HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - November 21, 2019Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 21, 2019
DRAFT
PRESENT:
Ed Bergman
Scott Davis
Joel Gagnon
Bruce Richards
Jody Scriber
Jim Rundle (Chair)
ABSENT:
Naomi Strichartz
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner Jason Haremza
Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors
Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers
Invitee Monika Roth, Cornell Cooperative Extension
Public Phil Berler, Tina Berler, Margaret Corbit, Ted Crane, Maren Dillipane, Kathy Jett,
Carrie Lamontagne, Rick Lazarus
The meeting was opened at 7:05pm.
(1) CALL TO ORDER / AGENDA REVIEW
After privilege of the floor, a discussion of Section 1004 of the Zoning Ordinance was added between
agenda items number five and six (5a herein).
(2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Margaret Corbit asked what the process is to propose an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, specifically
relating to Article X, Section 1004, “Continuation or Resumption of Farm Uses,” in the Low Density
Residential (LDR) zone. She said that this says any property can go back to agricultural use if it was ever
used for agriculture, and she pointed out that 90% of Danby was at some point farmed. She would like to
1
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
propose an amendment to require review by a Board to assess impact to adjacent residential properties
and require the input of property owners.
(3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Based on an email question from Board Member Gagnon, Secretary de Villiers had relistened to a portion
of the audio recording of the October meeting and suggested the following: On the bottom of page three in
the last paragraph, change the first four sentences to read, “Ted Crane said that there is often confusion on
ag tax exemptions (through the ag assessment program). There are parcels in Danby which have some tax
advantage and they are clearly outside the ag districts, so it is not a financial issue directly, it mostly has to
do with protections for activities that the neighbors find objectionable.”
MOTION: Approve November minutes with non-substantive edits by Gagnon and the suggested change by
de Villiers
Moved by Gagnon, seconded by Richards
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Gagnon, Richards, Scriber
Abstain: Rundle
(4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
Leslie Connors shared the following information:
• The Town Board met only once in November as one meeting was cancelled due to fear of ice.
• The 2020 budget was passed. For every $100,000 in assessment, residents’ tax bills will decrease
by $7–$8.
• Neighbors of a hemp drying facility on Howland Rd. (off of South Danby Rd.) are finding it
disruptive. This was going to be looked into at the Town Board meeting that was cancelled. In
response to a question from Richards about how it was disruptive, Connors said in terms of it being
loud, smelly, and increasing traffic.
Tina Berler added that it operates 24/7 with heavy equipment, even in the middle of the
night. She said that it is spewing out dust and other particulate matter, you can smell it all
over the neighborhood, and the hemp is being trucked in. She said she grew up in a
farming community and this is not farming, it is light industry. In response to a question
from Bergman, it was noted that the property is not in an agricultural district (ag district).
Ted Crane said that agriculture activities are allowed in any zone, so it does not really
matter if it is in an ag district. Rundle added that what is an agricultural activity is defined
by the Department of Agriculture and Markets (Ag & Markets). Phil Berler said that he had
2
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
to wait for a semi to come out at 2 a.m. on a weeknight. He said they want to look at what
is allowing that to slip into any place in the Town. Ms. Berler said that there are zoning
regulations that she does not see the hemp facility adhering to, such as there are up to ten
vehicles parked right on the road. Ms. Corbit added that they are parking in the right of
way. Rundle said he was not sure the Planning Board could say anything as they cannot
change the zoning, only interpret it and apply it, but it could be taken up at the Town Board
level. Gagnon noted that the Town Board would refer to the Planning Board for feedback
on a proposed change, but it originates with and is passed by the Town Board. Ms. Corbit
clarified that she could come to the next Town Board meeting with a proposal and they
would take it into consideration and then bring it to the Planning Board. She said that one
thing to consider is that there are 20–30 acres of hemp being grown on site, but everything
else is coming from the Town of Caroline. Rick Lazarus said that he had been told they are
processing about 200 acres, and he said there are ten dryers.
• Connors said that she thought the above issue could relate to zoning changes. She said there
were some things that had come up in the last six months that could be changed by a sentence,
such as eliminating “other uses not specifically listed above” or requiring site plan review for certain
farm operations. She said this came up with cideries, and it would collect neighbor’s input and
there might be some remediation for noise, etc.
(5) EIGHT YEAR REVIEW PROCESS — TOMPKINS COUNTY AG DISTRICT #1
Monika Roth of Cornell Cooperative Extension gave a presentation about ag districts, and specifically Ag
District #1. She said she is working for the County Ag and Farmland Protection Board, which is responsible
for reviewing ag districts as mandated by NYS Ag District Law. They look at what land is in the district and
whether land needs to be added or removed. Districts are formed by farmer petition, and there must be at
least 500 acres of land included (cumulatively) to create a district. Danby is unique in having Ag Districts #1
and #2. The districts have their review anniversaries four years apart, so the western part of Town (Ag
District #2) will be reviewed four years later.
The State has criteria about how much viable ag land the districts should include. Ag District #1 is the entire
eastern part of the County, and they are looking at the combined acreage in the towns—greater than 50%
has to be active agricultural land. If the proportion of non-ag land is getting high, they would need to take
some out to make sure at least half of the district is active. In response to a question from Gagnon
regarding land in silviculture, Roth said that Ag & Markets does not have silviculture in there as a definition.
You can have as much forested land as you want in a district, but it would need to be producing income to
get ag assessment.
Roth said they are recommending taking out the clearly subdivided house cluster in the north of Town, the
Beardsley Lane development. There is no reason to keep land that is clearly not agricultural and will never
3
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
go back to agriculture. They like to keep land that is contiguous with the district. She showed a map from
the assessment department that depicted where actively farmed land is getting ag assessment, meaning
they have to generate $10,000 in sales or the landowner is renting the land to a farmer who qualifies for ag
assessment. She said there is maybe 40% of the land in the Town that is getting ag assessment, which she
thought was good considering Danby is more of a rural community rather than an active ag community.
She noted that some land is coming back into agriculture with small farms, mushroom farming, and u-pick
berries. She added that food and agriculture are economic drivers. If you look at the rest of the County, in
rural communities ag is still a significant activity. There is a lot of cottage industry potential in Danby, so
there may be more small-scale enterprises coming up. How those fit into a town’s zoning is an important
question.
Rundle clarified that someone could apply to be in an ag district at any time, and Roth answered that the
removals you can only do during the eight-year anniversary of an ag district, but you can apply to be added
annually. For additions, they look at criteria such as if it is contiguous with a district and if it is being actively
farmed. If a landowner is not in an ag district, they can still get ag assessment, but it is a slightly different
process. The primary benefit of being in an ag district is agricultural assessment if farms meet the
requirements. Other benefits include provisions relating to local laws. If a town creates zoning that restricts
agriculture and Ag & Markets considers it to be unreasonable or an undue burden, Ag & Markets could
review the proposed zoning. Farmers could get Ag & Markets involved to help with legal processes; in
cases with overly restrictive local laws, Ag & Markets tends to win the lawsuits. To avoid conflict, towns
might exempt farms that meet the ag assessment criteria from certain local law restrictions. Ag & Markets
does not think site plan review is an unnecessary burden. Issues come up when towns try to regulate
farming practices. Streambank setbacks, corridors, and forested buffers could be acceptable but also could
depend on individual situations.
As Roth had said that sometimes fear of large operations is exaggerated, Davis said their paranoia might
have some justification. He asked what is to stop somebody from putting a feedlot on 50 acres where
everything is trucked in and out, and Roth suggested that economic considerations might, although there is
the case of farms buying land in other counties. Davis then brought up the issue of liquid manure dumping
and the negative health consequences. He noted there could be issues as agriculture becomes more large-
scale. Roth said the issues are being addressed by the farm community, and she cited some voluntary
actions. Rundle clarified that that type of action could not be required. Roth said that the area is not feedlot
country—grass, hay, and livestock are viable enterprises.
Gagnon brought up the Town’s right to farm law (Local Law No. 2 of 2009: “A Local Law Related to the
Right to Engage in Agricultural Activity in the Town of Danby”) and said that historically the Town has been
agriculture-friendly, but the law says the Town does not want CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).
He said that when people are thinking of agriculture, they are thinking of a modest scale; it can potentially
become a problem when it scales up past a certain point, with the hemp processing facility as an example.
Roth briefly discussed the economics of hemp. Ms. Corbit noted that another consideration is that
marijuana is likely to be legalized.
4
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
Roth acknowledged that the siting of things like large processing facilities might be something that towns
need to look at but said that a corn farmer would also need to put up a dryer. Mr. Lazarus pointed out that
you can dry 400 acres of corn with one dryer running only ten hours a day, but the hemp facility is ten
dryers. Richards said there are ways to abate noise without prohibiting the process; other industries have to
abate noise if they want to operate. He does not think the Town should run away afraid when there are
citizens whose personal space is being invaded because the Town is afraid of a court case with Ag &
Markets (although it was then noted that this is not in an ag district). He said he thought they should go to
bat for people in the community. Ms. Corbit said that it is possible to filter emissions from dryers. These are
tobacco dryers so it would be difficult but not impossible. She said that nobody knows what is in that
emission. In response to Richards comment, Ted Crane noted that most other industries do not have
protection written into the State constitution. Planner Haremza said that one can argue about what is
reasonable, but that involves lawyers and money, and the Town would need to decide how much they are
willing to spend on litigation. Davis suggested it is possible to initiate on behalf of citizens and then if an
entity decides to fight it legally the Town can decide whether to continue. He agreed with Richards and said
he thinks they should be more proactive.
Ms. Corbit brought up that growing hemp is part of a pilot research program. She cannot figure out the
duration of the pilot program, but the hemp farm on Howland Rd. has the authorization to process and
make CBD oil technically, which involves toxic chemicals. She said there is currently someone in
Binghamton on an industrial site, and Roth said that is appropriate for an industrial site, which Ms. Corbit
agreed with. Gagnon asked when it stops being a customary agricultural activity and becomes a factory.
Roth said she thought that if processing or adding value is part of the farm enterprise, 50% needs to be
actively grown on site for Ag & Markets. Rundle noted that if it does not qualify under Ag & Markets, it
would not qualify under the Town’s right to farm law.
Roth said that the State has model guidance documents for things like nurseries and breweries, although
not yet for hemp. Planner Haremza said the State guidelines on cideriy tasting rooms have been very
helpful, but it would have been nice if the State had issued guidelines on hemp sooner. Ms. Corbit said she
contacted the person at Cornell who gave out the authorization, and he is a plant breeder who did not know
more or who to contact. Rundle asked who is responsible for determining that an operation has more than
50% grown on farm; this would put the burden of proof on a farm to show they meet the requirement, and
may apply in the case of the hemp processing facility. Ms. Corbit said that she believed there was a group
of farms that were part of an LLC, which might make them the same farm.
Bringing it back to the ag district discussion, Roth said she suggests for Danby that Beardsley Lane be
removed. Gagnon said the two fields near the highway were made large lots specifically with the idea that
they might be used agriculturally. Rundle said they can always apply to come back in. Roth said they were
also looking at removing some smaller parcels, but because they are surrounded by land that gets ag
assessment she is not pushing that they be removed. There are some floater parcels that could be
removed, but the policy is that if a landowner wants to be in the ag district, they leave them in. She
mentioned the Jordans’ parcel on Danby Rd., a branch location of their farm on East Miller Rd. Because it
5
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
is only 3.5 acres, their view was not to add it unless it also had ag land. Haremza said it may more sense to
go into Ag District #2; Roth said that the argument for Ag District #1 would be that their farm is in that
district. She acknowledged that it is part of the main farm and farming business and said they could also
see the rationale for adding it. Richards brought up the issue of joining the ag district in order to circumvent
local regulation.
Ted Crane asked about what happens if a Town puts forth a recommendation to remove land, saying that
small properties in ag districts that are now private homes could at any point in time be converted into
agricultural operations. Roth responded there are still people out there with small- to mid-size properties
that it makes sense for. Crane also asked about the recommendation that 50% of the land in an ag district
be viable land and said much of Danby is not considered viable land by Soil and Water Conservation. He
asked what viable means. Roth said it is not based on soil types, it is the viability of active farming—is there
active farming going on on that land. Ted Crane read from a State brochure that talked about “viable
agricultural land,” but Roth said the State is asking them to review what is being actively farmed. In
response to a question from Davis, Roth said the Town can give them a list of parcels to take out and they
will write landowners. If a landowner wants to remain, they will typically let them stay in. Sometimes people
do ask to be taken out.
Mr. Lazarus asked about the value of ag assessment and the percentage reduction. Roth said it was based
on soil type; the better the soil, the less of an exemption you get. She would have to look up the actual
numbers, but it can make a huge difference to farms. Rundle asked why they would keep in land that is not
being actively farmed, and Roth said one reason is if it is contiguous to other ag land. The disclosure
requirement for property purchases was briefly discussed.
Roth explained what she was looking at on the map, and said that if land was only wooded, she was willing
to take it out, but it is not pressing. She said they would tend to send a letter asking landowners. The letter
would typically be from the Ag & Farmland Board, but, in response to a question from Crane, she said the
Town could write it instead if they wanted. Rundle asked for a copy of the letter. Haremza asked about the
timeline, and Roth said they want the parcels identified for removal by the second week of January at the
latest. The anniversary date is April 28th, and there will be a public hearing in March or April. She
encouraged the Board to let her know what their inclination is.
(5a) DISCUSSION OF SECTION 1004
Rundle asked the members of the public in attendance if they felt there was anything else that needed to
be discussed. He reviewed that they would go to the Town Board and the Planning Board would get a
report from Town Board Liaison Connors at the next meeting. Planner Haremza noted that in terms of the
zoning code, while the title of the district is Low Density Residential, it is really an ag-residential district as
customary agriculture uses are permitted as of right. Davis asked about the definition of customary, to
which Haremza said that Danby’s zoning code does not define this. In absence of a specific definition,
6
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
typically one defaults to the dictionary definition or the Town’s right to farm law and guidance from Ag &
Markets. It would be helpful to discuss what people locally want to define as agricultural. There is a strict
constructionist argument or the approach of looking at the zoning as a living document; is it customary
agriculture at the time the law was adopted or customary agriculture as it is practiced today? Both sides
can be argued.
(6) DESIGN GUIDELINES COMMITTEE
A document titled “DRAFT Commercial Design Guidelines for Site Plan Review” was passed out. Board
Member Davis, who chaired the committee, explained the motivations for creating the committee and this
document. He said that it had evolved out of concern prompted by the possibility that some commercial
establishments would engage in construction that would detract from the vision for the Town’s
development, particularly in the hamlet area. The Board then started looking into design guidelines for
commercial buildings, and the committee (Davis, Gagnon, Scriber) was formed. They looked at the extant
language in Danby’s zoning and concluded they wanted to go further. Davis spoke with the Towns
Association and got samples of guidelines from four municipalities. They then met with Planner Haremza.
Davis said that one thing that was surprising was that the Town getting a grip on control of commercial
construction does not have to be zoning, it could be in the form of Planning Board guidelines. Rundle
added that is because the Town does have some language already in the zoning, and the guidelines would
flesh it out.
Planner Haremza said that site plan review is already a process in Danby’s zoning for commercial
developments (Article VIII “Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures”), and Section 805 “General
Considerations” lists items 1 though 13. The proposal would be to add a number 14 that would refer to
these guidelines, and the guidelines would be a separate document included by reference. The Planning
Board already has discretionary powers through the site plan review process, but this would give them
more to hang their hats on, so to speak. Rundle asked if the Board would now need to pass a resolution
adopting the guidelines and recommend to the Town Board their addition to the zoning law. There was
discussion about finishing the draft, getting feedback, and getting it to the Town Board. It was decided that
Planner Haremza would send out the finalized draft prior to the Planning Board’s December 19th meeting,
and the vote could happen then. It would then go to the Town Board in January. Haremza said that, while
the laws in place at the time of a submittal apply, the Town’s attorney said that the Board does have power
already, and that the addition of the number 14 under Section 805 would act to strengthen and clarify. The
Board can still impose conditions on an application through their existing site plan review authority and
direct applicants to the draft guidelines, the Town’s comprehensive plan, and the hamlet revitalization study
to better understand what the Town is looking for.
(7) DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE PREPARATION OF INTERIM ZONING CHANGES
7
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
Gagnon opened by saying that when there was discussion of a potential moratorium, he had suggested
some quick changes to the zoning ordinance to address shortcomings as a placeholder before a wholesale
review. Sprawl has been bothering the Board for years, and he had made the suggestion of changing lot
size and frontage requirements along Danby Rd. as an interim measure, but it received a pan review. He
said he had since had a discussion with Haremza who had an idea for addressing this.
Planner Haremza said that the current way of calculating allowable lots is complex. He understands the
goal, as expressed in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, is to preserve the rural character of the Town. If the
chopping up of land into 200’ frontages continues, that degrades the rural character. The challenge is, can
they mitigate the negative aspects of the parceling off of 200’ frontages? One approach would be to revise
the subdivision aspects of the zoning code. Right now lot sizes are in two different places in the code, and it
would be good to coordinate those two sections. The Town could also add a landscaping requirement to
the subdivision process. Then residents could still do a two acre parcel with 200’ of road frontage, but some
portion back from the road would have to be either maintained as a vegetated or wooded strip or planted to
screen development. This would both clarify the current subdivision regulations and preserve the rights of
landowners to subdivide into 200’-wide parcels. Right now, all subdivisions come before the Planning
Board for review, which is fine, but some parcels could be changed to be an administrative process such as
minor, small, standard subdivisions.
Gagnon said this idea addresses the question of how to deal with the aesthetic impacts of development.
Setbacks and screening have been part of the discussion before, but the decision in the past was to keep it
simpler. A lot of people have voluntarily chosen to build further back from the road. If you moved those
houses up close to the road, it would read suburbia; the density is there now, but it still feels rural currently.
It was concluded that Haremza would provide something more concrete in next month’s information packet
regarding this issue.
(8) PLANNER’S REPORT
Town Planner Haremza reported the following:
• Regarding hemp, he has been playing phone tag with Chuck Rhoades who is the owner or
operator listed on the authorization for the hemp company using the Howland Rd. site. Haremza is
reaching out to better understand the operation. Albany started the pilot program without a lot of
forethought. He currently has not had a callback from Ag & Markets. He is working on acquiring a
copy of the paperwork that was submitted to the State, and he will file a FOIL (Freedom of
Information Law) request on behalf of the Town. The Town Board could start the process of speed
limits on Howland Rd., although that is a lengthy and involved process. There is also a national
comment period through the USDA at the end of the calendar year and the Town Board could take
official action to comment as the elected body for the Town.
8
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
Ted Crane asked about the possibility of enforcement for parking in the right of way.
Gagnon said he did not believe there was a prohibition except in the winter. He also said
the right of way is a variable width based on use. Ms. Corbit said they had been told 30’
from the middle of the road. Gagnon said that on a user road it is based on use. Mr. Berler
asked about speed bumps. Haremza said these would be questions for the Highway
Department. Ms. Corbit said they do not want antagonism to get worse, they would like
mediation.
• Regarding the housing conditions survey, funded through a CDBG (Community Development
Block Grant) grant, a consultant, Jim Thatcher, was hired. He was in Danby on November 14th and
did a fairly comprehensive windshield survey of the Town to look at housing conditions. He is in the
process of compiling his dictation into a usable format. The baseline data will then allow the Town
to apply for money for lower-income homeowners to improve their houses. There will be an online
survey and an identical one the in the Danby Area News. Responses are helpful to begin to
establish a list of people who might want to access this future grant money.
• There is also a municipal housing affordability grant targeting the Danby hamlet that went to the
Town Board in October. It is $10,000 of County money to promote affordable housing and housing
affordability very broadly defined. The Town Board resolution and the draft scope of work was to
look at the existing zoning code in the hamlet and see how it could be revised to align with the
goals in the Comprehensive Plan and to maybe allow for more compact development, thus
advancing affordable housing. The other part that was in the draft scope would be to look at not
just engineering solutions to water and septic but also legal structures. Part of what this money
would pay for is what bureaucratic structures could be put into place to facilitate micro-scale shared
systems that the County Health Department would be willing to approve. This helps very small
parcels that are difficult to develop with a well and septic by letting them potentially share with their
neighbors. He described the timing regarding this grant.
Scriber asked that when they get to the step of looking at housing they consider universal
design. If you build it that way, it does not cost what it would to retrofit. Gagnon noted that
it is similar to energy efficiency in that way.
• The position for Code Enforcement Officer is posted. He and the Town Supervisor have
interviewed the finalists and consulted Town Supervisor Elect Gagnon. The successful candidate
has been notified, and it is hoped they might be on by the middle to end of December. The
regulation of mobile tiny homes will be something for the new person to dive into.
(9) ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
Haremza said that there will likely be an application for a subdivision on Dawes Hill Rd. incoming. There is
construction at the corner of Beardsley Lane and Danby Rd. on Lot #2 of the subdivision. He was contacted
9
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
10
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
by the builder and has researched the subdivision approval; Lots #1 and #2 are subject to site plan review,
so they will be on the schedule in future months. Haremza also has some logistical questions for structuring
next year’s schedule. Rundle added that they will hopefully be taking action on a final draft of the
commercial design guidelines. Haremza passed out a document with two possible 2020 schedules and
respectfully asked if it was possible to move the meeting time to Wednesday evenings. Gagnon noted the
Planning Board will have two new members, and their schedules are not yet known.
(10) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:11pm.
___________________________________________
Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary