Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - November 17, 2020Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting November 17, 2020 PRESENT: Ed Bergman Scott Davis Elana Maragni Jody Scriber Jim Rundle (Chair) ABSENT: Kathy Jett Bruce Richards OTHER ATTENDEES: Interim Town Planner John Czamanske Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member) Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Lew Billington (BZA), Ted Crane, Corinna Farbman, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Katharine Hunter, Anon1, Anon2 This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:10pm. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW Nothing was added to the agenda. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ted Crane described his personal experience of owning a house in Danby and then having houses built on either side about 25’ from the property lines. With his current property, someone has again built a house close to his property line, although it is 51’ and luckily does not affect him. Regarding the case on the agenda, he showed a picture of the property with simulated trees. He said that, while he can see both sides, from the point of view of the neighboring house (to the west and down a long driveway), the new structure would be directly in their viewshed. Also, the case would need as many as five variances. He said 1  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  the map provided does not show whether the lots will meet the minimum depth requirement or have the minimum two acres in each property, and because the original survey was old and done by hand, there may be a high margin of error. He mentioned the possibility of a flag lot as it would solve many of the variances, but it would still be directly in the viewshed of the neighbor’s house. He wondered whether a variance was appropriate here. The applicant, Ms. Farbman responded that she thought the neighbor’s best view was to the west over the Newfield valley, not down the driveway. She said her parents had been there 25 years or more and that person put a house in their view line. She said just last year someone put a house in the tree patch across the street, which is in both her parents’ and the neighbor’s viewshed. Anywhere you look to put a house, it will be in someone’s view line. Alyssa de Villiers, speaking as a citizen rather than the Planning Board secretary, said there has been a lot of development on 96B in the area of Van De Bogart Rd. She said she wanted to draw attention to three properties on the east side of 96B that appear to be for sale or under contract. She said they reminded her of the case last month as the back of the properties likely goes into wetland. Because they seem to already be subdivided, she said she imagined people would only need a building permit to build, but she wondered if it would be worth looking back to when it was originally subdivided to see if any conditions were placed on any of the lots. Leslie Connors later pointed out that that is in fact where the Nitchman property, which was subdivided at the last meeting, is located. (Which likely accounts for all the signs). (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the October 20th minutes Moved by Scriber, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. In favor: Davis, Maragni, Scriber, Rundle Abstain: Bergman (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Leslie Connors (Town Board member) shared the following information: • At the last Town Board meeting, there were two public hearings, one on the 2021 proposed budget, and the other considering a local law to allow the highway superintendent to reside in the surrounding areas. Decisions will hopefully be made at the following meeting. • Brittany Lagaly has been appointed to the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC). There are two more empty seats that will be available as of January 1st. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  Continue Sketch Plan Review of Proposed Minor Subdivision Location: 89 Layen Road, Tax parcel 8.-1-1.13 Zoning: Low Density (LD) Residential Zone Applicant: Corrina Farbman Proposal: Subdivide a 4.03 acre parcel into one parcel of 2 acres that will retain the existing dwelling and a new parcel of 2 acres for a proposed dwelling. The proposed new parcel would not meet the 200’ frontage requirement and would not meet the setback requirement of 50’on two sides. An area variance appeal has been submitted to the BZA; recommendation requested from Planning Board. SEQR: Unlisted action, Planning Board Lead Agency Ag District: Tompkins County Ag District #2 County 239 referral: to be submitted Chair Rundle said the Board was charged with making a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) as to whether a variance should be granted. He said the Board now had a much better sketch plan, which made the proposal easier to evaluate, and the road frontage would definitely require a variance. Interim Planner Czamanske noted this was a sketch plan review rather than an approval or disapproval process. He explained that in the subdivision process an applicant can go directly to the BZA if something does not meet a standard. In the subdivision regulations, if there is such an appeal, it says the BZA shall request a written recommendation from the Planning Board, which Chair Hicks of the BZA has done (see Subdivision and Land Division Regulations of the Town of Danby, NY Article VI, Section 601, II, E). He added that if the necessary variances were granted, it would come back to the Planning Board as a subdivision application. In terms of a variance for required acreage, Czamanske explained that the old survey noted the acreage as 4.0 acres. He said Ms. Farbman worked with someone who used the survey and worked with CAD to get a measured sketch for this meeting. Ms. Farbman said the proposed drawing would like to give each parcel two acres. She pointed out that the lot line to the south of the existing house could be pushed back from the road as necessary to make two equal parcels so they would not need a variance for acreage as well. Planner Czamanske said the Zoning Ordinance says that for calculations of lot area, acreage in the highway right of way is excluded. Most roads in Danby are user roads, where everybody owns to the street center line. Depending on what the surveyor used for his calculation, a slight variance for acreage might be needed. Ms. Farbman said she is local to the area, her parents have lived there for 25 years, and they want to gift her the land so she can have the opportunity to own a house in this area, which is very expensive. She felt this was the best way to afford a house she would not need to put a lot of work into. She noted she is a single mother, has a home pottery studio, and would like to be near her retired parents who she and her son help out as well as have important relationships with. She said she did not realize the process would be so difficult. 3  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  Chair Rundle read the BZA’s five criteria aloud and said Ms. Farbman had answered them on her application. He suggested looking at whether the proposal meets those conditions. Planner Czamanske said the Zoning Ordinance calls for a 50’ side, 50’ front, and 75’ rear setback in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone. On the proposed parcel, with regards to the proposed house, the side setback to the west would be 30’ and the side setback to the east would be 40’. He summarized that the road frontage request is 30% less than the requirement (140’ as compared to 200’), the west side setback is 40% less, the east setback is 20% less, and there may be some small percent requested for lot area. Rundle noted that the constricted neck on the property is approximately 70’. Board Discussion Chair Rundle said he supported the applicant’s effort to create affordable housing, and that is important to him. However, it concerned him the lot would be so odd with such a narrow neck, and he was reluctant to create a lot like that that would potentially last forever. He drew attention to the BZA criterion of whether the benefit sought could be achieved by a feasible alternative, and he said he thought it could since a second dwelling could be achieved by a special permit or adding on to the existing structure. He later added that he wished it (the proposal) could be done on a temporary basis as the case is compelling, but he is concerned about how it will look in 50 years. Planner Czamanske said that a special permit for a second dwelling would need no variances, and an addition to the house would only need a building permit. Thus there are a range of alternatives from actions needing no Board approval, to needing one or two variances, to needing many. Scott Davis asked about making it a flag lot and placing the proposed house behind the existing house. Czamanske confirmed this was an alternative; creating the lot would require a frontage variance, but it is placing the house in the front that can only be done by variances on both sides. Davis pointed out that if a side setback variance was granted it could impinge on the lot owner to the west, although Scriber noted that the land to the west already has a house, and it is located far back from the road. Jody Scriber said she thought this was similar to the idea of having a house with a second dwelling for an elderly parent, which is a need for people. This is flipped but is meeting the same need. She said, especially with COVID-19 causing people to think twice about nursing homes, she was fascinated by how they could help solve this. She later added that it would make an odd lot, but maybe the properties would be rejoined in 20 years. She said she was thinking about the current situation and wanted to try to give a leg up to someone who needs it in the community. Ed Bergman said he wanted to encourage families taking care of each other and the housing arrangement could even flip at some point. He said there are grandparents to help out now, and later there will be family to help take care of the aging parents, which is something he would like to encourage; the question is how to best get there. He noted the County’s support of aging-friendly communities and said he wanted to try to find a way to approve the project. 4  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  Elana Maragni said she agreed with Scriber and Bergman. She said was in a similar boat as the applicant as she and her family are living with her father, thinking of the future with an aging parent, and deciding about adding on or building a separate structure. She said, however, that they tend not to put subdivision on the table, partly because the land shape feels awkward. She said she was very supportive of living near parents, but she was worried what they would be leaving the lot looking like when someone wants to sell. She also raised the idea of what the Board would do if the subdivision was being proposed with no house. She thought they might put a condition on the proposed parcel like only allowing building where there is ample room for the correct setbacks. Later she clarified that if the house was set further back, beyond the “neck,” the only variance needed would be for road frontage. She also asked about any response from the neighbors, and Czamanske said that no notification has been given yet as this was just a sketch plan; a sign has now been put up on the property and if the project continues there will be future opportunities to weigh in. In response to the Board’s comments, Ms. Farbman asked about the zoning requirements for placing the house where she would like it if she did a special permit. Planner Czamanske said in LDR there can only be a single-family dwelling or one two-family dwelling per lot, and then there is a special permit use, which is the installation of a second dwelling on a lot. He directed the Board to Article XI of the Zoning Ordinance, “Special Permits,” Section 902, 2 and said a second structure would need to meet the setback requirements. He said it would be easier to share the water and, while you might need to expand the first septic system, the Health Department does not allow shared septic on separate lots. After a brief discussion, it was confirmed that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 100’ or 125’ separation between principal dwellings (Article V, Section 510, 3). Ms. Farbman said putting a house behind her parents would increase driveway and electric line costs, disturb the land more, and the house would be closer to the person in the back (the neighbor to the west). She said she did not see it as an option to have the house closer to the neighbor’s. Further suggestions were made, including a second attached dwelling. Ms. Farbman said she was really only looking at one option and did not see the others as workable. In response to a question from Rundle about why she was opposed to having a second house on the same property, she explained that she was not sure how that would affect getting a mortgage and also her parents are trying to give her a gift of monetary value to get a leg up and have financial value to her name. She said there is some value, and that can go up in 20 years. Septic System Discussion Chair Rundle asked the applicant about the well and septic; he confirmed there would be four people living there, which one septic system likely could handle. He thought tying into the existing system would save a lot of money, which would not be possible if it were two lots. Davis said he thought it was hugely problematic that if a new lot was created it would mean a whole new septic field and a new well; he did not see how that could be done for less than $10,000–$25,000. He was not sure where the leach field would go, and it might make having a house sited where proposed really 5  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  difficult. He said he wanted to work with the applicant, but there was a host of real difficulties with the proposal as it was. Ms. Farbman said she had an idea of the overall costs. She said she did not know exactly how the well and septic would fit in, but she thought the septic would be to the south of the proposed house and the well would be closer to the road. Rundle asked whether the septic system would fit between the house and the “neck” of the proposed lot, and Ms. Farbman said she did not know. She said the existing well was to the east of the existing house and the existing septic was to the west. Joel Gagnon said he thought a 100’ diameter circle needed to be identified to accommodate the septic system, and whether this was possible was discussed. Rundle wondered if the existing leach field crossed the proposed property line. Davis said he thought the Board needed to know the exact septic and well requirements and the location of the extant septic and well as well as possibly where the proposed septic field and well would be. Ms. Farbman said she knew at some point she needs to get a survey, and the Planning Board wants to know if a house is feasible there before considering it, but she would want to know she was close to being approved before paying for a survey. Czamanske said the existing and proposed well and septic would be requirements of the subdivision plat. Ms. Farbman said she might be able to get the information without going through a surveyor; Rundle thought her parents might have a drawing showing the leach field. Conclusion Chair Rundle said he would not want to approve the subdivision except for the hardship case and the arguments made for staying close to parents. He said the 70’ constriction on the proposed parcel was not the kind of property lines they want to create. He said to bend on the issue, he would need to know if the project was feasible; he would like to see it worked out better before asking for variances. Ms. Farbman said she would rather continue to the BZA and said it was stressful to keep coming back and not going anywhere; she could have the well and septic information ready for the BZA. Planner Czamanske said there would not be a BZA meeting on November 24th, so Ms. Farbman could get the information the Planning Board wanted for its next meeting. The BZA meeting would be December 22nd. Ms. Farbman expressed frustration with this. Rundle asked how the Board felt if the existing leach field did not overlap the proposed property line. Bergman felt that without more information they could not make a recommendation at this time. Maragni said she came back to the idea of looking at the subdivision without a house: given the lot restrictions, she could not imagine the Board granting a subdivision without saying a future house would need to be set back further. She thought it unlikely the well and septic would work in the proposed location, and the solution to most of the issues would be to give approval if the house was situated further back. Davis agreed with Maragni and said there was no way he could make a recommendation without knowing more about the septic. Scriber said she would like to see something that would work, but it does not look like it can work in the space. Rundle said he was also concerned what the Board would tell the next person with a similar request. 6  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  7  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  Rundle made a motion to recommend to the BZA that the application for variances be denied because there are feasible alternatives, and he added, as part of the motion, that the Planning Board would look favorably at a special permit application. The motion was not taken up for want of a second. In response to Ms. Farbman, Rundle said that is how he would decide if she needed it decided then; with more information, he might look at it differently. Ms. Farbman said she felt unprepared again because she was not told she would need that information (locations of well and septic) for this meeting. Rundle asked if she could get the information before the next meeting, and she said yes. Ms. Farbman was concerned about being delayed further, and the meeting schedule and process was discussed. It was agreed to hold a special meeting Tuesday, November 24th, at 7 p.m. to conclude the sketch plan review and draft a written recommendation to the BZA. The applicant was asked to have the following information ready for the next meeting: (1) the location of the existing well and leach field, (2) some idea of the Health Department requirements for the proposed property’s well and septic. (6) PLANNING GROUP UPDATE It was agreed to postpone this to the next meeting. (7) PLANNER’S REPORT Interim Planner Czamanske gave the following report: • David West has been hired as the new Town Planner. He is currently working as a Senior Planner in the County Planning Department, and he was former Town Planner C.J. Randall’s partner in their consulting firm. He will begin half time December 1st and full time in January 2021. (8) ADJOURNMENT Chair Rundle said the December meeting would be his last meeting as Chair. The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary