HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - March 31, 2020Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
March 31, 2020
PRESENT:
Ed Bergman
Kathy Jett
Elana Maragni
Bruce Richards
Jody Scriber
Jim Rundle (Chair)
ABSENT:
Scott Davis
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner Jason Haremza
Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors
Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers
Public Sylvia Allinger, George Blanchard, Michelle Fullagar, Joel Gagnon (Town
Supervisor), Jim Henion, Cindy Parlett, Jared Parlett, Jessie-Emma Parlett, Larry
Parlett, Sam Parlett
This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform.
The meeting was opened at 7:07pm.
(1) MEETING WITH STAFF
Planner Haremza thanked everyone for adapting to the new technology and explained how public
participation would work. No Board Members had questions regarding the cases.
(2) CALL TO ORDER / AGENDA REVIEW
There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.
(3) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
1
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
No comments were made during privilege of the floor.
(4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Approve Feb. 18th minutes
Moved by Richards, seconded by Scriber
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
MOTION: Approve March 3rd minutes
Moved by Scriber, seconded by Berman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
Abstain: Rundle
(5) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
Leslie Connors (Town Councilperson) shared the following information:
• There was a small gathering two weeks ago to watch Dave Mastroberti plant a dogwood tree in
celebration and appreciation of former Town Supervisor Ric Dietrich’s service to the Town of
Danby. A larger event had been organized but had to be cancelled (due to COVID-19 concerns).
(6) PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case #1, SUB-2020-03 Consider Minor Subdivision Approval
Project: Fullagar Subdivision
Location: 16 Hill Road; Tax Parcel 20.-1-25.24
Zoning: Low Density (LD) Residential
Applicant: Michelle Fullagar
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public hearing, Subdivision approval
Project Description: The Applicant proposes to subdivide a 15.98 acre parcel into Parcel B (2
acres) for a proposed single family dwelling. Parcel A (13.98 acres) will retain the existing single
family dwelling. The proposed parcels meet the minimum requirements of the LD District.
SEQR: Unlisted action, Planning Board is Lead Agency
Ag District: Tompkins County Agricultural District #1
County 239 referral: NA
The public hearing was opened at 7:18 pm.
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
As lead agency for the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the Board went through the Short
Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) parts two and three. Chairman Rundle noted that a single-family
dwelling is proposed. Richards said this would be considered a small impact. Planner Haremza added that
the general assumption for single-family homes is that they will not have an impact on the environment.
Thus, for part two, all questions were answered, “No or small impact may occur.”
The applicant, Michelle Fullagar, said she had nothing to add. The only stipulation she had for the person
who wanted to buy the land was that she did not have any desire for mobile or manufactured housing on
the property.
The public hearing was closed at 7:34 p.m.
MOTION: The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Moved by Richards, seconded by Bergman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
MOTION: Approve the minor subdivision.
Moved by Richards, seconded by Scriber
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
Case #2, SUB-2020-04 Consider Minor Subdivision Approval
Project: Blanchard Subdivision
Location: 437 East Miller Road; Tax Parcel 6.-1-21.214
Zoning: Low Density (LD) Residential
Applicant: George Blanchard
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public hearing, Subdivision approval
Project Description: The Applicant proposes to subdivide a 33.22 acre parcel into Parcel B (3
acres) for a proposed single family dwelling. Parcel A (30.22 acres) will retain the existing single
family dwelling. The proposed parcels meet the minimum requirements of the LD District.
SEQR: Unlisted action, Planning Board is Lead Agency
Ag District: Tompkins County Agricultural District #1
County 239 referral: NA
Maragni said she had noticed this was a wide-open corner plot with very little landscaping or privacy trees
between it and the existing house. She asked the applicant if there were any plans to screen the future
house from the road or existing house. The applicant, George Blanchard, answered that there were no
plans for additional vegetation. He said he currently hays that field and so wants it clear. Maragni said her
concern was with another house being plopped in the middle of a field, an issue that has come up at the
Planning Group meetings. Mr. Blanchard said he will not be selling that lot right now, and Jim Sczepanski
3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
will continue to hay it; the existing house and barn is being sold. He said there are no immediate plans for
the lot to change. He had consolidated the parcel for tax reasons but now wanted to leave his options open
down the road. Maragni noted that the project description references a “proposed single family dwelling.”
Planner Haremza said this was to account for a maximum buildout scenario for SEQR—a single-family
home down the road is a reasonable assumption when subdividing a parcel of this size. Blanchard agreed
that this was a likely outcome but not in the plans currently.
The public hearing was opened at 7:44 p.m.
As lead agency for the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the Board went through the Short
Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Parts 2 & 3. For Part 2, all questions were answered, “No or
small impact may occur.”
Question #3: Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?
Rundle asked Maragni if, based on her previous comments, she had any thoughts on this question.
She said that, as there is no actual proposed structure being built, she did not. Scriber asked if that
would come up at the point someone decided to build. Haremza answered that SEQR was
designed to protect sensitive environmental areas and address very large projects. The
presumption under SEQR for single-family homes in non-sensitive areas is that no further
environmental review is necessary. Rundle confirmed that if something is proposed later, there
would be no site plan review required.
Richards said this was a good example of what Town Supervisor Gagnon is concerned about,
namely that agricultural land will be divided up over time and converted into residential uses.
Richards said that as things stand currently, he does not believe they can decline or reject a
proposal. Gagnon agreed. Gagnon said that once the lot is created, the applicant can, by right,
request a building permit with no further environmental review. He said that this is the point at
which the environmental review takes place, and so one has to anticipate the possible uses of the
lot. At the moment in Danby, it is presumed that if a lot is created, a house will end up on it by and
by. Gagnon added that this is a permitted use, and the impact could hardly be called “moderate to
large.” The Town could decide to address this (being impact on rural character) through screening,
house location on a property, or adding site plan review. Richards said that he did not think there
was only one point of view on this in the Town.
Question #4: Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)?
Gagnon noted that there are no established Critical Environmental Areas in the Town of Danby.
Question #6: Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
4
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Haremza noted that anything built needs to comply with the NYS building code, which includes an
energy code.
The public hearing was closed at 7:57 p.m.
.
MOTION: The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Moved by Richards, seconded by Bergman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
MOTION: Approve the minor subdivision.
Moved by Scriber, seconded by Jett
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
(7) PRELIMINARY REVIEWS
a) Minor Subdivision
Location: 84 Layen Road, Tax parcel 8.-1-1.32
Zoning: Low Density (LD) Residential Zone
Applicant: Jim Henion
Proposal: The Applicant proposes to subdivide a 31.73 acre parcel into Parcel B (28.69 acres) to
remain as open space with a pole barn structure. No construction is proposed at this time. Parcel A
(3.04 acres) will retain the existing single family dwelling. The proposed parcels meet the minimum
requirements of the LD District..
SEQR: Unlisted action, Planning Board is Lead Agency
Ag District: Tompkins County Agricultural District #2
County 239 referral: to be completed
The applicant, Jim Henion, explained that he built a house at 84 Layen Rd. and lived there for almost 50
years. He then built a new house down the road, which he wants to move into. He plans to sell the 84
Layen Rd. house, although he is not sure when. Responding to a question from Rundle, Haremza clarified
that on the map the Board had, “Parcel No. 4” was the same as “Parcel A” in the agenda description and
“Parcel No. 2” was “Parcel B.” The Board asked for clearer maps by the time of the public hearing, which
will be in April or May. Richards commented on the tortured shape of the created lot, and Mr. Henion
agreed that it was confusing. He said his intention is not to break it up further, and no more subdividing is
planned.
b) Minor Subdivision
Location: 107 Gunderman Road, Tax parcel 9.-1-9.52
Zoning: Parcel is split between Medium Density (MD) and Low Density (LD) Residential Zone
5
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Applicant: Larry Parlett
Proposal: The Applicant proposes to subdivide a 10.087 acre parcel into Parcel A (5.087 acres)
that will contain the existing single family dwelling. Parcel B (5 acres) will contain a proposed single
family dwelling. The proposed parcels meet the minimum requirements of the LD District, which is
the more restrictive of the two zoning classifications.
SEQR: Unlisted action, Planning Board is Lead Agency
Ag District: Tompkins County Agricultural District #2
County 239 referral: NA
Sam Parlett explained the plan for the property: he and his wife would like to put a home on the subdivided
section, Parcel B. He said that they had purchased and revived the run-down house at 107 Gunderman
Rd., and Jared Parlett said he lives there currently. Larry Parlett said that the location they are planning to
build in is about where it says “Parcel B” on the map. Rundle said the map was adequate, and the public
hearing will be in April or May.
(8) PLANNING GROUP UPDATE
Supervisor Gagnon, Chair of the Planning Group, reported on the progress the Group has made so far:
There have been two meetings of the full group, which led to the decision not to do any interim changes but
instead launch into the planning process.
At the first full meeting, people expressed concerns about the inability of large landowners to hold their
property given the rising land values and resulting increases in taxation on undeveloped land. A group was
formed to focus on the question of what can be done to provide tax relief to large landowners (7 members).
It has met once, and an early focus was whether there should be any linkage between tax relief and
protection for the land versus tax relief just so people can hang onto the land, with or without protection. He
thought the larger topic of providing tax relief to large landowners was something the whole group is in
support of. The value of undeveloped land was discussed. Gagnon noted that some Towns have
confronted this issue, including Pittsford and Bethlehem. These towns had to go to the State legislature to
pass a local law to reduce the assessed value based on certain criteria, for example the length of time the
land is protected. The Town does not have the authority to reduce County or school taxes, but they could
pass a law allowing them to opt in.
Also at the first meeting, a second group was formed to focus on community outreach (5 members). It will
help publicize what the Group is doing. It may also facilitate the decision-making process through ideas like
video clips to explain options and polling for people to weigh in.
At the second full meeting, the Group tackled whether to do interim changes or not, and the sense of the
group was “no,” at least not at this point. One thing that informed that decision was the data that Planner
Haremza and Code Officer Cortright compiled on the number of new dwelling units per year since 1971.
6
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
After a spike in the late ‘80s, the graph shows the number of units has been fairly stable over time, with a
decline in the last few years. Based on this, the feeling was that the Town was not under intense pressure.
Two further groups were formed in this meeting, one to delineate priority conservation areas in the Town
where development should be slowed or inhibited (12–14 members) and the other to focus on where and
how to enable hamlet development (6 members). These groups have not met yet but are about to. The
Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) will be working as part of the conservation group to identify criteria
for special places in the Town. The hamlet group will be looking at constraints and opportunities for growing
the hamlets and what would make this possible and desirable.
Rundle said it seemed like this was a good start, and the report was very informative. Gagnon added that
the process if flexible, and he imagines they will pick more people up on the way. Meeting minutes are on
the Town website as well as updates related to the Planning Group.
(9) PLANNER’S REPORT
Planner Haremza reported the following:
• He has been figuring out how to do things remotely, which the Town will need to be doing for the
foreseeable future.
• Regarding Beardsley Lane drainage, he will be following up with Laura Shawley about the Town
taking title to the two parcels for the drainage infrastructure. T.G. Miller will then produce a report
laying out ongoing maintenance responsibilities and costs.
• The Housing Conditions Survey is complete and has been submitted to the State. The final report
is on the Town website on the Planning and Zoning page.
• He is working to finish the Municipal Housing Affordability Grant. This is to look at increased
housing density in the hamlet area and how to accomplish that with existing infrastructure. The
request for qualifications (RFQ) will be posted soon.
• Regarding the Howland Rd. hemp operation, there is activity reportedly continuing there. Gagnon
said, under the circumstances, it has been hard to hear back from people he has contacted about
the issue.
(10) ADJOURNMENT
Planner Haremza discussed with Chair Rundle and Jody Scriber (Acting Chair at the previous meeting) the
process for getting the necessary signatures for documents remotely.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55pm.
___________________________________________
Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary