HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-2026-Planning Board-DRAFT-MINUTES
Mary Ann Barr 2021
Planning Board Minutes
Wednesday May 20 2026 at 7:00PM
The Town of Danby
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
danby.ny.gov
A Meeting of the Town of Danby Planning Board will be held at
7PM on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, In-person & via video conference (Zoom)
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82252776582
Meeting ID: 822 5277 6582
Dial in: 646 931 3860 or 929 205 6099
For questions on how to use Zoom or access the meeting, please contact Greg Hutnik,
Town Planner, at 607-592-0417 or planner@danby.ny.gov
DRAFT MINUTES
PRESENT:
Pacific Austin
Ed Bergman (arrived at 7:07PM)
Jacob Colbert
Colleen Cowan
Jody Scriber
Jamie Vanucchi
Kelly Maher
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner: Greg Hutnik
Recording Secretary: Cindy Katz
Public (in-person): Zach Larkins, Leslie Connors, Kate Riley (Finger Lakes Land
Trust), Tom Clements, Debbie Benson, Matthew Wiese,
Elizabeth Aldridge
Public (virtual): Nick, Katharine Hunter, Shellbird, Mark Pruce, Rhonda
Roaring, Christopher C
1. CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW
The meeting was called to order at 7PM.
Planner Hutnik introduced new Planning Board member Pacific Austin. He also
explained that they will no longer be discussing the application for Deputron Hollow,
as the applicant withdrew her application due to the high cost of the installing a septic
system.
2. PRIVLEGE OF THE FLOOR
No one spoke.
3. MINUTES APPROVAL
MOTION: Approve the minutes from April 2026
Moved by Cowan, seconded by Scriber
The motion passed.
In favor: Cowan, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher
Abstain: Austin, Colbert
They waited to vote on the March minutes as they did not have enough votes to pass it
unless Bergman arrived.
4. TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
- The Town Board appointed a new member to the Planning Board
- The newest version of the Special Event Law will have a public hearing on
July 7th
-The Board is opposing proposed state law A10483 which would permit
interconnection lines through state land
- The town will unveil the new Civil War memorial plaque at the upcoming
Memorial Observation
Bergman arrived at 7:07PM.
MOTION: To approve the March 2026 minutes.
Moved by Colbert, seconded by Maher
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Colbert, Scriber, Maher
Abstain: Austin, Cowan, Vanucchi
5. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SUB 2026-03 400 Gunderman Road Parcel: 8.-1-26 Applicant: Finger Lakes Land
Trust on behalf of Catherine Darrow (Owner) Zone: Rural 1 SEQR: Unlisted
Proposal: Subdivide 124-acre lot into two lots: one approx. 40 acres; the other
approx. 84 acres Anticipated Board Action: Public Hearing; Consider Approval
Kate Riley from Finger Lakes Land Trust made herself available for questions.
They noted that the lot going to the FLLT is not contiguous with other FLLT
land, but they have planned for that possibility in the future. There is also no
current plans for this lot to be open to the public, although such could change in
the future.
A Danby resident/neighbor to the property addressed a few questions to Riley
regarding access to the land and what, if any, activities (hunting, ATV riding etc)
may be permitted there. She addressed some of his questions and referred him to
the stewardship staff who could discuss in more detail, as it is often a case-by-
case basis.
They quickly looked over SEAF Parts 1-3 on the large screen. There were no
concerns voiced.
MOTION: To Pass Planning Board Resolution No. 10 of 2026 – Determination of
Environmental Significance, Minor Subdivision, 400 Gunderman Road, Tax
Parcel #8.-1-26
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. 8.-1-26, by the Finger Lakes Land Trust, Applicant,
on behalf of Catherin Darrow, Owner; and
Whereas the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 124.1-acre
property into two parcels: one measuring approximately 39.64 acres to
be owned by the Finger Lakes Land Trust and the remainder to
be retained by the Owner; 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 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; 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 responsibility for
approving Minor Subdivisions and declared itself Lead Agency on April
15, 2026 for purposes of SEQRA; 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 Applicant, and Part 2, prepared by the Planning
Administrator; a subdivision plat entitled “Final Subdivision Plat, The
Finger Lakes Land Trust, Inc., Located on Gunderman Road, Town of
Danby, Tompkins County, New York” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and
dated 4/3/2026; and other application materials;
Now Therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board on May 20, 2026, based
on careful consideration of the application materials, determines the
proposed Minor 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 Cowan
The motion passed.
In favor: Austin, Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Scriber, Vanucchi,
Maher
Public Hearing
The public hearing was opened at 7:19PM
Katharine Hunter expressed support for the family and the project.
The public hearing was closed at 7:20PM.
MOTION: Planning Board Resolution No. 11 of 2026 - Preliminary and Final
Approval, Minor Subdivision, 400 Gunderman Road, Tax Parcel #8.-1-26
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. 8.-1-26, by the Finger Lakes Land Trust, Applicant, on behalf of
Catherin Darrow, Owner; and
Whereas the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 124.1-acre property
into two parcels: one measuring approximately 39.64 acres to be owned by the
Finger Lakes Land Trust and the remainder to be retained by the Owner; 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 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 responsibility for
approving Minor Subdivisions;
Whereas the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, did on May 20, 2026 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 on May 20, 2026;
and
Now Therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board on May 20, 2026 does hereby
grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Minor
Subdivision of Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 8.-1-26, entitled “Final Subdivision
Plat, The Finger Lakes Land Trust, Inc., Located on Gunderman Road, Town of
Danby, Tompkins County, New York” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated
4/3/2026, subject to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk within 62 days.
Moved by Cowan, seconded by Scriber
The motion passed.
In favor: Austin, Bergman, Colbert, Cowan, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher
SPR-2026-02 15 Bald Hill Road Parcel: 10.-1-39 Applicant: Town of Danby
Proposal: Construct a public skate park Zone: Hamlet Neighborhood SEQR: Type 2
Anticipated Board Action: Public Hearing, Consider Approval
Planner Hutnik put the current plan of the skate park on the large screen, and noted
that the fifty foot buffer from the stream is now shown. The locations for the
playground and the parking lot also have been shifted as previously discussed. Town
Board Member Larkins added that he has not had the survey done so they don’t let
know the capacity of the parking lot.
Austin inquired about the steep slopes near the southern most bioretention area and
bowl. Larkins clarified that areas below the bowl will be graded so water will flow into
the bioretention area.
They discussed the black dashed lines, which represent rocks, but the rocks are no
longer present on site.
They discussed the projected procedure, and confirmed that the Town Board agreed to
having the Planning Board take the lead. Planner Hutnik detailed that notices were sent
to neighbors within an extended radius and no subsequent comments were received.
Planner Hutnik read out loud resident Debbie Benson’s previously submitted comment
expressing her opposition to the park due to safety/traffic concerns, and the fact that the
town already has two parks.
They discussed the safety concern on Bald Hill (county road), potential for cars
speeding around the curve, and noted the signage inconsistencies already in existence.
They reviewed potential mitigation factors including speed bumps, additional signage,
a crosswalk, and monitoring. Planner Hutnik suggested the Town Board write a letter
to the county highway requesting signage and review the speed limit there.
Public Hearing
The public hearing opened at 7:36PM
Ronda Roaring requested that there be a chain link fence along the cemetery property
with a gate stating the name of the cemetery. This will help delineate the two spaces so
children do not play in the cemetery.
Debbie Denson urged the town to understand that she thinks this is a very dangerous
spot for a park. She also emphasized that the town now has three parks within a mile of
each other that we pay for. She wishes they could figure things out so we aren’t just
opening up our own park because we can’t get along.
Katharine Hunter expressed support for skate park, stating that families are very
supportive of having this park and it is not a frivolous venture.
The public hearing closed at 7:41PM.
Although hesitant due to cost, Chair Maher agreed that some form of delineation
between the park and the cemetery is important. Board Member Larkins added that
whatever is used, the mower will need to still be able to get back there.
They continued to discuss the complexity of the grading in the park and options to
mitigate it including retaining walls. They discussed the need for a more detailed plan.
Board Member Larkins mentioned plans with a neighbor to do restoration in the
cemetery and efforts to clean up the cemetery, as it needs some TLC. They touched
upon the history of the stones in the cemetery and how many there are.
They discussed the process going forward, weighing if a grading plan and a plan for
delineating space should be conditions to approval or if they should wait to receive
those documents before approving. They discussed the roll of the Planning Board to
oversee that the grading plan is feasible in private projects, noting that this level of
detail is not required since the applicant is the town, while pointing out that this
particular project has a lot of nuance in terms that a grading plan could help resolve.
Vanucchi offered to assist with one. Members Austin and Colbert expressed a desire to
see these plans before giving approval.
They discussed the cemetery again, access to it, that the town owns it, and details about
who is there. Roaring pointed out that towns can get grants to rehabilitate cemeteries
and wondered if the residents on Bald Hill Road would choose to steward the cemetery.
Maher expressed desire to walk the cemetery to better understand what sort of
delineation felt appropriate.
They pivoted to traffic concerns – what is the ask? Bergman mentioned how kids are
currently skating on the road there, so having a skatepark there would make it less
dangerous than the road at least. Board Member Connors offered to go to the Highway
tomorrow to see if they can talk to the County Highway. Planner Hutnik reviewed the
three asks for the applicant: 1. Request the county reduce the speed limit there and put
up signs. 2. Full grading plan 3. Plan for delineation of cemetery.
They discussed naming the park.
SUB-2026-04 110 Howard Rd Parcel 13.-1-3.2 Applicant Matthew Wiese
Proposal: Minor Subdivision Zone: Rural 1 SEQR: Unlisted Anticipated Board Action:
Declare Lead Agency; Review Sketch Plan; Schedule Public Hearing
Cowan recused herself and sat in the audience, and explained that she is his closest
proximal neighbor and also his real estate agent.
Chair Maher reviewed the process of the application. Applicant Wiese addressed the
board, and Planner Hutnik put the aerial view up on the big screen. They reviewed a
previous process where the applicant combined his two lots for tax purposes at the
county, and now he wishes the re-arrange where those lot lines had been, which
therefore makes this a subdivision in Danby. Wiese reviewed the plan to split the large
parcel into a fifty-four acre parcel and a twenty acre parcel, each with a house on it. He
clarified where the lot lines would be, and why those decisions were made. Planner
Hutnik noted that both parcels meet the requirements for the zoning. Chair Maher
clarified with Planner Hutnik that yes, if parcel A wanted to subdivide further, they
could.
MOTION: Approve Resolution 12 of 2026 Declaring Lead Agency, minor
subdivision, 110 Howard Road, Tax Parcel #13.-1-3.2
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. 13.-1-3.2, by Mathew Wiese, Applicant, on behalf of Shelley Bird &
Jerry Wiese, Owner; and
Whereas the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 77.29-acre property
into two parcels: one measuring approximately 22.64 acres and the
other measuring approximately 54.65 acres; 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 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 responsibility for
approving Minor Subdivisions;
Now Therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board on May 20, 2026 does hereby
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of Minor
Subdivision approval for Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 13.-1-3.2, by Mathew
Wiese, Applicant, on behalf of Shelley Bird & Jerry Wiese, Owner.
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Colbert
The motion passed.
In favor: Austin, Bergman, Colbert, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher
Abstain: Cowan
Applicant inquired about next steps, and they discussed the need for the Danby
approval block from TJ Miller for the next meeting.
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing for subdivision review for June 17 th for 110
Howard Road.
Moved by Maher, seconded by Austin
Motion passed.
In favor: Austin, Bergman, Colbert, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher
Abstain: Cowan
ANNEX 2026-04 66, 62 & 56 Lieb Road Parcels: 10.-1-57.31; 10.-1-57.32; 10.-1-58
Applicant: Colleen Cowan Proposal: Land Annexation Zone: Rural 2 SEQR: Type II
Anticipated Board Action: Classify proposal as a Land Annexation; Remand to Board
of Zoning Appeals for an Area Variance to the lot area
Cowan remained on the side with the audience, as she was also representing this client
as a real estate agent.
Planner Hutnik reviewed the process. Subdivision regulations state that a land
annexation/lot line adjustment is usually handled administratively by the zoning
officer, but if any discretionary act is required, the application must first be classified by
the Planning Board. This is the case here as two of these lots are non-conforming to their
zone (Rural 2, requires parcels be 10 acres) and one of the lots has been requested to be
made even more non-conforming because it is dropping its size by half an acre.
Therefore, the Planning Board first must classify it, then send it to BZA for an area
variance, and if that is given, the Planner can review it as an annexation.
Cowan explained background that this is all property owned by the Zen Center. The
owners are retiring. When they were initially working on the property, the zoning was
different. The lot that is the most “wonky” and needs cleaning up so it can be more
easily sold is 62 Lieb Road. Lot line adjustments on that lot would make it so that a
pond between 66 and 62 was no longer shared but now just in 66 Lieb Road, and it
would also transfer some land to 56 Lieb Road. Planner Hutnik explained that 62 Lieb
Road would, in total, lose about .53 acres of land in the adjustment.
Cowan briefly explained the future plans of the center and that more applications to the
Planning Board are in the pipeline. They considered if deed restrictions could be used,
as suggested by the lawyer, instead of going through this process. Chair Maher thought
this process would be cleaner. They discussed the difference between if this was viewed
as a subdivision vs it being viewed as an annexation, which is the current chosen path.
They were unsure if these drawings showed the actual lot lines or just the proximal, as
the right of way is not shown.
Planner Hutnik pulled up the zoning law and read the definition of land annexation vs
subdivision. They discussed if this was an annexation or a subdivision, and felt it fit
more appropriately as a land annexation.
MOTION: To Approve Planning Board Resolution No. 13 of 2026 – Subdivision
Classification of Land Annexation Proposal, 56, 62, 66 Lieb road, Tax Parcels 10.-1-
57.32, 10.-1-58, & 10.-1-57.31, respectively
Whereas an application has been submitted for review and approval by the
Town of Danby Zoning Officer for a Land Annexation between Town of Danby
Tax Parcel Nos. 10.-1-57.32, 10.-1-58, & 10.-1-57.31, by Colleen Cowan, Applicant,
on behalf of Radin Real Estate, Owner; and
Whereas the Owner owns all three properties and wishes to adjust the lot lines of
each; and
Whereas all three properties are in the Rural 2 Zoning District, requiring
a lot area minimum of 10 acres; and
Whereas the properties at 62 and 66 Lieb Road (Tax Parcel Nos. 10.-1-58 and 10.-
1-57.31, respectively) are less than 10 acres in area, and considered non-
conforming; and
Whereas the Land Annexation request would further increase the non-
conformity of the property at 62 Lieb Road by reducing it from approximately 2
acres to approximately 1.43 acres; and
Whereas this action would require discretionary approval of an Area Variance
by the Board of Zoning Appeals before the Land Annexation could be approved;
and
Whereas per Section 201(I)(A)(4) of the Subdivision Regulations pertaining
to Land Annexations, if any discretionary review is required, including
environmental quality review, the matter
shall be referred to the Planning Board for subdivision classification and review;
Whereas this is a Type II Action under 6 NYCRR 617.5(c)(16), (17), and
(33) and exempt from environmental review;
Now Therefore, be it
Resolved that on May 20, 2026, the Town of Danby Planning
Board hereby classifies the proposal as a Land Annexation; and be it further
Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board refers the application to the
Board of Zoning Appeals for an Area Variance review.
Moved by Maher, seconded by Colbert
The motion passed.
In favor: Austin, Bergman, Colbert, Scriber, Vanucchi, Maher
Abstain: Cowan
Planner Hutnik detailed that this property has a long history and has gone through
many processes. In one of the last ones, it was required that a consolidation of two
parcels occur. This was due to the fact that guests to the center were being housed on
parcels that were not the main parcel (56 Lieb) and the water testing had not accounted
for such. The county therefore required the consolidation as a way to bring the parcels
together under the same parcel for health regulations. However, that did not occur,
seemingly because the applicant thought it was “optional.” They discussed how most
likely the properties will be purchased as single family homes and therefore will not
want or need to be connected to the larger system at 56 Lieb Road.
SUB 2026-05 104 Bald Hill Rd Parcel: 10.-1-57.2 Applicant: Colleen Cowan Proposal: 6-
Lot Standard Subdivision Zone: Hamlet Neighborhood & Rural 2 SEQR: Unlisted
Anticipated Board Action: Review Sketch Plan
Cowan remained with the audience, as she was also representing this applicant. This is
6 plat standard subdivision. Planner Hutnik stated that more information was needed
before regular sketch plan review and lead agency declaration could occur. It is rare
that the Planning Board sees standard subdivision, and because this one is also quite
dense and requires shared infrastructure (drive-way), he thinks it will need a more
focused review. Today will be a more cursory review where feedback is provided to the
applicant about what to prepare going forward.
They pulled up the rough sketch plan. Chair Maher asked for clarification about how
lots three through six would be able to meet the state requirement of fifteen feet of
frontage (even though the town does not require frontage). Planner Hutnik explained
there are two options. The first option is a shared drive-way between all the lots. The
other option is a new town road that each of these lots would be located on. This option
would be a more significant and expensive undertaking, although a shared road would
also have drawbacks. They discussed lots one and two where access could potentially
be through Bald Hill Road, since there is frontage there, or via the shared drive-way.
However, if more than four parcels are using the shared drive-way, the drive-way will
need to be a Fire Apparatus Road. They reviewed what would be required or possible
in various configurations considering lot access and zoned district.
Planner Hutnik reviewed what would be needed for the full Sketch Plat Review:
Site map – lot lines, acreage, dimensions construction envelopes, sewer systems,
drive-ways
Resource map- environmental features, steams, slopes, wetlands which Planner
Hutnik things ought to be delineated
Location of floodplains and overlaying that with lot lines, construction
envelopes, drive-way
They discussed the already existing trail that leads to the Zen Center and additional
specifics about the shared drive-way related to paving.
Planner Hutnik put up a separate example of an agreed upon shared driveway for
three houses that is located on Nelson Road. One of the houses has a lot line that goes to
the road but it is not paved area – they access the road using the driveway on another
person’s property. Planner Hutnik showed another example of a shared drive-way on a
property that he previously lived on.
Chair Maher wondered about septic. Planner Hutnik recommended that this be shown
on the plan, even though they don’t have buyers yet. Cowan added that they received a
recommendation from an excavator about where the septic should go. Planner Hutnik
added that it is helpful to have a plan like this ahead of time even before sales happen,
as the new owners will be held to those recommendations. Chair Maher brought up the
need to find a balance between restrictions vs ensuring the lots are feasibly buildable, as
they are in the Hamlet Zone where the town is seeking development.
Cowan clarified that the lots are about two acres each [Note: Cowan updated the board
at a later date that she misspoke at this meeting and the lots are actually closer to one
acre in size.] They discussed how much detail will be required in the sketch, and
Planner Hutnik emphasized it is up to the board, and also that it is unknown how many
units will be built on the lots, as they can house multiple units.
Chair Maher pointed out that Lot #2 ought to include the most details, as there are still
unanswered questions about it relating to how it will be accessed, its wetlands and
where the septic can go. It was suggested that the parcel lines could change, but Cowan
said the applicant felt confident this is what makes the most sense. They discussed how
to show construction envelopes on the sketch and Planner Hutnik suggested showing
the “buildable area” and the “undevelopable area.” Once they see where development
is not allowed (for example, on the wetlands), it will be easier to understand what is
feasible on the lot. Planner Hutnik added a request that Planning Board Members
review what needs to be taken into account for a standard subdivision, as it is much
more in depth than a minor subdivision (for example, soil types). If there is anything
that is required but that they think need not be included, they should have an
explanation ready in case asked.
Cowan inquired about the process if they wanted to subdivide each lot independently.
Each one would have to wait three years after the previous in order for them all to be
classified as minor subdivisions.
Planner Hutnik noted that various studies or reports may also be requested by the
Planning Board in order to analyze the potential impact of the subdivision. These
possible studies are:
municipal or community sewer water feasibility;
ground water protection recharge;
flood impact study (there is floodplain on this property);
traffic impact study/road maintenance costs; and
fire protection impact study.
While none are required, the Planning Board may choose to require them and they may
be asked to explain their reasonings.
They discussed circumstances surrounding buyers having to return to the Planning
Board. Planner Hutnik explained that they would need to return to the Planning Board
if they wanted to build more than four dwelling units, as they would then need site
plan approval. If they wanted to build up to four units, which is allowed by right, but
wanted to change the lay-out, they would need to amend the plat. Cowan and Chair
Maher discussed keeping the buildable area large enough, and Planner Hutnik added
in that things like slope or wetlands should be excluded from the buildable area.
Planner Hutnik read from the regulations the definition of the construction envelope,
and Austin pointed out that the construction envelope seems comparable to the
designated buildable area, and that this is not the same as showing the exact building
footprint.
Because they may not be able to propose the construction envelope so quickly, Planner
Hutnik offered a possible procedure for Cowan for the next few meetings. He suggested
that at the next meeting (the sketch plat review) she present the resource map and the
clear lot lines, and following a conversation with the Planning Board, they could settle
on what areas would be unbuildable. That discussion can then inform the plat prepared
by the surveyor which would be reviewed at the following preliminary approval
meeting.
Chair Maher asked about the sizes of lots and how much ground disturbance happens
when you are building a house, digging a well, installing septic. They compared it to a
previous application on East Miller.
They reviewed what will be reviewed at the next meeting: resolution of the lot lines and
dimensions, as well as the resource map. Once they have that, they can consider the
constriction envelope together or Cowan could propose something that they could
discuss. They’d also like a general sense of where the septic/well would be. Weland
delineation?
They reviewed the procedure going forward: sketch plat review, preliminary plat
approval & public hearing, final approval. They will also need a stormwater plan,
which will be informed by the buildable/non-buildable area.
They discussed how a stormwater plan could come together when houses are being
built at different times. The new houses will have to coordinate with an already
established plans. This would require an engineer.
Vanucchi asked about how this coordination between owners works – who maintains
it? Planner Hutnik replied that it does complicate it, and that they may need an
easement agreement, but it is the cost of the development, and it shows the importance
of thoughtful planning.
They mentioned how the road looks almost like an extension of Jenning Pond, and
discussed options as well as pros and cons for the road being passed to the town for
maintenance or keeping it as a shared drive-way between the property owners.
They discussed previous ideas about developing around this area as a hamlet
neighborhood and that previously highway 96 ran through it.
[6] PLANNER REPORT (VERBAL)
Hutnik is taking family leave for June. The Town Board hired George Frantz to be the
interim planner. He’ll be here for the next meeting.
[7] ADJOURNMENT
9:35PM