HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - September 21, 2017PB DRAFT MINUES PAGE 1
Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
September 21, 2017
FINAL
PRESENT:
Scott Davis
Joel Gagnon
Jim Rundle
Jody Scriber
Frank Kruppa
ABSENT:
Naomi Strichartz
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner C.J. Randall
Town Board Leslie Connors
Recording Secretary Kelly Cecala
Public Gary Burgess, Charles Tilton, Pat Woodworth, Elizabeth Keokosky, Arthur Rawlings,
Vince Kotmel, Nancy Kotmel, Dylan Kstamel, Mike McLaughlin Jr., Brooke Greenhouse,
Ted Crane, Matt Ulinski, Katharine Hunter.
The meeting was opened at 7:04 pm.
(1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW:
Kruppa stated that three items would be added to the agenda: (1) West Danby Hatch -Neighborhood Report (2) Special
Permit Discussion (3) Hamlet Info-structure Discussion. Kruppa also mentioned the statement found at the end of the
agenda regarding public comments during privilege of the floor. Kruppa asked the crowd to direct all comments to the
Planning Board as a whole, to remain respectful and civil and to keep all comments to three (3) minutes.
(2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR:
Ted Crane reminded everyone of some upcoming community events: Danby Fun Day on Saturday September 23rd
from 10 am to 2 pm and the Harvest Festival on October 15th from 2 pm to 5 pm. He added that a porcupine would be
present at the Harvest Festival, compliments of the Cayuga Nature Center!
(3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION – Approve August 2017 Minutes as Amended
Moved by Gagnon, Second by Rundle The motion passed
In Favor: Davis, Gagnon, Rundle, Scriber, Kruppa
Gagnon said that he made some minor edits to the minutes and would like to move the minutes as amended.
PB DRAFT MINUES PAGE 2
(4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT:
Leslie Connors reported that the Town Board is considering the recent amendments to the PDZs and that the Town
Board declared themselves lead agency and sent it to the county for feedback. Connors said that there will be a Public
Hearing on October 16th at 7 pm. Connors said that a list of proposed PDZ changes was published on the town’s
website for all to view. Connors added that the plan was to get rid of the PDZs that are not in use, and/or those not
being used as they are supposed to.
Connors stated that the Town is starting to organize the agenda for the next combined Town Board/Planning Board
scoping meeting and said that some of the topics of discussion will include rezoning in the H amlet, as well as wind
energy regulations.
Connors reported that the budget hearing is on November 6th and that the Town Board will need to decide if they are
going to override the Tax Cap. Connors said that a draft of the budget will be available by the first week of October.
Kruppa commented that he sent an email to the Town Board about the acoustics in the room, which is why he was
questioning the draft budget. Kruppa wants to improve the audio for the public . Scriber added that those who could
not hear well should be able to sit closer to the front and acknowledged that it is an ongoi ng frustration of the public.
Kruppa said that the existing mic system is cumbersome and suggested having a professional come to Town Hall and
make a recommendation. Connors made the suggestion of rearranging the layout in the room in the interim.
(5) ACTION ITEMS:
Project: Standard Subdivision, 704 East Miller Road
Location: 704 East Miller Road, Tax Parcel # 6.-1-25
Applicant: Arthur Rawlings for Richard Taft
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing; Determination of Environmental Significance; Preliminary
and Final Approval.
Project Description: The Applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 7-acre property into three parcels: Lot 1,
measuring 2.42 acres, with 270 feet of frontage on East Miller Road, 570.50 feet of depth, and pr eviously developed
(now vacant); Lot 2, measuring 2.18 acres with 275 feet of frontage on East Miller Road, 459.73 feet of depth; and Lot
3, measuring 3.45 acres, with 360 feet of frontage on East Miller Road, and 365.21 feet of depth. The pro perty is in the
Low Density Residential Zoning District, requiring a lot area minimum of 2 acres, frontage of 200 feet, and lot depth of
300 feet. This is a Type I action under the Town of Danby Environmental Review of Actions and an Unlisted action
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review.
The Public Hearing Opened at 7:16 pm
Elizabeth Keokosky is concerned that once the subdivision is approved it is going to create a “creeping” kind of
buildout that will continue up along Miller Rd. She said that there are several duplexes already on Miller Rd. close to
Coddington and that she did not want to see any more duplexes in the area.
Keokosky said that the quality and feeling of Miller Rd. has changed very rapidly and that it is becoming suburbia. She
asked if anything can be done, within the rules that we currently have, that would change the ability to make two
buildings on this lot, or at least be able to control them in some fashion? Keokosky said that some creativ e solutions
should come forward for ways to keep the wooded areas as such and its animal habitat.
Elizabeth Keokosky said that rental properties seriously undermine the feeling of community in the area, mainly
because renters have no stake in the area and are not there permanently.
PB DRAFT MINUES PAGE 3
Pat Woodworth questioned what the minimum lot size was in the area. Gagnon answered with a 5 acre density, along
the road you can create a two acre lot with 200 feet of road frontage. Woodworth asked if a duplex would be built. The
applicant said that his intention was to build two single family homes each between 1,500 and 1,700 sq. ft.
Katharine Hunter questioned if a 2 acre lot was really low density. Hunter said that she moved to the area for its rural
character and said that it has been changing; she attends Town meetings frequently to repeatedly stress the
importance of preserving the rural character in Danby.
Matt Ulinski spoke in support of the previous comments made.
The Planning Board considered the Short EAF Part 2 and had no changes to make.
PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 35 OF 2017 - DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE,
STANDARD SUBDIVISION, 704 EAST MILLER ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 6.-1-25
Whereas an application has been submitted for review and approval by the Town of Danby Planning Board for a
Standard Subdivision of Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 6.-1-25 by Arthur Rawlings, Applicant and Richard Taft,
Owner; and
Whereas the Applicant proposes to subdivide the 7.9-acre property into three parcels: Lot 1, measuring 2.42 acres,
with 270 feet of frontage on East Miller Road, 570.50 feet of depth, and previously developed (now vacant); Lot 2,
measuring 2.18 acres with 275 feet of frontage on East Miller Road, 459.73 feet of depth; and Lot 3, measuring 3.45
acres, with 360 feet of frontage on East Miller Road, and 365.21 feet of depth; and
Whereas this property is located in the Low Density Residential Zoning District, requiring a lot area minimum of 2
acres, frontage of 200 feet, and lot depth of 300 feet; and
Whereas, this is an Unlisted Action under the Town of Danby Environmental Review of Actions and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review; and
Whereas the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving the action, did
on August 17, 2017 declare itself the Lead Agency for the environmental review; and
Whereas this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September 21, 2017 review and accept
as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the Applicant, and Part 2,
prepared by the Planning Administrator; a survey map entitled “Proposed Subdivision Map No. 704 East Miller
Road,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated 6-23-2017; and other application materials; and
Whereas the Planning Board did on September 21, 2017 hold a Public Hearing;
Now Therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board determines the proposed Standard 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.
MOTION – Determination of Environmental Significance
Moved by Gagnon, Second by Scriber The motion passed
In Favor: Davis, Gagnon, Rundle, Scriber, Kruppa
The Public Hearing Closed at 7:21 pm
Davis asked if having a deeper set back would make a significant difference or have a favorable effect. Kruppa said
that it depends on who you ask and that it has been considered before. Kruppa said that it is important to get the
public engaged because some believe that homes should be closer to the road to preserve the untouched areas in the
back, while others want a farther set back to maintain the rural character off the road.
PB DRAFT MINUES PAGE 4
PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 36 OF 2017 - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPROVAL, STANDARD
SUBDIVISION, 704 EAST MILLER ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 6.-1-25
Whereas an application has been submitted for review and approval by the Town of Danby Planning Board for a
Standard Subdivision of Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 6.-1-25 by Arthur Rawlings, Applicant and Richard Taft,
Owner; and
Whereas the Applicant proposes to subdivide the 7.9-acre property into three parcels: Lot 1, measuring 2.42 acres,
with 270 feet of frontage on East Miller Road, 570.50 feet of depth, and previously developed (now vacant); Lot 2,
measuring 2.18 acres with 275 feet of frontage on East Miller Road, 459.73 feet of depth; and Lot 3, measuring 3.45
acres, with 360 feet of frontage on East Miller Road, and 365.21 feet of depth; and
Whereas this property is located in the Low Density Residential Zoning District, requiring a lot area minimum of 2
acres, frontage of 200 feet, and lot depth of 300 feet; and
Whereas this is considered a Standard Subdivision in accordance with the Town of Danby Subdivision and Land
Division Regulations, Article II, Section 201 C.1. Standard Subdivision; and
Whereas legal notice was published, property posted with signs, and adjacent property owners within 500 feet
notified in accordance with the Town of Danby Subdivision and Land Division Regulations, Article II, § 211 Public
Notice Requirements for Standard Subdivisions; and
Whereas 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Section IX of Local Law 2 of
1991 Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Danby, require that a Lead Agency be established for
conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law; and
Whereas this is an Unlisted Action under the Town of Danby Environmental Review of Actions and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review; and
Whereas the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving the action, did
on August 17, 2017 declare itself the Lead Agency for the environmental review; and
Whereas this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September 21, 2017 review and accept
as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the Applicant, and Part 2,
prepared by the Planning Administrator; a survey map entitled “Proposed Subdivision Map No. 704 East Miller
Road,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and dated 6-23-2017; and other application materials; and
Whereas the Planning Board did on September 21, 2017 hold a Public Hearing and make a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for the project; and
Whereas the Planning Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the
resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the Low Density Residential Zoning District;
Now Therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to
the proposed Standard Subdivision of Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 6.-1-25, 704 East Miller Road, by Arthur
Rawlings, Applicant and Richard Taft, Owner, subject to the submission of the final approved plat, pursuant to Town
of Danby Subdivision and Land Division Regulations, Article II, § 210 IX. Subdivider Filing Requirement following
Certification of Final Plat.
MOTION – Preliminary and Final Approval
Moved by Gagnon, Second by Rundle The motion passed
In Favor: Davis, Gagnon, Rundle, Scriber, Kruppa
PB DRAFT MINUES PAGE 5
Project: Minor Subdivision
Location: 37 Howland Road, Tax Parcel # 28.-1-16.5
Applicant: Jed Gobrecht
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Declaration of Lead Agency
Project Description: The Applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 10.725- acre property into two parcels:
Parcel A-measuring 2.050 acres, with 258 feet of frontage on Howland Road, 371 feet of depth, wit h existing house;
and Parcel B-measuring 8.675 acres with 201 feet of frontage on Howland Road, 1046.85 feet of depth. The property
is in the Low Density Residential Zoning District, requiring a lot area minimum of 2 acres, frontage of 200 feet, and lot
depth of 300 feet. This is an unlisted action under the Town of Danby Environmental Review of Actions and as a 2
Unlisted action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review.
PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 37 OF 2017 - DECLARATION OF LEAD AGENCY, MINOR SUBDIVISION, 37
HOWLAND ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 28.-1-16.5
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. 28.-1-16.5, by Jed Gobrecht, Owner and Applicant; and
Whereas The Applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 10.725-acre property into two parcels: Parcel A,
measuring 2.050 acres, with 258 feet of frontage on Howland Road, 371 feet of depth, with existing house; and
Parcel B, measuring 8.675 acres with 201 feet of frontage on Howland Road, 1046.85 feet of depth; and
Whereas the property is in the Low Density Residential Zoning District, requiring a lot area minimum of 2 acres,
frontage of 200 feet, and lot depth of 300 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.2. Minor Subdivision, Option #2 – A small-lot minor subdivision is permitted,
where the division results in a lot or lots of less than 8 acres, provided that the following criteria are met:
a. No other division(s) or subdivision(s) involving the parcel being divided except for Land Annexation have taken
place within the previous three (3) consecutive years;
b. The subdivision results in no more than two lots, including the parcel being divided;
c. Both lots resulting from the subdivision have frontage on a public road maintained year-round;
d. Both lots resulting from the subdivision meet all other pertinent zoning requirements;
e. No extension or improvement of an existing, or creation of a new public road, significant public utility
infrastructure, or significant stormwater improvements, or extension of public benefit districts is involved;
f. 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 used within such Stormwater Local Law; and
Whereas this is an Unlisted Action under the Town of Danby Environmental Review of Actions and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review; and
Whereas State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be
that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action;
Now Therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental
review for the action of Minor Subdivision approval for Town of Danby Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-16.5, by Jed Gobrecht,
Owner and Applicant.
MOTION – Declaration of Lead Agency
Moved by Gagnon, Second by Scriber The motion passed
In Favor: Davis, Gagnon, Rundle, Scriber, Kruppa
PB DRAFT MINUES PAGE 6
(6) DISCUSSION ITEMS
West Danby Brown Rd. Pocket Neighborhood - Working Group Update
Kruppa announced that both applicants, Mr. Greenhouse and Mr. McLaughlin, are members of the Tompkins County
Board of Health, in which they have a role over his employment as the county Public Health Director. For that reason,
Kruppa stated that he would not be participating in this, or any future, discussion relating to this application and
recused himself from the discussion. Kruppa handed the chair position over to Joel Gagnon to resume the discussion.
Gagnon reported that it was a well-attended meeting with the entire Board of Water Commissioners present, whom
raised the issue of the adequacy of the water supply to service the subdivision . Gagnon said during the discussion it
came to light that the main on Brown Rd. is only a 3 inch line and there was concern if it was adequate. He said the
issue can be addressed by acquiring the necessary technical information. Gagnon also reported that the other major
concern was how waste-water would be treated.
Gagnon said a conversation regarding the layout of the lots, whether or not the park space could be shared, and what
the ownership structure would be, were all discussed and that the critical common denominator was how the waste
water would be treated.
Gagnon said that developers are waiting on the information to see what kind of septic system can be designed for the
number of houses that are being proposed while maintaining individual ownership and without needing to have a sewer
district. Gagnon reported that a sewer district with the town administering the waste water is a very lengthy process.
Gagnon stated that expediting the process would be advantageous for the Town. Gagnon said that the waste water
system will drive how many houses can be put on the lot, versus what is allowed under zoning.
Gagnon commented that the houses are being designed as low water consumption which in turn would reduce the
amount of waste water being produced. He said that this is the first time he has encountered the suggestion that a
developer has the option of reducing the design “load” of a dwelling via low-flow devices and/or whatever the health
department criteria is.
Gagnon said that an engineered waste water treatment facility is an option to the alternative standard approach but
questioned what the engineer would designs to; is the design based on the same criteria that the health department
uses or can it be based on a reduced generation low-flow design. Kruppa commented, at Gagnon’s request that the
Health Department would certainly be involved and the applicants would need to work any options through the
Environmental Health Division at the Health Department.
Scriber commented that this development would be a benefit for th e West Danby Water District. Gagnon said that
adding some additional houses to a small water system would be cost beneficial. Gagnon said that if the water supply
is inadequate then there is a workable fix-it solution.
McLaughlin said that they met with the county and that there is a distinct ability of having smaller individual lots with
individual systems and that the guidance provided was to pick systems that have already been approved in NY State.
He added that there are systems available now that can be put in place that would allow them to avoid a joint system,
however this path severely restricts the ability to use part of the property as open space for town purposes.
Greenhouse spoke and said that he greatly appreciated the opportunity to meet with everyone and the helpful
commentary that shared. However Greenhouse felt that there was a failure from anyone outside the Planning Board
representatives to work towards the original goal of the motion. He said that they held up their end of the commitment
and invested a significant amount of resources for the meeting. Greenhouse said that based on some of the
comments made during the meeting he did not feel that this project was on the Town’s priority list.
PB DRAFT MINUES PAGE 7
Greenhouse said that a shared septic system would take up less space and said that a strong argument can be made
that it would be better for the environment and less costly too. He said right now they are looking at all of their options
with the focus still on having an attractive individually owned cluster development if they can get with an engineer to
make it work.
Greenhouse was expecting a different outcome from the meeting, which would encourage them to look at different
options, but at this moment in time they are operating under the a ssumption that they need to look at individual
systems. He said that there are shared septic systems (i.e. mobile home-park) but the challenge is that there is no
mechanism to have individual property ownership too; a city sewer district or private HOA wo uld be needed.
McLaughlin said they came to the meeting with a plan and the hope to make everyone happy. He said that once the
meeting was over it seemed as though the most liked plan was a public waste system managed by a water district that
ultimately assured proper maintenance and proper use, and if set up correctly that it would not cost the town that much
to do.
McLaughlin said that his take away from the meeting was that the people in the Town who would need to help make
this happen were not supportive - i.e. the Town Superintendent who said that he did not see this project moving
forward and was unsure if this community was ready for it. Gagnon commented that only three out of five Town Board
members were present and only one was opposed to it.
Greenhouse said that they had hoped to have a lot more accomplished during the meeting and that they are already a
month behind schedule. Gagnon stated that Allison was vocal and still hopeful that you would withdraw so their
acquisition could go through and turn the area into park space and Ric was probably sympathetic to that. Gagnon
added that he had been arguing what the reality is, which is that you bought the property and have the right to do
something with it. McLaughlin said that they were prepared to let the residents use the area as they always have.
Greenhouse said the water and septic issues will greatly impact the affordability of the homes and the overall project.
He said there might be a way, with the Town’s willingness and support of a sewer district, to build it now with a
structure in place to transfer later. Gagnon said Randall indicated that this idea was not implausible, where the Town
and its part can commit to taking over the management of a system.
Greenhouse asked what the possibility was of the Planning Board to make a motion/recommendation to encourage the
Town Board to consider (as the end result) a sewer district which will be a net benefit to the community. Greenhouse
said that the health department regulations are strict and there is no room for creativity.
Randall added that the Town Board was briefed on the project on 9/11 and again on 9/18 when a preliminary overview
of the steps required to create a special waste water disposal district was presented. Randall said that the formation of
a special district is subjective to permissive referendum and Environmental Quality Review. She said that the since the
Town does not “own” land but they take care of the land in stewardship for the general public, they have to ask the
public when they take on a project of this magnitude; which is around a 30 day process.
Randall said that assuming permissive referendum passes or “expires without petition” the Town Board would need to
get DEC and Health Department approvals. She said typically the overall cost would be passed onto the number of
units, which would be up to the discretion of the developer, but that the Town can designate a “not to exceed” number
that they would be willing to put forward in an investment.
Greenhouse commented on the benefit of having a successful cluster development prototype that can be duplicated
elsewhere. Greenhouse suggested reaching out to the Health Department, County and/or Legislature for their support.
Scriber asked if the Town wanted to be innovative and ahead of the curve.
PB DRAFT MINUES PAGE 8
Randall commented that when you ask the public to take on part of the role of facilitating the situation “you” essentially
need permission from the public. She added that the Town Board can pass this resolution subjective to permissive
referendum and the process can get moving fairly quickly. Randall said regardless of ownership, when you ask the
Town to consider this new formation, you are asking the Town Board to take on what would otherwise be a private
responsibility and make that a public “good”.
Gagnon stated that the Comprehensive Plan talks about the Town’s “desire” to build up the hamlets, yet me know that
we need to do something like this and that the Town has setup the expectation that if someone proposes it we are
going support it. Gagnon commented that this is the first time around and the Town should at least consider to front
some of the cost if this is really what the Town wants to make happen. Gagnon said that a lot is at stake, the potential
retention of the park space, the use of the adjoining field area for recreation space, and the leg work would be done for
a “template” that could be replicated again for a lesser cost.
Laughlin expressed wanting to consolidate the engineering data from the engineer that he would have to hire anyway
and said that he would prefer to have plans laid out for a joint system, if this is the direction the Town wanted to go in.
Greenhouse commented that for the developers to bare significant additional costs, with the specific intention of
creating public space, would make it impossible to achieve the financial goals of the project.
Greenhouse mentioned exploring options of using existing mechanisms to achieve the same outcome; he suggested
an idea of making a special district within the existing water district, where the residents are charged more in the
pocket neighborhood water district to help cover the expense of having a shared septic system.
Randall suggested that the developers come to the Town Board with their sketch plan and a proposal to educate the
Board on the total scope of the project and their expectations. She also recommended that they consult an engineer to
come up with some preliminary numbers and a map plan, as well as a feasibility report for the establishment of a
special district in conjunction with the Brown Rd. pocket neighborhood proposal. Connors suggested having an
engineer present at the Town Board meeting.
Laughlin added that West Danby gets taxed at a rate of 0.016% of the assessed home value and calculated that an
average six (6) houses valued at $225K would generate taxes in the pocket neighborhood of $21,600.
MOTION – The Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that they go on record as preferring a sewer
district (or a jointly administered waste water system) rather than individual septic system s at the Brown Rd.
pocket neighborhood because it would enable the development of the cluster development in ways that would
help facilitate open space on the property and it would help enable the shared park space.
Moved by Gagnon, Second by Scriber The motion passed
In Favor: Davis, Gagnon, Rundle, Scriber Abstain: Kruppa
Scriber said that the housing study shows that anyone else who tries to enact a similar project would also face similar
obstacles, she suggested getting County support to put a pilot program together.
Crane asked the developers if they considered buying PDZ4? McLaughlin said that the property can only
accommodate seven (7) houses and cannot be a cluster development (in theory) in addition he said the cost to bring
water into the houses is too expensive. Gagnon added that there is a one acre minimum without the water district.
Crane commented that there has been much discussion about keeping the park space , but asked do the people that
live their now want a high density neighborhood in the middle of their low density community?
PB DRAFT MINUES PAGE 9
Special Permit Discussion
Kruppa stated that Special Permits were not published on the agenda and recommended that no action be taken
tonight, only discussion. Rundle commented that some things listed under special permits are allowed under state law
and although they are allowed by state law, if they are on the special permit list then at least the Planning Board can
have some control over the direction of them during site plan approval. Rundle added that the site plan review process
would still apply and it gives us (Planning Board) our best means of influencing how uses allowed under state law are
implemented.
Kruppa requested that Special Permits be added as a discussion point on next month’s agenda.
Hamlet Infrastructure Discussion
Kruppa commented that the results and the reaction of the Town Board to the Brown Rd. pocket neighborhood
proposal will determine and drive this topic for future discussion. Randall reported that since the 2000 census Danby
has seen an increase in the median household income of $13K per household ; the current 2015 median household
income in Danby is $63,750.
Randall said that Danby can apply through the consolidating funding application for a planning grant up to $30K (with a
20% match required by the Town) to undertake water and/or waste water feasibility studies. Randall said that Danby is
almost at the threshold of the eligibility requirements for planning grants and that now would be the best time to do
something. Randall forewarned that the state is no longer going to providing grant money or funding for “sprawl” but
rather wants to support a smart growth strategy.
Meeting Civility
Kruppa said this can be discussed in more detail at the next meeting.
Time Limits on Public Hearing
Kruppa said he is going to try and implement a 5 minute maximum during Public Hearings.
(7) PLANNNING & ZONING REPORT
Randall reported that Danby received Clean Energy Communities Designation and publicity will be out on it soon.
Randall stated that the Public Hearing for PDZ review will be on October 16 th where the Determination of
Environmental Significance will be voted on. Randall is currently looking into zoning for wind energy conversion
systems per the Town Board’s request.
Randall reminded the Planning Board to complete their dual-poll survey for the joint scoping meeting. Randall also
said that a mic-stand has been ordered.
Kruppa commented that a two week deadline should always be followed to ensure that meeting materials are received
in ample time for Board members to review the packet and be prepared before the meeting.
(7) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 pm.
___________________________________________
PB DRAFT MINUES PAGE 10
Kelly Cecala – Recording Secretary