Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeb 25, 2020 PG Draft MinutesTown of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Planning Group February 25, 2020 DRAFT CORE GROUP ATTENDANCE: TB: Town Board, PB: Planning Board, BZA: Board of Zoning Appeals, CAC: Conservation Advisory Council Present: Leslie Connors (TB), Sarah Schnabel (TB), Earl Hicks (BZA), George Adams (CAC), Katherine Hunter (CAC), Jonathan Zisk (CAC) Absent: Scott Davis (PB), Kathy Jett (PB), Elana Maragni (PB), Bruce Richards (PB), Toby Dean (BZA), Claire Fewtrell (CAC), Ruth Sherman (CAC) OTHER ATTENDANCE: Chair Joel Gagnon (TB) Town Planner Jason Haremza Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Others Steve Barber, Jenny Caldwell (Deputy Town Clerk), Margaret Corbit, Ted Crane, Annette Feeney, Kevin Feeney, Deawn Hersini, Marnie Kirchgessner, Richard Lazarus, Kim Nitchman, Russ Nitchman, Ronda Roaring, John Vandenberg, Sander Vandill SECRETARY’S SUMMARY This was the first meeting of the Planning Group, created by Town Board resolution to engage the public and act in an advisory capacity to the Town Board. Town Supervisor Joel Gagnon, who was appointed chair of the Group by the Town Board, opened by describing the purpose for the group, including considering the type of development Danby wants moving forward, how to preserve open space and rural character, and how promote a future vision for the Town. One question he posed to the group was whether they should focus on enacting some interim measures as a placeholder or dive into tackling the big picture. Topics discussed at the meeting included ideas of what a placeholder might look like, current lot size and subdivision requirements, the tax burden on large landowners who are helping to preserve open space, how to reach members of the public most effectively, and building community. The next meeting will be March 3rd at 8 p.m. INTRODUCTION 1  PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES  Chair Gagnon asked everyone to introduce themselves. He then opened by explaining why the group exists. It came to be because planning is important to him, and he believes the Town is not well- positioned with respect to planning. The Zoning Ordinance is 30 years old, the Comprehensive Plan is 17 years old, and the Zoning Ordinance is promoting a development pattern that is inconsistent with the vision in the Comprehensive Plan. He said he and others are not happy with the result of that proceeding over time. Thus the charge of the Group will be to look at big picture planning and make recommendations to the Town Board to put in place measures to promote the vision for the Town. There is currently a vision in the Comprehensive Plan. The question is how to tackle this, by looking at the vision first or address the regulations first. He asked whether the Group should do something in the interim or launch directly into the big picture. In response to a question from Russ Nitchman as to what exactly was upsetting about how development was proceeding, Gagnon said that right now development is promoted along the existing roads, but carried out to its logical extreme this leads to lining all the roads with houses, which looks like suburbia, even with undeveloped acreage behind those frontage lots. This is inconsistent with the vision of Danby as a rural place, fragments the environment, chops up agricultural land, and is not conservation subdivision. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan calls for concentrating development in the hamlets, but almost nothing has been built in the hamlets in the last 40 years that is “hamlet.” Thus it is a twofold problem. In addition, the Town is not creating affordable housing. People are moving to Danby because they like the rural character of the Town, but the more people move here the less rural character there is to like. Later in the meeting, Planner Haremza read the vision for the Town as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and asked attendees to consider whether they feel it still applies. Interim Measures vs. Big Picture Nitchman noted that the zoning has had some changes in the last 20 years including going from two acre lots with 150’ of road frontage to five acre lots with 200’ of frontage. Gagnon acknowledged there have been some changes, and that it is still two acre lots along the road. Gagnon said that, historically speaking, people did not want to go to the Planning Board to subdivide their land. Thus when the subdivision regulations were amended in 2007, it was suggested to allow one legacy lot every ten years as well as large lots of 20+ acres by permit. This was then reduced before being passed, and later reduced further, to the current state of a lot every three years or lots of 8+ acres being considered a minor subdivision. He said he feels this is complicated and noted there are currently only two zones in Town, high density and low density. Having two zones is not very subtle and does not recognize that there are some parts of Town that are more important to conserve than others. Gagnon noted the Town Board was not keen to entertain any moratorium, but one idea he had was for a limited moratorium only on standard subdivisions (3+ lots) while leaving minor subdivisions alone. Another idea would be to put the numbers regarding subdivisions by permit back to the way they were and have a moratorium on larger subdivisions for one year. To this point, later in the meeting Ted Crane asked how 2  PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES  many subdivisions were major versus minor. He thought most were minor, so regarding a possible moratorium on major subdivisions, most of what is damaging would still go on. Gagnon said that the Town did down-zone from two-acre to five-acre density, but since they left the requirement