Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - April 20, 2021Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting April 20, 2021 PRESENT: Ed Bergman Scott Davis Kelly Maher Elana Maragni Bruce Richards Jody Scriber (Chair) ABSENT: Kathy Jett OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member) Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Hayden Brainard, Nora Brown, Carol Bushberg, Justin Craig, Ted Crane, Kevin Feeney, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Katharine Hunter, Amanda James, Arthur James, Michael Nelson, Ronda Roaring, Barbara Romano, Linda Santos, Sarah Schnabel, Jess Sczepanski, Adriel Shea, Jeffrey Wimsatt, Ruth Wimsatt Jones This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:02pm. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW Nothing was added to the agenda. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR No comments were made during privilege of the floor. 1  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Secretary de Villiers said she had two edits: (1) in the March 16th minutes, all three public hearings said the “public hearing was opened at” rather than “was closed at” at the conclusion of each; (2) in the March 31st minutes, a sentence on page six should read “It is new in Danby but not new in Town law.” MOTION: Approve the March 16th and March 31st minutes with the minor edits suggested Moved by Bergman, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Leslie Connors (Town Board member) shared the following information: • Tompkins County Council of Governments (TCCOG) has contracted with a company to conduct a study and propose a design for a buildout of broadband service to all residents in Tompkins County within three months. • Regarding the rezoning efforts, she encouraged all Planning Board members to attend any of the working group meetings they can. • There would be a public hearing the following day on the Deputron Hollow Rd. open development area (ODA). • Supervisor Gagnon has asked Betsy Wohl to chair a noise committee. There have been a lot of complaints from different neighborhoods about noise issues. • The Town is considering options to enable people to join meetings by Zoom even after in-person meetings resume. In response to a question from Maragni about when in-person meetings will resume, Gagnon said it is dependent on the Governor’s executive order suspending the open meetings law; currently they are approved for remote meetings through the end of April, and then they will see if they are approved for another month. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB-2021-01 Hornbrook Rd. Subdivision Parcel: 6.-1-18.25 Applicant: Edward Melchen Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Final Plat Approval Proposal: Subdivide parcel into 3 pieces approximately 14, 4, and 11 acres in size *New documents provided – Final Plat and letter/map of slopes, Draft Resolution 5 Final Approval with Conditions 2  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  Planner West said preliminary approval had been granted at the previous meeting. The map had since been updated with additional information, including moving the front setback line. He noted there was also additional information showing the build area is not within the 15% slopes. He pointed out that there was a suggested condition in the draft resolution that would require the other two lots (with no designated build areas) to go through the subdivision amendment process before building permits are granted. Scott Davis asked if the applicant will need to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for the setback from the stream and if accepting the subdivision includes accepting the house siting. Planner West said there would be no further review by the Planning Board if they approve this; he will review it when it comes for a building permit to make sure it is the same as what the Board approved. He added that the stream setback is not a zoning requirement, it is a guideline; the proposal is in the restricted-build area currently, but not the no-build area. Davis asked if the Board had the power to not allow the applicant to build in that restricted- build area while still approving the subdivision. West said the way to do that would have been requiring a modification when they reviewed the preliminary plat to change the bounds of construction. Linda Santos, representing the applicant, reminded the Board that part of the buyer’s process (for the lot with a proposed house) will be to submit for a septic permit and then a building permit to figure out whether the lot does work; Planner West clarified that the sale is contingent on the potential purchaser getting all the approvals they need. Final Plat Approval Bruce Richards said he thought the changes to the plat satisfied what the Board had requested in the previous meeting. He said it is still a tortured site to squeeze a house into, but he was willing to move they adopt the draft resolution; Bergman seconded the motion. Elana Maragni noted an error in the numbering of the whereas clauses. Scott Davis clarified that the negative SEQR determination was for both the subdivision and the proposed house. Planner West explained that it was for the whole project; whenever they know what the proposal is, they have to review the entire thing. Ted Crane noted that Section 904 of the Zoning Ordinance was referenced, which was incorrect. MOTION: Adopt Res. 5 of 2021 with the condition that the other lots must submit for amendment before building permits can be issued. Moved by Richards, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber Abstain: Davis SPR-2021-03 E. Miller Rd Site Plan Amendment Parcel: 7.1-43-233 3  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  Applicant: Michael Nelson Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application review, Public Hearing, SEQR Classification, Preliminary and Final Approval Proposal: Amendment of previously approved site plan to move garage 30’ deeper into the lot at request of neighbor. *New documents provided - New complete application, Draft Resolution 6 Preliminary and Final Approval Chair Scriber introduced the case, and Mr. Nelson pointed out that it was at his request, as opposed to his neighbor’s request. Mr. Nelson reviewed that the Town won the first lawsuit the neighbor brought, but the neighbor filed another regarding the Planning Board’s decision to grant site plan approval. He made the decision to move the garage 30’ to dismiss the second lawsuit and he has agreed not to pursue financial payment for the first lawsuit. He said it has cost the Town and himself a lot of money to defend its decision, and he thought this was in the best interest of the Town to move forward. Planner West said the Board had agreed at the previous meeting to move through the process in one meeting, which is not done commonly, because they had already reviewed the case and this was substantially similar. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m. No comments were made during the public hearing. The public hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. SEQR Review Planner West said this is a Type II action needing no further review. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Regarding the draft resolution, Ted Crane noted that Section 904 was the incorrect section. MOTION: Approve Res. 6 of 2021 granting preliminary and final plat approval Moved by Maher, seconded by Richards The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, 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 complete, Sketch Plan Conference, Schedule Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat 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 4  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  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 than4 new homes. *New documents provided - None, see March 31 Special Meeting for full application Planner West described the process thus far. The Planning Board had originally determined the application incomplete. At a separate special meeting, it gave feedback to the Town Board regarding the possible creation of an open development area (ODA). West said the Town Board may decide whether to approve the ODA at their next meeting, when they would be holding a public hearing. The Planning Board needed to determine if the application was complete, provide feedback to the applicant, and schedule a public hearing on the preliminary plat. He said he thought the application was as complete as anything he had seen through the Town. Scott Davis asked if it was the Planning Board’s role to decide if an ODA was a good idea as that was what he thought after rereading the law after the special meeting. West said his understanding was that the decision on the ODA is the Town Board’s as they have the authority to approve or deny an ODA. The law calls for referring to the Planning Board for their advice. While the Planning Board could say they do not recommend approval, what is really called for in the referral is information about what should be considered by the Town Board. Davis said this was not his interpretation of the law and suggested he and West talk outside the meeting. Kelly Maher asked what would happen if the ODA was not passed. West said the applicant would not need to reapply and instead can change their application between the sketch and the preliminary phase as it is still the same application. Bruce Richards asked about the map of the proposed structures on the James’ portion of the property (Parcel C). He thought the accessory structure was the only one not well defined. West showed the site map with the delineated build area and said that an accessory dwelling unit is not currently a proposal, but the option is being kept open for the future. If it were proposed outside of the build area, they would need to amend the subdivision. MOTION: Schedule a public hearing Moved by Richards, seconded by Maher The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber SUP-2021-01 1725 Danby Rd. Parcel: 7.-1-85 Applicant: Justin Craig Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Schedule Public Hearing Proposal: Special Use Permit for small car sales display lot and driveway expansion The applicant, Justin Craig, said they were seeking to do a parking lot for a motor vehicle sales facility. Chair Scriber asked him to tell the Board about the items they had asked him to address the last time he was before the Board. Mr. Craig said, to have less of an impact on the stream, they scaled the plan and will 5  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  start the lot 16’ back from the stream edge. They will have a 1% grade to the parking lot, which will be gravel, to encourage runoff to flow away from the stream and into the ground first. On the other side there are trees and shrubs to help with the water runoff. Planner West said it is up to the Planning Board as lead agency to decide whether they want to wait for public comment before completing SEQR. Maragni said her preference was for waiting until after the public hearing. In response to a concern from Davis, she said she did not think it would slow down the process, which West confirmed. It was decided to do SEQR Parts II and III at the following meeting. MOTION: Schedule a public hearing for May 18th at 7:00 p.m. Moved by Richards, seconded by Davis The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber (6) PLANNING GROUP UPDATE – Discuss Feedback process for Zoning Update Planner West said the Town has instituted a moratorium to focus efforts and create time and space for doing a zoning update, with an emphasis on the Low Density Residential zone (LDR). He thought there was strong consensus that what is currently allowed everywhere in LDR is significantly more development than the Town wants to see. This will be a nine month process. At the end of the year, the moratorium will expire and the Town Board will have the updated zoning ready for adoption. West said that the Town Board had just approved a change in the way information will flow between the groups working on the zoning update. West reviewed the previous process, which began with the Planning Group; he said he thought it had worked well but is now difficult due to the speed with which they want to move. Now, the Planning Group will no longer be a step in the process. Instead, the working groups formed through the Planning Group will present directly to the Town Board as well as the Planning Board and Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) and the community. West said the Town Board has no intention of approving anything without feedback from the Planning Board and CAC; they want feedback to be provided as a group or individuals, but some members preferred a unified letter from the Planning Board that had been voted on. West said he hoped the new process will be quicker, be a cycle that can be gone through multiple times, and provide more flexibility. West said there are currently two main working groups: the hamlet group and the conservation group. A third is in the process of being created. The conservation group is where the rewriting of the new zones that will replace LDR is happening. What has come out is there will be (1) a large-lot zone, which will include the Danby state forest, other publicly-held conservation land, and a voluntary opt-in; (2) a high-priority preservation zone, which would include things like unique natural areas (UNAs) and steep slopes; (3) a medium-priority zone, which would be areas the Town wants to stay rural and would be tighter than the current zoning; and (4) a lower priority area, where smaller lots will be allowed and which will be close to 6  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  the existing rules. A riparian corridor overlay has also been proposed. The conservation group will now be hashing out the details of what will be allowed for each zone, with the goal of a draft by July. The hamlet group has identified two zones within the central Danby hamlet, a core zone and a neighborhood zone. It has started reviewing proposals for what the zoning parameters would be in these zones. He hopes that this group’s pace parallels the conservation working group, although the conservation group is the one under the gun with the moratorium expiring. West said, assuming the Board’s agendas lighten up a bit, he thought it would be a good contribution if the Planning Board as a group delved into some of the technical parts of the zoning. The goal is it should be easy to develop where the town wants to see development and difficult where it doesn’t. The structure of the code over all, definitions, and other technical parts of the code would benefit from the Planning Board’s experience. Maragni asked about putting something on the agenda for each meeting, and she said that having an idea of the specific areas in advance, even if they do not get to it, would give them time to think it over. Chair Scriber clarified that by “plugging in” Planner West meant attending the hamlet or conservation meetings. West said yes, that is where the zoning code is being hashed out, and that is where people can have the most impact. Gagnon added that those meetings are now regularly scheduled; they are on Fridays and can be found on the Town calendar. Kelly Maher said she was glad the Planning Board would now have time to communally discuss issues and pass along recommendations as a group. She said she liked the process West had outlined. Scriber asked about also having time during the Planning Board meetings to discuss and give feedback about what is going on in the other groups, and West said members can request topics to be added to the agenda. West said there is now one email list for all emails about the process; people are signing up and the word is getting out there. Maragni said that a progress report at Planning Board meetings would be great for them and the public. West screenshared the timeline for the zoning update process. Scriber said she thought a map she had seen was really helpful, and West showed that. He said it was a working draft map of where the aforementioned zones might go and described how he and the conservation group arrived at it. He said they are starting with the highest priority and the lowest priority and working towards the middle. They are working to have a draft map where every parcel in the Town is assigned to a zone, and then they will have more conversations and adjust those. Bruce Richards said that since the time of Planner Randall, they have been asking to start the process with the maps; he thought this made so much sense and was an excellent place to start. He remembered that former planners C.J. Randall and John Czamanske had lists of technical criticisms of the Town’s zoning laws. He thought these were the types of things the Planning Board could get into. West added that if there is a change that is ready to go, it can be brought to the Town Board sooner. 7  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  8  PLANNING BOARD MINUTES  (7) PLANNER’S REPORT Planner West reported that he has heard from two property owners on Deputron Hollow Rd. about interest in construction, which is not prohibited under the moratorium. He thought upgrades to the road would be prohibitive, but he said this shows there is continued demand for building in places where the Town would like preservation. He thought the Town might want to pursue some conservation funding. (8) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary Planning Board Resolution #5 of 2021, SUB-2021-01 Page 1 of 2 Town of Danby Planning Board Resolution Number 5 of 2021 April 20, 2021 Final Conditional Approval, SUB-2021-01 Hornbrook Rd. Subdivision, Tax Parcel 6.-1-18.25 Zoning: Low Density Residential District (LD) 1. Whereas an application for a Site Plan Review has been submitted for tax parcel 6.- 1-18.25. The proposed project is to subdivide an existing lot into three lots with a dividing line where the existing lot is crossed by Hornbrook Rd.; and 2. 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 3. Whereas the Planning Board held the required Public Hearing on 3-16-2021; and 4. 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), subdivision is an unlisted action requiring environmental review; and 5. Whereas this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on March 16, 2021 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the Applicant, 6. Whereas the Planning Board did on March 16, 2021 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the project; and 7. Whereas the Planning Board did on March 16, 2021 grant approval of a preliminary subdivision plat; and 8. Whereas the Planning Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the Low Density Residential Zoning District; and 9. 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 10. Whereas the Planning Board carefully reviewed the submitted Final Plat as well as the considerations for subdivision, as applicable per the Subdivision Local Law; and 11. Whereas the Planning Board finds the proposed Final Plat and application adequate for reviewing the impacts imposed by the subdivision and waives the requirement of any and all Planning Board Resolution #5 of 2021, SUB-2021-01 Page 2 of 2 typically required plat or application components not included in the application for the review of the final plat for the 14 acre parcel north of Hornbrook Rd.; and 12. Whereas the Planning Board notes that the two southern parcels to be created have not provided a resource map and have not delineated a construction footprint, restricted build areas, or a no-build area as required by the Standard Subdivision process; and 13. Whereas the applicant understands that without going through the resource map and delineation process any final plat approval will include conditions that subdivision amendment to delineate resources and appropriate build areas will be required prior to granting of building permits on the newly created lots. Now Therefore, be it Resolved that the Town of Danby Planning Board does hereby conditionally approve the Final Plat for Subdivision of tax parcel 6.-1-18.25 as proposed by the applicant subject to the following: No building permits will be issued on either of the parcels south of Hornbrook without review and approval by the Planning Board of an amended subdivision application that includes a resource map and delineation of restricted build areas, no build areas, and a construction disturbance envelope as outlined in the Town of Danby’s Standard Subdivision process. Be it further Resolved that conditions imposed must be listed on the final plat prior to endorsement by the Town of Danby Planning Board Chairperson. Approved _____ ___, 2021 ________________________________________ Chairperson Planning Board Resolution #6 of 2021, SPR-2021-01 Page 1 of 2 Town of Danby Planning Board Resolution Number 6 of 2021 April 20, 2021 Approval, SPR-2021-03 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 April 20, 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 4-20-2021; 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 #6 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 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 ______ __, 2021 ________________________________________ Chairperson