HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - Feb. 16, 2021Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 16, 2021
PRESENT:
Ed Bergman
Scott Davis
Kathy Jett
Kelly Maher
Elana Maragni
Bruce Richards
Jody Scriber (Chair)
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner David West
Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member)
Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers
Public Mark Anbinder, Roy B., Eloise Barret, Dana Berger, Marc Berger, Cynthia
Bowman, Hayden Brainard, Claudia Braymer, Carol Bushberg, Ted Crane, Toby
Dean, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Dennis Gray, Earl Hicks, Jeremy Holmes,
Arthur James, Nancy Medsker, Ted Melchen, Matt Namer, Michael Nelson, Kim
Nitchman, Russ Nitchman, Ronda Roaring, Ivan Ross, Linda Santos, Connie
Sczepanski, Adriel Shea, Sarah Schnabel (Town Board member), Christine
Valkenburgh, Olivia Vent, Jeffrey Wimsatt, Katharine, Anon1, Anon2, Anon3,
Anon4
This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform.
The meeting was opened at 7:02pm.
(1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW
No items were added to the agenda.
(2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Ronda Roaring (571 South Danby Rd.) complemented Planner West on his thorough and well-organized
agenda. However, she said he was treating applicants as if they were his clients. She said if there were
members of the Planning Board who could not think for themselves, read the laws, and make decisions for
1
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
themselves, they needed to resign so the Town Board could appoint individuals who could. She said
Planner West owes applicants nothing and his allegiance is supposed to be to the Town and the
Comprehensive Plan. She added that residents want Danby to retain its rural character, no matter what
their definition of rural character is, and she expected him to do whatever it takes to make that happen.
Marc Berger (165 E. Miller Rd.) said his house is adjacent to the property on E. Miller Rd. being considered
first on the agenda. He said he bought his house in 1989, loves living here, likes how people treat each
other, and senses that people want to maintain the area as a beautiful place to live. He gave a brief history
of the timeline, as he experienced it, for the property adjacent to him; as soon as he became aware of the
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) decision to grant a variance, he followed what was happening with the
property.
Dennis Gray (396 Bald Hill Rd.) confirmed the subdivision on Bald Hill Rd. was on this evening’s agenda.
Ted Crane brought up two things: (1) the need for the Planning Board to consider the long-term impact of
all its actions, and (2) the need for the Planning Board process to be predictable, applied equally to all
applicants, and as easy as to understand as possible. He noted that past actions taken by the BZA and the
Planning Board have come back to be significant issues in this meeting, for example in the cases of the
development reviews on E. Miller Rd. (the first on the agenda) and Marsh Rd. He said there are
contradictions in the agenda packet in terms of the requirements. He specifically cited the lack of a building
permit for site plan review in the case of the first development review on the agenda. He added that all
substantive documentation for that site plan review had been waived, and he thought it seemed short-
sighted to deny the Planning Board this information in case the discussion took an unexpected turn. The
conservation protections dismissed in that case were then deemed important in the Hornbrook Rd. case.
He urged the Planning Board to ensure a predictable procedure as much as possible, tonight and in the
future.
Adriel Shea introduced himself as a prospective owner of one the subdivisions being considered, on
Hornbrook Rd. He said he would be available for questions and made one correction to the memo that was
provided: the wetland on the northern part of the property is not a DEC wetland, it is a wetland as listed in
the National Wetlands Inventory. This is a distinction because the DEC wetlands have a 100’ development
buffer around them, which the National Wetlands Inventory does not.
Matt Namer also introduced himself. He said he moved to Danby this year and was excited to get to know
his neighbors. He said he and his friend Ivan, who was also present, are interested in buying a property at
88 E. Miller Rd. (the fifth review on the agenda). They want to do a subdivision so Ivan can get financing on
the three-acre parcel and they plan to split the remaining land 50-50.
(3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MOTION: Approve the January 19th minutes
Moved by Richards, seconded by Bergman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
Abstain: Maher
(4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
Leslie Connors (Town Board member) shared the following information:
• She welcomed Kelly Maher as a new Planning Board member.
• There is a Town Board meeting the following day during which there will be a public hearing on the
Conservation Advisory Council’s (CAC) management plans for Town-owned properties, which are
on Deputron Hollow and Sylvan Lane.
• She thought someone was trying to get together support for a farmer’s market at Dotson Park, and
she encouraged people to support that.
• On March 8th there will be a public hearing for expanding the Deputy Highway Superintendent
position. Most highway staff are not Danby residents so having a residency requirement means
that staff cannot aspire to moving up.
(5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SPR-2021-01 E. Miller Rd. Site Plan Review
Parcel: 7.1-43.223
Applicant: Michael Nelson
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public hearing, Application review, SEQR Classification
as Type II Action, Prelim. & Final Site Plan Approval Decision
Proposal: Construction of a home, garage, and storage shed on approximately 10 acre parcel.
Chair Scriber introduce the item and said it had already been discussed a bit (at the previous meeting
during an informal review of the sketch site plan).
The public hearing was opened at 7:19 p.m.
Mr. Berger finished the timeline he had begun during privilege of the floor. He said his attorney had reached
out to Mr. Nelson’s attorney to try to engage in a conversation; it has been his desire to work out something
that would be acceptable to both of them. He mentioned an email he had sent to Planner West that had a
photo showing the view from his bedroom window attached, and this photo was shown to the Board. He
said the garage would be directly in his field of view, despite it being a 10-acre plot; this impact was his
concern originally when the lot came before the Planning Board.
Christine Valkenburgh, Mr. Nelson’s attorney, said they had in fact responded to Mr.
Berger’s request to discuss the issue, but there was no follow-through; she said they were still
open to discussion.
3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Claudia Braymer, Mr. Berger’s attorney, addressed the communication between her and Ms. Valkenburgh,
saying her understanding was that Mr. Nelson was not interested in changing the proposal. She noted that
she had sent a memo and written comments to Planner West. She said the Planning Board had required
site plan review of the non-conforming flag lot when it approved the subdivision to ensure future
development would not cause negative impacts on the subject lot or the character of the surrounding area.
The purpose of instituting site plan review was not to check that the setbacks were met; the review should
look more deeply at the impacts of the configuration being proposed. She said they were asking the Board
to deny the proposed configuration because it does cause negative impacts to the subject lot and her
client’s adjacent property. She said they had reached out to Mr. Miller (the original landowner) but received
no response. She added that they engaged in litigation as a last resort when they did not have another
outlet to discuss Mr. Berger’s concerns. She said his biggest concerns relate to the proximity of the garage
to his property line and the visibility of the garage from his home. She pointed out that a garage as an
accessory use cannot be put in a front yard; she asked that the garage be placed behind the proposed
residence, which is the primary use. Additionally, she argued that the garage as an accessory use could
not be built before the primary principal structure is built, pointing out that a single-family home is permitted
in the Low Density Residential zone but a standalone garage is not. She said Planner West had made an
interpretation that a garage as an accessory use can be placed on the property for some certain amount of
time, but she disagreed. She said her position was that the appropriate person to make the initial
determination or interpretation is the Code Enforcement Officer, which she did not believe Planner West to
be. She also said the garage should not be allowed to have living quarters; water, bathroom, or kitchen
facilities; or business or commercial use. Regarding the soils on the property, she said no agricultural data
statement was submitted with the application, and so the information sent to the County was incomplete for
their 239 review. The project as proposed is located on Class II soils, which are of statewide importance
and the Town’s subdivision laws make clear should be protected from development. She pointed out there
are areas on the lot farther back that do not contain Class II soils where development could be considered.
She thought consideration of restricted build areas ideally would have been done during subdivision review,
as it was not, she urged the Planning Board to take the soils data under consideration now, which she felt
was well within their purview. She also noted there was no building permit application and no details about
the proposed buildings. She asked the Board to deny the proposal until more details are submitted.
Ronda Roaring said, as far as she can determine, there is no right to build in New York state. To Mr.
Nelson, she said he would not be welcomed with open arms by her as he is part of the problem and he is
infringing on the rural character of the Town. Unless he could somehow indicate how he would mitigate
that, she was not interested in seeing him building anything, anymore than she was anyone else. She said
the Comprehensive Plan clearly indicates the Town will attempt to preserve the rural character. She noted
no ATVs are allowed on Town roads or in the State forest. She said everyone thinking they could build in
Danby was a very serious thing and expressed agreement with what Ms. Braymer had said. She
recommended the Board think about making a decision that comes from the Board and not Planner West.
Olivia Vent said she was shocked by Ms. Roaring’s comment saying directly to Mr. Nelson that he was not
welcome. She said she is an adjacent neighbor. She said Mr. Miller (the original landowner) is passionate
about his land and held on to the land as long as possible. She gave a brief history of her understanding of
the property. She added that Mr. Miller has been available, she has been in communication with him with
questions about his selling of the property, and Mr. Miller said he never heard from Mr. Berger. She noted
that Mr. Berger sought a variance for his solar panels, and those very much infringe on her property,
aesthetics, property value, and viewscape. She said Mr. Nelson worked with Mr. Miller to buy the property
4
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
so he, too, has the opportunity to enjoy the rural character. She apologized directly to Mr. Nelson for Ms.
Roaring’s remark.
Mr. Berger disputed the history given by Ms. Vent, particularly stating that Mr. Miller never
offered him this parcel to buy once Mr. Miller was applying for a variance. He pointed out that Ms.
Vent’s house is across the road from the property, not adjacent.
Russ Nitchman welcomed Mr. Nelson to Danby. He said Ms. Roaring made comments on a Facebook
post, and many local neighbors objected. He apologized on her behalf and the Town’s behalf and said most
people in Town are welcoming. He said Mr. Nelson is not part of the problem and he felt Ms. Roaring was
way out of line.
Ted Crane said the issue was not about Mr. Nelson or Mr. Berger. He said he has been in the situation
where a neighbor built very close to him, and so he is sensitive to that. He said he is also sensitive to
nuances of design and the planning of houses. He thought the recent actions taken by the BZA and the
Planning Board created a predictable situation where the new homeowner might decide to site the home
where it would have the greatest impact on the nearest neighbor. He said no homeowner wants to look out
on a close neighbor. It is possible to design a house close to a neighbor’s home but facing away from it or
to build further from the neighbor with a separate structure like a garage blocking the view of the neighbor.
Siting the house as far away as possible would also be reasonable, but the extra expense of extending the
driveway might be more important (to the new homeowner) than preserving the privacy of the existing
homeowner. He said the Planning Board chose to include a site review, hopefully with the intent of
protecting the interests of the existing homeowner. He thought the soils data should not be ignored and
explained why he thought that. He urged the Planning Board to ask for the data and ask for a topic to be
explored if they felt it should be.
Earl Hicks said he was speaking as a citizen and a neighbor two or three houses away from Mr. Nelson
(rather than a BZA member). He supported what Ms. Vent said in contrast to what Ms. Roaring said, and
he wholeheartedly welcomed Mr. Nelson. He added that he did not know where the ATV comment was
coming from.
The public hearing was closed at 7:46 p.m.
Comments via the “Chat” function included the Nitchmans suggesting tabling the review to allow the two
owners to talk it over and, later, suggesting an alternate placement for the garage; a number of comments
on how much of an additional expense or hardship extra driveway would be as well as one stating that filing
a building permit was not undue hardship; a comment from Roy B. that Mr. Berger’s solar panels were not
subject to site plan review or subdivision and so no agricultural soils data were required; Ted Crane stating
that driveways and utilities could cross the protected soils; Roy B. expressing his belief, after the matter
concluded, that there were multiple errors of law and procedure and that it was a disservice to the applicant
and the aggrieved party; and Eloise Barret welcoming Mr. Nelson to the neighborhood.
Board Discussion
Scott Davis said the cogent and thoughtful comments from the public were appreciated. He said Mr. Berger
had again expressed the desire to engage in a conversation outside the parameters of the meeting, and
both attorneys expressed a desire to communicate, so he wondered if the Board should postpone so they
could have that conversation. This would not be to dismiss any thoughts or concerns but to give them that
5
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
opportunity. He said he did not remember dealing explicitly with soils and would need to be educated on
that. He brought up the idea of, without changing the driveway at all, moving the garage to the other side of
the parking area.
Bruce Richards agreed with Davis that it would be nice if the two neighbors could get off to a good start by
working it out themselves; he said he was sympathetic to both sides. He thought where the garage was
proposed would have the most significant impact on Mr. Berger’s viewshed. But because of the length of
the driveway, he was not sure the garage could be relocated without a significant economic penalty. In
terms of soils, he did not see a strict prohibition but said the Board would much prefer if the structures were
located where it would preserve agricultural land when there is an option. He noted that the grouping Mr.
Nelson had proposed preserves the field behind, which gives a more practical ability to continue using it in
agriculture. He thought the plan as proposed has a major impact on Mr. Berger and said he was hoping Mr.
Nelson would consider moving the garage and providing a different site plan to work with.
Elana Maragni said wherever the house is situated, you will see it from Mr. Berger’s property, and the only
option to minimize that would be move it way to the back of the lot, which would require a very long
driveway. She did not see that a compromise that would allow a shorter driveway and not seeing the
garage and residence would be possible.
Kathy Jett said Mr. Nelson might not mind having a garage in between his house and the neighboring
property as that would give him and his neighbors more privacy. Moving the garage over might give a clear
line of sight between both houses. She added that the person who bought the flag lot has an opinion about
what they want to look at when they look at their bedroom window also.
Mr. Nelson, the applicant, spoke. He said he has been a long-time member of the South Hill community. He
said the garage is located where it is for access based on anticipated snow. He said he has a side-by-side
ATV so his daughter, who is in a wheelchair, can access and enjoy the property too; it is not for going on
the roads. This is also why the building is built with wheelchair access. He noted that he has already
purchased the property. When he bought the property, his understanding was he had to submit a site plan,
and at the previous meeting’s informal review of the sketch plan, his understanding was he had met what
the Board was originally looking for. He said he had not heard from Mr. Berger except for receiving court
papers that he was being sued. He noted that Mr. Berger built his solar panels on the same soil that he was
trying to build the house on. When he bought it, there were no restrictions except site plan review, and he
felt he had met that. He said he did not want to be staring into Mr. Berger’s bedroom window; his garage is
over 150’ from Mr. Berger’s residence, and the house is even further back. He did not think he could afford
or manage a longer driveway; the first 200’ of driveway cost him $6,000 to get back beyond the (BZA-
imposed) no build area, so further back would be a severe hardship. He said he did not understand the
hostility and thanked those who welcomed him. He said he is trying to do what is best for his family. His
plan is to build a ranch-style home.
Ms. Braymer said there is no building permit application, so none of what Mr. Nelson said
has documentation. She said they would be happy to meet with him.
Ms. Valkenburgh asked that the neighbor and counsel let others speak as she felt they had
had enough time.
Mr. Nelson said that if they keep delaying, it is hard for him to get on a builder’s schedule.
He said the site plan review and then the court part is holding him up from moving forward with a
building permit. He felt that Mr. Berger has stalled him at every turn.
6
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Ed Bergman said he would love for the neighbors to try to find a way to make changes, but he felt the BZA
approved the variance, and the Planning Board set parameters that were met, so he was not sure about
holding things up more. He said he would still encourage them to meet to talk to be neighborly. However,
he did not see the right to shut this down. Scriber agreed with Bergman. Davis said his understating was
different—he thought the Board had set some setbacks (at the meeting approving subdivision) but then
said they also wanted to see a site plan, which was not contingent on just those parameters. Jett said she
believed they have seen that in what has been offered up so far.
Chair Scriber read out a draft resolution for approval of the site plan. One typo was fixed. A motion was
made and seconded to pass the resolution. Scriber felt they had had discussion and were ready to see
where the Board was at.
MOTION: Pass Res. 1 of 2021 approving the project
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Jett
The motion passed.
In favor (4): Bergman, Jett, Maragni, Scriber
Against (3): Davis, Maher, Richards
SUB-2021-01 Hornbrook Rd. Subdivision
Parcel: 6.-1- 18.25 Applicant: Edward Melchen
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application review, Schedule Public Hearing, SEQR
Classification
Proposal: Subdivide parcel into 3 pieces approximately 14, 4, and 11 acres in size
Chair Scriber noted that they had discussed this subdivision during a subdivision sketch conference at the
previous meeting.
The applicant, Ted Melchen, clarified that the application has some errors as it leads one to believe it is an
application to build, and it is not for that purpose. He said he wants to divide the property into separate
parcels so that it can be put on the market, and he is not personally changing anything. Linda Santos said
the two remainder parcels can and do standalone, and the way they exist now makes the request to
subdivide them more or less a formality. She added that there is a buyer for the parcel to the north, who
was in attendance, and he would be planning to eventually build a home there and has provided
documents to the Board.
Davis said he had walked the property with Ms. Santos, which was very informative. He thought they
should be clear that their approval of the subdivision would not be an approval of a house at the site as the
issues have been conflated to this point. He said it is understandable that the buyer would like to know if he
can build a house, but the approval of the subdivision should be separate and does not mean an
endorsement of building a house. Scriber said the Board also wanted to be sure they were not waiving the
requirement to survey the other two pieces of property. Mr. Melchen reiterated that the subdivision was not
a request to build anything and he might sell to someone for hunting or recreational purposes; he would like
the subdivision request to stand alone.
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Bergman said his understanding was they were looking at whether the application met the subdivision
requirements, not designing where the home is going. Planner West said that, because this is a three-lot
subdivision, there is a process that includes looking at where buildings can go to mitigate impacts of the
subdivision. He said it is not to decide whether or not you can build but to guide how and decide where
building is more appropriate. Ms. Santos said that the reason the potential buyer has submitted additional
documentation is because the lot is challenging and setbacks from the stream and road will need to be
respected; she recognizes that there are separate approvals for the subdivision and permit, but the buyer
provided the documentation at her suggestion to show where on the lot a house could be successfully put.
Kelly Maher said she thought they should look at the viability of putting something on the site, and the
documentation provided since the last meeting shows that it is a possibility; she thought that was a good
addition to the package. Davis said that, following Planner West’s guidance, they need to address
buildability before approving the subdivision. Jett disagreed.
Planner West said the next step would be to go to a public hearing. He said it is three lots, and at the
previous meeting it was decided that it was a standard subdivision. Once the Board has a preliminary plat,
they can give suggestions for changing it to a final plat; that is when the Board could approve the areas
where a building could be put.
In response to a question from Davis about the wetlands, West said the map shows a National Wetland
and also a Tompkins County Water Resources-mapped wetland. West clarified that rather than a setback,
according to the Town’s subdivision requirements, there is a restricted build area within 100’ of a wetland,
which means you want to minimize building but does not necessarily prohibit building. He thought the
National Wetlands boundary was incorrect, so the Board could decide to ask for a delineation to show
where the edge of the wetland is.
Planner West said that this is an unlisted action under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR).
MOTION: Set a public hearing for the following month
Moved by Richards, seconded by Maher
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
MOTION: Declare the Planning Board Lead Agency (note: this was also done at the previous meeting)
Moved by Richards, seconded by Bergman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
SUB-2021-02 319 Bald Hill Rd. Subdivision
Parcel: 15.-1- 15.22 Applicant: Debbra Davis
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application review, Schedule Public hearing, SEQR
Classification as Unlisted Action
Proposal: Subdivide parcel into 2 pieces approximately 38 and 88 acres. Parcel is split by Bald Hill
Rd.
8
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Mr. Brainard, representing the applicant, said they were asking for a technical subdivision of the parcel as it
is already subdivided by the road but is still technically one parcel. The applicant would like to sell one
parcel.
No one on the Board had questions. In response to a question from Dennis Gray, it was explained that
there will be a public hearing for comments at the next meeting.
MOTION: Set a public hearing for the following month
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Richards
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
MOTION: Declare the Planning Board Lead Agency
Moved by Jett, seconded by Maragni
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
SUB-2021-03 250 Marsh Rd. Subdivision
Parcel: 12.-1- 21
Applicant: Jeffrey Wimsatt, on behalf of Kateri Tekakwitha, LLC
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review – determine incomplete, Subdivision
Classification as Standard Subdivision, SEQR Classification as Unlisted Action
Proposal: Subdivide parcel into 3 parts, one part to combine with an adjacent parcel, one part for
the applicant to hold, and a 3rd part to sell for the development of a single-family home. The parcel
does not have the required frontage to qualify for minor subdivision and is seeking to use the
cluster option in the Town’s subdivision ordinance in conjunction with an Open Development Area
created by the Town Board to allow development without requiring road frontage and a
conservation easement to reduce future development potential to no more than 4 new homes.
Chair Scriber said this subdivision was a relatively in-depth proposal and the application was not complete
to move forward.
Mr. Brainard said he was the attorney for the applicant, Mr. Wimsatt. He thought it was less complicated
than it looked. He explained that there are three parcels that have been owned by the Wimsatts for close to
70 years. The parcels are already divided in the title and deed, and how it became one parcel was a matter
of administrative convenience. He said they are asking for a mere lot line adjustment. They already have
contracts on all three parcels. He said they had been in conversation with Planning for months and were
told to work towards a minor subdivision. The primary issue is access to a public road for Parcels B and C.
Parcel A will be annexed to another property that has road frontage, and Parcels B and C have road
frontage through a driveway to Marsh Rd. Marsh Rd. is a public road that is supposed to be maintained by
9
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
the Town. If they will be required to do a standard subdivision and a cluster, he would like to know why and
what has changed.
Planner West said he took some difference to Mr. Brainard’s description. He thought Mr. Brainard did
correctly define the problem, which is that the parcel only has frontage at the corner of the lot, so as soon
as it is divided, any interior parcel no longer has frontage. Danby’s subdivision law and zoning require that
any newly created lot have frontage, which leads to the issue of why it is complicated. He said the Town’s
legal counsel does not uphold Mr. Brainard’s legal theory of it being three parcels; the Town’s perspective
is that it has been treated as one parcel for many years and has not been used differently on different
pieces. West said he had walked the site with the applicant and discussed many options for how this could
be allowed. Currently, there is no right to subdivide the parcel. Subdividing Parcel A and annexing it to the
Romano’s property is not an issue. That application came first, but it included the rest of the development
plan to create multiple parcels, and the Town then has to review the whole project to avoid segmentation
under SEQR. Some options include a planned development zone (PDZ), a cluster, or an open development
area (ODA). It is ultimately up to the applicant to propose one thing to the Board that they can then review
and vote up or down on, which is not what they have in this application. Planner West said that thinking
about finding a way to let some of the area be developed while more is preserved could be a positive
tradeoff for the Town.
Mr. Brainard clarified that their proposal was a waiver of the road frontage requirement, which the Town
has the right to do and has done in the past. The shared driveway is Deputron Hollow Rd. west of Marsh
Rd., which was abandoned by the Town 70 or 80 years ago. This would be maintained by the owners of
Parcels B and C as access to Marsh Rd. Planner West said there is the possibility of a variance, but the
frontage requirement cannot be waived by the Planning Board as it is part of the Town’s zoning. He said
the decision before the Planning Board was whether to accept the application as complete and move to a
public hearing or to request the applicant do more work to move forward with a different application.
Jett said she felt the Board needed more information regarding access and that the application was
incomplete.
Davis asked about the driveway. Planner West said Deputron Hollow Rd. used to run west but was
abandoned, maybe in the ‘20s. Since that time it has been used as a driveway to access this parcel. Art
James, who is under contract for Parcel C, said they had asked for a certificate of abandonment and not
received one; he said the road was on a Town road map in 1941 and has been used since. West said this
is an important distinction—it is abandoned, and there are official, handwritten Town minutes that capture
the official action of abandoning the road. Scriber brought up the quality of the road and fire and safety as a
question. West said that is largely a question for the building code; the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer
did not think it would be a problem improving it to the level of a driveway. The applicant, Mr. Wimsatt,
added that they have had large trucks, fire trucks, and ambulances there without issue; the driveway has a
very solid base.
10
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Planner West said the applicant does also have the option of improving the driveway to the level of a
private road, which would give them the frontage although it would be expensive and destroy a lot of trees.
He said this is not a preferred direction, but the Board should be clear that it is a direction the applicant has
by right. Mr. Brainard said they chose not to go that direction because it would substantially change the
character of the area, cutting down many trees and doubling the size of the existing access; it is not what
the property owners want to do and is unlikely to be acceptable to the neighbors.
West reviewed that the Town’s zoning requires frontage, the subdivision ordinance requires a new lot to
meet the zoning and have that frontage, and NYS law for building permits requires a lot have access to a
road, although the State only requires 15’. The way around that would be for the Town Board to institute an
open development area (ODA), which allows the creation of parcels that only access the road by a
driveway or easement.
Nancy Medsker spoke. She said she has lived in this area for 30 years and is very concerned about the
direction of the conversation and planning. She said the road was officially closed in 1935, but this does not
mean it has become a driveway. Owners on either side own the road, but there is still a right of public
access. This worries her because of the talk of making an ODA. She thought the road was in poor shape
currently and pointed out the number of possible houses was high so they could be talking about it
becoming a major road. She thought this would change the character of the neighborhood and the beauty
of the naturalized area. She thanked the Wimsatts for being such good stewards to the property for so
many decades. But she felt it would be a slippery slope to offer ODAs to properties with no access. This
would leave no protection for anything, and you might as well throw out the zoning laws if you do this
because everybody will except the same treatment. She added that there was no public notice for this
meeting’s hearing. A number of people pointed out that this was not a public hearing.
Mr. Brainard said they made the request they made so as not to change the character of
the neighborhood. He said the road was abandoned, the Town does not own the property, and the
driveway does not continue to be accessible by the public—either the Wimsatts or their neighbors
own it.
Town Supervisor Joel Gagnon said he sympathizes with Ms. Medsker’s concerns about an ODA opening
up the potential for a lot of development. He said the Wimsatts have agreed to a conservation easement on
the property to limit development to something the Town can live with. The benefit of an ODA is that it
allows access by right of way instead of by street, so that portion of Deputron Hollow could be left as a
driveway. He did not think the Town Board would entertain an ODA unless it was accompanied by
protecting the rest of the land. They would be discussing this further at the next Town Board meeting.
Bergman said he thought the applicant could decide to submit what they have, but then that is what the
public hearing and vote would be on. Maragni said her understanding was that part of the problem was that
it is not a minor subdivision, it is a standard subdivision, so that would need to be considered before moving
to a public hearing. She said they need a correct application before moving forward.
11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
12
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
The Board chose not to take any action at this time on the understanding that the applicant would contact
Planner West to get the application right.
SUB-2021-04 88 E. Miller Rd. Subdivision
Parcel: 7.-1- 29
Applicant: Mathew Namer on behalf of Corinne Rutske
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Sketch Application Review, Schedule Public hearing,
SEQR Classification
Proposal: Subdivide existing farmhouse to create conforming lot for house separate from the
remaining lands.
No Board members had any questions. Maragni pointed out that Part 1 of the Short Environmental
Assessment Form (SEAF) was currently incomplete. Planner West said the Board should direct the
applicant to fill that out as well as the plat application, as specified in the memo.
MOTION: Set a public hearing for the following month
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Maragni
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
(6) PLANNING GROUP UPDATE
Planner West reported that there would be a meeting of the conservation working group Friday, February
19th, and he would be scheduling the next hamlet working group meeting soon. He added that more
participation from Planning Board members in these committees/working groups would be great.
(7) PLANNER’S REPORT
Planner West did not have anything to add in his Planner’s report.
(8) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
___________________________________________
Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary
Planning Board Resolution #1 of 2021, SPR-2021-01
Page 1 of 2
Town of Danby
Planning Board Resolution Number 1 of 2021
February 16, 2021
Approval, SPR-2021-01
E. Miller Rd. Site Plan, Tax Parcel 7.1-43.223
Zoning: Low Density Residential District (LD)
1. Whereas an application for a Site Plan Review has been submitted for tax parcel 7.1-
43.223. The proposed project is to construct a single family dwelling, garage, and shed on the
existing 10 acre parcel; and
2. Whereas site plan review was required as a condition during the subdivision process creating
this lot, mainly and specifically to assure compliance with the variance and subdivision siting
conditions; and
3. Whereas legal notice was published and adjacent property owners within 500 feet notified in
accordance with the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance, Section 904; and
4. Whereas an Agricultural Data Statement was filed for the subdivision creating this lot,
including the plan to build a single-family home on the lot, and notice was given to Tompkins
County and farm owners within 500 ft of this project in advance of the June 16, 2020 Planning
Board Meeting, and the Planning Board has determined that the original plan and disclosures of
the Ag. Data Statement have not changed in any manner or material respect given this siting
follow-up review related to, and as was a part of, the subdivision review process and the prior
Ag. Data Statement as filed and reviewed; and
5. Whereas the Planning Board held the required Public Hearing on 2-16-2021; and
6. Whereas per the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (6 CRR-NY
617.5(c)(9&11)), as well as Local Law #2 of 1991, Section VI (Providing for Environmental
Review in the Town of Danby), the action of siting and permitting a single family home pursuant
to an approved subdivision plat (being a summary of this project) is a Type II Action and no
further environmental review is required; and
7. Whereas the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability reviewed this
proposal per the requirements of Section 239 of New York State General Municipal Law and had
no recommendations or comments on this proposal; and
8. Whereas the provision of water and the onsite treatment of waste water is subject
to permit review and approval by the Tompkins County Health Department; and
9. Whereas the Planning Board carefully reviewed the submitted Site Plan as well as the 14
Site Plan Review considerations, as applicable per Zoning Ordinance Sections 805; and
10. Whereas the Planning Board finds the proposed Site Plan and application adequate for
reviewing the impacts imposed by the construction of a single-family dwelling, garage, and shed
Planning Board Resolution #1 of 2021, SPR-2021-01
Page 2 of 2
and waives the requirement of any and all typically required site plan components not included
in the application; and
11. Whereas the Planning Board finds the application meets the requirements for granting
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval.
Now Therefore, be it Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board does hereby approve
the Site Plan for tax parcel 7.1-43.223.
Approved February 16, 2021
________________________________________
Chairperson