as two acres along the roads and no one has developed the back acreage, it essentially has stayed at two acres. Since down-zoning, Danby has not had any development proposals for back acreage, but they are not happening anywhere else in the County either as it is expensive to put in the roads. Most of the recent construction in the County is apartment complexes rather than single-family homes. It has not happened in Danby because the Town does not have the infrastructure. What Danby has been getting is single-family houses on individual lots lining the roads. Haremza provided some statistics on houses per year: Between 1971 and 1978 the Town averaged 18 single-family dwellings per year. He believes there was then a spike in the ‘80s. In the past five years, the Town has averaged ten per year. Last year there were six. Leslie Connors (TB) said she would want some agreement on what the problem is before considering something as drastic as a moratorium. Is it the development along the roads or trying to encourage development in the hamlets? Gagnon said that encouraging development in the hamlets, but that does not address the fragmentation. Katherine Hunter (CAC) said that instead of stating the problem, the Group could think about what the visions people have for the Town are. She thinks of it as, “Let’s not ‘Ithaca’ Danby” and suggested figuring out a way to keep something people want. She said her vision might not be the same as someone else’s so having a start point for vision might be helpful. George Adams said that he has five acres, but he likes someone else’s acreage not having stuff on it. He asked if it was possible to affect taxes to compensate people who forgo development because otherwise he thought that there would be resistance to what could be seen as a soft take. Gagnon agreed that there is a compromise between individual property rights and the development density of the Town. Because most of the Town is at five-acre density, if you did a build-out analysis, you could put one lot for every five acres. If you cluster the houses in a conservation subdivision, the landowner is still entitled to the same number of lots, but it is possible to leave some open space. In a realty subdivision, with individual wells and septic, all the available land ends up being developed. Ronda Roaring said she thought they should deal with the vision first. She brought up a questionnaire that was sent out by the Dobsons in 1998, in which many landowners answered and said they wanted to preserve the rural character of the Town. She felt the order would be to first look at the vision, then outline the problems in achieving it, and then trying to tackle the various and many problems, which depend on where in the Town one is. To inform the vision, she recommended going back to this 1998 document as she felt it would still be important to people today. Gagnon said that that survey did inform the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan, so one could argue for working with the vision that is there now in order to change the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance. Russ Nitchman said the survey was 22 years ago and that he felt today was a different situation. Land then was assessed much lower and there 3  PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES  are new problems. He suggested focusing on what the Group was in agreement on and said the situation is not sustainable for large landowners right now. Nitchman said that when planning a hamlet they need to talk to landowners first so there is no waste of time and money for a plan that is going nowhere, as he felt was the case during a previous iteration of hamlet planning (for the Hamlet Revitalization Plan). He said he thought it would benefit the Town to have some stores and businesses. Connors said the Hamlet Revitalization Plan was a vision, and one thing that was suggested that people mostly liked was a cluster development across the street from the Town Hall. Now a property owner is talking of doing something with those lots, but it still takes a developer. TAXES ON LARGE LANDOWNERS Russ Nitchman said that one crisis in the Town is that large landowners are footing the bill for open space. He said that the assessed tax was $1,000/acre, then $2,000/acre when it changed to being based on market value, and now is $2,500/acre with the potential to go up further with properties like one on Comfort Rd. selling for $5–6,000/acre. With property values going through the roof, large landowners are getting killed. He personally does not want to do a subdivision and likes the open space, but said he feels it is not sustainable. Somebody has to say, if we’re really a Town for open space, we have to help our large landowners afford their land. He said that Assessment says they have to follow State and local laws—could the Town pass a local law to lower assessments on large lots? That would allow large landowners to keep their land and let others enjoy the land and views. Marnie Kirchgessner said that used to be the practice and larger lot owners got a break, but it changed 7–8 years ago. Gagnon agreed that the Town has a lot of at-risk land where people are being forced to sell by being assessed at market value. Deawn Hersini said that she is originally from Missouri and where different tax rates for farm and conservation land as compared to residential land. Gagnon noted that there is ag assessment and there is the possibility of conservation easements, but currently the Assessment Department insists that putting a conservation easement on a property does not change the value of the land. However, he felt that if the land cannot be developed and therefore cannot command a price of X, then X is not the market value. The land is worth what people are willing to pay for it on the market. Ted Crane said that one thing Jim Thatcher said last night (a consultant who presented the Community Housing Needs Assessment to the Town Board) was that Danby has something for everyone—houses on 96B, larger lots off the main road, zoning by owning, and open space—and of these only large open spaces need protection. He offered a quote to the effect of, “The biggest product of Danby agriculture these days is building lots.” He noted that “zoning by owning” allows people to own only a few acres but have value because their neighbor has not built. He said County Assessment is based on State standards and they raised the value of open land, but an acre on the road should be worth more than interior acres until a road is built, so you have to consider road frontage versus interior. He said that raising taxes on large parcels does not necessarily generate more income, only shifts the burden from small to large lots. 4  PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES  Margaret Corbit summarized the dilemma as many do not feel the way open land is being assessed is appropriate and does not meet the vision going forward. There was much brainstorming about ideas of how to get around this including an open space exemption, going to the State to ask for Danby to be an example to see if the Town can maintain open lands, declaring conservation zones and evaluating them differently, the Town doing their own assessments, removing property from the tax base if under conservation easement, and leasing back some land for open space and generating tax base from appropriate development. It was agreed a committee would be formed. Gagnon said that the State mandates how property is assessed in New York State and the Town cannot say a property will be valued at less than the market would pay for it. He felt it was likely there was not a lot the Town can do, although he said he was not at all resistant to the idea of someone looking into it. Cost of service studies show that land does not demand much in services and pays more in taxes than it ever requires in services. He did an analysis ten years ago in an adjoining county looking at what would happen if you exempted all the land from taxes, and at the time it would have only raised the taxes on the remaining properties six percent. The improvements pay most of the taxes, not the land. He pointed out that the Town could not take away the school tax or County tax. Crane said that the Town could take a stand, take the issue to the legislature, and work it through the political process. Gagnon said the State policy is to encourage development where infrastructure already exists, which condemns communities who do not have the infrastructure (like Danby) to sprawl. There needs to be a mechanism to do higher density, so there would have to be some sharing of systems like well and septic. Jonathan Zisk (CAC) mentioned that cluster-housing with pie-shaped lots also works. Gagnon gave the example of a 100-acre lot that at five-acre density you can create 20 lots. Five-acre lots would cover the whole 100 acres, two-acre lots would cover less than half the acreage and conserve open space, and with quarter-acre lots almost all the parcel could be conserved as open space. Corbit pointed out that then they would have to pay tax on the surrounding land, to which Gagnon said that it could be protected by conservation easement and then not be developable. Zisk said that to drive the change in assessments, one would need ten years of comparables. GROUP LOGISTICS AND EFFICACY Crane said the Group had identified one subject for discussion, reevaluating taxation and tax burden. He suggested setting aside some time to look at short-term proposals and time for visioning. He thought they should set out a working plan for where they want to go. Gagnon returned to the initial question of whether to leave the current rules in place or make strategic changes as a placeholder while the Town does the revisioning. His suggestion was to change the numbers in the subdivision regulations and combine that with a moratorium on major subdivisions. Then the priority could be to look at where the priority conservation areas in the Town are. He suggested they would be steep slopes, wetlands, unique natural areas, and viable agricultural land. Roaring added riparian habitat and bordering State land, and Connors added open fields. Gagnon said the CAC has now completed the open space inventory, with 5  PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES  which one can look at a map of the Town with layers based on a variety of parameters such as slopes, drainage, or soils. Crane asked how Gagnon would avoid backlash to proposed changes. Gagnon said he thought changes were mishandled in 2007, and he thought a complete moratorium was a real problem but advocated for a limited moratorium. Kirchgessner said she did not think they should pretend that that would not make people upset, and Gagnon said you could count on it. Gagnon said he wants people at the table and not showing up last minute—he wants to know what people want up front. Roaring said the Group was a good beginning, and they would need to do a better job communicating with the community. Some problems like high taxes were not going to be resolved overnight, and the Town would need to be thoughtful about any legislation and it would have to work from the perspective of real properties. She felt the Group needed to do some things they could do quickly, but they needed to decide on a vision. Schnabel (TB) said that it would be possible to do both at the same time, come up with a vision and investigate what the Town can do with the taxes. As an administrative caveat, Crane asked if having three members of the Town Board present discussing Town business meant it was a meeting of the Town Board, and thus the Town Clerk would be needed to take minutes. Gagnon felt it was a public meeting but not a Town Board meeting. Crane recommended that when breaking up into smaller working groups there should not be a quorum for any Town-appointed board on them. Gagnon said the small groups should also have notes taken, and the whole Group should receive feedback from them. The intent is the process is open and participatory so people can know what their government is up to and plug in when it interest them. Gagnon suggested the Group have separate working groups to tackle issues. He also explained the voting structure. Those who were appointed as the Core Group are voting members at the outset. Everyone else can become a voting member if they attend one of the previous two meetings; anyone present at this meeting will be a voting member next meeting. You have to have attended one of the previous two meetings to remain a voting member. This way people can miss every other meeting and still vote but start over again if they miss two meetings in a row. Haremza suggested a regular meeting time, and first Tuesdays at 7 p.m. were tentatively agreed upon. The next meeting would then be March 3rd; it would be at 8 p.m. to accommodate an extra meeting of the Planning Board. Hunter said that having some visual examples to use when talking to people might make the Group more welcoming and explain that zoning is a good thing. In response to a comment from Hunter about saving Danby, Kirchgessner said most people do not feel Danby is threatened, and Hunter said that she feels it is. Hersini said she supported public relations as a way to introduce topics and noted that it is harder to talk people out of being upset. Sander Vandill said that as a visual communicator he could help with something like that. Roaring said there are trusted individuals in each area of the Town who should be personally invited to participate and who could then take information back to more people. It was agreed a committee would be formed. 6  PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES  Corbit talked about building a Danby community, saying that much progress had been made in the last five to ten years, thanks in part to the Danby Area News. She said there are nuggets of great stuff in Danby like the success of the Danby Seniors. She thought something could be tied to hamlet revitalization and could build the tax base and suggested reviewing what other communities do and how they fund it. She suggested a future committee that could look at who uses programs and does activities and where they fit in. Zisk said he thought this idea was vital. Gagnon said he could send the Group some options regarding possibilities for interim changes. Crane said it would be a great idea for people to submit short-term ideas to Gagnon, and then he could summarize them and send them back out to the group. How much email was going to be used was discussed. Schnabel suggested setting and agenda and sticking to it for future meetings. Gagnon said you have to be flexible in the beginning until you scope out how to approach the issue, and he said he thought the meeting was terrific. Kirchgessner suggested going around the table and asking people why they came, although the group did not get to this. She said she felt she did not have enough personal background to make certain decisions, like whether a moratorium is a good idea. She would like to figure how to solicit the right kind of developers to get the development they would like to see. Corbit pointed out people can abstain on a vote. Gagnon said what and where are the big questions. He said the Group is advisory and the Town Board is ultimately responsible to the people, and that is why the process will be as open and participatory as possible to reflect the will of the general population in Danby. He suggested the Group should try to reach a consensus on recommendations to the extent that no one strongly objects. Roaring said there was a 1965 plan that was supposed to be a 50 year plan. She felt they failed terribly, and she would like to see the Town come up with a 50 year plan that does its best to resolve the Town’s problems and sets it up for people in the future. Gagnon agreed and said that whatever plan they come up with, they should be able to say if this were followed to completion, we would be happy with it. COMMITTEE CREATION It was agreed that two committees would be formed, one to address the tax burden on large landowners and the other to work on positively engaging the public. Corbit suggested the possibility of a third focusing on community revitalization in the future. Tax Committee Purpose: Given that taxes per acre have gone up drastically and given that many enjoy the benefits of open space that landowners of large tracts of land provide, as well as that rural character is part of the Town’s vision, this committee plans to look at possible ways to alleviate the high taxes that would lead landowners to repeatedly subdivide. Ideas floated included speaking to the County and State legislature to see what is possible. (Summarized by Secretary) 7  PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES  8  PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES  Starting Members (7): George Adams, Ted Crane, Annette Feeney, Kevin Feeney, Russ Nitchman, Sarah Schnabel, Jonathan Zisk Public Outreach Committee Purpose: This committee plans to reach out to members of the community to increase engagement and participation and will consider developing materials to easily explain to residents what the Group’s purpose and goals are. (Summarized by Secretary) Starting Members (4): Ted Crane, Deawn Hersini, Katherine Hunter, Sander Vandill ADJOURNMENT . ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary