HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - September 20, 20181
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
September 20, 2018
PRESENT:
Ed Bergman
Scott Davis
Bruce Richards
Naomi Strichartz
Jim Rundle (Chair)
ABSENT:
Joel Gagnon
Jody Scriber
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Board liaison Leslie Connors
Town Planner C.J. Randall
Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers
Public Ted Crane, David Mastroberti, Erika Media, Mauricio Medina, Warachi Medina, Jill
Rosentel
The meeting was opened at 7:02pm.
(1) CALL TO ORDER / AGENDA REVIEW
Jim Rundle opened with a welcome to the newly appointed Planning Board member Bruce Richards.
No changes were made to the agenda.
(2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
No comments were made during privilege of the floor.
2
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
(3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Approve August minutes
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Richards
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Richards, Strichartz, Rundle
(4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
Leslie Connors shared the following information:
The Town Board will be tackling budget planning at upcoming meetings; watch for agendas coming
out and consider attending meetings as there are sure to be exciting discussions.
Bobcats have been sighted by multiple residents on Muzzy Rd. and Troy Rd.
Some horse-owning residents have complained about cars speeding, not slowing down, and not
stopping fully at stop signs in the Nelson/Hornbrook/Muzzy Roads area. The issue has been
transferred to the Highway Department who may be able to erect horse signs or use other traffic-
calming measures.
New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG) has been cutting trees under the lines along the road.
In response to Connors comment about NYSEG’s trimming, Strichartz asked what the company NYSEG
hires for cutting is responsible for with regard to clean up, as in her area she said they were leaving quite
large pieces that can be hard for residents to move. Connors answered that the expectation is they would
cut up the logs into pieces people can handle, but some places seemed neater than others. She added that
NYSEG contracts out the work to companies such as Asplundh. Davis, Connors, and T ed Crane said that if
one spoke with the people doing the work directly or spoke with NYSEG, they were very helpful in
respecting owner wishes. Crane mentioned some damage to mature trees, such as a clear-cut tunnel
through the woods parallel to Lieb Rd. He also stressed that it is possible for homeowners to call NYSEG,
which many people may not have done. Richards added that NYSEG and the tree companies will cut any
trees they think are going to fall, and that clearing right of way is a separate issue. In conclusion, Connors
mentioned that in the future the Town may be able to do something in terms of com municating with these
companies, as it comes up not only with NYSEG.
(5) ACTION ITEMS
Project: Standard Subdivision
Location: 808 Comfort Road, Tax Parcel # 9.-1-13.22
Applicant: David Mastroberti
3
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Recommendation to Board of Zoning Appeals;
Declaration of Lead Agency
Project Description: The Applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 43.15-acre property into
three parcels: Parcel 1, measuring approximately 14 acres, with 153 feet of frontage on Comfort
Road, approximately 1488 feet of depth, and previously developed; Parcel 2, measuring
approximately 16 acres with 402 feet of frontage on Comfort Road, approximately 1160 feet of
depth, and undeveloped; and Parcel 3, measuring approximately 13 acres, with 227 feet of
frontage on Comfort Road, approximately 1289 feet of depth, with existing house. An Area
Variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 600(5) from the Board of Zoning Appeals is required for
the creation of Parcel 1; the matter will be considered at the September 25, 2018 meeting of the
Board of Zoning Appeals. 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 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.
To summarize the project, Randall spoke first. David Mastroberti owns a single 43.15-acre property that is
both on the east and west sides of Comfort Rd. near its intersection with Lieb Rd. On the west side of the
road the land is in a horseshoe shape; this crosses Comfort Rd. and connects to an area on the east side
with a tie line, allowing the property to be considered a single tax parcel. Historically, there was a small lot
with 153’ of road frontage directly east of the road that was a separate tax parcel and was a buildable lot,
grandfathered in, having previously had a house on it. This small parcel was then consolidated, creating the
tie line, to make one parcel for tax purposes. The applicant would like to divide his land into three parcels
such that the horseshoe on the west side is two parcels and the remaining land on the east side is one
parcel. The issue is that this subdivision would create a parcel on the east side of the road with only 153’ of
road frontage, whereas the zoning ordinance requires 200’ in Low Density Residential. Doing the
subdivision as proposed would eliminate the tie line.
Randall clarified that the action before the Board was a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA), and that the only section of the Zoning Ordinance that was in question was an Area Variance from
the road frontage requirement stipulated in Section 600(5). She added that if Mastroberti did not get an
Area Variance from the BZA, it would be possible for him to move forward with the project by keeping the
tie line and a small stretch of property on the west side of the road. This would allow him to meet the 200’
road frontage requirement as the frontage requirement is additive across the road; however, this would
leave the Town with a very strange and potentially confusing parcel.
Mastroberti spoke next, adding to what Randall said and giving a brief history of his family land. His parents
bought a large parcel in the 70s, where he grew up. After they passed away, the land passed to the
children, and was later subdivided into two parcels, one for David and one for his brother. David’s land
included the small parcel on the east side of the road mentioned above, which was originally bought by his
parents to keep it from active dumping. It seemed ridiculous to pay more taxes on it, so he merged it with
the rest of his land. He did not realize at the time that this would effectively be giving up the ability for a
buildable lot on the east side of the road due to the shortage of road frontage. He now would like to sell the
horseshoe-shaped land on the west side of the road to Mauricio and Erika Medina. The Medinas would like
to buy that land as two parcels so that a family member can help them with the cost of the property by
purchasing one parcel while they purchase the other. Mastroberti added that he hopes not to get bogged
down by this process as he never expected to have to go throu gh it and the Medinas would like to move
forward with their move. He added that he felt the spirit of the law was to reduce the number of new homes
4
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
being built close together, but that if he did build on his land on the east side of the road, it would be further
back from the road where the parcel widens out to well over 200’.
After various clarifications were made, discussion by the Board turned to the question of how much
development would be possible with this subdivision. Rundle pointed out that Pa rcel 2, currently just
acreage but with 402’ of road frontage, could be divided at another time. Strichartz asked what the
maximum number of allowable houses would be on all three lots. Randall said that, as is (no new roads ,
infrastructure, or zoning changes), the answer would be three—one on Parcel 1, and up to two on Parcel 2
if it was divided, depending on where it was divided. Crane added that he counted the potential for 12
houses on the 78-acre section showed on the map (including existing houses). Bergman also asked if there
were any other implications of the tie line, and whether leaving the tie line would be a burden on the Town.
Randall felt that it would be, and said that there were not any others cases like this that she knew of. In
conclusion, it was felt that it would benefit the Town to remove the tie line , and that that was more logical
than making the applicant keep a small strip of land on the west side of the road.
MOTION: Recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that an Area Variance should be granted
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Strichartz
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Richards, Strichartz, Rundle
MOTION: Declaration of the Planning Board as Lead Agency
Moved by Strichartz, seconded by Bergman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Richards, Strichartz, Rundle
PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 24 OF 2018 - DECLARATION OF LEAD AGENCY
AND RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, STANDARD SUBDIVISION,
808 COMFORT ROAD, TAX PARCEL #9.-1-13.22
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. 9.-1-13.22, by David Mastroberti,
Owner and Applicant; and
Whereas the Applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 43.15-acre property into three parcels: Parcel
1, measuring approximately 14 acres, with 153 feet of frontage on Comfort Road, approximately 1488
feet of depth, and previously developed; Parcel 2, measuring approximately 16 acres with 402 feet of
frontage on Comfort Road, approximately 1160 feet of depth, and undeveloped; and Parcel 3, measuring
approximately 13 acres, with 227 feet of frontage on Comfort Road, approximately 1289 feet of depth,
with existing house; and
Whereas the 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 proposed Parcels 1 and 2 are currently joined by a tie line across Comfort Road; and
Whereas an Area Variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 600(5) required frontage not less than 200
feet is required for the creation of Parcel 1; and
Whereas the Planning Board recommends the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the Area Variance to avoid
creation of an additional, irregularly shaped lot with 47’ of road frontage required to maintain the tax
parcel’s tie line across Comfort Road; and
5
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
Whereas this subdivision is classified as a Standard Subdivision in accordance with the Town of Danby
Subdivision and Land Division Regulations, Article II, § 201 C. Standard Subdivision, defined as any
division of land resulting in three or more lots, of any size, at one time, which such division of land is and
remains at all times subject to the requirements and terms of the Stormwater Local Law, if and as
applicable; and
Whereas this is a Type I 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;
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 Standard Subdivision approval for Town of Danby Tax Parcel No.
9.-1-13.22, by David Mastroberti, Owner and Applicant.
Project: Second (accessory) Dwelling
Location: Nelson Road, Tax Parcel # 6.-1-18.27
Applicant: Jill Rosentel
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Consideration of preliminary approval of special permit
Project Description: The Applicant requests the approval of a Special Permit for construction of
second dwelling unit in a separate building for permanent occupancy on the 12.345-acre lot. The
project is located in the Low Density Residential zone. This is a Type II action under the Town of
Danby Environmental Quality Review and State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Jill Rosentel summarized her project. She is trying to buy a 12-acre parcel on Nelson Rd. between E. Miller
and Hornbrook Roads. She would like to build a single-family home (3 bedrooms, 2 bath) and to put in a
garage with an apartment above that would be on the same well and septic. She added that she would not
need a special permit if the structures were connected by a breezeway, but this is not her preference.
A brief discussion followed, including Bergman asking about any environmental considerations the Board
should pursue. Randall said this action was not subject to SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review), but
the adequacy of the lot must be considered for each dwelling unit under Section 902. Davis asked about
yard area, to which Randall said that under Section 510 the structures would need to be the sum of the side
yards apart from each other; this would be 100’. Because the survey map provided to the Board stated 80-
100’ between the structures, the Board asked to add a condition of a 100’ separation between the
structures.
MOTION: Set public hearing for October 18th at 7:00 p.m.
Moved by Strichartz, seconded by Bergman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Richards, Strichartz, Rundle
(6) PLANNING AND ZONING REPORT
6
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
C.J. Randall, Town Planner, reported the following:
A local law amending PDZ 19, White Hawk Ecovillage, has been drafted for the Town Board. The
Town Board will need a recommendation from the Planning Board, so she asked members to read
it for next month’s meeting. She reviewed the current issues that the law attempts to addre ss. First
that, due to a survey map being filed by the County as a subdivision plot, the property is being
treated as a subdivision with 31 tax parcels rather than ground leases. The law will reconsolidate
the property; it will also add a metes and bounds description so it is clear what the boundaries are.
Second, the lot coverage could currently be infinite as there are no maximum sizes for any uses,
only a limit of 30 dwelling units. Third, because ownership is in the zoning, White Hawk cannot
currently move forward with their offering plan without the Attorney General signing off on each
ground lease. Finally, folks would like to have a bakery and farm stand, and later perhaps a
neighborhood commercial or microgrid, so they want to make changes to the uses; square footage
limitations will be included. They will still be subject to site plan review for any changes. A final
problem is that their infrastructure is not where it is supposed to be because they could not get a
hold of the site plan or the original engineer when they added new drainage. Randall has been
working with White Hawk and the Town’s lawyer, Guy Krogh, to clean this up and make it work for
both White Hawk and the Town. Next month will be a recommendation to the Town Board, and
then both the Planning Board and Town Board will need to hold public hearings.
The Town’s Highway Department has been working with Tompkins County Soil and Water
Conservation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others, and the drawings for the Brown
Rd. stream stabilization project are at 30%. The Town is hoping to get funds through the BRIDGE
NY program administered by NYS DOT to replace the Gunderman Rd. culvert. These projects will
tie together as part of a massive project in which dump trucks full of material will reform the
landscape to make a gentler slope.
Work is continuing on the TCAT bus shelter on 96B across from the Town Hall. Stakes are down
marking the approximate location, and it will be installed within in the coming months. There will be
a bike rack in addition to nine parking spots. There will be a working agreement with the Dotson
Park Community Association to maintain a section of the road so people can get in and out of the
park and ride in the winter.
The Highway Department project to upgrade the wastewater recycling system, funded by a
NYSERDA grant, is ongoing. It is not yet clear whether a dedicated wash bay will be built.
The Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) has a new meeting time: the second Tuesday of every
month. This will allow them to be part of the environmental review process as they will meet prior to
the Planning Board and be able to provide comments from the environmental experts on the
7
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
Council. If the Town Board adopts the National Resource Inventory (NRI) maps, the CAC could
petition to become a conservation board, which would even allow them to be lead agency for a
State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR).
With regard to timber harvesting in the Town, Randall is working with Guy Krogh, the Town’s
lawyer, on changes to the Town’s Stormwater Law (2010-1) and Road Use Law (2011-4), as well
as minor amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Drafts for all three are coming next month.
The two-port electric vehicle charging station is installed and will be activated next week. If the
Planning Board has an opinion on whether it should be free to all, free to some (say Danby
residents), or a pay-to-use system, Randall will pass that along to the Town Board. There is also
the consideration of how long a vehicle can park there. Rundle pointed out that it may not be in
high demand now, but it could be in five years. Randall said that with this type of station, these
decisions can be reprogrammed at any time.
Randall will have a fourth-quarter helper, a City and Regional Planning student, who is going to
assist in making a spatial map of Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning Board decisions. This will
allow one to click on a map and see what previous land conditions have been applied in any given
locale. She will also help the Code Enforcement Office move to the new, streamlined County
permit program that was a pilot program in Groton. People can apply online and then it
automatically alerts all relevant parties who get notified as needed; as it is part of the Laserfiche
system, it is easily integrated into public records. Then, after Randall makes sure everything
complies with zoning, a building permit is printed.
(7) ZONING AUDIT REVIEW
Review of Pages 5-8
Rundle said that in his reading he found some questions answered “partially,” which begat the question of,
what more would you do? What is missing? For example, on question #43, if “other uses” was taken out of
the zoning, would that solve the issue? Randa ll said that, along with a definition of home occupation,
without that provision there would not have been a business like, for instance, Angelheart. Angelheart was
an example of a business getting its foot in the door with a special permit followed by a p lanned
development zone (PDZ).
Next month: Pages 9-10
Randall said that side and rear yard requirements are included in this section. Setbacks and lot areas are
not that different between zones, for example between Low Density Residential and H igh Density
8
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
Residential. She also brought up the idea, mentioned by Town Supervisor Ric Dietrich, of providing for
more types of housing. For example, would the Town like any type of senior housing development?
Currently the zoning would not provide for anything like that anywhere.
Strichartz said that she has heard from many people who like the idea of “acorn” houses, in other words
downsizing, which sounds reasonable—people often want to stay near where they have been but may want
a smaller house or a single floor. She would envision something more like this than something like
Longview, especially considering the Town’s existing infrastructure. Randall mentioned that in the future the
Town could consider whether there would be interest in connecting to Bolton Point Municipal Water System
in the north part of town, whether that would be feasible, and what the cost would be. Bergman asked if the
idea of small homes on one piece of land, maybe with a land caretaker, would be possible c urrently, to
which Randall said, no, not unless a PDZ was created. She added that this process has positives and
negatives. Strichartz asked about auxiliary housing possibilities. Randall said that certainly is possible using
square footage or percentage-of-main-residence limitations. Bergman added that he would support
changes that allowed for the potential for grouped small-scale senior housing.
General
Davis offered a process analogy with regards to the zoning audit—redoing the zoning could be imagined to
be like trying to build a house. Perhaps the easiest path would be to hire a contractor and build the house in
whatever is the current convention, doing little research along the way. He said that Randall’s approach
was more like looking at all the possible materials that are available right now , including new ideas, and
evaluating what the best choice would be. It’s reconsidering it all.
Randall said that the main thing she wants the Board to do is to really think of what it wants to see in the
Town. She says uses are what come up all the time. To facilitate the process, she suggested sending a list
of possible uses around for members to consider—where do those fit in, or not. Randall suggested tackling
uses together at the next meeting, and Bergman added that he would like to do it with a map of Danby up.
Rundle reiterated the need to prioritize as it is hard to pass zoning. Randall said the Town Board is really
interested in seeing something. She would like to present a two -page document of policy recommendations
at joint scoping meeting in November.
Strichartz pointed out that there has been talk for 20 years about where to put things. It comes down to that
Danby wants a cute hamlet and doesn’t want industry, but nothing has happened. This has lead to some
frustration over the years. Randall said that without a future land use map, this is hard to achieve. She
added that part of the problem is getting bogged down in minutia. The zoning is meant to be a living
document—it doesn’t have to be perfect the first time around.
Davis pointed out that, with the joint scoping meeting in late November, there are only two meetings left to
prepare the document Randall has suggested. He suggested having an extra Planning Board meeting
9
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
between the October and November meetings. He also added his desire that when people think of what the
Planning Board did for the Town in 50 years they will feel thankful, similarly to how many feel about having
State Parks to enjoy today. Other Board members also felt an extra meeting would be helpful, and the date
suggested was October 25th.
(8) SPECIAL PERMITS
Davis spoke to the issue saying that in Low Density Residential special permits especially stand out. One
doesn’t want to restrict people living, but how is it possible to accommodate business and commercial uses
that will work for the zone? He has been speaking further with Guy Krogh, the Town’s lawyer, about how to
balance the interests of all people with commercial interests, especially when courts usually side with
applicants in special permit disputes; this is because of the “by right” component. He ventured that, at first
glance, the obvious thing to give the Board discretionary power might be to make a really general law
stating that a use must align with the “tone” of the zone, but then who determines the tone can come into
question. He said that Randall has expressed the opposite—that if you want discretion, you should be very
specific, and if you haven’t done it ahead of time, you lose that ability. Davis did express some concern
about thinking of all possible uses and restrictions ahead of a problem arising.
Randall agreed that this is what she believes the approach should be, and added that an applicant can go
to the BZA for a Use Variance or an interpretation. She stressed that then the BZA is doing the
interpretation of the law rather than the Planning Board. She also said that a special use should be special,
i.e., not all the time, and that special permits can be denied if they are not meeting the clearly laid out
conditions.
Crane questioned why uses that are allowed by special permits could not just be categorized under regular
zoning uses, or not, avoiding the use of special permits.
(9) NEXT MONTH’S AGENDA
Nothing was added to the next month’s agenda.
(10) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:59pm.
___________________________________________
Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary
10
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES