Located at 91 Townline Road, parcel 1.-1-1.12 with stated conditions that stormwater controls be in place prior to site work starting, and that the dark sky compliant lighting be used. Moved by Bergman, seconded by Cowan Chair Maher added that they should also condition dark sky compliance. Planner Hutnik explained to the applicant what dark sky compliance is. The board confirmed for Foti that the site plan is just for the home near the road, not the agricultural area. The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Maher SUB 2024-10 60 Jersey Hill Road Parcel: 1.-1-21 Applicant: Jacob Colbert Anticipated Board Action(s) this Month: Discussion, Sketch plat review Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Unlisted Proposal: Cluster subdivision of 1 lot to 2 lots; cluster development Planner Hutnik put the survey up on the large screen. They sought to clarify the current ask. Planner Hutnik reviewed the history and evolution of the plan. Previously they had talked about clustering the property's development rights so that five lots or dwellings (i.e. “credits”) would be sited in one designated “developable” area. This would include the current house, the five-acre parcel currently in discussion as well as another three potential lots or dwellings. The rest of the fifty-eight acres would be designated “undevelopable.” Planner Hutnik went on to say that this, however, is no longer what the applicant wants. When asked about the input of the lawyer, Planner Hutnik replied that from a legal perspective, a two-lot subdivision can still be considered a “cluster.” Planner Hutnik expressed that the Planning Board should see a proposal of a plan, and that there ought to be some type of balance in it. Otherwise they could create a situation where the Planning Board is waiving lot size requirements throughout town. Colbert explained his desire to extend the developable area for two of the potential credits. They discussed where the various credits could be, and Planner Hutnik clarified that there is no actual requirement in the zoning for a cluster to have a designated “open space” area, although such can be included. They discussed the reason for designating open space, and where those spaces might be on the parcel. Colbert explained that he came in wanting a two-parcel cluster subdivision, that this was done in the past and the lawyer agreed it is allowed. Planner Hutnik added that while this is true, it is up to the discretion of the Planning Board, and it will set a precedent. He remarked that the spirit of the Planning Board’s discussion has been to allow the cluster to happen with the balancing benefit to the town of designating open space. They continued to discuss the revised developable space and the need to know its location. Chair Maher said she was ok with a rough idea of where that land would be, and didn’t need a full survey. It could be somewhat flexible, although she agreed that it did need to be shown on a map. They discussed surveying, and Colbert said he could show the differentiation between the areas. They estimated that what they were looking at in the revised proposal is about 50% open space; are they comfortable with that? They discussed what the cluster would look like and if it fit the intention of the zoning to have houses next to the road vs away from the road. Chair Maher wondered if he would need to come back for future approval of where additional houses would be put on the developable area? Yes, such is required by the zone district. They hand drew on Colbert’s survey where the new developable and open area would be, noting it is different from what the applicant submitted last week. Planner Hutnik pulled up the full map of the parcel. They discussed the idea of houses built next to the road vs further on the land, and that only three houses could be built there regardless. The applicant clarified that none of these divisions are happening now; only the five-acre subdivision for his cousin. They agreed that they would be comfortable moving forward next month with a public hearing and environmental review so long as they can see documentation showing the developable space vs the open space. MOTION: To Schedule a Public Hearing in for a Cluster Subdivision at 60 Jersey Hill Road in at the May 2025 Planning Board Meeting. Moved by Maher, seconded by Davis The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Maher Abstain: Colbert Chair Maher called on resident Ted Crane for a comment: This is an example of a lesson learned that any surveys submitted to the Planning Board should include the entire proposal, and that what is submitted should be what is being proposed at the actual meeting. Planner Hutnik responded that the materials were submitted last week, and the applicant came today having had further thoughts on it. Chair Maher called on Town Supervisor Joel Gagnon. Supervisor Gagnon pointed out that all new primary structures in cluster developments are required to be separated by a minimum of 600 feet from other residences outside of the cluster development. Due to the additional houses on the road that would be outside of the cluster development, this requirement would therefore not be met by this proposal. He added that the intention of this separation distance is to preserve open space, and the required ten-acre lot size is to avoid houses lining the road. He believes the current plan proposed subverts the zoning. Planner Hutnik responded that yes, the houses in the cluster development need to be 600 feet away from any house outside of the cluster (across the street), but that the lots do not have to be. The applicant’s cousin (Kyle Colbert) asked if that 600 feet requirement could be altered or waived. Planner Hutnik clarified that yes, it is modifiable as long as it is in the spirit of the cluster subdivision and cluster development regulations. They discussed the pluses and minuses of houses close to the road with land behind them, considering the various perspectives on this. Planner Hutnik measured 600 feet. In order to be complaint with the 600-foot separation distance, the houses would need to be nearly into the wooded area they wanted to designate as “open space.” Hutnik said they could make an argument to modify the separation distance, allow the houses closer to the road, and thus preserve the open space. Hutnik pointed out that even though the zoning is different across the road, a smaller lot along the road in the cluster development would be consistent with what is on the road currently. They continued to discuss the intent of the zoning, and whether or not allowing houses to line the street is in its spirit. They discussed that the applicant does not currently know where the houses would be built and is looking for flexibility. Planner Hutnik added the key is that the board be able to point to a good reason for why approving this supports the intent of clustering. They again questioned if they have the authority to alter the 600 foot requirement, and contemplated if they could move forward with the subdivision, leaving the details as to where the other houses would be placed to a future application. They asked what the distance is between the proposed house on the five-acre lot and other nearby residences. This was not answered directly. They discussed needing to justify if they were to modify the 60-foot separation distance requirement, and offered the preservation of open space as a potential reason. Planner Hutnik reviewed the development of this application, acknowledging that it has been difficult and confusing, and that things have shifted. Cowan and Davis spoke to their strong frustration with the 600 foot separation regulation in general, Maher said that even if they put all allotted houses directly next to the proposed current house it would still not fulfill that requirement, and Bergman agreed that he also did not like it and wondered what can be done? They discussed how the already existing houses across the road can be part of the justification for the cluster, as the new houses will conform to what is already on the ground. When Scriber wondered why they shouldn’t use their discretion in this case, they all seemed to agree that modification of the 600-foot rule benefits the town. Supervisor Gagnon added that such is against the rules, and Planner Hutnik responded that the law does allow the Planning Board to modify the zoning dimensions if it is beneficial to the town. He summarized that this proposal is not increasing the density permitted, and that it could be considered more beneficial to the town to require new houses to be placed where current houses already are. This may or may not be what the Planning Board wants to do, it is up to them to move forward or not. They reiterated their belief that clustering the houses together and leaving open area undeveloped is preferable to the town then dividing it up into 10 acres lots where open land is not designated. Planner Hutnik reviewed that there seems to be support for the following:  subdivide off the requested 5-acre lot  delineate a developable area that will preserve agricultural land  preserve the forest area  keep new houses closer to the road and nearer to each other, noting the increased density of the area across the road  reduce impervious surfaces and ground disturbance as much as possible  create smaller lots as a way to maintain affordability  utilize natural features of the land as a mechanism for subdivision lines Hutnik encouraged the planning board to continue to think of new questions and interrogate this proposal. He noted the importance of working with intention and a vision in order to prevent this from becoming a two-parcel subdivision in an area where the zoning does not allow it, due to one of the lots not meeting the minimum area,by calling it a “cluster.” [6] PLANNER REPORT (verbal)  Proposals from the crosswalk will be coming in  The Beautification grant will go towards fixing up the gazebo and planters at Town Hall and a message board in West Danby. Volunteers welcome!  Dobson property Design Connect is continuing. The students will present at the May 5 Town Board meeting.  Next month the Planning Board might see a proposal for re-zoning a property on Hornbrook near the highway department’s property. They are zoned for the hamlet neighborhood, and are looking to be re-zoned as commercial. This will have to go to the Town Board and highway should be involved  Still gathering information for the sewer project. Hoping for a meeting at the end of May or into June. [7] ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Recording Secretary -----Cindy Katz