Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - January 18, 20221 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting January 18, 2022 PRESENT: Ed Bergman Collen Cowan Scott Davis Kelly Maher Jamie Vanucchi Jody Scriber (Chair) ABSENT: Elana Maragni OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member) Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Katharine Hunter, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Ronda Roaring, Victor This meeting was conducted virtual ly on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:04 p.m. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Ted Crane said that in the newly adopted zoning, the word “average,” in relation to average parcel sizes, only appears in the description of some zones . He asked why that was, i.e., whether it was an error or if it has significance. Planner West said it did not have significance, and Mr. Crane said he thought it should then be made uniform. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the December 21st minutes Moved by Bergman, seconded by Cowan 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Maher, Scriber Abstain: Vanucchi Absent: Davis (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Leslie Connors, Town Board Liaison, shared the following information: • The Town Board passed the new zoning law in the January 4 th meeting. • In the public hearing on the new zoning, some people said they felt there was not enough publicity around the effort. She said this was a reminder that they can always do better and to think of ways how . • Ed Bergman was reappointed and Jamie Vannuchi was newly appointed to the Planning Board. • The Town Board let a motion die to opt out of on -site cannabis consumption, thus allowing both retail and consumption sites to happen in Danby. • The Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) has started working on details of a local law for a tax abatement program for residents placing conservation easements on their property. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW There were no development reviews. (6) PLANNER REPORT Planner West reported the following: • He welcomed Jamie Vanucchi to the Planning Board. He noted that Planning Board members need four hours of training per year, which must be docu mented. • He gave a presentation focus ed on the differences between the old and new zoning law s and how the changes will impact the Planning Board. He noted that projects currently before the Board will have six months to be considered under the old rules. Presentation: Zoning Update – Planning Board Considerations o Did the Town like the changes that were happening under the old zoning? - No, wrong direction. Wanted to focus more development in the hamlets and have less development elsewhere. - The new zoning allows more in the hamlets but imposes new design regulations to ensure quality. - Outside hamlets, the total allowed development is redu ced, but flexibility is increased. - There is not yet a transfer of development rights (TDR), which is still being considered. o The zoning map is more complicated and nuanced. 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES - Reviews like subdivision and site plan ask the Planning Board (PB) to exercise judgement, so understanding the reasons behind each of the new zones is important. o Key new components 1. New zones with different lot sizes, setbacks, and uses - Rural1 and Rural2 have min. lot of 10 acres ; High Priority Preservation has min. lot of 25 acres - Existing lots, regardless of lot size, can have any allowed use on it (e.g. a single -family home). 2. Site plan review (SPR) criteria - Will continue talking about deliverables for SPR and what the PB asks of applicants - In Rural1, all principal uses besides ag buildings and utilities will require SPR, including single - family homes. - In Hamlets, small buildings under four units residential will not require SPR. - PB should start using Section 805 more; (a)–(i) are new . West reviewed (a)–(i), which are intended to guide new development outside the hamlet zones to get the character Danbyites said was important to them. 3. Accessory building limits - Section 512 now gives a gradation. - Buildings <144 sq. ft. can have less setback (144 sq. ft. = limit for requiring building permit); 144–1000 sq. ft. have 10’ setback; 1000+ sq. ft. have 50’ setbacks from side and rear lot lines - Garages can be up to 400 sq. ft. by right in Rural1, up to 1200 sq. ft. in other zones; cap of 1200 sq. ft. for a garage but can use a development right if larger desired 4. Clustering - Example given: 40-acre lot in a 10-acre-density zone allows 4 lots. The lots could be (1) 4 ten- acre lots, (2) clustered lots: e.g. 3 two-acre lots and one 34-acre lot, (3) clustered development rights: e.g. 1 four-plex or 4 houses on the whole lot . In any of the options, there could then be no future subdivisions. - Subdivision ordinance should describe clustering more. - Previously , more than one building on a lot had to in effect have 100’ between them. N ow, buildings encouraged to be closer together to make less impact on the rest of the land and neighbors. - Added Article XV, which clarifies that cluster subdivision proce ss can be applied to multiple buildings on one lot rather than subdividing. 5. Design review - Old code already had architectural requirements in the Commercial Design Guidelines. One strength was the requirement that the building design come from the design tr aditions that were prevalent in upstate NY before cars became the dominant factor, which was a tradition that made decent buildings that were classic and long -lasting. - Now also architectural requirements in the Hamlet Neighborhood for new buildings 1500+ sq. ft., including residential. PB should be clear about the goal of getting high-quality , durable work , not “do I like it.” - Both hamlet zones will have form requirements. These do not require a lot of judgement, either they are there or not. 4 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Discussion of Work Plan o GEIS (generic environmental impact statement) for Transfer of Development Rights Proposal - TDR w ould create sending and receiving areas, bonuses for transferring - GEIS is longer process, slower review - Widely considered a good idea in planning circles but one of the more contentious concepts from the Planning Group discussions. o Zoning for Marijuana consumption sites and dispensaries - these will both be allowed in Danby as soon as the state starts offering licenses, if the Town wants to consider dispensaries as something other than retail, and on-site consumption as something other than a bar (those are the uses I would apply today) then we'll need to define the new uses and rules for them - Town can regulate these as long as it does not make them impossible. Right now, the Town is watching what the State does with allocations of licenses. In West’s experience in Washington, if banned from downtown areas, you get a particular type of form —big buildings, big parking lots, garish advertising. He would encourage the Town to keep a format that makes sense for Danby, like small size and appropriate architecture and scale. - West said the State is distinguishing between growing, selling, and consumption on site, except for microenterprises t hat can cross those boundaries. C ultivation will be agricultural production, which is regulated by the Department of Ag and Markets in ag districts. - Board member Cowan said the State is behind on their promised target dates, so nothing is likely to happen until 2023. o Streamlined Site Plan Review for certain agriculture development/activity - Ag & Markets has an approved streamlined SPR process for ag uses that involve the public coming to the land (e.g. for a winery or cidery), which is important now that the definition of what an agricultural activity is has been expanded. The guidelines are about making the process less expensive and burdensome than conventional SPR and are already approved by Ag & Markets. - Board member Davis asked about whether the Town’s C ommercial D esign Guidelines could be used on an ag building used for the public . West thought the Commercial Design Guidelines are mostly after a hamlet form —they are not as good for something in a field. Different guidelines would likely make more sense. Davis brought up his experience with Ag & Markets with the Town’s logging ordinance as well as a situation in Cazenovia with a winery that morphed into an event center. - Town Supervisor Gagnon said that the trouble arises when something that started as agricultural strays into being different and more. Once that i s the case, they are not protected by Ag & Markets. o Administrative updates to the Zoning Code - we did the big conceptual revision but there are areas that don't have to do with the zones and rules that still need work including the processes and the basic structure of the document, some discussion here started last year with regard to site plan requirements 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES - Some administrative fixes have been made, but there are more to be done. County planning gave some suggestions. o Development of application packet - looking over the current application for things that should be added as well as considering what additional information should be provided to applicants to improve the quality of applications - An example application could be helpful. Should be clear for t he applicant. o Residential Development Design Guidelines for Hamlets and Clusters – the zoning update gave some broad requirements for building form in the hamlets but I think additional guidance for design and review would probably be helpful for both haml ets and the use of cluster subdivision o Subdivision Updates - in short the subdivision ordinance is a mess and I wasn't able to get to it last year o Zoning and/or rules for Short Term Rental of homes, seasonal cabins, RVs, and temporary structures such as tents - Many people in Danby rent out to travelers in the summer. Right now, there is no assurance the Planner can give. He can only say the past interpretation has been the Town allows renting housing and has not distinguished between renting for a day or ren ting for a month. There is also nothing for things that are not homes (e.g. tents, cabins, glamping, etc.). He has not got many complaints, but it would be good to have some parameters. Seasonal cabins could also be addressed. The County has purchased some good data from vacation rental sites and hopefully can share it with towns. - Supervisor Gagnon said that they should get a handle on the difference between a dwelling unit and seasonal occupancy. - Davis suggested defining what an RV is, particularly as comp ared to a tiny home/domicile on wheels. Planner West summarized that on-site cannabis consumption, streamlined SPR, and zoning for short -term rentals made sense to have a sub-committee for. Supervisor Gagnon noted that the discussion has not yet been had at the Town Board level as to how the tasks will get allocated. (7) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary 6 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES