Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-2025-Planning Board Minutes Mary Ann Barr 2021 Planning Board Minutes Tuesday 21 October 2025 at 7:00PM The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov PRESENT: Ed Bergman (arrived 7:02 pm) Jacob Colbert Colleen Cowan Scott Davis Jody Scriber Jamie Vanucchi Kelly Maher OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner: Greg Hutnik Recording Secretary: Cindy Katz Public (in person): Leslie Connors; Jutta Locker; Jessi Locker; Kyle Colbert; Zach Thomas; David Thomas; David Thomas; John Blume; Drucy Glass Zoom: Ronda Roaring; Ted Crane; Joseph Petricola, Joel Gagnon, Mike, Len Bartel, Beth Lyon AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW The meeting was called to order at 7 pm. There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. 2. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ted Crane commented that he could not access the regulatory review document linked in the agenda. Ronda Roaring commented that she does not think the Auto Savage sign (on Hornbrook and 96B) meets zoning requirements and she would like it removed. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve Minutes from the September 2025 Planning Board meeting Moved by Bergman, seconded by Davis The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Vanucchi Abstain: Scriber, Maher 4. TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Leslie Connors approached the board and gave her update:  Three more homes were approved to receive funds from the CDBG grant. Connors added that this is a program that ought to be celebrated.  There was a recent discussion at a Town Board meeting on the Timber Harvest law. More work on that will follow.  The special event law is still in discussion.  The Town Board approved the purchase of the property next door to Town Hall. 5. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB 2025-03 353 Comfort Road Parcel: 1.-1-25.3 Applicant: Jutta Locker Zone: Rural 1 SEQR: Unlisted Proposal: Cluster development rights on the parcel and add second dwelling unit Anticipated Board Action(s) this Month: Determination of environmental significance, Public Hearing, Consider Approval The Planning Board reviewed the process for this application, and placed the survey on the large screen. Planner Hutnik reviewed the comments from the last meeting and pointed out that the survey now shows the location of the new dwelling unit as well as the proposed build and no build areas. SEQR They looked at the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1. Planner Hutnik reviewed the additions and edits to the document since the last meeting. There were no other comments from the board. They looked at Part 2 and 3, with Planner Hutnik reading the drafted text on Part 3. MOTION To Approve Resolution 17 of 2025: Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, Cluster Development Rights, 353 Comfort Road, Tax Parcel #1.-1-25.3 Whereas an application has been submitted for review and approval by the Town of Danby Planning Board to cluster the development rights of Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 1.-1-25.3 and add a second dwelling unit, by Jutta Locker, Owner; and Whereas clustering development rights will result in the preparation of a Final Plat and is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act subject to environmental review; and Whereas the Town of Danby Planning Board, having sole authority for approving Final Plats, 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 Final Plat entitled “Survey Map Showing Lands of Jutta Locker Located East of Comfort Road, Town of Danby, Tompkins County, New York” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated 9/8/2025; and other application materials; Now Therefore, be it Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board, on October 21, 2025, based on careful consideration of the application materials, determines the proposed Final Plat clustering the subject property’s development rights 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 Colbert, seconded by Scriber The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Colbert, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher Public Hearing The Public Hearing was opened at 7:16 pm No one spoke. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:17 pm. MOTION to Approve Resolution 18 of 2025 Moved by Cowan, seconded by Davis Discussion: Chair Maher suggested amending the proposal to note that the building should meet the underlying zone set-backs. They discussed the relevance of such an amendment and Planner Hutnik noted it is entirely within the discretion of the board. MOTION to Amend the Previous Motion to Include Set-Back Requirement and Approve Resolution 18 of 2025, Final Plat Approve to Cluster Development Rights, 353 Comfort Road, Tax Parcel #2.-1-25.3 Whereas an application has been submitted for review and approval by the Town of Danby Planning Board to cluster the development rights of Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 2.-1-25.3 and add a second dwelling unit, by Jutta Locker, Owner; and Whereas Article XV of the Zoning Law allows the Cluster Subdivision process to be used to cluster development rights within a single parcel or building; and Whereas clustering development rights on a single parcel will result in the preparation of a Final Plat that shows build and no-build areas and the future provision of any development rights; and Whereas clustering development rights that will result in the preparation of a Final Plat is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review; and Whereas the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, did on October 21, 2025, make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the project; 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 held the required Public Hearing October 21, 2025; Now Therefore, be it Resolved that the new dwelling unit will meet the underlying zone district setbacks Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board, on October 21, 2025, does hereby grant Final Plat Approval to cluster development rights and add a second dwelling unit to the Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 2.-1-25.3, by Jutta Locker, Owner, subject to the following conditions: a. In the Build Area, as denoted on the Final Plat, two dwellings, farm/equestrian buildings, and other residential buildings are allowed; and b. In the No-Build Area, as denoted on the Final Plat, no development is allowed; and Resolved that two copies of the sealed Plat with notations shown are to be submitted to the Town to be signed by the Planning Board Chair; and Resolved that the Plat is subject to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk within 62 days of this approval. Moved by Cowan, seconded Bergman The Motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher Hutnik briefly reviewed the next steps with the applicants. SPR 2025-05 121 Autumn Ridge Lane Parcel: 4.-1-6.6 Applicant: David Thomas Zone: Low Density Residential SEQR: Type II Proposal: Convert a portion of an existing pole barn into dwelling unit Anticipated Board Action this Month: Public Hearing; Consider Approval Chair Maher briefly summarized the request and the anticipated process. The applicants approached the board and explained their desire to build a 1496 square foot livable space for himself in a section of an already existing 50x80 pole barn. They noted that the zoning already permits two dwelling units. If the two units were attached, they would not need to go to the Planning Board at all. Planner Hutnik pointed out that some letters were received from neighbors in regards to the request. He reviewed the recent history of property, noting that a citation was issued by the code officer in 2018 for some excavation equipment for the applicant’s business that was left outside and complained about by a neighbor. In 2020, the town gave approval to build a large shop where the equipment is now stored. Since that, there have not been any additional complaints. Planner Hutnik asked if the equipment will still be stored inside the barn after part of the building is used for a dwelling unit. The applicant confirmed that it would. Planning Board members mentioned a letter from a neighbor expressing concerns about the septic system, and Planner Hutnik confirmed that the applicant already received approval from the health department for septic plans. They began to discuss possible encroachment from the applicants onto their neighbor’s property but decided to wait until the public hearing when they could hear directly from the neighbors. Cowan wondered if some of these questions and concerns raised by neighbors are relevant to the Planning Board? Planner Hutnik replied that a condition can be added for a basic fence to delineate the property line. He added that because this is a discretionary approval, even though the building of a dwelling unit does not impact one way or another whether or not there is encroachment, this could be used as an opportunity by the board to clean up the situation and make it “whole”, should the board wish. They discussed the neighbors concern about the location of the septic and how it had already been approved by the health department. Planner Hutnik was not sure if there is a precedence from a municipality to disagree with or request a change to an approved septic system. They discussed how the engineers came in and did what is needed of them to find the site for the septic. This is what happened and the identified location is the one chosen by the engineering professionals. Public Comment Public hearing opened at 7:34 pm John Blume (1016 Coddington): No objection to the project itself, but he wants to make sure the equipment will still fit in the pole barn. It was an eye sore before the pole barn. Ronda Roaring: Thinks state law does not permit a barn in an Ag District to become a residence. Is this property in an Ag District? Planning Board members clarified that the structure is classified as a storage building, not an ag structure. Planner Hutnik said he would double check about the Ag District while the applicant stated they were not. Len Bartel (1120 Coddington): He is wondering about the required set-backs for the septic system, as it will be between the barn and his property. They have plans to plant fruit trees there. He also noted encroachment on his land from the applicant, and also expressed concern about the equipment begin outside. Maher noted that the applicant previously said they were taking equipment out in prep for construction, and advised them to make sure they put it back in after. Applicant asked what makes something equipment? Planner Hutnik replied that if it is for their business it needs to be stored inside. One commercial vehicle can be outside, uncovered. Applicant asked about AirBnbs and Planner Hutnik said this is a conversation for another time. Crane added in that according to the 2021 Ag District map on Cornell’s website the address is not in an Agricultural District. They continued to discus the septic system, and put the plan up on the large screen. They ensured that the neighbor understood that the Planning Board is not responsible for the septic plan – that is the responsibility of the health department. They also added that the plan for this property has already been approved by the Health Department. The neighbor also said that he thought a new survey would be helpful so everyone knows where the lines are. Planner Hutnik spoke about how if the board chooses they can elect to condition the approval on particular actions that would help to “clean up” any on-going concerns between neighbors, even if the application itself has nothing to do with those concerns. He pointed out that the buffer between the barn and the property line is only ten feet. They discussed the cost of getting a survey, floating that maybe the neighbors could share the cost. The applicant expressed willingness to discuss this, and the Planning Board encouraged them to discuss the situation between themselves. Public hearing closed at 7:49 pm MOTION: To Pass Resolution 19 of 2025 Approving the Site Plan at 121 Autumn Ridge Lane, parcel Moved by Colbert, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher They briefly discussed the sound system in the Town Hall and Crane’s offer to help fix it. SPR 2025-06 58 Jersey Hill Road Parcel: 1.-1-21.2 Applicant: Leslie & Kyle Colbert Zone: Rural 1 SEQR: Type II Proposal: Build single dwelling unit Anticipated Board Action this Month: Public Hearing, Consider Approval Public hearing opened at 7:53 pm No one spoke. Public hearing closed at 7:53 pm The Planning Board thanked the applicant for their detailed dimensions. They inquired if they are putting in a new well and they are. They briefly discussed adding potential conditions, namely dark sky compliance. MOTION: To Pass Resolution 20 of 2025 Approving the Site Plan at 58 Jersey Hill Road, Parcel 1.-1-21.2 Moved by Cowan, seconded by Maher The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher Abstain: Colbert SUB 2025-04 129 Hornbrook Road Parcel: 10.-1-82.2 Applicant: Petricola-Bartholf Partnership II Zone: Rural 1 & Commercial C SEQR: Type II Proposal: Subdivide the 109-acre parcel into two lots so that the Commercial C zone district portion is on its own lot (~2 acres) Anticipated Board Action the Month: Sketch Plat Review; Declare Lead Agency; Schedule Public Hearing. Maher reviewed the history of the property, which had been subdivided but not properly filed. They viewed the parcel on the zoning map, and then on the aerial view. It is a split zoned parcel of 109 acres, with most of the property in Rural 1 and about 2.5 acres in Commercial C. This proposal would subdivide out that Commercial C zoned area from the rest of the parcel. The applicant explained that both partners have passed. They discussed the small sliver of land on the parcel and the applicant explained that he thought it had already been taken care of and was just a remnant that showed up on this map. MOTION: To Approve Resolution 21 of 2025 Declaring Lead Agency at 129 Hornbrook Lane, Parcel 10.-1-82.2 Moved by Maher, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher MOTION: To Schedule a Public Hearing Next Month for a subdivision at 129 Hornbrook Road. Moved by Maher, seconded by Bergman Motion passes. In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Davis, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher Planner Hutnik let the applicant know that he needs all the documents by the end of the month. Maher pointed out there are blanks on the environmental assessment form and that the Planner can work with the applicant to have it all filled in for the next meeting. They discussed the sign, with the applicant saying he was unaware of its existence and was willing to remove it. Planner Hutnik replied that no one from the town is asking him to take the sign down, and also noted that it is not on his land anymore. [6] REVIEW THE REGULATORY REVIEW COMMITTEE’S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS OF THE HAMLET ZONE DISITRICTS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES. Planner Hutnik joined the Planning Board members at the front table. He reviewed the major changes since last time to the Hamlet Neighborhood zoning. These changes were related to removing the need of the Planner to use discretion with regards to the design guidelines, and in how to encourage the renovation and re-purposing of older buildings. They discussed other changes that were also relevant to the Hamlet Neighborhood. Colbert left at 8:20 pm Planner Hutnik next reviewed changes to the Hamlet Center zone. The Planning Board agreed that these changes feel like they are simplifying things. [7] PLANNER REPORT (VERBAL)  Planner Hutnik informed the board that he is going to a training on green energy next week and is happy to report back on topics that are of particular interest to them. Planning Board members suggested that they are interested in information on geothermal/ground source heat pumps. Ted Crane offered that Avangrid is exploring wind power in Danby and they briefly discussed how they have heard positive things about Groton and its production of its own energy.  The process of codifying the law is still taking place.  They are applying for more CDBG funding.  The Town is still considering a Special Event Law that would allow large scale events.  There is still lots of chatter in the town about South Hill Cidery. The Town is trying to understand what Ag and Markets allows and what it does not allow regarding commercial events. There is a land component as well as an easement component to this case that is relevant to planning department [8] ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm. --------------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Katz, Recording Secretary