HomeMy WebLinkAboutRogue Ck PB handout 1 (Jordan PB statement)Opening statement: The most current situation
We bought the property early in 2018 to help build our product brand and have market access for our
farm products.. We were issued a permit to renovate the property for tasting room, kitchen and
residence. After a year, the Town disagreed with the original approval and reissued a permit for a
residence only. Then after months of discussions between attorneys the Town reversed its
interpretation of local laws and allowed a tasting room with di minimus food service. Several issues
remain. Wefe here to give light to exactly what we are doing and what members of our town
governance would like too.
We do not want to have a restaurant. We want to have a tasting room, which is broadly supported by
the community, and we want to have a sanitary facility to process honey, fruit preserves, natural
ferments (pickles) and other farm -sourced products. The people of the town of Danby have passed a
Right to Farm legislation which asks for local zoning laws to ease restrictions in the case of farming
activities being carried out, regardless of zoning. In this case, "Right to Farm" means that the LD zoning
should accommodate "customary agricultural activities", in a broad definition as defined by Ag &
Markets. There is also unanimous support for this site in the immediate vicinity of the site. There are
also examples of relaxed zoning restrictions in the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposed activities
do not interfere with or change the existing character of the neighborhood, or the health and safety of
the neighborhood, and neighboring property owners agree that the proposed activities at ��'
a the site would
benefit the neighborhood and the town. The town agrees that the proposed activities are in alignment
with the collectively held vision for the town. The issue at hand is how to allow this farm operation
within the context of zoning restrictions which have not been updated to accommodate the town's
assertion of "Right to Farm" statues which asks a town to relax such restrictions. The specific restrictions
in this case are the need for a sanitary processing space (or "kitchen") and the need for parking. If other
restrictions exist the town has yet to articulate them.
For tasting rooms, AML has an existing approval process which engages the town in providing final
approval for sanitary (kitchen approval) standards and menus (food service limitations). The Zoning
Officer has already indicated that he would allow a tasting room at this site but not a "kitchen". This
contradicts the intention of "Right to Farm" by restricting farm activities to those activities which do not
require a sanitary approval from Ag & Markets. There is no precedent for this decision. It appears to be
based on a lack of locally approved guidelines allowing for such specified agricultural activities.
Therefore we all find ourselves in a grey area of following LD zoning ordinances which have not been
updated to reflect the stated will and intent of the residents of Danby who clearly support farming
activities being allowed in all of our zoning districts. Both the Planning Officer and the Zoning Officer
have opined on this matter.
Perhaps the practical questions to ask here are; "how can we have a tasting room without parking and
without a kitchen to wash glassware and handle food of any kind?", and "how can we characterize a
tasting room as a "complimentary agricultural use" while characterizing honey bottling and pickling as
an uncomplimentary agricultural use?" What are the criteria for this determination if not "health and
safety" and "disturbance to neighborhood" as we are now addressing in this site plan process?
That is why the Zoning Officer has asked for a recommendation from this Board — to assist himself, as
well as the BZA in considering how to allow the agricultural activities being proposed at this site, which
borders an AG district but is not currently contained within it.
[J u� i r i {�-F�1 •--Fr`s I/��.a�, i`? r�. � b .� j! y j
RESPONSES TO 9/12/19 MEMO FROM JOHN CZAMANSKE, TOWN PLANNER, submitted to Planning Board
on Sept 19, 2019 by Mr. Jordan, applicant — "Response" follows Mr. Czamanske's text by section.
Please consider the following as you review the submittal from Mr. David Jordan:
1. In conversations between Mr. Jordan and town staff/officials over the last months, and
again in Mr. Norman's letter of August 2, 2019 at the end of the submittal, it has been
suggested that Mr. Jordan might find benefit in seeking to engage the Planning Board
in an optional / voluntary site plan review. That is in large part what Mr. Jordan is
apparently asking for with this application / submittal. Site plan review is not required
by the Zoning Ordinance for agricultural activities, but in my opinion it is warranted
for these sorts of proposed uses and, again, in my opinion, it is unfortunate that site
plan review is not currently required. It is good that the Planning Board has this
opportunity to review and hopefully help influence considerations about potential site
development in this iocation.
Response: The impacted area is less than 1/2 and may only require inspection by ZO.
2. It is clear that Danby as a municipality and seemingly many if not most town residents
support agricultural activities, for their commercial value and for all the
environmental, cultural and aesthetic benefits which they can provide. [It matters not,
but I share in this view.) However, the question of how 1582 Danby Road might be
developed is much less about that broad support than it is about what the present
Danby Zoning Ordinance allows in that zoning district, what may be proposed, how it
may relate to other laws, and the site itself. In other words, the question is not whether
what Mr. Jordan seeks to do seems like a good idea and a beneficial new farm craft
business in town in the abstract, but rather how what is proposed may or may not be
developable within the Town's existing land development regulatory framework in the
location Mr. Jordan has selected.
Response:
Mr. Czamanske seems to be making the point (here and below) that the town's regulatory framework
has not been sufficiently "updated" in regards to reconciling the town's intention to allow farm
operation uses in accordance with Right to Farm statutes, adopted by the people of Danby, with officially
recognized uses currently in the zoning. Therefore it may be appropriate to consider how the use of this
site as a farm operation may be permitted beyond the framework currently available. That seems to be
tz,
why Mr. Norman suggested that we get the Planning Board's opinion. Beyond it simply being of benefit
to us, the subject property owners, it is also of benefit to the Town to figure these things out.
Now that the ZO has expressed his approval of a Tasting room at this site, a typical farm operation
function, the property will largely become predominately agricultural in nature, rather than just a
"residence". Referencing the Town's Ordinance Article VI, section 1004, "any land and associated
structures that may have been used in the past for farming.....may be returned to farm use at any time".
This raises the question as to whether the property should continue to be regulated as a residence in an
LD or as a "farm in a LD" that affords activities more similar to those in an Ag District.
3. The 8/2/2019 letter from Zoning Officer / Code Enforcement Officer John Norman to
David Jordan at the end of the submittal looks at what was understood at the time to
be proposed by Mr. Jordan and interprets the Zoning Ordinance and other laws in
context (such as the Town's 'right to engage in agricultural activity' law, and the NYS
Agriculture and Markets Law (AML)) so as to define the use envelope inside of which
a farm craft beverage may operate in the Low -Density Residential zoning district. It
seems to me from the submittal that Mr. Jordan desires to undertake a use which
would to some degree be outside of that use envelope. The principal element at issue
is the nature of food service. The AML allows for essentially 'finger foods' that don't
require someone to be seated, while Mr. Jordan appears to seek to offer food service
beyond that threshold (and while he does not write about the menus in his letter and
has not annotated the menus included in his submittal, that they are part of the
submittal are an indication of the type of food service Mr. Jordan presumably seeks to
offer). It has already been clearly stated and explained in writing by the Zoning
Officer that food service beyond what AML allows (so as to take on the character of a
restaurant) is not allowed in the Low Density Residential Zone. There are many
aspects of the Zoning Ordinance which the Town may wish to change, modernize or
customize, but this site proposal is bounded by what is currently written in the zoning,
not what some or even many might wish it to say.
RESPONSE:
Mr. Czamanske is incorrect in this comment for two reasons: 1. The menus were provided to help
establish that "customary agricultural use" in terms of existing Tasting Room menus in the area (which
clearly have some latitude) goes well beyond what we are asking for and were not provided to represent
what we might serve. Offering these menus came up as a suggestion in conversation between our
attorney and the Town attorney; 2. What we are proposing to serve is food items which strictly fall within
13 .Z " T
the AML definition we provided. And had been seeking an opinion as to whether the Board agrees that
this should be the definition of approved food service we use here, in this case and in Danby in general.
Otherwise, none of us involved have any guideline. Mr. Norman has more recently agreed verbally that
we could provide any menu items which Ag & Markets approves of. Nonetheless, he suggested we seek
your opinion and that your opinion would matter.
It's also worth noting that Mr. Czamanske is not providing any examples of how we are seeking to
provide food service "beyond that threshold" of AML food service. We are not asking to do more. If Mr.
Czamanske would like to elaborate, or ask us to elaborate that might help avoid misunderstanding here.
4. At the beginning of Mr. Jordan's letter to the Planning Board, there are statements
about Mr. Norman's letter which seem to indicate a misunderstanding of what Mr.
Norman's letter stated and/or which seem to misconstrue that letter so as to imply the
Planning Board has an authority it does not have.
RESPONSE:
This is a misinterpretation of our letter. We are not suggesting that the Board has any authority to change
the Zoning Officer's ruling. The Zoning Officer suggested we approach the Board, and we are now
approaching the Board in the exact context of his letter — thus the quote.
The first quote from Mr. Norman's
letter which Mr. Jordan pasted into his letter cannot be properly understood without
looking at the context in which it was written. Mr. Norman's letter stated that if Mr.
Jordan disagreed with the interpretation, there were two avenues to follow: either
appealing to the BZA or to provide further clarification to the Zoning Officer
regarding the proposal. It was in regard to the latter that Mr. Norman stated that an
optional / voluntary site plan review might help provide that clarification / refinement
so as to assist in a possible reinterpretation by the Zoning Officer.
RESPONSE:
Mr. Czamanske seems to be mistaken here. Mr. Norman stated, "it is in my opinion that the voluntary
site review plan process would serve either such ends", meaning that it could inform (but not overrule)
either the Zoning Officer or the BZA. That said, it is not clear to what end Mr. Czamanske is even making
this point here. It does not change the fact that we are following Mr. Norman's suggestion, and it does
not support the argument that we are trying to give the Planning Board an authority they do not have.
It was not saying that the Punning Board could reinterpret for the Zoning Officer or make a
determination as to allowed uses, which is what Mr. Jordan appears to be arguing. The
Planning Board does not have the authority, through an optional / voluntary site plan
review process or a required site plan review if that was the case, to authorize a use
beyond what is allowed. Again, if that is (in part) what is sought from the Planning
Board with this submittal, l believe the Planning Board is without jurisdiction to
approve (it would instead take a successful appeal through the BZA).
RESPONSE:
Once again, we are not seeking "authorization" beyond what Mr. Norman was asking for. The Board's
"determination" would simply be an opinion for the Zoning Officer or BZA to consider, as suggest by the
Zoning Officer.
5. In regard to the nature and extent of proposed food service, because that seems to be
the key use characteristic at issue:
RESPONSE.-
Actually
ESPONSE:
Actually it's not. In conversation with Mr. Norman and between our attorneys over the last month, the
key issue is whether or not we may have a kitchen. Mr. Norman has determined that we could have a
tasting room, but not a kitchen. We are clarifying that the kitchen is a requirement of a traditional (not
even a newly "expanded definition") agricultural activity, which is the requirement that honey be
processed only in sanitary facilities. Similarly, glassware used in the Tasting Room must be cleaned and
sanitized, too. And the sanitary facility needed for doing so looks a lot like a kitchen. With this and the
plan to serve food, we designed a kitchen utilizing Good Manufacturing Practices and Standards as
required by Ag&M's, Basic Standards for Home/Commercial kitchens and Small-scale Food. -Processing
Facilities. This kitchen design was reviewed and approved by DOH subject to final facility inspection and
compliance with local building codes. We have more recently come to understand that Ag & Markets
will likely be providing final approval for both the facility and the menu, with input from town.
So the real central issue at hand is whether or not we may have a farm produce processing space, which
is a "customary agricultural use", and which would be bound by all the local rules outlined in parts "3."
and "4." of Mr. Norman's letter — which we are all already in agreement with. This is not a new use, or
a special use, or a request to overrule a zoning ordinance.
Mr. Czamanske goes on here, erroneously, to argue that we are asking for a restaurant (he mentions a
fast food restaurant as an example to make his case) and therefore we are asking for something that is
clearly not allowed for in our Town's zoning. But we are not asking for a restaurant. We're asking for a
kitchen to be shared by an already -allowed tasting room. At this time we are not aware of any aspect of
these activities which violate zoning rules. They fall within the activities of typical farm operations and
as authorized by the NYS Liquor Authority.
Local government regulations bear on a direct relationship to public health and safety. With regard to
Mr. Norman's denial of a kitchen and food preparation, there is no evidence that public health and safety
are at risk. Nor has any Danby official or Town attorney provided evidence that the proposed mixed use
of a residence, tasting room with kitchen and parking will be a risk to the Public's health or safety.
The interplay of the various local and state laws
creates complexities for understanding what may be allowed in a zoning district and in
relation to the NYS Agricultural Districting program. It is the NYS Agricultural
r"Mys
Districting program which, alone, carries a quasi -pre-emption of local land use
authority, in that municipalities cannot unreasonably restrict farm operations through
local regulation. Neither health department laws and regulations, nor State alcohol and
beverage control laws and regulations carry any pre-emption of local zoning
regulation. The somewhat convoluted interaction of these laws and the understandings
or misunderstandings of this interaction i believe have been evident through the
course of the last few years and continue to be apparent in this submittal. Here is how
I understand those laws in relation to this matter:
• It has been interpreted by town officials including by the Zoning Officer that
the Town's right to farm law provides a further definition for customary
agricultural use than that provided with the Zoning Ordinance itself. The
expanded definitional view says that customary agricultural use exactly
encompasses the evolving definition of farm operations as stated by New York
State in the Agriculture and Markets Law as it may be amended from time to
time. From that interpretation, it has been determined that a tasting room can
operate in the Low Density Residential Zone provided the activity meets all the
requirements as stated in AML as to, for example, the provenance of the farm
products being sold and especially, in this instance, the nature of food service.
The AML provides for'finger foods' that are customarily eaten while standing
or walking.
• New York State regulates the production, sale and consumption of alcoholic
beverages. They have created and continue to evolve regulations promoting and
governing farm craft beverage operations. A license is needed. However,
unlike, the State's Agriculture and Markets Law, having a license to operate a
winery, bar, distillery, or cidery does not exempt that operation from local
zoning. While such an operation may be required by that alcohol license to
offer food service which allows a broad range of food service types from finger
food up to a full-service restaurant, there is absolutely no pre-emption of !ocal
zoning for that food service conveyed by that license.
• Similarly, while a health department permit may be required based on what
facilities an applicant proposes to that department, there is no pre-emption of
local zoning regulation by virtue of obtaining a health department permit. So,
one might obtain a health department permit for a commercial kitchen such as
would be found in a fast food restaurant, but that would confer zero rights to
construct a fast food restaurant if the local zoning prohibited such uses.
I believe conflation of the State's complex but distinct agricultural and alcohol
beverage control laws are at the heart of the misunderstandings and/or misconstrues
regarding this proposal at this location.
Further, while other municipalities near and far in NY State may allow through zoning
regulation or non -regulation farm craft beverage establishments to offer a wide range
of food services, including full-service restaurants, and while Danby may in the future
review and even change its regulations in some manner regarding such establishments,
the current Danby Zoning Ordinance is what everyone must work with and within.
While the sample menus provided in Mr. Jordan's submittal may be appealing in and
of themselves, and may indeed be fully allowed and permitted in other municipalities,
it has already been determined by the Zoning Officer that farm craft beverage food
service beyond 'finger foods' is not presently permitted in the Low Density
Residential Zone. Changing that would require Town Board action, a reinterpretation
by the Zoning Officer, or a successful appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals; the
Planning Board simply does not have the authority to grant approval to an expanded
use.
RESPONSE:
Mr. Czamanske seems to be introducing evidence where none exists. Craft beverage food service beyond
"finger foods" (as defined by NYS LA) has never been proposed to the Town or its Attorney. There is NO
substantial evidence that anything other than finger foods has been proposed. To suggest otherwise is
arbitrary and capricious and does not reasonably relate to the facts of Mr. Jordan's proposed farm
operation uses and its compliance with NYS Liquor Authority regulations.
Having an Ag&M approved kitchen does not make the intended use a "restaurant". Rather a kitchen
would keep the Tasting Room and farm products to be in compliance with AM&L and NYS LA laws. Again,
01 401
l..
we are not asking to provide a menu beyond 'finger foods' as described by AML and NYS LA. The
suggestion of a "fast food" service is another indication of Mr. Czamanske's bias towards the "finger
food" menus proposed by Mr. Jordan. Moreover, Mr. Norman did approve de minimus food service. The
presentation of the DOH application is NOT to show "pre-emption" of any sort but rather compliance
with Ag&M guidance and requirement to have a small kitchen to process farm produce : a typical farm
operation activity.
6. The Board and Mr. Jordan will have to work through the parameters of what an
optional / voluntary site plan review process might involve. At the time Mr. Jordan
sought an appointment with me some weeks ago, he said he wanted the forms in order
to submit an application. I provided those forms, even though it was not entirely clear
to me whether he was going to decide to apply and, if he did, what it was he would be
applying for. With the submittal now in hand and, given that no site plan review is
required and that the Planning Board does not have jurisdiction to approve an
expanded use, it is possible to start thinking about how to process it. For example,
there is a SEQR short form. However, there is no approval that the Planning Board
can give so there is no SEQR 'action'. Similarly with a GML-239 referral to County
Planning -- there is no approval / no action, so a referral is not required, but could be
made as an optional request for feedback just as Mr. Jordan is seeking your feedback.
Nevertheless, site plan review is site plan review, so while it may be optional, I will
attempt to provide site plan commentary as I would if this were a real application.
RESPONSE:
First, as Mr. Czamanske realizes, Mr. Norman suggested we present such a plan to the Board. Second,
during the issuance of the first Permit with Paul Nelson, our Basis of Remodeling Narrative suggested
availability of about 20 parking spaces, but that a Site Plan would be useful to finalize and get approval
for parking, as may be needed prior to any CO being issued. Mr. Czamanske's suggestion that he was
caught off guard is not consistent with his position in the Town.
SEAR: We consulted with Soil and Conservation to determine the requirement. As shown in the
submitted Site Plan, the total area of parking where impervious material is used, is less than 1/2 acre.
As such, a SEQR (SWPPP) is not required. If there were an area using 1/2 to one acre of impervious
material then a silt screen would be needed along the western property line: not very significant.
We asked Mr. Czamanske for the site plan application — not the fake one but the real one. Now Mr.
Czamanske seems to be arguing that we have somehow circumvented the "real application" process,
while at the same time airing his grievances about the Town not having a clear process to follow. Our
timeline is bound by the deadline for submitting application to the ZBA, which we understand to be
Oct.2"d. If Mr. Czamanske is suggesting that the real site plan review process can now actually be
revealed to us and followed appropriately, then he also needs to take responsibility for running out the
c)
time on our BZA submission deadline. We will not be able to further participate in a site plan review
beyond our current efforts if they conflict with our submission to BZA, due by Oct. 2"d. If, on the other
hand, the Town will extend our deadline, we would continue to provide wh4wer information Mr.
Czamanske now feels would be relevant.
7. 1 start site plan review by unrolling the actual plans. In this case, Mr. Jordan has
provided a letter -sized drawing with limited detail at a scale of approximately one
inch equals forty-five feet. There is not sufficient detail at a large enough scale with
which to fully carry out site plan review. What has been provided is considered a
sketch plan. While what is shown is limited in detail, there are some things that can be
said or reviewed in relation to the town's zoning:
RESPONSE:
Mr. Czamanske did not specifically request a drawing or any drawing criteria until after we submitted it.
However, we did follow the checklist of required items in the Town's draft Site Plan Application form.
It is difficult to determine in the following commentary whether Mr. Czamanske is now requesting such
criteria to be followed by us or whether he is making a proposal to the Town in regards to how these
matters should now be conducted going forward in all such situations...
• There is no scale indicated, but it can be estimated as approximately 1 inch = 45
feet based on the dimensions given, especially those to the north of the existing
vacant house on the property. A scale of 1" = 20' would expand the view from
letter -sized format to about ledger -sized (11" x 17") format. That might be
sufficient, but given the size of the site, the amount of parking proposed, and
the change in grade on site, in other municipalities in which I have worked a
plan such as this would be submitted with an even greater scale on 17" x 24"
paper and would include multiple sheets plus graphics showing the typical
construction of proposed paved and gravel areas and other construction details.
The sheets would include a survey, an existing conditions drawing, a site plan
drawing for the proposal, a drainage/stormwater sheet, potential elevation
drawings or renderings, and any construction details, signage and notes. I don't
have a recommendation for how to proceed necessarily given the
circumstances, I'm just describing that it is much too small and with very
limited site information in order to undertake site plan review.
RESPONSE:
Site plans of greater detail may be needed for new construction when there is a lot of soil disturbance
on the site. For this situation, we are merely showing where we want to provide required parking in an
existing established site. The disturbance is less than 1/2 acre. Mr Czamanske's suggested resubmission
is unreasonable and excessive.
In addition, Mr. Czamanske seems to be saying 'it's all too inadequate', but without offering direction
on how we are to proceed in order to make it adequate. Who therefore are we to ask? Is this simply a
commentary on the Town not having a needed process in place?
• From what is shown and can be estimated, it is clear that some of what is
proposed on site (principally parking) isn't allowed by the zoning ordinance
(which has nothing to do with whether this is reviewed optionally by the
Planning Board or for a building permit by the Zoning Officer / Code
Enforcement Officer). The Town's zoning specifies there shall be no parking
within the required yard / setback areas, with a limited exception that two
parking spaces per dwelling unit may be in the front yard setback for residential
structures up to a maximum of four parking spaces.
RESPONSE:
According to researched AM&L documents they find that Town ordinances may become dated with new
definitions of Farm Operations. At times, they can be so vague that they inhibit farmers from undertaking
certain activities out of concern for violating the law or ordinances. Vague ordinance construction can
be construed as unreasonably restricting farm operations. The Town's ordinances for parking on
residential property appear reasonable in the abstract, but may unreasonably restrict a farmer. The
Town's zoning ordinances impose setback requirements for structures in the interest of public safety or
even aesthetics. These setbacks may be reasonable under usual conditions, but are unreasonable for a
farmer. This is the situation with the voluntary and preliminary Site Plan. In sum, the reasonableness
depends on the totality of circumstances in this case. We ask that the Board evaluate the preliminary
site plan with these thoughts in mind and that some natural property boundaries like the road culvert
provides for public safety for those parking spaces within 50 feet of the roadway.
With regard to safety and aesthetics, the application of parking requirements has not been uniformly
applied and enforced along Route 96b, near our site. Its application over the years appears to have been
inconsistent and/or arbitrary, because there are numerous instances where parking is near the roadway,
and in the buffer area between properties. See "Business enterprises" document submitted.
As substantial evidence, the Ice Cream stand "Scooby Steve's" at 1425 Danby Rd, is one prominent
example which the Planning Board approved in the last several years that has its 10 parking spaces
within 50 feet of the roadway.
Taking advantage of the setback exception is the norm in the immediate vicinity of the subject site.
Parking abounds along the road and within setbacks, and the residence to the south has no less than 6
parking spaces in the setback, right along the roadway. Our proposed parking is far removed from the
roadway and is safer and less obtrusive than many parking areas in the neighborhood.
In the Low Density Zone,
the front and side yard requirements are both fifty feet, while the rear yard is
seventy-five feet. While measurements can only be approximated, parking and
parking lanes to the north of the house, the rows of parking shown closest to
96B in the front, and a portion in the rear are not allowed by zoning as the
sketch plan proposes. [It is important to note that, while Mr. Jordan's proposal
has been, for many months, in one way or another, looked at by town officials
and others, the submission of this sketch plan now is the first time that Mr.
Jordan's parking scheme has been presented, both with the proposed number of
spaces and layout. Had a parking plan been presented earlier with this number
and configuration, such feedback similarly could have been provided earlier.]
RESPONSE:
It may be equally important to note that the Town has not ever raised this concern or denied PERMITTED
USE of parking, in amount or configuration, despite the topic having been discussed with Paul Nelson at
the time of the first building permit approval and between our attorneys in the months since that initial
permitting was not renewed. This initial Permit allowed for remodeling for Tasting room, kitchen and
residence: it was reissued for remodeling of the residence, only. More recently, the Town has accepted
the Tasting room use without suggesting there may be any issue about allowed parking use in this zone.
Therefore, this is the first time we are being informed of the parking not being included as "agricultural
use". It was not an omission on our part. We would like to be directed as to how to work with Town to
comply or seek exception/approval.
And in regards to the below comment, many of the houses (and most of the "older" houses) in this area
are non -conforming.
• in the process of estimating yard dimensions and reviewing the current
language in the town's zoning ordinance, I noted that the house appears to be a
non -conforming structure at present in regard to the side yard. Fifty feet is
required; the actual yard width appears to be just over 39 feet as indicated on
the sketch plan. It is simply a matter of note; the sketch plan does not propose
construction which would increase the non -conformity.
• The words 'grass' and 'gravel' are typed here and there on the sketch plan,
(/ it) AA1_
however it is impossible to determine where exactly those surfaces are and how
they would be constructed or otherwise improved so as to allow practical and
safe use for parking and maneuvering. The ordinance states that parking areas
are to be surfaced, but it does not specify what the surface must be, just that it
not generate dust. Excepting for the moment that there likely can be no parking
on the north side of the house, it would be great to see for example porous
pavers in and through which grass could grow, or a gravel sub -base on which
grass is allowed to grow. Whether that is proposed here or not isn't known. It
would seem problematic to simply use the existing lawn surface for parking and
parking aisles. Regardless, the ordinance specifies that there shall be no parking
in the side setback area.
• It is not readily possible to determine the degree of ground disturbance. The lot
area is said to be 1.35 acres. The degree of disturbance may be approaching a
half acre as proposed, though it is clear that what is proposed cannot be
developed as drawn. If there is a half acre of disturbance, it would be good to
prepare a simple stormwater plan, though it is not clear that one is required.
Regardless, erosion control is warranted on site during construction. There does
not appear to be a lot coverage limitation in the Zoning Ordinance other than in
relation to solar energy facilities. Lot coverage includes buildings and
impervious surfaces and is distinct from maximum building coverage, which
Danby has set at 25% maximum. [The town should consider determining
maximum lot coverage percentages for various zoning districts and uses.]
• The zoning ordinance does not specify in detail what is to be shown on a site
plan. I shared with Mr. Jordan a site plan checklist that the Town Planner
prepared in 2015. The items on that checklist are shown below. They are in line
with those usually required by municipalities for site plan submissions. To the
extent that the Town may further develop such site plan application
requirements and either amend them into the ordinance or be included in an
application form and process described by the Planning Board in advance based
on the authorities in the ordinance to determine what is to be shown on a site
plan, this is a good place to start. I believe that additional guidance would be
good for all involved ... (text here has been omitted for brevity. Refer to original)
...the Town should work to synthesize the Zoning Ordinance with the relevant aspects in the 'right to
engage in agricultural activity' law. While the town will necessarily continue to be required to
interpret and enforce its laws in view of the laws of other agencies and governments, I
believe Danby should strive to have its own land use laws and regulations only in one
cohesive, internally -consistent document.
RESPONSE:
The last two plus pages of Mr. Czamanske's memo appears to be a general recommendation to the town
as to how to start reconciling the Town's desire to allow agriculture in LD Zones while not having
procedures and guidelines in place to do so. This is a valuable set of proposals for the Town, and our
situation is perhaps a great case -in -point beside which to present these proposals. However, we hope that
this is not construed as a critique of the agricultural activities actually being proposed in our case. It seems
that until guidelines such as Mr. Czamanske describes are in place, there will be some level of personal
opinion being levied in this process to make a final decision. As exemplified in our petition submitted and
in the many conversations we've had with neighbors and friend's throughout Danby, it seems clear the
residents of Danby are not just in favor of supporting local farms but are also advocating for exactly the
kinds of things we are endeavoring to do here
We have great respect for Mr. Czamanske's efforts, his service to the Town and the office he holds.
However, in our defense, there are many arguments and comments made by Mr. Czamanske that
comingle what the Town should do to improve upon the clarity of its Ordinances, and what should have
been included in the Preliminary Site Plan, before the Board, by Mr. Jordan. His comingling seems to
represent a potential strong bias against the broad meaning of farm operations and how it may be applied
to the Jordan property. It is hoped that the Board will hear and take to mean that all Mr. Jordan's
arguments, rebuttals and explanations of intended property use, are being compliant with the modern
definition of "typical agricultural" uses, as farm operations. It is hoped this presentation to the Board will
find a mutually satisfactory resolution of the issues and will help towards sculpting a proper and correct
way to move forward with the Tasting Room which includes a kitchen, farm stand, and parking.
Business entervrises along 96b and in s roximity to 1582 Danbv Rd:
1395 Danby Rd "Fort Locks", "Bailey Homes" and "Bailey Park" — Storage Units, Modular Home sales...
1425 Danby Rd "Scooby Steve's", "Danby Rd Farm" — Ice cream stand and horse farm
1429 Danby Rd "Annie's Tag Sales", "National Book Auctions"
1432 Ranby Rd "New Leaf Environmental" — environmental consulting
1459 Danby Rd "Studio Apartments" — rental units
1582 Danby Rd — subject site
1570 Danby Rd "Lamorte Plumbing and Electric" — residential based business
1675 Danby Rd "Rick Dobson Enterprises" —vast, eclectic car and odds -n -ends sales facility
1728 Danby Rd —firewood and stone sales, home business
17 54 Danby Rd "ABC Rug Cleaning" — home business in renovated farm buildings
1774 Danby Rd "Danby Gathery"
1765 Danby Rd — heavy equipment contractor
Parkine areas along 96b and in proximity to 1582 Danby Rd:
1395 Danby Rd — Greater than 30 parking spaces — many are in the setback
1425 Danby Rd —10+ parking spaces — in setback, does not conform to parking regulations
1429 Danby Rd —17+ parking spaces — in setback, does not conform to parking regulations
1435 Danby Rd —16 parking spaces
1459 Danby Rd — 6+ parking spaces
1675 Danby Rd — potential parking spaces too numerous to count
1774 Danby Rd — about 20 parking spaces
1780 Danby Rd — 20+ parking spaces
Rogue Creek Cider and Farm Stand Survey of Wineries and Cideries along Cayuga and Seneca Lakes 1
Food Service is a usual practice for all similar Tasting Rooms 9/1/2019
Windery/Cidery NoTastingRm No Food Bistro Cafe Restaurant Comments
1 American Vineyards Y
2 Lucas Vineyards Y
3 Long Point Winery Y
4 Thirsty Owl Winery Y
5 Toro Run Winery Y
6 Button Wood Grove Y
7 Goose Watch Winery
8 Knapp Winery
9 Varick Winery y
10 Montezuma Winery
11 Three Brothers Winery y
12 CatherineValley Winery
13 Magnus Ridge
14 Warhorse BrewingCo Y
15 White Spring Winery
16 Seneca Shore Wine
17 Bellwether cider&wine
18 Eve's Cidery
19 South Hill Cidery
20 Barnstormer Winery y
21 Greenwood Winery Y
22 Lakewood Vineyards y
23 Glenora Wine Cellar
24 Redbyrd Orchard
25 Gola Osteria
26 Finger Lakes cider -House y
27 Gusamore Cider Works
28 Black Diamond Farm y
29 Grismore Cider Works y
30 New York Cider y
31 Black Duck Cidery y
32 Three Rivers Winery Y
NOTES:
1. With exception of a few cideries, the Survey was made on the internet,
0
Y
Y tasting Off premises events
Retail distribution
tasting by appointment
Y
Y
Y
retail and at Finger Lakes House
14�
SD
a�
N
O
u
z
m
Z 1
m-<
-c �M
E
ao
amx
mrrny
'Ua
ti A
r C
m
�-zla
A
qn3r*�
7rM
el z
l7<1
rz0.0
m -n
71 z
-4
a<zz
Zr-o
A
n0 13 1
ir(Aia
�<?
m�
C3
F
M
r�
D p
Z W
t-,
(-)13
0 Z
Z
t=1 C7
Z
H "'I
Z /X
Z 0
N r-
------------
Placed on
the Contour
o
1t I
I I
PROJECT LOCATIONi
ANTICIPATED STARTING DATE,
ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE,
HOUSE
[40]
O
GARAGE
O
STABILIiEII
CONSTRUCTI Ori
ENTRANCE
49
EROSION CONTROL
PLAN LEGEND
PROPERTY LINE
--- EXISTING DRAINAGE
FINISFED DRAINAGE
LIMITS OF GRADING
�--*-� STRAW BALES
0-114" SD.T FENCE
O VEGETATION
SPECIFICATION
TREE PRESERVATION
STOCKPILED SOIL
® GRAVEL
NOTESi
L On moderate slopes, up to 8
percent, sltt fence and straw
bates may be used
I. Y.
a Slopes exceednp 25 percent
shall have skt fence backed by
straw bales for support.
3. Use addtbnal practices as
required by the local plan
approval outhorlty to Ntlgate
effects of post construetkrn
runoff,
EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER
STREET
PROPERTY OWNERi
CONTRACTOR,
SOIL TYPE, SLOPEi
LZ
m
BASIS OF REMODELLING NARRATIVE
1582 Danby Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
March25 2018
Overview
1582 Danby Road is an old brick face two story three bedroom residential house in the
Town of Danby. Since 2011, this house had been unoccupied and has deteriorated
from years of no maintenance. Under new ownership, this house is to be repaired to its
original condition and will feature a newly constructed slab on grade patio in the rear of
the house. The house will feature a cider room , tasting bar, and kitchen on the first
floors and a two bedroom residence with new mini -kitchen on the second floor. The
cellar will be repaired as a finished basement and will have its bathroom and utility
rooms refurbished.
Subiect Provertv Observations and Planned Improvements:
1. For the front elevation, the observed exterior face brick is in good condition. The
masonry pointing is in good condition given the age of the property and apparent lack of
maintenance from many years of neglect.
2.The side and rear elevations are stucco which had been painted. This paint is severely
pealing off and will need to be sand blasted(or similar method) and recoated.
3. The windows are double hung with aluminum storm windows. Several of the
windows on the first floor appear to have a lot a dry rot. These windows will have to be
either replaced or reconditioned. The dual windows in the rear dining room area will be
replaced with double French doors which will open onto a new concrete patio.
4.The existing living and dining rooms will be used as a tasting room and sitting area.
Taken together, the space in these two rooms will have to be enlarged to accommodate
an anticipated larger size cider tasting room. With this future space requirement in mind,
a 30x40 ft room will be built and attached to the rear of the house. This will be done in
two stages. First, a concrete slab on grade patio will be placed in the rear of the building.
Initially, This patio will provide space for customers to sit outside and enjoy cider and
house Bill de Fare. Second, the slab on grade will be built up as an enclosed room
addition to the house: likely to occur in the second year of operation.
•<
The slab -on -grade shall be constructed with 18"(approximate elevation to match first
floor elevation) foundation on 10" diameter 36" long sono -tubes. Within the boundary
of the foundation, there will be 6" gravel base, 4" closed cell solid insulation, vapor
barrier, then WW 4" thick 4000psi concrete slab. While this slab -on -grade functions as a
patio, with access through the double French doors off the dining room, a perimeter
hand rail will be built to safely enclose the area.
5. The existing kitchen (on the first floor), three bathrooms (located cellar, first and
second floors) are totally broken and must be rebuilt with new fixtures, tiles, flooring
and light fixtures. The existing kitchen will be rebuilt and relocated into the Garage. The
"garage area" will become the new kitchen area for the tasting room. The residential
apartment will get a new mini -kitchen on the second floor.
6. Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Heating:
This house is served with public gas, water and power.
6a. Electrical. The house has a relatively new(10 years?)x'00 amp single phase Service. It
was recently inspected and approved for re -connection to NSG grid. No further
upgrades are anticipated at this time. Extend cable for internet service -several drops.
6b.The house is served with natural gas. A licensed plumber will be used to pressure test
and repair the gas lines: kitchen and boiler gas piping. A licensed plumber will be used to
make all gas connections to the new tasting room kitchen and min i-kitchen(resident
apartment).
6c. Heating. A forced hot water cast iron radiator system is used to heat the house. The
water line will have to be retested and repaired in several spots where the pipes were
broken. Several of the cast iron radiators will be replaced with Fin Tube Radiators. The
condition of the gas fired boiler is unknown, at this time. A boiler service company will
be used to recondition(if necessary) and restart the boiler.
6d. Plumbing. the house is served with a Town/City sewer connection. The entire
plumbing system will have to be reviewed and repaired on and "as needed" basis by a
licensed plumber.
7. Roofing, flashing, gutters:
The roof is in good condition and likely will not have to be replaced at this time.
B. The house has hard wood flooring on the first and second floors. Currently, these
floors are carpeted. This carpet will be removed. The hardwood floors will be refinished ,
where it is required.
9. Painting:
The exterior trim will be scrapped and repainted. The interior will be repainted, too.
10. Landscaping and parking.
Several trees adjacent to the existing driveway will be removed to allow for a widened
entrance to the property. The site is large enough to accommodate many cars. Initially,
about twenty parking spaces will be created.
11. Cellar: The cellar has an old wood cabinet bar. It will be restored. The ceiling is sheet
rock is falling down. The cellar will be gutted to the framing and refinished with sheet
rock, lighting, painting, new laundry room. Repair cracked cellar concrete floor in the
utility areas. Generally, tidy everything up and create a meeting and mini -office space
for the Tasting Room staff.
Anticipated Repairs and Costs
1. Masonry: power wash
a. Est Cost -allowance $1000
2 -Stucco reconditioning, recoating
a.Est. Cost
3.Window repair, French Door install
$5000
a. Est Cost French Door $2500
b, Est. Cost replace three windows
@$1500/window $4500
4. Refurbish Living, Dining Room, Kitchen(Tasting bar)
a. Est. Cost- refurbish rooms
remove small section of wall,
demo kitchen $1500
(/ q1 '.2x
b. Est. Cost- install tasting bar cabinet $2500
c. Slab -on -grade insulated patio $8000
5. Kitchens, Tasting Room, apartment
6a. Electrical:
a. Tasting Rm kitchen -allowance -
refrigerator, stove, kegerator,sinks,hood $8000
b. Apartment Kitchen
refrigerator, range,hood,sink ,cabinets,CT $5000
a. Est- Cost -electrical outlets for both kitchens,cellar L&P. $4000
6b. Gas service
6c.Heating
6d. Plumbing
7. Roofing
8.Flooring
a. Est -Cost- restoreexisting gas service $1500
b.Est-Cost- add gas lines for new kitchens $3000
a. Est- Cost- refurbish existing boiler $1000
b. Est -Cost- install new HW heater $1000
c.Est. Cost- new radiators $2000
a.Est-Cost- new plumbing fixtures 3 bathrooms $4500
b.Est-Cost-new tile work $6000
a. Est -Cost- remove carpet $600
b.Est-Cost- recondition hardwood floors $1500
9.Painting
10. Landscaping, parking
a.Est Cost -house exterior trim
b. Est -Cost -interior paint
a.Est-Cost- tree removal
b.Est-Cost- parking,fencing
11. Cellar, house debris removal
a. Est -Cost- debris removal
b. Est. Cost -Cellar fitout
TOTAL
SUMMARY
$3000
$6000
$1000
$1500
$2000
53500
$72,760
We hope that the above is useful preliminary restoration information to understand our
design intent. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or have
suggestions you would like us to include in this scope of work to restore this property.