Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - February 15, 20221 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting February 15, 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 John Barradas, Doug Bayer, Marty Gold, Katharine Hunter (Town Board member), Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Ronda Roaring, Barbara Romano, Victor This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:02 p.m. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Marty Gold said she and her husband Doug Bayer live at 105 Durfee Hill Rd., which is next to and behind the property on the agenda. After buying their house in 2005, they realized there was uncertainty about who owned a sliver of land between them and their neighbors, but they thought it was undevelopable. This sliver was sold at auction and bought by Mr. Barradas. They thought it was customary for the County to inform adjacent property owners when land is sold due to delinquent taxes. They began to have concerns after seeing Mr. Barradas’ site plan, which involves a leach field 10’ from their property line and about 100’ from their less-than-20’-deep artesian well that sits on fractured shale. The septic tank and leach field are also uphill from their swimming pond, which is fed by runoff water. Installing the septic system will involve 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES taking down the trees that offer visual mitigation of the proposed house. She added that this 0.48-acre sliver of property acts as an active wildlife corridor connecting open, swampy land with the Deputron Hollow Rd. area. She noted that the new zoning talks about protecting just such areas, and she read Rural 1’s purpose. She said they met with Planner West and learned that the lot is grandfathered in in terms of lot size and meets setback requirements. Ms. Gold questioned why it would be grandfathered in. She said the Health Department has to sign off and look at the septic designs but will not come out to test their soil or water, and the major responsibility for safety lies with the engineer; best practice is to have at least of an acre of land, and more if there are mitigating factors. She said they must trust Mr. Barradas’ engineer, but she questioned who is looking out for her health and safety. She asked the Planning Board to consider if this development fits within the vision the Town had in mind with the new zoning to preserve the rural character of Danby and redirect development to the hamlets. She said she sees development going forward on a too-small piece of property that was never intended as a building lot, which, if approved, will negatively affect their health and safety and quality of life. Mr. Barradas noted he was sending information regularly to Ms. Gold and Ms. Romano so they know his intentions. He said it will be a 2.5-story house that meets the required setbacks, he is trying to follow the rules, and this is a pre-existing site. Ronda Roaring said she wanted Ms. Gold to know that it is her personal experience that the County does not notify neighbors about sales at auction, and she has asked them to notify the Town so it can notify neighbors. She felt what was happening was in violation of the Comprehensive Plan. In looking at the documents provided, she was concerned the Ag District form, which asks if there is an agricultural use within 500’, which must be declared. She said it did not have to be a farm, only have farm operations or purposes and wanted to be sure the correct answer was gotten. Mr. Barradas said he did not see a farm within 500’ and was not trying to skirt anything. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the January 18th minutes Moved by Maher, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Leslie Connors, Town Board Liaison, shared the following information: • Last night the Town Board started a conversation on starting a youth commission to oversee youth programming in Danby. They also began talking about how residents get information and news about the Town. • After a two-year hiatus, Towns will be conducting board of assessment review this year. 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES • The Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) is researching the impact of solar arrays on wetlands in order to advise the Town Board on the Norbut Solar proposal. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SPR-2022-01 121 Durfee Hill Rd. Parcel: 11-1-6.4 Applicant: John Barradas and Martha Walker Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review, Schedule Public Hearing, SEQR Classification Zone: Rural 1 SEQR Type: Type II Proposal: Applicant proposes building a 2.5-story 22’x22’ house and a 30’x30’ garage/shop in the Rural 1 zone, both of which require site plan review under Section 601. The applicant, John Barradas, said he is proposing a 22’x22’ house on the lot with 50’ setbacks on all sides except the front. Half of a floor will be set into the ground and two stories will be above ground with a rooftop terrace. There will be entrance stairs on all four sides. He said he intends to live there and have a garage/workshop. The workshop has been planned to allow for the event of projects needing to be taken out by a hoisting device and has a door that moves on a rail that connects to the house . He is working on if the septic system could be a raised sand filter to allow for the trees to remain; he and his engineer are researching the site conditions. He said the house has been a dream of his, and he talked about his interactions with his neighbors. Planner West said that this is the first site plan review considered under the new zoning, which includes new site plan review criteria. This meeting was a chance for the Board to review the application and decide if it was complete. He added that the Town’s zoning has always had a provision to allow existing lots, if they were allowed when they were created, to be developed with a single-family home if they can meet required setbacks and zoning. This lot was added to assessment roles in 1976, when there was no minimum lot size for the area. Under the Town’s immediately previous zoning, the owner would have just gotten a building permit; under the new zoning, site plan review is required for single-family homes in Rural 1. Board Discussion In response to a question from Board member Bergman about the septic system’s proximity to lot lines, West said Danby does not have any requirements, but there are setbacks required by the Health Department between wells and septic. Mr. Barradas said he still needs to check the Romanos’ well location. He said the septic tank position is still under design, and he discussed septic system location considerations. He also confirmed that driveways have no required setback from lot lines. 4 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Board member Vanucchi asked that Ms. Gold’s well be shown on the plan ; she particularly noted that it is an artesian well. She asked if the house was being constructed on all fill, to which the applicant said no, the footer is on grade and there is backfill to the foundation . She thought balancing cut and fill would be something to consider. She said it would be really helpful to show the trees he is keeping on the plan to give a sense of how the view from the road will be impacted and seeing the topography would be helpful. Board member Maher asked about a culvert for the driveway, and Mr. Barradas said that he had one put in already. She said she understood his creativity as an architect and that he has met the requirements, but personally she would like to see the buildings pulled closer to the road. She was not sure why he needed a 24’-wide driveway, which relates to tree removal. She read Section 511 stating that “no building or structure shall exceed thirty-six feet in height from lowest exterior grade” and said she was still confused about the grade level of the first floor versus the basement; either way, it seemed they were maxed out in both height and setbacks. Through discussion, it was explained that 4’6” of the basement was below grade and then the stairs go up 4’6” to the entry level; the bottom of the stairs and the grade level of the barn are the same. She asked about the connection between the two buildings, and Mr. Barradas clarified that there is a rail for the garage/barn door to slide on. Board member Cowan agreed that the driveway is wide and long. She asked about the proposed use for the garage/barn and whether it would be commercial, whether there would be trucks coming in and out, and what the impact would be on the neighborhood. Mr. Barradas said it is a workshop for him to experiment and to build furniture. He wants the garage to recede and be less important than the house, despite its size, by its placement and using a dark color; he does not want it in front of the house. He thought a flatbed pick up would be the largest truck size needed. After West had explained that the front yard setback is now 20’ for this zone (formerly 50’), Board member Davis asked to clarify where the 20’ front setback was on the map and where it was being measured from, with the conclusion that it is from the edge of the right of way. Davis thought the impact across the street would be quite dramatic. He asked if any existing trees will shield the house. Mr. Barradas thought you would see trees as a screen before seeing the house except from the driveway. Planner West said garages must now be under 1200 sq.ft., and if a garage is over 144 sq.ft. but under 1000 sq.ft., the garage may be within 10’ of a property line. He shared the new site plan review parameters under Section 805 in regard to whether the Board wanted any additional information from the applicant before the next meeting. Regarding dark-sky-compliant exterior lighting, Maher asked if that would be available for the next review, and West suggested that since many projects may not be at a point to show that information, the Board could make that a condition for approval . Ms. Gold pointed out that 15(d) says there should be screening, but there is very little in existence. Davis asked if they could require plantings along a boundary line or to shield from the road, and West said yes, they could require buffering. Cowan felt they should be making sure there was screening to the neighbors; she noted it is close to everything and large for the size of the lot. Cowan asked about the timeline for septic layout, but the applicant was 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES unsure. Vannuchi said a long and linear leach field might give more buffer space between the leach field and the property line. It was summarized that the Board wanted to see the existing trees that are staying, sugges tions of additional plantings, Ms. Gold’s well location, and possible configurations of the leach field. Davis suggested asking the Health Department to come out and look at the septic and well plans and neighboring wells, and, by a show of hands, it was agreed to make a request. West said this is a Type II action under SEQR and no further review is required. MOTION: Schedule a public hearing for the March 15th meeting Moved by Maher, seconded by Cowan The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Cowan, Davis, Maher, Vanucchi, Scriber (6) DISCUSS ROLE OF PB Davis had sent an email about the Planning Board’s role in the work Planner West had laid out for the coming year. Davis said that NYS’s guidelines for planning boards say towns should design their own guidelines for their planning boards, which would include both advisory and regulatory powers. He felt that there is a lot of work to be done, and this work is worth doing for the people 30–50+ years hence—probably an active Planning Board would be part of that, but it may require a greater time commitment. Planner West said he had described in the previous meeting what the Town Planning Department will be working on, and there is a question of who helps guide that and how. For example, there could be steering committees, subcommittees of the Town or Planning Board, and work done just by him. He asked what the Planning Board would like added to their workload, and he said this should be in concert with the Town Board so that the work done has a path forward. West asked the Board for their thoughts, and the consensus was there was some interest and excitement about the options, but also time limitations in the Board members’ lives. The Board favored smaller, specific projects and particular items that they could get done in small groups using short, focused sessions. Bergman also suggested combining things they find interesting and important with their education requirements. West thought this was definitely possible, and he gave zoning for marijuana trainings as an example. Davis suggested scheduling an optional meeting time a month, which could be for the whole group, trainings, or subgroups. Supervisor Gagnon said that, having spent a lot of time on the Planning Board, one of the most frustrating experiences is when the Town Board does not want what the Planning Board has worked on. Also, it can be hard to find time to work on more given the Planning Board’s regular responsibilities . He felt the best course was a collaborative approach with working groups. West suggested small committees with periodic wider public input meetings. Open meetings law was discussed. 6 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (7) PLANNER REPORT Planner West reported the following: • He is continuing to work through the Norbut Solar proposal. A third-party wetlands delineation came back with findings of more extensive wetlands, and that needs to be resolved. The Town Board has asked the CAC to make a recommendation on solar panels in low-priority wetlands. • He is getting started with the hamlet septic work project. • His is getting started with implementing the County’s money for applying for housing funding. • He has let the applicant for the Dollar General know that they have a six-month deadline from January 4, 2022 to complete the process under the old zoning. He has not heard back from them, but they may be working on materials. West said they have submitted a sketch plan so far. • It has been suggested that the Town add low-impact light industrial use to Commercial C. All Commercial C areas are existing warehouse spaces, and all but one are empty, so it would be good to have something allowed there. (8) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES