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