Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMar 03, 2020 PG Draft MinutesTown of Danby Minutes of Planning Group March 3, 2020 DRAFT CORE GROUP ATTENDANCE: TB: Town Board, PB: Planning Board, BZA: Board of Zoning Appeals, CAC: Conservation Advisory Council Present: Leslie Connors (TB), Scott Davis (PB), Kathy Jett (PB), Elana Maragni (PB), Bruce Richards (PB), Earl Hicks (BZA), Katharine Hunter (CAC), Jonathan Zisk (CAC) Absent: Sarah Schnabel (TB), Toby Dean (BZA), George Adams (CAC), Claire Fewtrell (CAC), Ruth Sherman (CAC) OTHER ATTENDANCE: Chair Joel Gagnon (TB) Town Planner Jason Haremza Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Others Ted Crane, Annette Feeney, Kevin Feeney, Deawn Hersini, Marnie Kirchgessner, Richard Lazarus, Guillermo Metz, Ronda Roaring SECRETARY’S SUMMARY In this second meeting of the Planning Group, the focus was on whether to enact interim changes to the zoning or begin immediately focusing on the bigger picture. One possible interim change discussed was a limited moratorium on standard subdivisions, although this was not the only option presented. Those in attendance offered thoughts both for and against interim changes, and at the end of the meeting a vote was taken. The vote was if people were “in favor of interim changes at this time” with 6 yeas, 8 nays, and 1 abstain. Thus it was agreed to focus on the bigger picture and visioning. Consensus about the meaning of rural character, looking at areas to preserve, and looking at areas where development would be appropriate came up as major themes. It was decided to form two working groups, one to look at unique areas of the Town to preserve and the other to focus on development, although membership in these groups was not decided. The next meeting will be April 7th at 7 p.m. The meeting was opened at 8:06pm. INTRODUCTION Everyone introduced themselves. Chair Gagnon said the first decision was whether or not to make interim changes before tackling the larger planning questions as these will take time. He made a proposal 1  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  at the last meeting, and he had emailed the group with a summary of this and two other options. He said the group left off at whether to enact interim changes or not, and if so, what. DISCUSSION Kevin Feeney (375 Gunderman Rd.) asked how long the existing rules have been in existence. Gagnon said basically the Zoning Ordinance has not changed substantially since 2007, although the structure goes back longer. Feeney said it seemed like it had served fairly well for a long time. Gagnon said that the rules in the Zoning Ordinance since 1965 have promoted building along the existing roads, which made sense in the beginning, but there comes a point when all the roads are lined with houses, which looks like suburbia. This creates many frontage lots. Feeney asked about long driveways, and Gagnon said he thinks this has saved the Town as building away from the road has helped to retain the rural character. He noted that houses in the middle of fields really affects rural character. Gagnon raised the idea of cluster subdivisions, in which houses are grouped to preserve more open space. He said a process for this had been proposed in 2007. Feeney said he was for preserving the rural character of the Town but was not sure that taking a lot and putting in a corner of suburbia was really preserving the rural character; he said it was like more suburbia in that one spot, which is what many are trying to get away from. He also was not sure this was a model everyone would want to fit into. Gagnon gave the examples of Olde Towne Village versus (White Hawk) Ecovillage versus Beardsley Lane. Ted Crane (Slow Lane) said there was an in-between where houses are grouped but further apart than in Ecovillage. Deawn Hersini (200 Buttermilk Lane) said that when someone builds in Olde Towne Village they can only remove as many trees as is absolutely necessary. This gives the sense of being further apart because of the forested areas between the houses, what Kathy Jett (PB) called the illusion of privacy. Hersini said that for subdivisions she thinks this is a better approach, keeping it as natural around the houses as possible. Gagnon pointed out that if there is not the possibility of shared water, then the housing cluster distribution is more like in Beardsley Lane. He said that it is relatively easy to have a shared water system and septic under one ownership, but if you want to own lots individually, this is hard. The Town will be looking into this further through a grant. Gagnon thought it would be a hard sell for the Town to get municipal services except possibly for new development, which could enable tight clusters or hamlet density. Kevin Feeney asked what the definition of the “hamlet” is. Marnie Kirchgessner (74 W. Jersey Hill Rd.) said it used to be where the grocery store and hardware store were and where the fire department is. Scott Davis (PB) suggested approximately the 40-m.p.h. zone, and Gagnon said that is about what is on the map now, and there is also one in West Danby. Hersini said that with regard to a moratorium, she was neutral but felt that calling it a temporary hold would be better because moratorium has a sense of finality to it. This was briefly discussed. Leslie Connors (TB) said she wanted a clear sense of what the problem is. She noted that the number of housing units and subdivisions have gone down. One person is interested in doing a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) 2  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  across the street. She felt people who are retiring would want to sell off five acres at a time. Kevin Feeney added, what is driving the need to do something quickly? Gagnon said he felt that there were two problems: (1) the lining of the roads with houses, and (2) the Town said it wanted to concentrate development in the hamlets, but the regulations do not promote this. He said that if others do not share this view, immediate action might not be needed. Connors said she agreed with the second problem Gagnon mentioned. Ronda Roaring (571 South Danby Rd.) said she thought there were as many views as people in the room. She felt that the issue was not just proximity to the road but visibility; she gave an example of a house with a long driveway that you could see and another that was close but not visible. She said one option through planning is to make sure houses are less visible by having bushes and shrubs in front but not infringing on the land by siting them to use the least amount of land for the plat. She said she is opposed to clustering because it puts a lot of people into Danby who then need to be funneled to Ithaca. She would like to see Danby be a place where more people work from home, farm, or do activities that base them in Danby so they do not need to commute. Gagnon agreed that visibility was an important factor, and said the Town could require site plan review. Katharine Hunter (601 W. King Rd.) said this was a complicated issue, and people would need to know the rules before buying land. Regarding the overall problem, she said that Dandy-type businesses moving in was a concern, as was the question of how to help large landowners with taxes so they can feel comfortable keeping their land, as identified at the previous meeting. She felt the issue was bigger than each person’s individual concerns. Kirchgessner asked the question, how exclusive do you intend to make Danby? She pointed out that to put anything in you already need to put in water and sewer, which could be prohibitive for someone like her building for her daughter. She wondered why it would be okay to also require layers of landscaping to appeal to everyone’s tastes. She felt she had paid her taxes long enough to merit respect. Gagnon said this exact issue came up in 2007, and it led to the provision for lots by permit for legacy lots and farmettes. Kirchgessner later added that she was not suggesting throwing in the towel, rather pointing out there are economics to the situation. She said that in the last meeting people expressed concerns about their land taxes and the cost of owning open space. Any development will need to drive an economy, and right now Danby is a bedroom community. She has seen the impacts of what Gagnon is concerned about and said she gets it. A lot of land used to be active farmland, and there are many more cars now, but then again the lack of density is why she cannot get reliable internet while on a fixed income. Connors said she was interested in taking a year to get the comprehensive plan redone. From the discussion she thought defining “rural character” would be important because it is not the same for everyone. To her a house on the road is better to avoid wildlife fragmentation; it is not whether she can see the house from her car. If they redid the comprehensive plan, they could get an idea of what people thought. Roaring agreed there was the need to define this. Kevin Feeney added that one reason to live in a rural area for a lot of people is to have a view, which makes sense to him and might lead someone to put a house up a hillside; there is a balance between accommodating all perspectives. 3  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  Scott Davis (PB) said he understood people’s concerns but posed the question of whether the Town wants to allow for ad hoc development or plan or manage it in some way. He said the management program would be difficult to work out, but he felt there were some commonalities. He felt you can tell when towns take planning into account. Crane said that in response to “why do this,” the answer is that right now there is virtually unrestrained ad hoc development. The current zoning contains no guidance for what is happening; for example, the Low Density Zone requires two acres, which he does not feel is low density. He said elitism is something that needs to be talked about and some of the prices these days are very high. Regarding why to do a moratorium, he read “Why Adopt Moratoria” from the NY Department of State’s “Land Use Moratoria,” including “Prevent immediate construction that might be inconsistent with the provisions of a future plan.” He said that in terms of coming up with a well-thought out plan, a moratorium is acceptable. Kevin Feeney said that rather than the whole township, if the Town wants to foster development and planning in the hamlet area, could they just focus a moratorium there? Gagnon noted there are a lot of constraints in the hamlet, and no one would be putting up a large development without the aquifer capacity. Roaring said she did not want to be addressing the original question of whether to take immediate steps at the next meeting. Jonathon Zisk (CAC) said he wanted to see more long-term data about development. Is there a rush to develop that would warrant a limited moratorium? Planner Haremza said the thoughtful commentary was heartening, but he noted the wide range of comments. He said there is a saying in the planning profession that if everyone goes home a little bit unhappy, then they did a good job. He then presented data on the number of new dwelling units per year from 1971 to the present, 851 in this time span. The Town is at about 1,500 housing units total, with the 49-year average of annual new housing at 17 units per year. Thus the Town is increasing by 1–2% per year. Zisk asked about how that growth is distributed through time, and Gagnon said it is surprisingly uniform (as seen on a graph made by Haremza). Crane passed out a map showing houses added through time. He said there is a steady rate of growth, and while 17 does not sound like very much, it means one new house in every neighborhood per year. Zisk added that it is finite space. Kevin Feeney said that the graph over time showed units tapering down, so it did not seem like a pressing problem. Gagnon said if they could ensure the rate of development would stay the same, he would be less concerned. He agreed with Crane’s characterization of the Town’s zoning in that it has not inhibited lot creation much at all. He said the Town has developed much like Newfield or Caroline, which do not have the same zoning constraints. Right now no development is being proposed anywhere, largely due to expense. In response to a comment from Roaring about problems with stormwater at Beardsley Lane, Gagnon said that you cannot say people cannot develop their land. No one wants to be told what to do with their land, but he noted that people are unwilling to invest if they do not know what to expect. Hersini said there is currently a lot of development in Ithaca and when they are finished, they might start looking around. She said, in listening to everything that has been said, she felt that some tasteful development in certain spots would make sense, with private ownership being better. She thought balanced zoning that indicates where different things are appropriate without favoring any one thing was desirable, and then the Town should also find a way to subsidize open spaces. 4  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  Connors said she would like to see where the places are the Town does not want developed or does not want infilled, and is there something the Town could do to make building happen where the Town wants it, say in the vacant houses and lots up and down 96B. Gagnon said that the CAC has created the open space inventory, which will inform identifying where the special places are in Danby that the Town does not want developed. Zisk noted that the evaluations or algorithms used for this are fundamentally arbitrary. He gave the example of a meadow and said that what makes that land “important” will vary greatly between different parties, which will be a can of worms in deciding what should be conserved. Gagnon agreed, but thought it was important to engage in that process, otherwise they are saying none of it matters. Kevin Feeney added that differing impact on landowners will also be hard to sort out because there will be a lot of taking from some people and not really much impact on others. Gagnon said there might be different rules for development in different areas, meaning you could develop, but you would have to do it more carefully. Crane said that instead of which areas should be protected, could they agree on which areas are the prime ones for development? He thought people would choose areas that they already feel are in too much development. He thought asking what each person considers to be “rural character” and working to a consensus might help identify areas that do not have that right now and so are areas the Town does not need to protect. Hunter noted there are some constraints they could take advantage of, like not enough water, that would mean certain areas are not good for development. She mentioned Reston, VA, which she said was well-planned but had problems with the tax zones. She said this has led to her deep, personal concerns and means to her the Town does need to do something. Gagnon returned to the question of doing something quick and soon or not, given that the Group will go on to the larger project regardless. Hunter said she thought doing something that slows the Town down for a little while was not something she was against. Davis asked for clarification that if there was a moratorium approved, special situations could still get relief through the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), to which Crane answered yes. Crane said that he thinks they should do something and make it as reasonable as possible, i.e. the minimum change that effects what they want. Jett asked if what they were saying was they wanted to slow down building by spreading it out over many years. Crane and Gagnon said it was more about subdivisions to create lots. Gagnon described his original suggestion again: not including large lot creation or people who have owned the land for a long time creating a lot in the moratorium, and then limiting other lot creation for one year. Connors noted last time there was talk of a moratorium, there was a rush to subdivide. She said that if there was a moratorium, what would be done in that period would need to be really clear. Gagnon said he thought the first task would be to identify where to encourage and discourage development and put in changes to protect those areas that need it. Kevin Feeney said it sounded like they were putting the cart before the horse because they do not have a mission statement, they need to blend in the different viewpoints from different sectors of the Town, and there is not a consensus on rural character. He said he was not for a moratorium as there is a range of views and they do not yet know where the consensus might end up. He added that it did not seem like there was a lot of development pressure. Gagnon said they do have a Comprehensive Plan, and the 5  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  current regulations have not been amended to be consistent with that, which is what he is proposing doing. Feeney said he could see doing that, but not doing it through a moratorium. Gagnon said much of the vision has not changed, but the specifics need to be hashed out. Roaring said that with a moratorium, meeting 12 times in the next year, could they set a goal of accomplishing most of what they want within that timeframe and commit to doing that? Crane noted that there would also be committees that can work in between meetings. Zisk said he was not sure the angle towards curtailing, towards a moratorium, was the direction to go in as a first statement of the group. Rather than saying this is where you cannot build and what you cannot do, if the Group was thinking of vision and enhancement, they should instead say what they want to encourage and the vision for where they would like building to happen. He said it may be that Danby will not get the enhanced hamlet action, but that is the direction he would like to go in as a group. He added that long driveways are a killer for fragmentation, but he did not think that was the direction the group should go in for an initial action. Gagnon said he would not want what happened in his hometown, all the farms surrounding it going to subdivisions, to happen to Danby. Kirchgessner said water and sewer drive subdivisions. She said she wanted to get to an economic development discussion, which is crucial to the tax base, and agreed with Zisk about a positive vision. Roaring said she liked the idea of a moratorium because it gives a deadline. She said the problem is the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning do not mesh. Guillermo Metz (103 Durfee Hill Rd.) asked about the current requirements in the Low Density Residential zone. Gagnon said Low Density is ~90% of the Town, and it requires 200’ of road frontage and two acres. Jett said her understanding was that they would be getting together to discuss what it is they want Danby to become in all the places, Low and High. A straw poll was taken asking about any type of interim change versus longer-term planning, although there was some confusion on the meaning of the categories. Any interim changes included Gagnon’s proposal of a limited moratorium on subdivisions, an increase in road frontage requirements, requiring site plan review, or Crane’s proposal of closing the “other uses” loophole regarding land uses allowed by special permit. Planner Haremza said he had considered “longer-term” to mean updating the fundamental documents of the Town. Haremza said that his understanding was this group would provide broader policy-level direction, and then he could come up with more specific options to present. Gagnon said he expected this group to provide the overall direction. Davis suggested the idea of getting going on things but keeping the moratorium option open might find consensus. Gagnon said this would be a gamble that nothing dramatic would happen, but if that was the way the Group thought was best to proceed, that is how they should proceed. The question then would become what to focus on first. Rick Lazarus (63 Howland Rd.) suggested focusing on the hamlet first, but he noted that then there are major infrastructure challenges, including sewage. Gagnon said there are constraints, but the Town does have a grant to help with the infrastructure question specifically and the mechanism for doing shared systems. Among the places the Town could develop, what do they want to develop, and what does the Town need to do so people feel good about the development? If the 6  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  community can agree on what it wants, it is more attractive to a developer, although he said he was not sure that they could come up with something that would be appealing given the lack of water and sewer. He added that sharing reduces costs, but whether affordable housing can be done without subsidy is something they will need to confront. He thought affordable housing would need to be on smaller lots and clustered. He said he also thought it was also important to look at the areas to protect, the conservation areas. His sense was that the Group would do some planning and then come back to the idea of a moratorium if needed. VOTE In favor of interim changes at this time? Yea (6): Crane, Gagnon, Hicks, Hunter, Maragni, Roaring Nay (8): Connors, A. Feeney, F.K. Feeney, Hersini, Jett, Lazarus, Richards, Zisk Abstain (1): Kirchgessner Gagnon said that voting members must have attended one of the last two meetings, even for core members. The vote was of those qualified to vote at this meeting. WORKING GROUP CREATION Gagnon proposed two working groups, one to focus on hamlet growth and the other on the protection of special places. It was agreed these groups would be organized via email, with the hope of meeting before the next full Group meeting (on April 7th at 7 p.m.). Connors mentioned looking at the maps and redoing the zones as a possible first step, which she noted the Planning Board had tried to get to. Gagnon said this could be done in each group and then the maps compared. Jett said, as Planner Haremza was hired to help guide them along all things planning, could he give a synopsis or nutshell of what it is they are trying to get their heads around. Priority Conservation Areas Working Group Purpose: Identify conservation areas in the Town to protect using tools including the open space inventory (natural resource inventory) created by the CAC. (Summarized by Secretary) Starting Members: TBD Hamlet Planning Working Group Purpose: Identify areas of the Town that are both suited to development and where the community would like to see development and consider what that development might look like. (Summarized by Secretary) Starting Members: TBD ADJOURNMENT 7  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  8  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  . The meeting was adjourned at 10:04pm. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary