Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApr 07, 2020 PG Draft MinutesTown of Danby Planning Group Minutes April 7, 2020 DRAFT CORE GROUP ATTENDANCE: TB: Town Board, PB: Planning Board, BZA: Board of Zoning Appeals, CAC: Conservation Advisory Council Present (8): Leslie Connors (TB), Toby Dean (BZA), Claire Fewtrell (CAC), Katharine Hunter (CAC), Elana Maragni (PB), Bruce Richards (PB), Jonathan Zisk (CAC), Joel Gagnon (Chair) Voting privileges (6): Connors, Gagnon, Hunter, Maragni, Richards, Zisk Absent (6): George Adams (CAC), Scott Davis (PB), Earl Hicks (BZA), Kathy Jett (PB), Sarah Schnabel (TB), Ruth Sherman (CAC) OTHER ATTENDANCE: Town Planner Jason Haremza Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Voting Members (4) Ted Crane, Kim Nitchman, Russ Nitchman, Ronda Roaring Adjunct Members (2) Eric Banford, Betsy Keokosky SECRETARY’S SUMMARY This was the third meeting of the Planning Group. The meeting primarily consisted of reports from each of the four working groups—tax policy, conservation, hamlets, and public outreach—which had each met at least once since the last meeting of the full Planning Group. The next meeting of the full Group will be May 5th at 7 p.m. This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:14pm. What constituted a quorum was discussed. The founding resolution says, “A quorum for decision-making will consist of a majority of the core membership, as defined above.” In this case, a quorum (eight) of the core membership was met part way into the meeting. WORKING GROUP REPORTS 1  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  Planner Haremza said that he has been providing brief summaries of each working group by email after the meetings. Tax Policy Ted Crane (Chair) reported that the group has had two meetings. They are waiting for further clarification from the Assessment Department on two questions. The first is, what are the rules used to assess land as opposed to residences or other items of value? The second is, what guidance can they give about legislation that would allow a town to alter the tax burden for larger landowners to try to avoid overtaxing people who are personally bearing the tax burden of maintaining a town’s open space policy? Crane said that Planner Haremza had drawn their attention to two towns, Bethlehem and Pittsford. In the case of Bethlehem, they passed legislation that established conservation easements of limited time periods where the tax relief is based on the length of time of the easement. The Town of Bethlehem established a board to discuss a proposal with the landowner. If approved, there is then a fixed schedule of tax abatements ranging from 50% to 95%. Crane said that Bethlehem’s law corresponds to a section in NYS Law that talks about abatements for conservation easements. Crane did not think this could apply to another town without the legislature agreeing due to the very specific language used. Gagnon said that was his understanding—that it took State-enabling legislation for these towns to do what they are doing, and Danby would have to do the same thing. Clare Fewtrell asked what was meant by “recreation,” a term Crane had used earlier to describe the easements, and did it mean the public would be allowed on the land. There was a brief discussion on this point. She also asked how long the time periods he was talking about were (for the easements). Russ Nitchman said that 15 years got you a 50% reduction, 50–75 years was an 85% reduction, and a permanent easement would be a 90% reduction. Crane later added that Section 491A (491*2) is the section of Real Property Tax Law that establishes this exception to the overall law, and he read some from this. Gagnon noted this structure is for a larger town than Danby, and it is an elaborate scheme, but because it sets a precedent, it might be easier to find support from the legislature. Fewtrell also asked about the advantages of a short-term easement compared to a long-term one, and it was agreed the Tax Group would look into this and get back to her. Crane said he had just heard back from the Assessment Department on how they are assessing land: they are now using multiple criteria set by NY State, much in the same way as they would assess structures on the property. In terms of the second question the group had asked, the summarized response was that they would be happy to help, but it is up to the legislature. R. Nitchman said (assessment of) $2,500 per acre is standard, but with the selling price of land prices now, you might see $4,000 or higher soon. He said it is unaffordable as it is and the burden is overwhelming, as much as he loves the land. Unless the Town does something about it, it will chase landowners away and force them to sell. Conservation Joel Gagnon (Chair) said the group had met once so far and had discussed how to go about identifying the important conservation areas in the Town. They agreed to use the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) as a starting place. Everyone was asked to pick the top three criteria by which one might identify important conservation areas within the Town, and then the group will see if the chosen criteria 2  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  have overlap. They will also see if these criteria identify areas known to be unique natural areas—if they do not identify known important conservation areas, the group will then need to identify a different mechanism to accomplish the task. The group will reconvene soon, but the next meeting is not yet scheduled. Hamlets Planner Haremza (staff) said this group met yesterday and had a fruitful discussion. They talked primarily about the $10,000 hamlet grant the Town received from Tompkins County. This will go to pay for a consultant to do some detailed engineering and bureaucratic research on how to accomplish water provision and treatment of wastewater in an area that wants more compact in-fill development but does not have the public infrastructure to support it. They discussed White Hawk Ecovillage and Boiceville Cottages. Because Haremza can do revisions to the zoning code, the money from the County can be used to hire engineers and legal advisors for how to build and structure shared septic systems. The other major topic discussed was the 2009 Sustainable Hamlet Plan. The feeling was this would be an excellent basis for going forward. Gagnon added that Olivia Vent would be sharing her plan with the group. In response to a question from Fewtrell as to what the plan is, Haremza explained that Vent owns 1839 and 1849 Danby Rd., across the street from Town Hall, and is interested in renovating and redeveloping these properties to accommodate some additional housing and potentially commercial uses. She has worked with the Incremental Development Alliance to develop some concept plans. There is still the question of whether the capital is there, but it seems doable in terms of well and septic if the units are rentals. If she wanted to subdivide the proposed houses onto separate parcels, it would become difficult. Crane said there was a first phase with about 10–15 houses on the east side of 96B and a few businesses, and a second phase that would be more grandiose. Gagnon said that Vent had given a presentation about her idea to the Planning Board last year and had found strong support. The Planning Board had then made a recommendation to the Town Board to explore the idea in the context of a Planned Development Zone, which is where it sits now. It is hoped the hamlet grant might make this project, and others in the Town, easier. Crane asked if Gagnon would say the Town Board declined to take action, and Gagnon said no, they just have not taken any action as of yet. Connors added that the Town Board was supportive enough to apply for the grant, and so she would say there was support and action. Public Outreach Planner Haremza reported that this small group met on March 30th and had a good discussion. He noted that how to do outreach has changed (due to COVID-19). Current resources are website, email, and the Danby Area News. They also talked about outreach through the two main churches in Town and the Fire Department. The goal of reaching out through more groups is to reach folks who might not have been involved in the past in Town government or the planning process and to get as broad a cross-section of the Town engaged as possible. One other idea that came up was to do short video clips that could be posted online. Haremza will be testing this out in the coming weeks. 3  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  4  PLANNING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES  MINUTES APPROVAL MOTION: Approve minutes of the February 25th and March 3rd meetings Moved by R. Nitchman, seconded by Connors The motion passed. In favor: Connors, Crane, Hunter, Maragni, K. Nitchman, R. Nitchman, Richards, Roaring, Zisk, Gagnon ADJOURNMENT The next meeting will be May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15pm. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary