No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-25 BZA MinutesDANBY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 25, 2017 DRAFT ! PRESENT: Lew Billington Toby Dean David Hall Earl Hicks ! ABSENT: Gary Bortz ! OTHER ATTENDEES: Code Enforcement Paul Hansen Town Board Leslie Connors Recording Secretary Kelly Cecala Public Frank Darrow, Peter and Ruthanne Brown ! Paul Hansen opened the meeting at 7:03 pm. ! BZA Chairman Gary Bortz was absent from the meeting. A motion was passed to vote David Hall to be acting Chairman in Gary Bortz’s absence. ! MOTION – David Hall to be acting Chairman at tonight’s Meeting and Public Hearings Moved By Hicks, Second By Billington In Favor: Unanimous The motion passed ! PUBLIC HEARING to consider a request for an area variance of the minimum side yard setback of 50 feet required for lots in a Low Density Zone as set forth in section 600, paragraph 6b of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance. The variance is necessary in order to bring into compliance a previously subdivided property. The variance is for tax parcel no. 8-1-32.11, at 326 Gunderman Road, and owned by Stephen Landau and Patrice Switkin. ! Acting Chairman Hall opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 pm: ! PUBLIC COMMENT: ! Frank Darrow, 400 Gunderman Rd., said that he knows the people living in the house on the property now and that his property adjoins the applicants. Darrow said that the request makes good sense to him. Darrow commented that it was an unfortunate error that came about and that this is the simplest way to correct it. ! The Public Hearing was closed at 7:06 pm. OPEN DISCUSSION & DELIBERATION: Page ! 1 ! Paul Hansen commented that this was missed when the Planning Board approved the subdivision and that C.J. Randall expected the surveyor to move the line out to meet the 50 foot set back requirement; however it was not. Hansen said the 30 foot set back was noticed when the building permit came through for the new garage and that tonight’s hearing is to request a variance to correct the mistake. ! Hansen stated that the Town Attorney had provided a written statement about the occurrence and whether or not the Town should be correcting mistakes via the BZA. Hall said that he spoke with Bortz about Guy’s letter and that he would pass along Bortz’ thoughts. Hall said that Bortz’s main concern was more around a process going off track and how to prevent the mistakes from happening in the future without needing to push it through or pawn-it-off to the BZA to correct through a variance. ! Hall added that the set-backs are a core element to review when considering a variance. Bortz suggested making a check list. Hall asked if the BZA could assert the request that the process be changed to double check the set-backs. Hansen said that a suggestion can be made to the Planning Board as well as to Randall to have a check list made available to the Planning Board. ! Hansen said that subdivisions are a legislative action, not an administrative one, which is why it was removed from the Town’s Planning & Code Enforcement Office. Hansen commented that the agendas for the meetings have been jammed-packed and that the Town office has been very busy and that the request came through the office during tax time. ! Hicks stated that if we were not to approve this, then it would be a non-conforming lot. Hansen said that he did not have a clear answer if the variance was rejected. Dean referred to Guy’s letter and said that a lawyer could come in and say that the sub-division was already approved. Hall said that the Town would most likely be in court in one of two ways, either Article 78 disputing the decision or suing the Town for negligence. ! Hansen said in terms of the lot, in some ways, they becoming a preexisting non-conforming building lot and are legal. Hansen said that Cheng should have been told to re-survey the lot but that the Town does not have the leverage to do that now. He added that asking the Switkin’s to do it seemed onerous to the Town staff since they did no wrong doing. ! Dean referred to the Town Attorney’s letter saying “the variance can be approved by opposing conditions…” and said that one option may be to require more than a 50 foot set-back on the second lot, to retain the 100 foot spacing between buildings, or we can approve it as is. Hall remarked that he thought it was clarifying when the Town Attorney asked if “we” would have approved this anyway, and if so, then what does it matter and why get all tangled up in this. ! Dean said that the survey shows a semi-permeant shed and asked what it was. Hansen replied that it was a chicken-coop. Hansen commented, that in respect to the shed question, the Town is in a state of “flux” with their Zoning Ordinance to make it clearer and more consistent when they go to enforce things. Hansen said that in the past there was confusion on what was allowed and many “yes-but” scenarios had been approved. Hansen said that historically there have been many inconsistencies with set-backs; for example some shed-like structures are as close as 10 feet from Page ! 2 the rear property line and garages have been found as close as 25 feet. Hansen said the Town is trying to clean these things up so they don’t exist anymore. He said that currently they do not regulate (or give out) building permits to anything less than 200 sq. ft. (it used to be 144 sq. ft.) and asked how do you then control where these smaller structures go? Hansen commented that the proposed re-written Zoning Ordinance will require any accessory structure be 25 feet from the property line and the principle dwelling must have a 50 foot set-back. ! Hall said that he thought it was compelling when Town Attorney Guy Krogh, wrote that the BZA specifically exists to fix mistakes. Dean asked if it was the BZA’s goal to tell the applicant where they should put their house. Billington said there is nothing they can do about Parcel A now but they can maintain a 50 foot set-back on Parcel B. Hall said it seems that the point of the set-back is not to encroach on your neighbor. Hansen said it is more than just the neighbors, it is mostly a density issue. Hall said that if the thrust of the set-back is not troubling your neighbor and building too close and encroaching on their privacy, then the applicant is only disadvantaging themselves. Darrow commented that ultimately it could disadvantage the Town if there were a large number of properties that people did not want to buy because the set-backs and density were unattractive. Darrow remarked that the Zoning Ordinance is designed to protect future and potential land owners. ! Dean asked Hansen to define what a “plat” was. Hansen said it was a presentation of what is being done, it was like a survey, but not as precise. Hansen said that a variance is filed at the Town Clerk’s Office by tax parcel no. and it is not included in the deed. He added that the record keeping is somewhat challenging. Hansen said if the set-back was only at 20 feet, then he might consider going to the current owner to request that they move the line and resurvey the property. ! Hall suggested going through the five (5) criteria points for the variance to show that there is no “unnecessary hardship.” Billington said that he is favor of making sure that if a building is built on Parcel B that they need to conform to the 50 foot set-back. He also said that the land owner should resurvey if and when they go to build. Dean said suppose they sold, instead of building, then there would be a self-imposed hardship. ! An original motion to approve the variance as is was moved by Dean and seconded by Hicks and then withdrawn to add some conditions to the variance. ! MOTION – Grant the requested area variance of the minimum side yard setback of 50 feet for Parcel A on tax parcel no. 8-1-32.11 to accommodate the 30.9 foot actual set back of the existing building only. All future buildings will conform to the required set-backs. Moved By Hall, Second By Hicks In Favor: Unanimous The motion passed ! PUBLIC HEARING to consider a request for an area variance of the minimum side yard setback of 50 feet required for lots in a Low Density Zone as set forth in section 600, paragraph 6b of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance. This variance is necessary in order to build a 30’ x 30’ addition which would be 36’ from the northern side property line which is also the Town of Dryden Town line. This variance is for tax parcel no. 4.-1-11.12, at 190 German Cross Road, and owned by Peter and Ruthanne Brown. Page ! 3 !! Acting Chairman Hall opened the Public Hearing at 7:54 pm: ! PUBLIC COMMENT: ! There were no public comments. ! The Public Hearing was closed at 7:55 pm. ! OPEN DISCUSSION & DELIBERATION: ! The applicant originally built the home in 1974 and now needs to do a renovation to make the home handicap accessible for Mrs. Brown. The applicant has consulted several contractors who said that making the existing structure handicap accessible, by adding an elevator, is not possible. The request is to add a 30’ x 30’ addition to the existing home so that the entire dwelling is accessible to the applicant. ! The Browns own property that crosses over into the Town of Dryden line. The applicant claims that no Danby resident will be effected by this addition. Mr. Brown said that he once tried to put a 4- bay garage across both the Dryden and Danby Town lines and that it was not approved because there are separate deeds. He added that the tax accessor’s office said it was not possible. Hall suggested going through the five (5) criteria points for the variance to show that there is no “unnecessary hardship.” ! MOTION – Grant Area Variance Moved by Billington, Second by Hicks In Favor: Unanimous The motion passed ! ADJOURNMENT ! The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 pm. ______________________________________________________________ Kelly Cecala, Planning Board & Board of Zoning Appeals Recording Secretary Page ! 4