HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - December 19, 2019Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
December 19, 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
Public John Barradas, Andy Cove, Ted Crane, Dan Hoffman, Ed Lisbe, Sarah Schnabel
The meeting was opened at 7:01pm.
(1) CALL TO ORDER / AGENDA REVIEW
Chairman Rundle suggested trying to move the 2020 meeting schedule to this meeting’s agenda (it was
listed under agenda item number nine “Items for Next Meeting”). It was decided to leave it as it was. He
also suggested puting off agenda item number seven, “Discussion regarding possible preparation of interim
zoning changes,” in favor of a discussion of agricultural districts, number 6a herein. Upon Board Member
Davis’ suggestion, item seven was left on for an abbreviated discussion.
(2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Ted Crane had sent an email regarding the minutes of the previous month. He said he had since found
another instance where what was recorded in the minutes, i.e. what was said at the meeting, probably
differs from actual practice. He said that Monika Roth of Cornell Cooperative Extension (who had given a
1
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
presentation at the previous meeting) made a statement that it was easier to get or keep an agriculture
assessment (ag assessment) if you were in an ag district (Secretary note: she said the County mails you
the paperwork yearly if you are in an ag district). He had spoken with the farmer he leases land to, and he
needs to fill out the same paperwork every year. Crane noted three instances of misunderstanding about
what the facts are about agricultural districts (ag districts) during the presentation.
Chairman Rundle and Board Member Scriber both stated that the minutes need to be what is said. Crane
asked that his email and comments be noted in these minutes. Scriber asked if someone comes in and
gives a presentation about what is their job to do, can the Board correct what she told them without talking
with her? Do they just note that someone has a difference of opinion? It was agreed that Crane’s
comments would be noted without a discussion of what was right or wrong.
(3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Rundle had two sections of the November minutes he wanted to address. It was agreed to postpone the
minutes approval to the next meeting, and Rundle would email Secretary de Villiers with his amendments.
(4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
Leslie Connors shared the following information:
• This meeting was the last for Board Members Gagnon and Strichartz (who was not present). There
are now two vacant seats, and applications are coming in. She hoped they would be in by the first
Town Board meeting in January so the Town Board could do interviews and make a decision in
January.
Rundle asked what the applicants are expecting regarding scheduling. He was told it is not
on the application but has been announced two months running in the Danby Area News.
If people applied and were told what night the meeting was to be on, Rundle felt that would
be fine.
• The previous Town Board meeting was the last for Supervisor Dietrich, Town Councilperson Miller,
and Town Clerk Goddard. At the next meeting three new people will replace them, Joel Gagnon,
Sarah Schnabel, and Alex Pfeifer respectively. Connors said that this is a lot of change, and she
expressed the hope that there is a lot of good energy and the Town gets a lot of stuff done in the
coming year.
(5) PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE #1: SPR-2019-03 Consider Site Plan Approval
2
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
Project: Thompson house
Location: Southwest corner of Danby Road and Beardsley Lane; Tax Parcel 2.-1-9.22
Applicant: Jeremy Thompson
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public hearing, Site plan approval
Project Description: Site Plan Review of the property at the southwest corner of Danby Road and
Beardsley Lane, tax parcel 2.-1-9.22, related to a subdivision approved by the Planning Board in
August 2004. The proposed project is a new 2,800 3,475 square foot single family house with two
stories above ground plus a walkout basement (ground level).
Planner Haremza said that, being new and not completely understanding the sequence of how processes
work in Danby, it is possible another public hearing will be needed at the January meeting. He noted that
the reason this is before the Board for site plan review is that it is a condition of the 2004 approval of the
Beardsley Lane subdivision: any development on the first two lots fronting on Danby Rd. are required to go
to site plan review, even though that is not typical for a single family home. The project’s architect, John
Barradas noted that the proposal is for a single family home and mother-in-law apartment, as that is a
possibility on the ground floor.
Board Member Gagnon gave a brief history of the subdivision. He said that it was called a conservation
subdivision or a cluster subdivision, even though that may seem strange given how extensive it is—it was
working with the two-acre zoning at the time. It deviated from what was originally submitted as a standard
subdivision in that there was an attempt made to keep the houses off the fields. There were two agricultural
frontage lots created, of which the lot in question is one, with enough additional land included that was not
field with the hope that the houses could be tucked in the corners and kept off the fields. He noted that this
proposal does not much resemble that intent.
Planner Haremza passed out a document from the approved 2004 subdivision with the conditions noted on
the map: “House construction on Lots 1 & 2 shall require site plan approval from the Planning Board. The
intent is to construct the house in or near the woods so the integrity of the existing field is maintained.”
Board Member Davis asked Gagnon if the purpose was aesthetics or conservation, and Gagnon said it was
both to conserve the agricultural land and to minimize the visual and aesthetic impacts. He noted that the
intent was already violated with the site plan review of Lot 1 as the applicant was allowed to build in the
middle of the field. Davis clarified that there is no current agriculture there, and Gagnon said that was true,
rather the lots were suited to agriculture.
Rundle said that the proposed house appeared to be right in the middle of the field in Lot 2, and asked
Gagnon what house location he thought would be consistent with the agreed upon intent of the subdivision.
Gagnon said in the woods tucked in the corner would be consistent. The lot lines and the setbacks were
discussed. Barradas noted that the reason they located the house in its proposed location is to be in line
with the other house—they had located it closer to the road but paid extra, in terms of line and gravel, to
have it moved back so it was not so prominent. Barradas clarified that currently there is a hole in the
ground, but they have not moved forward on the project since.
3
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
Bergman asked Gagnon about the other house that did not follow the plan and if any specifics had been
given. Gagnon said Lots 1 and 2 are both bigger than the other lots in the subdivision in order to spare
most of the field, and the intention was to tuck the house in a corner to maintain as much of the agricultural
land as possible. He thought the other lots had a building envelope, but that was not done on the
agricultural lots; the only guidance is the intent written on the map.
Rundle asked the project’s architect John Barradas for a brief presentation about the proposal. Barradas
had brought a 3D miniature model of the house, which he showed the Board. He said it would be 2,800 sq.
ft. with two and half stories, the ground floor, first floor, and second floor. Davis asked about the slope and
grade, to which Barradas said it will be flat around the house. Rundle noted the visual impact is substantial.
Other possible locations on the site were discussed.
The public hearing was opened at 7:31p.m.
The closest neighbor, Andy Cove (111 Beardsley Lane), said that the part of the integrity of the
development and what gives it its look and feel is that every property has trees between the houses. If the
proposed house were to move to the west, closer to his property, they would lose that integrity and have
virtually no trees between his property and the one in question. He spoke out against moving the house any
closer than it is now to his property. Rundle asked him to show where his house is located on the map, and
Mr. Cove noted that the aerial view map the Board was looking at was an old picture, and there is only a
swath of trees currently remaining. Barradas described why they selected the house location they did and
location was again discussed.
Mr. Cove said that there are extensive subdivision documents on file with the County. They laid out the
stormwater lines and areas and had details about the clay soil. They were filed with the subdivision at the
time. Gagnon said the SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) mapped this out. Richards asked if
the current owners were aware of the requirements when they bought the property and whether this was
done knowingly or unknowingly. Barradas said it was sold by an attorney and the buyer knew of the
Homeowner’s Association. In that there is a clause about Lots 1 and 2 being the purview of the Town, but
they were not previously aware about the lots being special even if they should have been. He said he was
just asked to design the building, and he considered the setbacks and requirements he knew of; he does
recognize there are situations they have to adhere to.
Rundle said he felt the project should be resubmitted in light of the discussion. Planner Haremza
recommended the applicant meet with him before submitting to go over the requirements. Seeing no
objections, it was agreed to proceed thusly. It was thought that the project would not be ready for a public
hearing at the next meeting, and the usual order of events for reviewing a site plan was discussed. Gagnon
said that the Board has felt the public should be encouraged to participate in the process as early as
possible so they do not feel it is a foregone conclusion when the public hearing happens. It helps if the
Board knows what the project entails and can let the applicant know if it is consistent with what the Board is
4
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
expecting or if there are major problems with it before the Public Hearing. The Board currently tends to let
the public comment informally at the meetings, and then there is the formal Public Hearing.
The public hearing was held open until the following month.
CASE #2: SUB-2019-02 Consider Minor Subdivision Approval
Project: Lisbe subdivision
Location: West side of Dawes Hill Road; Tax Parcel 26.-1-12.22
Applicant: Edward Lisbe
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public hearing, Environmental determination,
Subdivision approval
Project Description: The Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.52 acre parcel from the existing
54.26 acre vacant parcel located on the west side of Dawes Hill Road. 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. The property is located within Tompkins County Agricultural District #2.
No construction is proposed at this time.
Ed Lisbe described the application. He has owned the property for about 25 years. Some friends have been
looking for land and they thought they could afford a couple of acres. They went around the property and
selected the area proposed. The buyers do not have immediate plans to build, but maybe will in five years.
Rundle said there is a requirement of 200’ road frontage, and Mr. Lisbe said this is 202’. Dan Hoffman, Mr.
Lisbe’s lawyer, said the potential buyer does not live in New York State and will be making a trip in January
with the hopes of closing.
Rundle said usually the Board has a draft resolution as a basis for action, but this is not a complicated
issue. Haremza said any comments or conditions on the approval could be made now and voted on, and
then he will draft the resolution.
The public hearing was opened at 7:58 p.m.
No comments were made during the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m.
Regarding the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the usual procedure was briefly discussed,
and it was agreed to continue that discussion at a later time. In Part 1, Haremza suggested, and it was
agreed to, that the response to question 5(a), “Is the proposed action a permitted use under the zoning
regulations?” should be changed from “N/A” to “yes.” The Board reached a consensus that the proposed
5
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
subdivision, keeping in mind that there is no construction proposed at this time, would not have any
negative impact on the environment.
MOTION: Find there is no significant environmental impact.
Moved by Gagnon, seconded by Richards
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Gagnon, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
MOTION: Approve the subdivision as proposed.
Moved by Gagnon, seconded by Bergman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Gagnon, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
(6) DESIGN GUIDELINES COMMITTEE
Regarding the document titled “DRAFT Commercial Design Guidelines for Site Plan Review,” graphics had
now been added and the reference under landscaping to “native plants” removed, being perceived as too
restrictive. The document was created by the Design Guidelines Committee (Davis, Gagnon, Scriber) in
conjunction with Planner Haremza. Davis pointed out that this is not zoning, it is guidelines. Haremza said
he had spoken with the Town Attorney who recommended that both the Planning Board and the Town
Board adopt these guidelines. The Planning Board would pass them as an internal document for site plan
review, and then they would advance to the Town Board to be included in the Zoning Ordinance, at which
point a public hearing would be held. Rundle summarized that there were two pieces to consider, adoption
by the Planning Board and recommendation to the Town Board to adopt the guidelines.
Gagnon noted that these guidelines are focused specifically on commercial and would have no bearing on
houses. The bigger issue of minimizing the aesthetic and environmental impacts of where things get built
could be dealt with by something like this guidance that would cover residential properties.
MOTION: (1) Adopt these guidelines as a guidance document for the Planning Board to use in site plan
review, and (2) recommend changes to the Zoning Ordinance Section 805 to include this in the site plan
review section.
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Gagnon
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Gagnon, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
Bergman gave thanks to the committee and Haremza and commented that this idea, which had seemed
onerous at first, had now turned into something. Scriber said that the Board was making progress and
thought that the format of having a discussion as a whole Board to see if they were in the same place and
6
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
then moving forward on the issue worked well. Davis said that the committee of three was a really efficient
way to address the issue.
(6a) DISCUSSION OF AG DISTRICT #1
Planner Haremza presented the Board with a map of Ag District #1 that was color-coded to show properties
that were of high, medium, or low priority to be removed. He said that, as guest presenter Monika Roth of
Cooperative Extension alluded to last month, it can be tough to get clear data on what is in or out of the ag
district. He said hopefully this version of the map uses the freshest data. There are no proposed changes in
the southern-most region of the district. The Board has some option to consider: they could be aggressive
in removing parcels by taking out parcels marked in red, orange, and yellow; they could be more
conservative and only take out the red, high-priority parcels; or they could be middle-of-the-road and take
out the red and orange. The Board should provide direction on which option they think is best, and then
they can go parcel by parcel.
Haremza also described how the map was made. Initially he selected every parcel less than five acres in
the ag district and then looked at continuity and use of the land based on assessor’s land use codes; he did
not get to field check parcels. The lots in Beardsley Lane are marked in red, but the first two lots, left large
for potential agriculture as discussed previously, are marked in orange. There are 8,700+ acres in Ag
District #1 in the Town of Danby. The red, orange, and yellow parcels on the map represent 927 acres, or
10.5% of the district. In response to a question from Rundle about how Haremza decided to color code the
properties, Haremza said that traditional, modern, residential subdivisions like Beardsley Lane were
marked red. The red tended to be clusters of small lots, orange could be a cluster of slightly larger parcels,
and the yellow could be larger parcels still and maybe surrounded by existing ag land.
Rundle said that he keeps coming back to that all the ag district does is make it harder for neighbors to
object to some activity going on. Haremza said that it also potentially brings the weight of a State agency to
defend the landowner against complaints. Richards asked if it affects the Town’s ability to regulate land
use, to which there was a chorus of “yeses,” which led Richards to say that the Board should remove as
much as possible. Rundle and Davis agreed. Davis said that they should be aggressive, particularly given
the Town has a “right to farm” law already. He had sent an email regarding the case of a winery in
Cazenovia, to which he then referred, saying it was an event center disguised as a winery. Rundle said he
was concerned that Ag & Markets was taking a more expansive view of what agriculture is, and that can
start to become a problem for the Town. Haremza said that it may come as a bit of a surprise to the State
that municipalities are more skeptical of the way modern agriculture is now defined and promoted by the
State. Rundle added that some uses are debatable whether they are farming or not. Davis brought up the
case of liquid manure being potentially protected by Ag & Markets.
Gagnon said that this is a sea change as the Town of Danby has historically been very supportive of
agriculture. Every other time it has been a matter of ought things be added rather than subtracted. Richards
7
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
said there is nothing negative against agriculture in what they are doing, to which a number of Board
members voiced agreement. Secretary de Villiers commented that as a small sheep farmer in the Town of
Candor, the discussion had led her to want to be in an ag district after learning about it through the
meetings of the Danby Planning Board. When asked to explain why, she said it seemed that many people
want a say in what you are doing with your land, and she was very concerned what would happen if
someone moved in who did not like a farming practice (or noise). She absolutely would want the support of
the State behind her to say that she was practicing regular farming. She noted that with all agriculture there
is the problem of separating small farms and mega farms. Davis said that in the Town of Danby the right to
farm law would cover what de Villiers brought up, and Richards added that the small parcels being taken
out would not be where an issue would be. Gagnon said that de Villiers’ point was relevant because the
Town of Danby would not go to bat for a landowner. The right to farm law would only be something for the
landowner to cite if they end up in court; they would have to defend themselves. Ted Crane asked, if that is
the case, what is the point of the right to farm law. Gagnon said it gives farmers something to point to in
court and was supposed to have a notification requirement that agriculture is permitted everywhere in the
Town.
Crane said that it is not that Danby is anti-farming, they are pro-farming, but against the definition of
agriculture as it stands at the State level, which would permit residential neighborhoods to be invaded by
surprise. He shared some maps that he had put together classifying properties by size of parcel. He
pointed out that all the roads are surrounded by smaller parcels and there are about 350 parcels in Ag
District #1 of which 160 are five acres or less. He said his maps generally agree with that of Haremza, but
he might have more red, which could be worth looking at.
Town Councilperson Connors said that there are still horse farms and fields are still hayed in the E. Miller
Rd. and Nelson Rd. area, and so are the fields between Hornbrook Rd. and Steam Mill Rd. She said she
was anxious to just be looking at size—mushrooms and beekeeping do not need ten acres. She looked at
specific parcels on Haremza’s map and mostly she agreed with them except for the two small parcels on
Nelson Rd. that might be where the Youth Farm is and she was wondering about the large yellow sections
on Muzzy Rd. Davis said that taking parcels out of the ag district would not change things for them (small
farm producers). Haremza said that the larger parcels on Muzzy he included because Roth had included
them. He said that the Board can ground-check the map over the next month, but it is a good starting point
for the discussion. There is still time for one more meeting before recommendations need to be made.
Crane said that there are tools out there to help, the Board just needs to decide the parameters. Gagnon
said the other question is how many small properties might want the protections of the ag district. Rundle
concluded that the Board would look at the map and consider the parcels, particularly the yellow. Haremza
asked Board members to send a list of their thoughts on parcels to him and he would compile their
suggestions.
(7) DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE PREPARATION OF INTERIM ZONING CHANGES
8
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
9
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
This agenda item was not addressed due to time constraints.
(8) PLANNER’S REPORT
Town Planner Haremza reported the following:
• Regarding the housing conditions survey, funded through a CDBG (Community Development
Block Grant) grant, the Town has received at least ten paper responses and two more through the
Danby Area News.
• Regarding a municipal housing affordability grant targeting the Danby hamlet, the Town authorized
Haremza to sign on its behalf to encumber the County funds. The timeline for the grant will go to
December 2020 to finalize the scope of work and get a consultant. The thrust would be for a legal
consultant to figure out a legal, bureaucratic framework to accommodate wastewater systems that
may cross property lines. The County Health Department is reluctant to sign off on a larger parcel
accommodating the leach field of a neighboring smaller parcel, but there might be legal structures
that could be put in place to make the County comfortable allowing that in order to promote
development in the hamlets and increase housing affordability.
• Code Officer Steve Cortright has started, and it is wonderful to have a full-time Code Officer.
(9) ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
Rundle said one item is the process for resolutions, and it was agreed Haremza and Rundle would discuss
this prior to the meeting. In January it was decided to keep the meeting on Thursday January 16th, but
Rundle asked if in the future Tuesdays would work for other Board members; it seemed that they would,
and he suggested discussing it further at the January meeting.
(10) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00pm.
___________________________________________
Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary