HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - February 18, 2016 Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
Thursday February 18, 2016
FINAL
PRESENT:
Joel Gagnon
Anne Klingensmith
Ted Melchen
Jim Rundle
Steve Selin
Naomi Strichartz
ABSENT:
Frank Kruppa
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner C.J. Randall
Town Board Leslie Connors
Recording Secretary Kelly Cecala
Public Michael Casper
The meeting was opened at 7:05 pm.
(1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW:
MOTION - Joel Gagnon be acting chair in Frank Kruppa's absence.
Moved by Strichartz, Second by Selin
In Favor: Unanimous
The motion passed
Ted Melchen was not an active member of the Planning Board when this vote was made, his vote did
not change the outcome of this decision.
February PB Minutes Final of 1 6
Randall provided copies of the agenda to all the Planning Board members. Gagnon asked the
Planning Board if there were any additions or deletions to the agenda. Klingensmith requested to add
the monthly Code Enforcement report as an agenda item. Strichartz requested to add expired terms
as a discussion point. Randall requested to include Michael Casper as part of the agenda, so he
could discuss his special permit. She also added Subdivision Amendments to the agenda.
(2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR:
There were no comments from the public during Privilege of The Floor.
(3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Some members of the Planning Board had not received and/or read the edited draft of the January
minutes. It was decided that the January minutes would be deferred to the next meeting.
(4) MICHAEL CASPER SPECIAL PERMIT TRANSFER/RENEWAL:
Michel Casper is the current owner and operator of Private Hotel + Pure Food which is located at
1040 Comfort Road. Mr. Casper is presently in contract to sell 30 acres, which includes all the
buildings used in the Bed & Breakfast, to Vicky & Gregor Brous. The property sale is contingent on
whether the Planning Board will approve a "mirror" permit which is equal to the special permit that Mr.
Casper received in 2009. Mr. Casper wanted to brief the Planning Board on what was happening at
the location and the change in ownership.
Gagnon asked Randall if this was a non-conveying special permit. Randall said that there was a
special permit modification in 2012 making it non-owner occupied. Randall said that permits are
supposed to run with the land/establishment. She added that the new owner will complete a
Development Review Application of their desired intentions. Randall stated that the original permit
should have been for a "Tourist Home" (which includes B&B), versus calling it a "Hotel", which has a
different designation.
(4) SUBDIVISION AMENDMENTS:
Randall handed out copies of her proposed Subdivision Amendments to the Planning Board for
review and reported that there was no clear or clean way to delete Land Division by Permit. She said
that it needed to be written or "mutated" as a Minor Subdivision while keeping in concert with New
York State Law. Randall also asked the Planning Board if they wanted to keep the Land Annexation
piece as an administrative action.
Klingensmith asked Randall for some background on the proposed changes. Randall said that in
response to the Planning Board's passed resolution, which basically stated that they want the Town
Board to revoke Land Division by Permit, she is suggesting remaking it into Minor Subdivision and
has added the procedures and requirements to do so. Klingensmith acknowledged that this small
"tweak" is to help tighten things up until there is a big review of everything.
Randall said that if the changes are adopted, all subdivisions will need to be dealt with by the
Planning Board. A public hearing would need to be held for every Subdivision. Randall added that
February PB Minutes Final of 2 6
there was no way to delete the process of Land Division by Permit without adding something back in,
because it would result in all subdivisions being dealt with as Standard Subdivisions. Gagnon asked
what the difference was between a Minor and Standard Subdivision. Randall said that a Standard
Subdivision is a three (3) step process (sketch plan, preliminary plat, and final plat) which results in
three (3) or more lots and that they don't occur that often. A Minor Subdivision is a two (2) step
process (preliminary and final plat) and results in two (2) lots.
Klingensmith commented that the original language, which mentions lot sizes and the three (3) year
waiting period, still exist in the new version. Selin said that all subdivisions will now come to the
Planning Board for review. Klingensmith remarked that they still don't have any authority to change
the numbers. Melchen asked where the 200' road frontage language went. Randall said that was
part of zoning, which is the tool that allows structures to come "alive", whereas a subdivision deals
with roads and streets and the "bones" of the parcels that are actually being laid out.
Rundle questioned where this "every three years" comes from and said that it was an engine that
drives a lot of Subdivision. Gagnon added that indeed it had and that it was a way for people to
circumvent coming before the Planning Board.
Strichartz asked if there were any criteria for these Standard Subdivisions to trigger a long form
SEQR? Randall said that SEQR is a requirement for any Standard Subdivision, and that it is a Type I
action. She added that it is more complex and it will be looked at separately. Klingensmith asked
Randall what she specifically wanted input on. Randall asked the Planning Board for their overall
impression, comments on the detail, likes and dislikes. Gagnon said that putting some of the criteria
list into the application, versus putting it in the law, might make it more palatable when it goes to the
public.
Klingensmith asked Connors if the Town Board knew about the Subdivision Amendment. Connors
said that the Town Board knew about Resolution #1 (the Planning Board resolution calling for the
deletion of lot division by permit) and that Randall was drafting a document relating to it.
Klingensmith expressed her frustration about working on something which never gets addressed or
resolved, referring to the earlier proposal by the Planning Board to change a few numbers in the
Subdivision Regulations. Connors said that the Town Board was asked to stop and was told not to
consider it. She added that the audit was being done and that it didn't make sense to put Band-Aids
on places. Connors said that everyone wants to fix the mess and believes that Randall's suggestions
will be well received and seen as the real deal, versus a Band-Aid.
Gagnon said that up to now, someone always had the option to come before the Planning Board if
they couldn’t do a Land Division by Permit. Randall said that everyone would come before the
Planning Board now. Gagnon expressed his concern that we might be creating the situation where
someone could not create a lot at all without waiting for a number of years. He said that historically
the Planning Board could do a Minor Subdivision, for anyone or any lot, if they did not meet the
requirements of Land Division by Permit. Gagnon said under the proposed structure, if somebody
divided a chunk off, they would be stuck for three (3) years and would have to wait to further
subdivide. Selin said this is how it is done in Ulysses now. Gagnon added that we don't want to
impede division in the Hamlets and High Density Areas. Randall said that she didn't think this would
seriously impede development in the Hamlets and said that it can always be amended.
February PB Minutes Final of 3 6
Klingensmith asked how the Planning Board wanted to proceed with reviewing the document and
making their recommendations. Randall said that points can be clarified and questions can be
answered via email to keep the process moving forward. Randall suggested to take between now
and March to review the document. Connors and Gagnon suggested inviting the Town Board to the
meeting so everyone could be included in the same conversation. Gagnon questioned the wording
"required setbacks" because no setbacks are currently listed. Gagnon suggested changing the
wording to read "location of any required setbacks" since this would cover both the current situation
and the future addition of any setback requirements. Randall agreed.
Gagnon commented that there is a provision for the Planning Board to waive requirements but that it
wasn't clear where the waivers would be granted in the process. Randall said that there are two
areas where we would be waiving submission requirements. She said the first piece applies to the
Preliminary Plat, which is the Plat that an applicant brings at the first meeting. She said the second
piece is the waiver of submission requirements for the Final Plat. Gagnon noted that the Planner is
supposed to certify that the application is complete before it comes to the Planning Board. Gagnon
asked how it would work, if they have already been required to provide the information that the
Planning Board has the option to waive?
Klingensmith raised a question on how the Planning Board was supposed to know what is of
consequence. Randall said the first step is to complete the development application. Randall will
make the initial assessment at the first meeting with the applicant. Gagnon asked if it would make
more sense to have Randall waive the requirements since she is in a better position to make the
judgment. Randall said she would consider adding Planning Administrator, in addition to Planning
Board, to the waiver of submission requirements section. Randall suggests keeping only the
Planning Board as the grantor of waivers for the final plat. Klingensmith said that she would like to
hear a synopsis of the total process.
Gagnon said that in the Land Annexation section it reads that if the Final Plat is not filed with the
Town Clerk within a year, that the permit expires. Gagnon said that there is no permit. Randall said
she would remove the piece about the permit and would re-work the section accordingly.
(5) CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT:
Klingensmith said that the monthly Code Enforcement report was a very useful tool and requested
that the Planning Board get it again on a monthly basis. This same request was made several
months ago. Strichartz said that nobody knows what's going on anymore. Randall said that she gets
the reports monthly and would put a reminder to start forwarding them to the Planning Board.
Randall said that she is also working on getting the report posted on the Town's website.
(6) TED MELCHEN'S TERM:
Strichartz said that she has lived in the area for ~35 years. Strichartz said that she has noticed some
dissension in the town and said that it had to do with the fact that the older generation has been
phased out, in lots of different ways. Strichartz said that Ted Melchen was born in Danby and
believes that Melchen actually wants to be reappointed to the Planning Board for another full term.
She asked Melchen this and he said that she was correct. Strichartz proposed that Melchen be
recommended for reappointment to the position.
February PB Minutes Final of 4 6
Strichartz said that a lot of the things that happened in the past, had to do with the fact that there was
this perception that "a bunch of terrorists came in and took over the Town Hall with machetes" and
that all of this happened a while back. Strichartz commented that everybody, accept Joel, is new.
She said that Ted is one of the "old-timers" who actually speaks to her and that not everyone does.
Strichartz added that there needs to be a balance when "pushing out the old and embracing the new."
Strichartz ended by saying that she loves working with Ted and that she was glad he was here.
Connors asked, so who is pushing out the old? Strichartz replied that it wasn't pushing so much…but
that everyone is relatively new to Danby. Connors said that it's the nature of Danby and that
sometimes it's the younger people that have some energy. Connors said this was the first time
hearing that Ted Melchen wanted to be reappointed. She added that at the last meeting, Ted seemed
interested in stepping down, but offered to stay on until someone else was appointed. Gagnon said
that at the last meeting there was some discussion about Ted possibly not wanting to be reappointed
for another seven (7) years. Gagnon added that Ted was willing to stay on with the understanding
that he might resign part way through the term.
Connors replied by saying, had she thought Ted wanted to stay on, she would have pushed for his
reappointment back at the last Town Board meeting. Connors never heard anybody talk about Ted or
pushing Ted out. Melchen said that he has never had that feeling either. Strichartz clarified that no
one is pushing Ted out and that she was being misunderstood. Strichartz said that when looking
around at the various Boards, there are few members left that were born in Danby. She added that
she thought it was a very important missing link. Strichartz commented that there was a lot of anger
against certain types of people who are perceived as taking over the town from the people that were
born here. Klingensmith said that the old timers are selling us the land to come here. Melchen said
that his reservation was being committed for sure to serve another seven (7) year term and that he
wasn't sure he could do that. He added, but then again, who really can? Melchen said in that
perspective he would be more than happy to stay on for another full term.
Gagnon asked Connors if there had been other applicants and said that the Planning Board is not in
the position to make a recommendation with partial information. He added that the Planning Board
should be interviewing everybody and should then make a recommendation based on what they
know. Connors said that as far as she knows, there were no applications submitted. Klingensmith
said that the term has started and that interviews should have already taken place. Klingensmith
moved to recommend that Ted be reappointed.
RESOLUTION NO.2 OF 2016 - REAPPOINT TED MELCHEN TO A NEW FULL TERM
WHEREAS, this action is to ask the Town Board to consider reappointing Ted Melchen to another full
term on the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board had made a previous recommendation to the Town Board that open
vacancies be advertised and interviewed in October, or two months before the term ends; and
WHEREAS, the term has already started and that this was not dealt with in a timely fashion,
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS
RESOLVED, That the Town of Danby Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that Ted
Melchen be reappointed to a full seven (7) year term on the Planning Board.
February PB Minutes Final of 5 6
Moved by Klingensmith, Second by Rundle
In Favor: Klingensmith, Melchen, Rundle, Selin, Strichartz, Gagnon
The motion passed.
Ted Melchen was not an active member of the Planning Board when this vote was made, his vote did
not change the outcome of this decision.
(7) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT:
Connors reported that the submission period for applications was extended to the end of February
and that interviews would be started in March.
Connors also reported that there would be presentations and bids for the solar array that was going to
be built. Gagnon asked how these somewhat large scale semi-industrial facilities are being located
without any Planning Board review? Randall said that there are no provisions for reviewing utility
structures which are permitted by right. Randall said that we can discuss ways to include large and
small scale solar and define those and amend the zoning to include them.
Connors said the Town was considering purchasing the property next door to Town Hall.
(8) PLANNING & ZONING REPORT:
(9) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPORT:
The Comprehensive Plan Report will be updated in conjunction with the Work Plan 2016 timeline.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 pm.
______________________________________
Submitted by Kelly Cecala, Planning Board & Board of Zoning Appeals Recording Secretary
February PB Minutes Final of 6 6