HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - August 18, 2020Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 18, 2020
PRESENT:
Ed Bergman
Scott Davis
Elana Maragni
Bruce Richards
Jody Scriber
Jim Rundle (Chair)
ABSENT:
Kathy Jett
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner Jason Haremza
Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member)
Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers
Public Ted Crane, Annette Feeney, Kevin Feeney, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor),
Garry Huddle, Katharine Hunter, Jonathan Joseph, Paul Maccarone, Ted Merritt,
Kim Nitchman, Russ Nitchman, Chris O’Brien, Steve Selin, Margie VanDeMark,
Jonathan Zisk, anonymous call-in
This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform.
The meeting was opened at 7:03pm.
(1) MEETING WITH STAFF
Planner Haremza said he had just forwarded the Board an emailed letter of support for the special permit at
411 Comfort Rd.
Chair Rundle said he would rather not lead the discussion on the preliminary review for the subdivision at
the corner of Brown Rd. and Short Rd. as he had missed the previous meeting. It was agreed Jody Scriber,
who was the Acting Chair at the previous meeting, would lead that discussion (agenda item number eight).
Haremza said they do not as yet have a formal application, and he has not heard back from the applicant
on the draft sketches.
1
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
(2) CALL TO ORDER / AGENDA REVIEW
A discussion of Board communications was added to the agenda as item number 11.
(3) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Kim Nitchman said she and her husband had concerns about work done by the Planning Group (they are
members of the tax working group of the Planning Group). She felt they tried to help by giving time and
ideas, which resulted in a wonderful and well-accepted idea for tax reduction for people who put their land
into conservation easements. She said it seemed like a no-brainer and expressed concern that the
Planning Board had not been able to come to any helpful conclusion. She said she would really like to see
the proposal move forward.
Steve Selin voiced support for the proposal to reduce taxes on properties with conservation easements. He
said in his seven years on the Planning Board, a recurring theme was trying to reduce the subdivisions that
kept happening, which act to remove land from agricultural use, a use that is specified as one of people’s
favorite things in Danby. He said he has a conservation easement for his property on Sand Bank Rd. He
said he supports the project to help conservation easements happen, and one way would be to decrease
the tax burden on the landowner.
Katharine Hunter said she felt strongly the Town should go forward with the proposal. She said the larger
the land is, it can be split many times and many subdivisions can happen. The tax implication for the Town
is nil, but the result is really good. She added there is nothing to say the Town cannot also use zoning, but
the problem is many people have a negative reaction to that word. She thought this was a great way to get
people to perhaps be able to keep their land. She said she did not think the number of years was the big
issue but rather getting it going is the big issue. She added that she does support the five-year option and
anything that gets somebody into this is worth it. She said when people get out of it, they do not just get
their money back, and she did not like the idea that the Town’s boards would not trust people. She felt the
proposal was an opportunity to help people and work together. Via “Chat,” Kim and Russ Nitchman,
Annette Feeney, and Ted Crane all expressed agreement with Hunter’s comments.
Kevin Feeney agreed with the previous speakers. He said he wanted to reinforce Hunter’s comments that
the idea that some people would be gaming the system to take advantage of the proposal was unsettling to
hear. Regarding the rejection of the five-year plan, he said for him at 65, five years was a reasonable
timeframe to be looking ahead. At five years he would come into the system and see the advantages and
probably stay in the fold. Setting a steep barrier to get in to start makes it too oppositional and does not
serve the Town well. Via “Chat,” Annette Feeney agreed and said that the five-year option lets people get
their feet wet and is more flexible. Kevin Feeney said he thought the tax problem was likely to increase as
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
the State will be looking for more money, possibly from property taxes. He thought if there is no relief for
people with significant property, they will have to cut and run as the taxes will become a forcing function.
Ted Crane said he had prepared responses to the Planning Board commentary that had been compiled by
Planner Haremza, and he later shared this document via “screen share.” He said some parcels will come
out of easements and sell some land, but that is not a good reason to stand against the program. He said
you have to look at how the whole Town benefits by having open space preserved, and that also means
habitat preservation and viewsheds; for the period the easement is in place, the Balkanization stops. He
thought for longer easements, there would more likely be a different owner when the land comes off
easement. He encouraged the Board to pass the proposal as is. He said the major objections people have
had were calls to eliminate the five-year option and the recreation component and the idea of adding a
minimum parcel size.
Via “screen share,” Crane also shared a spreadsheet he had created. It showed parcels that had actions
taken, focusing on subdivisions from 2015–2018. He explained that on this list, he grouped original parcel
size as 0–15 acres, 20–40, 40–100, and 100+. This showed a relatively even split between parcel sizes
being subdivided, but in the Town as a whole, the vast majority of parcels are small and only ~2% are over
100 acres. He concluded it was much more likely for a large parcel to be split than a small parcel, and they
generally do it multiple times. He said the limit seemed to be road frontage, and that the result taken to its
extreme is every parcel that has road frontage will become separate two-acre parcels. Via “Chat,” the
Nitchmans and Feeneys thanked Crane for the hours of work he put in to help the Town keep open space
by making it more affordable for landowners to keep paying the property taxes.
(4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Approve the July 21st minutes
Moved by Richards, seconded by Scriber
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
Abstain: Rundle
(5) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
Leslie Connors (Town Board member) shared the following information:
• The Town Board will be having a public hearing on September 14th about removing “other uses”
from certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Board on June
16th.
• The Town Board will be having a public hearing on October 12th to get feedback on expanding the
highway superintendent residency requirements.
3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
(6) PUBLIC HEARING
a) Special Permit (SPP-2020-02) and Site Plan Review (SPR-2020-02)
Location: 411 Comfort Road, Tax parcel 8.-1-5.
Zoning: Low Density (LD) Residential Zon
Applicant: John & Marjory VanDeMark
Proposal: The Applicant proposes to construct a second single family dwelling on the 98 acre
parcel. There is an existing single family dwelling that will remain. The proposed new dwelling is an
860 square foot single story structure. Per Zoning Ordinance 600-3m, installation of a second
dwelling unit in a separate building requires Special Permit approval in the LD District. Per Zoning
Ordinance Section 801, when applying for a special permit, a site plan shall be submitted.
SEQR: Type 2, no further environmental review
Ag District: Tompkins County Ag District #2
County 239 referral: pending
The public hearing was opened at 7:39 p.m.
Chair Rundle reminded the Board they had received one emailed letter of support from Jeff Huddle (388
Comfort Rd.). Richards confirmed they had received no objections. Planner Haremza noted that because
this is a Type 2 Action with regards to NY’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), there is no
environmental review required.
Public Comment
Ted Crane said he had no problem with the proposal. He said it is a large property, and he wanted to raise
the issue that sometimes two dwellings later get split into two properties. He asked the Board consider the
question of how that might happen.
The applicant, Margie VanDeMark, said that the proposed house will be occupied by her daughter. They
are all on the family farm together, and their daughter would be taking care of them in their old age. She
said she had heard from another neighbor in support of the proposal.
Paul Maccarone (144 Yaple Rd.) said he is now an adjacent property owner. He expressed concern about
the location of the house and so wanted to verify his understanding that the house would be close to
Comfort Rd. Haremza said it would be approximately 90’ from Comfort Rd. and confirmed that the other
house is actually set deeper. Rundle asked whether the proposed house will be built where there is
currently a concrete slab, and Ms. VanDeMark said yes. Haremza showed this on the map. In response to
a question from Rundle, Ms. VanDeMark said the house will be a small, double-wide home and confirmed
the size 24’ x 36’ was correct.
4
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Board Discussion
Bruce Richards said he is not a huge fan of double wides, but it seemed to be serving a good purpose and
with the way it would be located he saw no negative impact on the neighborhood. He said he was in
support of it. He asked the applicant if the proposed house would be on separate water and septic from the
existing house, and she said yes. He also asked if the new house would survive its use and remain on the
property, and Ms. VanDeMark said it would stay for the duration of their daughter’s life. Haremza said it will
be built on a masonry foundation so is unlikely to be moved.
Chair Rundle said he felt it was the best possible location for the proposed house.
Jody Scriber said she thought it was a reasonable proposal and agreed it looked like a good place for the
house. She added that people need to be able to figure out ways to help family members, and having
family close is a great idea. She said she supported the proposal
Ed Bergman said Tompkins County is trying to be an age-friendly community, and these are the kinds of
things they need to allow to happen—where a caregiver can be on the property or family members who are
getting older and need a smaller place can put a second place on the property. He said he supported the
proposal.
Elana Maragni said she was supportive of the proposal.
The public hearing was closed at 7:46 p.m.
MOTION: Pass Res. #16 of 2020 as drafted.
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Davis
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
(7) PLANNING GROUP UPDATE
Tax Working Group
Chair Rundle asked Planner Haremza to show a draft resolution he had sent the Board for
consideration; it was reiterated that this was only a draft. Rundle said there had been some comments to
pass the tax policy proposal as is and there had been the written response from Ted Crane. He suggested
the Board discuss the proposal; two passes of commentary were taken from all Board members.
Scott Davis said the data Crane gathered verified his suspicion that there are a lot of subdivisions
amongst smaller acreage holders. He said 60% of the subdivisions were 40 acres or less. He thought with
less acreage, the financial break would not add up to much, and it logically follows that the smaller
incentive versus the income from a subdivision will not be much of a dissuader. He said he was inclined to
support the proposal, but asked whether it would work better if it was tapered so the first acres were given
5
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
a greater tax abatement. He acknowledged this would be a slight shift from large landowners to small ones
but thought the effect could be dramatic. As a disclosure, he said he owns 15 acres. He said if the goal is to
not have subdivisions, there may need to be a strong incentive to the 60% of subdivisions that are small
acreage. Ted Crane said he had had a similar idea, but it was felt the NYS legislature would be more likely
to agree to something that had already been passed.
Ed Bergman said the timing is an issue of him. He said Tompkins County lost 12 million dollars out
of their budget, and the State more, and so budgets are hurting. There is a housing crisis in the County
where they are trying to find land to build on. While he is a big believer in conservation, he also knows they
need affordable housing in the County, as well as universal and senior housing. He felt to say “we need a
tax break right now” when other people are suffering was not the right timing. He thought he might support
it later, but right now he would not be able to vote “yes.” Richards commented that he thought they were
looking at a long time period before this would be implemented.
Jody Scriber said she agreed with Bergman and also found Davis’ proposal intriguing. She thought
there was an enormous amount of uncertainty right now, which meant it might be better to consider doing
something like this in a year when there is more direction. She also brought up the idea of liability for public
access. Crane thought landowners would be safe due to a NYS law.
Planner Haremza said his understanding was it is up to the Town to decide what criteria they use
to accept parcels for easements. The Town could decide only to accept easements on parcels 40 acres
and above, for example. Ted Crane said this was correct. Crane added that the proposal is 100% revenue
neutral to the Town, County, and school districts.
Elana Maragni thanked Kevin Feeney for his comments (during privilege of the floor). She said she
thought it was important to hear about people’s personal experiences and other points of view. She thought
one reason this proposal was taking a while was that the Planning Board is just regular folk, and this makes
it a nice illustration of how the public might perceive a change like this. To validate the process, working
through these issues now, before the proposal is thrown out there for everybody to digest, allows questions
to come up that are likely ones other people will have. She said even if the rise in taxes might be only $5,
any rise in taxes will create a reaction. She thought Davis’ comments were interesting, but for her throwing
a change in tonight would make the decision-making process harder. She said she had been concerned
about the shortness of the five-year term, but that her mind had been changed during the course of the
meeting, particularly due to Feeney’s comments and the table Crane presented. She reiterated that, while it
feels like they have been talking about the proposal for ages, it is a good process to go through.
Bruce Richards said his thoughts had not fundamentally changed (he had previously provided
some written commentary). He said the rules as to what is acceptable for the easements would be set by
the CAC, and he trusted the people on the Council to do that well, so he was backing off on a minimum
acreage requirement. He felt conservation easements should be longer and said he still opposed the 5–15
year term. He did not like the threat that people would subdivide if the Town did not give them a tax break.
He thought allowing public access was a completely separate issue. If they were really going to expand and
do that, he thought there should be a referendum. He said he supported the conservation easement
proposal with reasonable time periods, a minimum acreage to be set by the CAC, and no public access
mentioned.
6
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor) said he was fascinated by Crane’s analysis. He said what the
Town is seeing is subdivision along the roads, somewhat independent of parcel size. If the Town could
prioritize granting abatements to property owners with road frontage, that would be ideal, but he was not
sure they have that flexibility. He said the Town has yet to find a good way to target road frontage for
preservation. He said he thought this proposal was a start and would help people who are finding it
burdensome to hold onto property when they do not have a good way of making income from it. He said he
was fully in support of the proposal.
Chair Rundle said he was concerned about potential abuse of the program. He cited a call he had
from a woman in California who wanted to subdivide land in Danby. He said he is worried about the
possibility of speculation in land. He said he is sympathetic to the situation of property owners, but he felt to
give a tax break, people should be making a commitment rather than the short time periods; this might
mean people pass on something to their heirs with a constraint. He felt if an easement was for a short
period and then the land is sold, he did not see a difference being made. He reiterated a sentiment
expressed in previous meetings that he does not see the proposal as planning. If the purpose is to protect
land, he thought the Town should think about which land should get protected, which this proposal does not
do. He said, referring to Crane’s table, if the trend in subdivision was not much different going further back
in time, then the tax changes that have come about have not had much effect on subdivision. He said what
he would really like to see added is some type of review to see if the Town is able to detect an effect. He
summarized that he wanted to approve something that would allow people to put something in conservation
easements for longer amounts of time with a review in place. Scriber agreed about the importance of a
review process.
In the second go-round, many points were reiterated. Bergman added that he wondered about land
getting locked up, causing smaller acreage to then cost more, which would increase the value of the land
and possibly compound the problem by taxes going up. The length of terms was discussed further. Maragni
said she was not against the 5–15 year term. Richards, Davis, and Scriber all expressed that they were not
comfortable with that short of a term. Maragni asked about raising the five-year minimum to seven or ten
rather than dropping the whole term. Richards and Rundle both expressed that they wanted to start at more
like 30 years, so it was already a compromise. Scriber, Davis, and Bergman all felt five years was too short;
Scriber said she was willing to consider ten. Rundle said he agreed with Maragni that it will be interesting to
see how the public responds, and he confirmed the Town Board would be having a public hearing.
Comments via “Chat,” included Annette Feeney saying they should not get rid of the 5–15 year
option and asking how the option of less than 15 years would hurt anyone, Kevin Feeney saying that once
big parcels are broken up they never come back, the Nitchmans noting that land assessment and taxes
have gone up significantly in their almost 20 years here, and Jonathan Joseph saying his understanding
was the shorter the time period of the easement, the smaller the exemption and so he did not understand
why there would be a reason to remove the shorter time period.
The draft resolution was modified to support the proposal with the recommendations to remove the
5–15 year term (but leave in the 15–30 year term), remove the section about public access, and add a
review process.
MOTION: Pass Res. #17 of 2020 as reviewed by the Board
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Moved by Richards, seconded by Davis
The motion passed.
In favor: Davis, Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
Against: Bergman
Conservation Working Group
Planner Haremza said this working group would be meeting on the following Friday.
Hamlet Working Group
Planner Haremza said no meeting had been scheduled for this working group. He reported that he
and Supervisor Gagnon were working to finalize the consulting contract with HUNT Engineers of
Horseheads, who would be doing the septic-oriented development study for hamlet infill. The Town Board
did authorize Gagnon to enter into the contract.
Outreach Working Group
Planner Haremza said this working group met and has some new life. The Town now has a
YouTube channel, and aerial footage taken by Kevin Feeney has been added. Alyssa de Villiers suggested
some low-tech outreach through postering, and Katharine Hunter had an idea for a photography contest.
(8) PRELIMINARY REVIEWS
a) Subdivision [Standard or Cluster, TBD]
Location: Southwest corner of Brown Road and Short Road, Tax parcel 17.-1-2.2
Zoning: High Density (HD) Residential Zone
Applicant: Mike McLaughlin
Proposal: The Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.2 acre parcel to accommodate six dwelling
units in three, two family dwellings.
SEQR: Unlisted action, Planning Board is Lead Agency
Ag District: Tompkins County Ag District #2
County 239 referral: pending
Jody Scriber said that at the previous meeting they had discussed the plans with the applicant as
well as carports and garages and the possibility of shared septic. She said the applicant raised the issues
of the County saying it needed individual septic systems and budget feasibility. Jim Rundle said his
understanding is the question before the Board is whether they should require a cluster or not.
Scott Davis said he had some concerns about the project. He said it was proffered as senior and
handicap housing, so he would like to know if there are serious handicap accommodations. He added there
is nothing to compel seniors to rent or buy the duplexes, and he worried that in a few years there would be
no seniors and 30 people with 10–15 cars on the lot. He thought there should be covenants. He worried the
8
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Board might regret the project unless they could nail down a pathway to bonafide senior housing. He said
he thought the developer could make an age restriction.
Bruce Richards said he had emailed his comments. He did not like the layout, noted there would
be no storage, felt the units would be inexpensively built, and worried it might end up as a future rural slum.
He thought the goal was to advance low-cost rental units. He felt Haremza’s drafted change in the layout
put some lipstick on the project but might not improve the structures, their fate, or the ultimate effect on the
community. He said he realizes this is opinion not policy.
Planner Haremza said the decision is either for a standard subdivision or clustered subdivision.
The rationale for any imposed conditions or denying the project needs to be tied to impact to the land itself.
He thought it would be very difficult to condition a subdivision on limiting the future structures to senior
housing.
Elana Maragni said she was not against cheap housing that might mean affordable rent for those
who need it. She added that, while she did not like to see lack of quality in buildings in Danby, the right
landlord can really upkeep their rentals quite nicely. She said she appreciated the need for senior housing,
but non-seniors can be great neighbors too. She thought even young families would be awesome to have
in the hamlet of West Danby. She said she hoped the decision was not being based on those criteria and
agreed that a lot of this is opinion.
Scriber thought the applicant had said he already had people looking for senior housing. She felt it
would be difficult to say it only had to be for seniors. She added that accessible building is accessible to
everyone, and sometimes people who need those accommodations are not over 55. She felt this type of
universal design housing is sorely needed and added that affordability can be a major issue.
Ed Bergman said what was being asked for was a subdivision, and a lot of the discussion was out
of the Planning Board’s scope, like who can live there and the size of doorway openings.
Rundle reiterated that they could choose to require a cluster subdivision. Haremza said that they
could review the criteria that the Board can address through the subdivision process.
(9) SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Planner Haremza reviewed that this committee is looking at adding site plan review to agri-businesses such
as tasting rooms and processing facilities. He said they met once, and the committee’s discussion focused
on the impacts of home-based businesses more broadly in terms of whether to require site plan review. He
will be drafting some outlines as the next step in the process.
10) PLANNER’S REPORT
Planner Haremza reported the following:
• In terms of drainage on Beardsley Lane, he is working to confirm the titles to the two properties
have been transferred to the Town. Then T.G. Miller will prepare a drainage district report.
• For municipal housing affordability, he will be finalizing the contract with the engineers.
9
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
• Regarding the Howland Rd. hemp operation, he spoke with the owners’ attorney on July 22nd. They
will provide more information to the Town about the site and its planned operations within 30 days.
(11) INTRA-BOARD COMMUNICATION
Davis remembered that a consultant came to talk to the Board about inter-member communications. He
said he learned a two-way conversation can be private, but anything more is public information. He thought
between-meeting ruminations are invaluable, so he hoped that is possible. Rundle agreed that comments
from Board members are extremely helpful. He said he cannot tell what people are thinking with Zoom
meetings and a phone call can be helpful.
Planner Haremza said one-on-one calls or emails are generally okay, but something like a chain phone call
by which a board reaches a decision would be considered ex parte communication. Group emails that are
unidirectional from either the chair or municipal staff are fine, but if people hit “reply all” and it becomes an
email conversation happening outside the view of the public, that could be problematic. Rundle asked if it
was okay if emails were then posted on the website, and Haremza answered that then everybody can see
the comments, which helps.
Rundle asked about committees, which do not have a quorum. Haremza said as long as there is no
quorum, the meeting is not public. Davis said he assumes if he “replies all” it is publicly available, but he
said he sees the distinction. He wondered about finding a way to have these invaluable discussions where
the Town is not in any jeopardy. Haremza said the problem is the public would not even know if emails
were happening to request to see them. Instead he suggested a second meeting a month or starting earlier
to give time to work through the issues as that would be fully announced and posted.
Supervisor Gagnon said there is no problem with having a conversation about a topic that is not before the
Board; the issue is with conducting Board business outside of a meeting. He said people have a right to
see how the business is conducted. That does not preclude having general conversations about policy or
planning, but a conversation about a particular proposal would not be okay. Ted Crane said the
discriminate is if it is Town business, and Gagnon agreed. Davis said he had no problem with the
information being public, and his concern is that as issues come along they get dealt with substantively. He
asked about some type of readily accessible forum, like a virtual message board. Haremza thought that if
there was a quorum, it would be like a working session of the Board and recommended erring on the side
of caution. Ted Crane noted that all emails are FOIL-able, which is why board members must use their
Town emails for Town-related business or risk their private email accounts being FOIL-ed also.
Gagnon said, as a plug for the Planning Group, it was meant to allow for a forum where planning issues
can be addressed broadly involving anyone who is interested. The basic idea is if you want to have a
philosophical discussion that leads to concrete action, this is one way to do it. He said it is hard, given the
10
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
regular work of the Planning Board, to have meaningful, in-depth discussions about direction and overall
policy.
(12) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:11pm (moved by Scriber, seconded by Bergman).
___________________________________________
Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary