Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-2025-Planning Board Minutes Mary Ann Barr 2021 Planning Board Minutes Tuesday 20 May 2025 at 7:00PM The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov MINUTES PRESENT: Edward Bergman Jacob Colbert Colleen Cowan Scott Davis Jody Scriber Jamie Vanucchi Kelly Maher OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner Greg Hutnik Public (in-person) Ross & Heide Horowitz, Karen Phinney, Kyle Colbert Zachary Larkins, Leslie Conners, Pacific Austin Public (virtual) Joel Gagnon, Katharine Hunter, Ronda Roaring The meeting was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom platform. Note: Recording secretary Cindy Katz was not present during the meeting. Minutes were written at a later time through use of the Zoom recording. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW The meeting was opened at 7:01pm. There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ronda Roaring would like to recommend a book on planning called Key to the City by Sara Bronin. It is available at the Tompkins County Library. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Maher noted a line in the minutes where “Bergman” was written and she thought it meant to say “Colbert.” They located that section on the minutes, and corrected it. MOTION: To Approve the April 15 2025 Meeting Minutes with one Amendment Moved by Maher, seconded by Davis The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Maher Abstain: Vanucchi (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT (VERBAL)  The Town Board is considering appointing alternates to the Planning Board and would like to solicit their thoughts on the matter. They discussed the idea, reviewed current and previous policies, and suggested putting it on the agenda for next month. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB 2024-10 60 Jersey Hill Road Parcel: 1.-1-21 Applicant: Jacob Colbert Anticipated Board Action(s) this Month: Environmental Impact Determination, Public Hearing, Final Action Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Unlisted Proposal: Cluster subdivision of 1 lot to 2 lots; cluster of development rights SEQR They reviewed the SEAF Part 1 (“Short Environmental Assessment Review”). The planner explained that he added the red markings in order to complete the form. They looked over the SEAF Parts 2 & 3 form, prepared by Planner Hutnik. All the responses were “no, or small impact may occur” except for question number two, where he checked “moderate or large impact may occur.” Planner Hutnik detailed that the prospect of centering development as occurs with clustering could potentially change the intensity of use of the land. He read a statement he prepared on Part 3 explaining the rationale behind the division of the land into a “developable area” while preserving over 50% of it as open space. MOTION: To Approve Planning Board Resolution 6 of 2025 Declaring Lead Agency & Making a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance of a Cluster Subdivision and Cluster of Development Rights, 60 Jersey Hill Road, Tax Parcel #1.-1- 21 Whereas an application has been submitted for review and approval by the Town of Danby Planning Board for a Cluster Subdivision and Cluster of Development Rights of Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 1.-1-21, by Jacob Colbert, Owner; and Whereas the Owner proposes to subdivide the existing 59.25-acre property into two parcels: one measuring 5.05 acres and the other measuring 54.2 acres; and Whereas the Owner proposes to cluster the development rights of the 54.2-acre property into a 23.7-acre “Developable Area” while keeping 30.5 acres as “Open Space Area”; and Whereas the property is in the Rural 1 Zoning District, requiring a lot area minimum of 10 acres and lot depth of 800 feet; and Whereas the applicant requests use of Town Law Section 278 and the Cluster Subdivision provision of Article III of the Subdivision Regulations to allow one of the lots to be smaller than the required minimum lot area of the zone district; and Whereas this action is considered a Cluster Subdivision and Cluster of Development Rights in accordance with the Town of Danby Subdivision and Land Division Regulations, Article III, and Article XV of the Zoning Law, respectively; 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, having sole authority for approving subdivisions, declares itself Lead Agency for the purposes of environmental quality review; 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 “Minor Subdivision Map Showing Portion of Lands of Jacob and Caleb Colbert Located on Jersey Hill Road and West King Road, Town of Danby, Tompkins County, New York” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated 9/20/2024; 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 Cluster 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 Bergman, seconded by Davis The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher Abstain: Colbert Public Hearing: Ross Horowitz, 820 West King Road: Horowitz commended the paving on Sandbank Road, and stated that the area between the top of Sandbank and Jersey Hill Road is “no man’s land” where neither the town nor the county will paint necessary-for-safety yellow & white lines. He believes if more houses are built there, the road must be made proper. He also urged the Planning Board to be aware that neighboring landowners have struggled to dig satisfactory wells in this area. Kara Finney, 725 West King: Finney also expressed concern about water and the impact more wells in the area would have. She asked for clarification on how many homes could be built. Planner Hutnik discussed what consideration the Planning Board can give to the issue of well water in this approval process. They discussed their wells and what issues and questions have come up over the last few years. Horowitz expressed concern that larger, higher end, or more houses on the land might put a strain on the water resources. Hutnik clarified that water resources would be considered during site plan review. Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor): He expressed this belief that this subdivision is inconsistent with the intent of clustering. He elaborated that the original intent was to find ways to preserve the character of the land while also allowing some development; the 600 feet separation is to keep the cluster far enough away from existing buildings and the road that it wouldn’t have a strong impact on the character. He noted the applicant pointed out the high expense of keeping a house away from the road, as you would need more infrastructure, and responded that this is true and is the whole reason for the clustering in the first place: a cluster of lots would involve shared infrastructure, thus making it less costly for everyone. He has sympathy for the land-owner but continues to see this as inconsistent with the intent of the law, and noted this may cause issues down the road if it continues. Katharine Hunter: Hunter is concerned about change of character due to potential houses being built along the road. She wondered if it is possible to not designate a developable area at this time, and rather have the potential location of future homes worked out in the future. Ronda Roaring: Agreed with Supervisor Gagnon’s concerns, and with Hunter’s mention that it is unclear how much water is used by a nearby factory. She thinks there are some reasons to not go with this particular proposal. The public hearing closed at 7:44 pm Board Discussion: They discussed pluses and minuses of designating a “developable area” and an “open space” area for any future builds. Planner Hutnik brought up the option of striking these specifications and instead simply delineating how many “credits” will remain for the property to be subdivided with. Davis expressed concern with referring to this as “clustering,” thinks that current proposal is good enough for now, believes they need to figure out how clustering will work going forward, and suggested separating the concept of “clusters” from “credits.” They reviewed the language of the law in regards to zoning in Rural 1. Davis inquired about a potential subdivision on a 100 acre lot and what the law would permit in that scenario. They established that some of the language in the law is unclear and should be re-worked in the future. Scriber expressed a desire to make a decision today so this conversation does not continue at more meetings. They discussed how development rights can go to either parcel, as desired by a potential applicant and as approved by the Planning Board. Planner Hutnik reviewed his previous thinking that encouraged the Planning Board to develop a plan for the cluster, and expressed frustration for the confusion that seemingly resulted. He now is wondering if the best thing is to go back to assigning credits. In that instance, the 600 foot rule still exists since this would be called a cluster, and he asked the Planning Board how they might want to approach that. A resident asked for clarification about condominiums and Planner Hutnik clarified the zoning would not allow that and no one is looking for anything to be built other than a single house. Cowan made a motion to subdivide out just the five acre lot. They held a detailed discussion and live editing session of the motion previously put together by Planner Hutnik. They removed references to a designated developable area, an open space area, and development rights, and negotiated language establishing how many dwellings could be permitted in any future subdivisions. During this discussion Chair Maher left, and Bergman took over as chair. MOTION: To Approve Planning Board Resolution 7 of 2025 Granting Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, Cluster Subdivision, 60 Jersey Hill Road, parcel 1.-1-21, Jacob Colbert Moved by Cowan, seconded by Bergman Discussion: Cowan wondered if the language needed to be made stronger around the idea of credits. Planner Hutnik edited it to be more specific around what will be permitted on the parent lot and one the newly created five acre lot. Vanucchi expressed confusion over why this is considered a “cluster” when there is one house being built and no delineated future planned clustered location. They discussed this and how it can be approached going forward, as something similar will likely occur again since ten acre lots often price people out. Scriber brought up on-going questions about water availability and population density. The motion passed. In favor: Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Bergman (Colbert is the applicant and therefore did not vote.) Planner Hutnik discussed next steps with the applicant. [6] PLANNING REPORT (VERBAL)  The town is soliciting engineering firms to help with the sewer project & creation of sewer districts  The town is looking into CDBG grants for funds to improve mobility access in Town Hall  The regulatory review committee continues to be working and recommending changes. Those will go to the Town Board next month or so for consideration. [7] ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45pm. Cindy Katz ---------- Recording Secretary