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