Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-08-TownBoard-MinutesTown of Danby Town BoardRegular First Monthly Board MeetingMonday, 8 March, 2021 at 7:00 PMvia Zoom Video Conferencing Meeting MinutesRoll Call :Town Board Joel Gagnon, SupervisorLeslie ConnorsJim HolahanSarah SchnabelMatt UlinskiTown Justices Garry HuddleTown Planner David WestTown Code Enforcement Officer Steve CortrightTown Bookkeeper Laura ShawleyCounty Legislator Dan KleinRecording Secretary Janice R. Adelman, Town Clerk 1. Call to Order at 19:012. Additions/Deletions to Agenda2.1. Dan Klein County Legislator Report to Item 6.4.2.2. Remove Item 10.2. WPV update2.3. Remove Item 10.5. Stretch Code2.4. Schnabel has questions around attorney fees in the general fund; remove Gen Fundwarrant from consent agenda and place as Agenda Item 8.3. Privilege of the Floor3.1. Ted Crane spoke in opposition to pursuing the Open Development Area (ODA) and infavor of the previously proposed solution he offered during last week’s special meeting.Like many people, Crane does not want to see the Deputron Hollow area developed, but ifthere must be development, he would like to see it done in a minimally invasive way.3.2. Betsy Keokosky made a statement in support of a land-use moratorium, given thePlanning Group and the subcommittees who are currently discussing changes andeasements and zoning, and suggesting that in this transition period the town should haltany further action until decisions on these issues have been made.3.3. Hayden Brainard, attorney representing the Wimsatt family in the current subdivision andODA proceedings, said that he and his clients support the ODA and want to move forward.3.4. Ronda Roaring spoke in response to Mr. Brainard’s comments, noting that she and othershave been asking for a moratorium for a number of years and is not a targeted actiontoward Brainard’s clients; Roaring continued by stating that the town has seriousproblems with its zoning ordinance and previously sued the town to fix it.3.5. Councilperson Schnabel reminded everyone that privilege of the floor is a time to addressthe Town Board and not any other attendees who are present.4. Correspondence Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 2 of 12 4.1.Email 17 Feb 2021 re Planning Board4.2.Letter 1 Mar 2021 re Ag District Contestation4.3.Email 3 Mar 2021 re Howland Rd5. Announcements6. Reports6.1.Code Enforcement Officer6.2. Town Planner6.2.1. Prior month focused on preparing the materials for the proposed moratorium,planning board approvals, and the water district operating policy.6.2.2. This month West is beginning to issue letters of enforcement to four townproperties, some of which have had a long history with the town.6.2.3. Persuing the tax reduction for conservation easements, he met with staff from NYState Senator Peter Oberacker’s office; Oberacker supports the initiative and willmove forward the legislation proposed by the tax committee within the PlanningGroup and supported by the Town Board before West was hired.6.2.4. Planning Group work continues with the conservation committee; SupervisorGagnon brought a draft zoning proposal to start thinking about more restrictivezoning and some conservation focus areas. The Committee will continue to focus onimproving and coming up with alternatives to this draft.6.2.5. The Hamlet Group will be meeting this month where West will propose a first draft,at a conceptual level, of some zoning updates for the Hamlet. He is looking to fix alot of issues where the zoning and subdivision laws don’t match the comprehensiveplan.6.3.Town Clerk6.4. County Legislator, Dan Klein6.4.1. After the last meeting when Klein discussed his support for the vaccine registrybeing debated in the county legislature, the county initiated a waiting list for peopleseeking vaccines; 8,500 county residents signed up in the first week of its existence.6.4.2. Danby will receive some amount of funding from the latest Federal stimulus bill forexpenses associated with public health emergency and its negative public impacts.Exact amount to be determined; however, the Town should start brainstormingaround how it can put the money to use.6.4.3. Last August, Governor Cuomo called for a report by April 1, 2021 from everymunicipality with a police force under the Reimagining Public Safety Initiative. Thereport should offer plans as to how to reinvent or modify policing to address racialdisparities. Tompkins County has spearheaded this initiative; the City of Ithaca spentmany months with focus groups and consultants resulting in a draft report that isover 100 pages long covering a large number of recommendations. The CountyLegislature is actively looking at this report and its recommendations to decide acourse of action moving forward by the April 1 deadline. Klein highlighted a fewrecommendations:6.4.3.1. The first is controversial; to eliminate the Ithaca Police Department andreplace it with a new agency that would be a combination of armed officers andunarmed officers (e.g., social workers). Klein identified two issues he sees with Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 3 of 12 this recommendation: (1) Tompkins County does not oversee the Ithaca PoliceDepartment, so the county may not get to vote on it directly; and , (2) if CountyLegislature does vote on it directly, Klein would not support that proposal as itseems like a misguided idea to him.6.4.3.2. There are eighteen more recommendations in the report, many of whichKlein believes are good ideas worth trying and would support. For example,having more social workers involved in emergency calls without the potential forsending unarmed people into dangerous situations. There are many instanceswhere people who have specialized training in mental health and behavioralhealth might be able to accomplish things that the police don’t want to bespending time doing.6.4.3.3. Other recommendations involve better data collection to determine to whatdegree there is racial disparity in policing here and where we find it to see if itimproves over time as we implement various practice changes.6.4.3.4. The County Legislature will review and send recommendations to the Stateon the first as is required; those recommendations will not be greatly detailedbut more of a goal to run toward. For example, one recommendation might befor increased police training around cultural sensitivity. This does not spell outwhat that looks like exactly yet because all of these recommendations togetherare too much to make final decisions on in the month that the CountyLegislature has remaining before submitting the report. Klein hopes to send thework as a whole and then continue spending time on it over the year to talkabout how to accomplish these goals and what any changes will look like. In themeantime, Dan Klein and the County Legislature remain open to receivingfeedback.7. Approval of Consent Agenda7.1. Warrants7.1.1.General Fund Abstract 5: Vouchers 63–75 for $37,986.817.1.2.Highway Fund Abstract 5: Vouchers 44–51 for $44,736.247.2.CAC Management PlansCouncilperson Connors proposed an amendment, which was accepted by the mover asfriendly, to remove the word “merely” the three times it appears in the document.Resolution 50 of 2021 To Approve Consent Agenda Moved By:Schnabel Seconded By:Connors Vote:Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 4 of 12 Gagnon XResolution 50 approved. 8.General Fund Abstract 5: Vouchers 63–75 for $37,986.818.1. Councilperson Schnabel raised some concern around the amount of legal fees we werebilled in January 2021, almost $17,000, when our annual budget line was set at $17,500.She anticipated that February’s bill will be just as high if not higher. Schnabel wants toaddress this as well as address who has access to the town lawyer and whether they needto have approval from the Town Board prior to seeking said counsel. Schnabelacknowledges that the expenses are necessary, despite their enormity, given that the townis currently being sued. Would it be enough to start with the AOT attorneys with questionsto save on time and money?8.1.1. Councilperson Ulinski notes that the town attorney will be the one to represent us incourt; attorneys may not always agree, so while it may be beneficial to ask AOT,ultimately, we still need to get the town attorney’s response as someonerepresentative of Danby with a lot of knowledge and wisdom.8.1.2. Supervisor Gagnon sympathized with Schnabel’s concern and suggested we addressit in the next meeting agenda. Resolution 51 of 2021 To Approve General Fund Warrant Abstract 5 Moved By:Connors Seconded By:Holahan Vote:Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon XResolution 51 approved. 9. Old Business9.1.Correspondence Policy, Revised9.1.1. Discussion focused on the scope of the policy as to whether it should addresstown-wide correspondence versus correspondence to the town board.9.1.2. Additional discussion included what to do with anonymous correspondence, andwhether and how correspondence is placed on Town Board meeting agendas.9.1.3. The policy document was modified accordingly during the discussion. Resolution 52 of 2021 To Approve Correspondence Policy Moved By:Schnabel Seconded By:Connors Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 5 of 12 Vote:Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon XResolution 52 approved. 9.2. Initiate Open Development Area (ODA) consideration and refer to Planning Board reMarsh Road property?Supervisor Gagnon introduced the item, noting that the special meeting held the weekprior to allow the Board more time to be briefed on and review the situation regardingthe Wimsatt property had occured. Gagnon brought the item back, suggesting that itwould be a good thing for the town to do because it would allow access to the three lotsin the proposed subdivision of the property by right of way, rather than requiring thatthere be road access — which would enable the existing driveway and a new driveway tobe built in a way that’s adequate for fire access but not require street specs. The rather important concern that was raised in the last Board Meeting was whethercreating this mechanism would make it easier to subsequently subdivide the propertybecause one wouldn’t have to put in roads; one could just run driveways to additionallots. Gagnon clarified that he would not have proposed this consideration if the applicantshad not been willing to combine the possibility of an ODA with a commitment to doing aconservation easement on the entire property which would limit the development to thelimited number of dwellings based on discussions between the parties. The Buyer hasindicated a willingness to limit himself to one single-family dwelling with a possibility tohave an accessory dwelling. As such the town is not looking at multiple houses, butessentially one house. An ODA request could be part of an application by the sellers tothe Planning Board; it would be reassuring to the sellers if an initiative that couldoriginate with the Town Board actually came from the Town Board. Therefore, Gagnon asked the other members of the Town Board if they would be willingto do so. Resolution 53 of 2021 To Approve Initiation of Open Development Area Consideration Moved By:Gagnon Seconded By:Connors Councilperson Connors stated that she seconded the motion so that it could be discussed.The discussion on this topic was extensive, lasting about fifty (50) minutes. Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 6 of 12 9.2.1. Several Town Board members believed that an application was necessary to initiatethe discussion/consideration and thus felt that the Board didn’t have the informationthey needed to make this decision. Several spoke about feeling like the Board wasbeing asked to push something through without concrete things from an applicationto talk about.9.2.1.1. Clarification: the action before the Board was not to actually create the opendevelopment area, but rather to refer it to the Planning Board to consider thepossibility.As Planner David West explained, there are two ways to get to an ODAconsideration. One is that the requesting party submits an application. The otherway is for the Town Board to proactively investigate the option for an ODA in a twostep process: (1) The Town Board refers the concept to the Planning Board; and, (2)The Planning Board then deliberates and arrives at a set of criteria andrequirements that they recommend be applied to the property and reports thatback to the Town Board. The bottom line is that this action simply enables thePlanning Board to start thinking about the option. What would come back to theTown Board from the Planning Board might very well be different from what wasinitially proposed.Another way to think of it is like a rezoning application where a landowner requeststo rezone the land for a particular reason. On the flip side, a town can be proactivewith the idea that something could be done better or with less impact or in someother way that is advantageous to the town. Many towns have such policies in placefor addressing open development areas. The Town of Danby does not, likelybecause no one has thought about it before. This is part of New York State law thatis available to property owners; many towns have an application to do this with aprocess in place.9.2.1.2. Several Board members asked why the Planning Board can’t refer it to theTown Board? Why does the Town Board have to jump through hoops and make thissprint right now? Some members acknowledged feeling like they are trying to pushsomething through without an application.West explained that the way it is written in Town Law is that it starts at the TownBoard who refers it to the Planning Board. The Planning Board considers all thedetails and authors a report with considerations, mitigating circumstances, andparameters to use for reviewing the application. With that it comes back to theTown Board for a decision.9.2.1.3. Supervisor Gagnon suggested that the reason for the Town Board to initiatethe consideration of an ODA is to enable the consideration as part of the proposalfor how this property would be subdivided and what the legal framework for itwould be; it reassures the sellers that the Town is serious about taking this route toapproval by creating the context for what they would apply for. That is, thatdevelopment limited to one dwelling on the eastern-most lot is an adequate level ofdevelopment that the town in not trying to obstruct. This is still far less than whatthe owners are entitled to do; to minimize the environmental disruption of eventhat scale of development, the access by easement enables the driveways to suffice.If the position of the Town is going to be that it doesn’t want anything there,Gagnon is not in agreement as he said he did not believe it to be a reasonableresponse and also a rather expensive position to take. Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 7 of 12 9.2.2. Several Board members continued to express hesitation stating that the process ismoving too fast without enough time to consider all of the details.Planner David West noted that should this consideration move forward, there willbe two public hearings in the future. Moreover, doing the ODA consideration wouldbe the most publicly open and transparent route to a decision, because the TownBoard would be a party to the SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) process;it would be a joint SEQR between the Planning and Town Boards.9.2.3. An additional concern raised was that the Town Board should not be makingdecisions for the landowner; rather, the landowner should make the application thatmakes sense to them.9.2.3.1. Supervisor Gagnon stated that the landowners are willing to make concessionsincluding considering a conservation easement which is a voluntary relinquishing ofa landowner’s development rights. On the 90 acre parcel in question, thelandowners have an 18 lot development right. Because of the community discussionand response that four lots was too much, the buyer and the sellers have beenwilling to scale back any future development by an approval that would be the leastcost to the sellers and the least disruptive to the environment.9.2.3.2. Further discussion centered around timeliness and the timeline of theapplicant submitting the request for an ODA consideration versus the Town Boardinitiating it. Planner West noted that having the applicant submit the applicationwould slow the process down and would not offer additional information to theTown Board other than having the ODA consideration request come from theapplicant. The Planning Board could not move on an application without the ODAbecause they’d be proposing something that’s not allowed because they need theODA or they have to build a public or private road; it is a stumbling block that wouldslow things down. Ultimately it’s the Town Board’s decision to make whether toapprove an ODA or not.9.2.4. Final details were discussed around the entire process of approving the resolutionto consider an ODA.9.2.4.1. Planner West explained that the way that this process is written is that theTown Board’s consideration of an ODA is passed on to the Planning Board with arequest that the Planning Board study the option. That culminates in a PlanningBoard report that addresses such important issues as what the town should bepreserving; and what criteria should used to evaluate the site. Until going throughthis exploratory study process, it doesn’t make sense to consider any proposalsbecause the board hasn't decided what is important.9.2.4.2. Theoretically, approving an ODA doesn’t per se require the Planning Board toapprove a subdivision. However, the Planning Board needs good reason for denyinga subdivision and the landowner is currently well within their rights to subdivide9.2.4.3. The public is able to weigh in on the matter during the Planning Board reviewand when it comes back to the Town Board.9.2.4.4. Passing this resolution is not an assumed approval for either an ODA or asubdivision, it is genuinely seeking information from the Planning Board. Resolution 53: To request a report from the Planning Board on an ODA for the MarshRoad property with an opportunity for public comment in the process. Vote: Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 8 of 12 Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon XResolution 53 approved. Resolution 54 of 2021 To Declare the Town Board Lead Agency in a Coordinated StateEnvironmental Quality Review (SEQR) in consideration of an ODA and subdivision ofthe Marsh Road property with CAC as an involved agency Moved By:Gagnon Seconded By:Ulinski West noted that if the Town Board didn’t declare lead agency, we could wait to hear if thePlanning Board would like to be lead agency; however, it makes more sense at the Town Boardlevel because the public can connect more easily. That said, when you declare lead agency,you’re not actually the lead until no one contests it. Vote:Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon XResolution 54 approved. 9.3. Reschedule public hearing: Local Law to expand the pool of those eligible to serve asDeputy Highway SuperintendentResolution 55 of 2021 To Reschedule Public hearing to the 17th at 7pm Moved By:Gagnon Seconded By:Schnabel Vote:Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 9 of 12 Gagnon XResolution 55 approved. 10. New Business10.1. Consider moratorium on subdivisions to revise zoning and highway laws10.1.1 Draft resolution to schedule public hearingResolution 56 of 2021 To Schedule Public Hearing on March 17 for Consideration ofMoratorium on Subdivisions Clarification that this is a moratorium on subdivision in the low-density zone; not amoratorium on construction. Discussion revolved around the anticipated timeline and work commitment from theTown Planner. Moved By:Gagnon Seconded By:Holahan Vote:Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon XResolution 55 approved. 10.1.2 Draft moratorium local law was reviewed and edited during the meeting.10.2. Workplace Violence Prevention report — Ulinski10.3.Water District Operating PolicyResolution 57 of 2021 To Schedule Public Hearing on a Local Law that would adopt theWater District Operating Policy for April 12, 2021 at 7pm Moved By:Schnabel Seconded By:Connors Vote:Councilperson Aye No Abstain Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon XResolution 57 approved. Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 10 of 12 10.4. Consider whether to comment on requested Danby property additions to Ag district10.4.1. Gagnon began consideration by saying that if the Board can agree on whatcomments should contain, David has written a resolution that would include Boardcomments in a letter to the Ag & Farmland Protection Board10.4.2. The Ag & Farmland Protection Board will review our comments in addition to theset of criteria they have for accepting additions into the area; they are not underany requirement to follow the town’s urging., There is a willingness to listen, butultimately, the County Legislature has the authority to make the final decision.There will be a public hearing at the County Legislature meeting, but not at the Ag &Farmland Protection Board. The Protection Board has already discussed this butagreed to delay making their formal recommendation to the county until they haveheard from Danby.10.4.3. Councilperson Schnabel requested clarification on additional protections thatbeing in the Ag District would convey as opposed to the right to agriculturalactivities law.Planner West responded that being in an Ag district gives an agricultural operationthe ability to file a complaint with Ag & Markets regarding restrictive zoning that isperceived to conflict with their right to operate; Ag & Markets has a lot of power tooverrule town zoning, to force the town to change zoning, or to accept a use that itdoesn’t want if it meets the Ag & Markets definition of an agricultural operation.Currently, Danby doesn’t have a separate Ag zone for things in Ag District which hascreated a difficultly in interpreting the zoning.West explained the utility in having a separate zone for things that are in the AgDistrict, where agriculture is defined using the Ag & Markets definition; then havinga more strict definition of agricultural uses in other districts. The way zoning isinterpreted now, the Planner has to treat all parcels the same whether they are inor out of the Ag District, even though it may not always be the case that the twoparcels are the same. Ag & Markets offers more protection to larger scaleoperations which would afford a level of protection that is inconsistent withDanby’s zoning.10.4.4. Councilperson Ulinski conveyed his concern that the two properties currentlyunder consideration for the Ag District had been in negotiations with Danby, withthe parties being unhappy with the negotiated outcome thereby leading them toseek Ag Distrcit inclusion.10.4.4.1. Supervisor Gagnon’s concern, was that the definition of agriculture hasevolved — things that would not previously have been considered agriculturenow are, which can be tied to the unintended consequences of the EstateWinery Law. The expanded scope of agriculture is being used to expand intoevent venues, such as restaurants and other places that host musical events.10.4.4.2. Further discussion continued around the location of the properties—e.g.,one on a state road, the other in a small neighborhood.10.4.5. Supervisor Gagnon brought Jason Leifer into the discussion as the attorneyrepresenting the new owner of the Howland Road property and the person theowners are planning on leasing the property to. Mr. Leifer offered to bring everyone Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 11 of 12 up to speed on the owner’s and lessee’s perspectives. The next 30 minutes focusedon discussion between Mr. Leifer, Jerry Myrick (the operating manager); and twoneighbors on Howland Rd. Highlights included what the county considered thehistory of the property, and the neighbors’ emphasis on the distrust and secrecythat has surrounded the operations on the property, as well as threats madetoward the neighbors. Resolution 58 of 2021 To Show No Objection for the Cidery on State Road 96bReceiving Ag District Status Moved By:Gagnon Seconded By:Holahan Vote:Councilperson Aye No Absent Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon XResolution 58 approved. Resolution 59 of 2021 To Object to the Howland Road Property’s Inclusion in the AgDistrict. Resolved:to request that the Howland Road Property NOT Be Included in the Ag District thisyear in light of the history of industrial activity as previously conducted, with copies of theresolution sent to the following agencies: Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board; theTompkins County Planning, Energy, and Environmental Quality Committee; and the Chair of theTompkins County Legislature. Moved By:Gagnon Seconded By:Connors Vote:Councilperson Aye No Absent Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon XResolution 59 approved. Town of Danby Town Board Meeting 8 March 2021 Regular Meeting Proceedings Page 12 of 12 Resolution 60 of 2021 To Direct the Town Planner to Prepare a Letter Summarizingthe Town Board’s comments on Ag District Additions Moved By:Gagnon Seconded By:Connors Vote:Councilperson Aye No Absent Connors X Holahan X Schnabel X Ulinski X Gagnon XResolution 60 approved. 10.5. Consider whether to adopt the stretch energy code11. Discussion of Next Meeting Agenda11.1. Comment on re-imagining public safety before April 1 deadline.12. Adjourn at 22:45 _________________________________________Submitted by Janice R. AdelmanTown Clerk