Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-2025-Planning Board Minutes Mary Ann Barr 2021 Planning Board Minutes Tuesday 16 September 2025 at 7:00PM The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov MINUTES PRESENT: Ed Bergman Colleen Cowan Scott Davis Jamie Vanucchi Kelly Maher ABSENT: Jacob Colbert Jody Scriber OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner: Greg Hutnik Recording Secretary: Cindy Katz Public (in-person): Leslie Connors; Jutta Locker; Jessi Locker; Bill Wilcox; Karen Wilcox; Katharine Hunter; Zachary Larkins; Jeremy Knout; Carlie Phillips; Zach Palmer Public (virtual): Ted Crane; Christa Nunez (Khuba International); Crystal Ross (Whitham Planning and Design); Mugda Mallareddy (Whitham Planning and Design); Aleksandr Mergold (Mergold Architecture); Dondi Harner (TJ Miller) Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor); Wendy Marsh (Attorney) 1. CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW The meeting was called to order at 7:01 pm. No additions or deletions to the agenda. 2. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ted Crane: Appreciates the house proposed on Hornbrook is in the back of the lot, but hopes that the Planning Board will do a thorough review of all proposed infrastructure. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM AUGUST 2025 MOTION: Approve the August 19th Meeting Moved by Bergman, seconded by Cowan The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher Abstain: Vanucchi 4. TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Connors was not prepared with a report and Town Board Supervisor had also not prepared to give a report, saying that “nothing ’s happening anyway.” 5. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SPR 2025-03 00 Hornbrook Road Parcel: 6.-1-18.25 Applicant: Whitham Planning & Design Anticipated Board Action(s) this Month : Sketch Plan Review Zone: Rural 2; Aquifer High Vulnerability Overlay; Habitat Corridor Overlay; Riparian Buffer Overlay SEQR: To be Determined Proposal: Construct a duplex Crystal Ross, a Senior Associate Landscape Architect at Whitham Planning and Design, introduced the team: Mugda Mallareddy (Whitham Planning & Design); Christa Nunez (Project Owner), Aleksander Mergold (Project Architect), Dondi Harner (Project Civil Engineer); and Wendy Marsh (Project Attorney from Hancock Law). Mallareddy shared a slideshow and gave an overview of changes since the last conversations with the Planning Board. She summarized the current proposal consisting of a two family dwelling unit. She shared the team’s desire to confirm that the project is a Type 2 action and therefore exempt from SEQR , as well as their willingness to move forward with SEQR should it be deemed necessary. Dondi Harner from TJ Miller shared the proposed sketch plan on the large screen, pointing out the location of the home , the drive-way, the stream crossings, the high aquifer vulnerability overlay zone, the riparian disturbance zone and set-backs, the habitat overlay zone, and the 15% slopes. He explained the method for mapping the slopes, noting that most of the building is kept out of them. Mergold spoke, and shared the floor plans of the planned duplex , noting that it will be elevated for minimal ground impact. Mallareddy reviewed that the food produced on the land will be used by the residents privately. Nunez introduced herself and reviewed her experience working with farming and children, and her work’s goal of giving children and their families the opportunity to learn to grow food and live on land. Maher reviewed the goal for today of providing feedback for the project going forward. Cowan requested a summary of the original subdivision from before the land was purchased by the current applicant. Was it just approving the subdivision or did it also approve the location of the building? Planner Hutnik summarized a larger three lot subdivision that occurred in 2021 that included this parcel . While the board did require the applicant to add restrictive areas and various other restrictions to the plat as notes, it did not go so far as to delineate “buildable areas” vs “non-buildable” areas . The Planning Board at the time requested the applicant receive septic plan approval and have wetlands delineated. It is unclear what happened with the septic, but the wetlands were delineated. The current applicant’s team responded that they had not yet gotten septic approval but have a few potential spots outlined. Hu tnik wondered if there were ever plans in the past propos ed location. The applicant responded that they had started to look into such but stopped after understanding the spot was not feasible due to the wetlands. Davis was curious about their plans to garden on this land considering the large trees and slopes . Can the house and all the gardens and buffer fit into one acre? The applicant replied that they ascribe to a slow growth method of forest farming that allows large trees to remain in place. Cowan was concerned if septic and water are feasible on the site . She also wondered how much ground disturbance will occur outside of the noted impacted area due to construction. Mergold responded that the noted footprint on the plan include s construction swing zones. The current area where they are looking at septic is a lot less steep than the previous area that was looked at. Vanucchi requested details related to the wetlands, subsurface flow los s across the road, the relationship between the high water and the road, wildlife crossing and culverts, and surface flow across the road. She also asked if the road will be salted (it will not.) Harner gave details regarding the three culverts, which will be “open bottom” to allow the passage of animals. He reviewed additional plans for the road and water flow , as well as the proposed setbacks and locations for wells and septic. They discussed the movement of amphibians as related to the culverts. Maher wondered about the sequence of approvals from the Planning Board , the DEC, and the Army Corp of Engineers. Harner repied that they have initiated the process with the DEC and the Army Corps. She added that the Planning Board would like to see that these groups are confident in this design before the Planning Board gives its approval. They discussed the steep driveway going to the house , the amount of infill required, and if the fire department could provide some feedback on what they need from that road in terms of access. Planner Hutnik wondered why the road/driveway is as large as it is (20 feet), and questioned if it could be smaller since it is only a driveway. Applicant said they thought that twenty-foot width was required due to the length of the road. They would be happy to make it smaller and add in a bump out where vehicles could cross one another. In regard to slopes, they are trying to keep it as flat as possible but still workable for fire apparatus. They are ready to work with what is allowed. Bergman pointed out that the locals have concerns about the wetlands , flooding, and other impacts on the water. Maher expressed a desire to get feedback from experts as much as possible in order to understand the impact of designing in a wetland . Hutnik said the CAC (“Conservation Advisory Council”) will need to be review and provide feedback on the application, although they have no decision making power. They will likely want a site tour. He also noted that for a more technica l review, it might be warranted to hire an environmental engineer or consultant to review the applicat ion for the town. This could be something that the P lanning Board could require that the applicant do and pay for. Vanucchi expressed the importance of hearing from the DEC and cited a project she knew about that also went across a wetland and that the requirements were quite stringent. Planning Board members inquired about future plantings, and asked for the area to be shown in the site plan. They discussed methods for planting in a wooded area. Maher clarified that the heating/cooling system will not require construction work (such as a ground source heat pump ), and asked what type of material will be used on the drive - way. The applicant confirmed it would be gravel . Cowan commented that this could result in wash-outs, especially considering the changes in weather recently. Planner Hutnik added that this area often floods, and did flood this past spring, backing up all the way to Nelson and Hornbrook. He emphasized that if that event happened again, and he thought it would as it happens every year, the area would be completely under water. Planner Hutnik called their attention to the town’s Comprehensive Plan section B1.4 in the natural resources section that discusses the town’s strategies on how to protect water from sedimentation, run-off from erosion, drainage, contamination, and flooding. He read two relevant strategies listed in the document. One being drainage & water use studies, and the other being to discourage development on erosion prone steep slopes. He encouraged the Planning Board to consider these suggestions. He reviewed the three overlay districts on this parcel, why they exist, and that they are intended to set the bar high for development. He spoke specifically about the Riparian Buffer Overlay district and how the Planning Board has the ability to g rant a waiver permitting a drive -way over a perennial stream. They discussed the site , which streams are perennial and which are intermittent, and the areas between the streams and their wetness. They wondered how all this work could be done without disturbing the entire area. They discussed making a site visit. Audience member Zach Palmer: Thinks concerns about the wetlands should extend beyond the streams . They cited a new regulation from the DEC starting January 1 2025 that requires anywhere that fits the criteria of a wetland to be proven otherwise. He questioned how that drive -way will not flood out, how it cannot be salted , how erosion will impact neighbors. He expressed skepticism that septic, well, water run-off can be feasible here. He wondered if the Army Corps needs to approve things before the town can. He does not think this is sensible plan that will result in the programmatic outcomes that the applicant is interested in. Audience member Bill Wilcox: He commented on the high cost of crossing three streams, and wondered why go through all this impact on a wetland for just a two family home when there are plenty of other parcels for sale . He mentioned his concern about the wetland and the large amount of filing needed for the septic. He questioned how many people will be living in the house . He reviewed various unknowns regarding installing a septic system, well, and road, highlighting the environmental impact, cost, and the amount of work each would require. He mentioned the animals he has seen there, and wondered if it i s a trout stream? It is not. He thinks i t’s a great idea but there is a lot of property around that can be purchased on higher ground where it is e asier to achieve their objectives. Mergold responded that the house plan is for two bedrooms in each part of the duplex. Maher wondered about diversion of water in the steep areas . Where will the run off go so it doesn’t wash out the drive -way? She’d be interested in see ing how the water will be re-routed on a future application. Cowan commented that the application feels over the head of the Planning Board and wondered if the P lanning Board can request that approvals from the health department, the DEC and the Army Corps be given before the application comes back to the Planning Board. They discussed their support and their belief in the town’s support of the goals of this project, and also how developing this particular site feels in contradiction to the town’s stated objective of protecting its most environmentally vulnerable sites. The project attorney confirmed the P lanning Board’s request to receive the above mentioned approvals before returning. They discussed engaging with the CAC, and other steps of the process that would be taken following those approvals (waiver, SEQR process). SPR 2025-04/SUB 2025-03 353 Comfort Road Parcel: 1.-1-25.3 Applicant: Jutta Locker Anticipated Board Action(s) this Month: Sketch Plan Review, Declare Lead Agency, Schedule Public Hearing Zone: Rural 1 SEQR: Unlisted Proposal: Delineate cluster development area and add second dwelling unit Maher reviewed the application and invited the applicant to provide an overview. Applicant Locker explained that her daughter is returning from college and she would like to build her a home on her horse farm property. They reviewed the aerial view of the property, noting the current home, the equestrian areas, the potential build si te and existing road to it, as well as Buttermilk Creek and an old homestead site. Planner Hutnik went on to explain that the property is in the Rural 1 district. This district allows one unit per site, but the previous zoning update also allows for an owner to “cluster” their development rights . This clustering of rights -- for the applicant’s home plus her daughter’s home -- is what the applicant is requesting. The final outcome of this process will be a plat showing the develop able area of two units, and the outside area that is undevelopable. The Planning Board confirmed there is no subdivision in this case . Cowan asked about her additional six development rights, and Planner Hutnik explained that yes, the applicant would still have those development rights . In the future should she wish to use them, she would need to ask the Planning Board at a future date to amend the final plat. They discussed the logic behind the location of the proposed house, and Planner Hutnik encouraged them to consider where the y may want to delineate the “developable are a.” Maher questioned if there were any concerns with having such a long road to the house. Planner Hutnik explained that any relevant needs would be brought up by the town code enforcement office at the time of the building permit application. They discussed what should be shown on the survey and the various options that could be used to delineate the “build” and “no build” area. Cowan questioned why it was necessary to delineate an area where building was not permitted, seeing as the applicant is not using up all of their eight development rights at this time and can build more in the future . Planner Hutnik reviewed the history of the cluster subdivision law, and read from the relevant section of the law. Planner Hutnik went on to explain how the owner of an original parent parcel can always apply to amend a plat. He encouraged the Board to consider the site itself, where the development is, and what area makes sense to refer to as the buildable area. Maher suggested the buildable area as anywhere from where the applicant wants to build and over to wards the road. They agreed in this designated area two dwelling units plus equestrian/ag buildings would be permitted. They could not think of other limits to the property and commented on how this plan seems ideal for both the town’s goals and the applicant’s goals. MOTION: To Approve Resolution 16 of 2025 Declaring the Planning Board Lead Agency. Moved by Cowan, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Vanucchi, Maher SEQR Planner Hutnik shared the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Part 1 on the large screen. He suggested including “the addition of a cluster development area” to the Summary of the Proposed Action under Part 1. He also suggested adding in a number under total acreage to be physically disturbed , as there will be some disturbance with the house construction. Planner Hutnik thought such would still be helpful to know, even though this review itself is for the cluster development area. This number could be based on what the proposed house size would be as well as the septic area. MOTION: To Schedule a Public Hearing at the October Planning Board Meeting for 353 Comfort Road. Moved by Maher, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Vanucchi, Maher They discussed next steps, with Planner Hutnik requesting that they meet before September 30th and noting that he will write everything out in an email. (6) PLANNER REPORT (VERBAL) • Planner Hutnik said he would have a more detailed update next month. He gave a brief update on his newborn son. (7) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:33 pm. Cindy Katz ------Recording Secretary