The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-11-21 BZA MinutesDanby Board of Zoning Appeals  Minutes of Hearings and Meeting  November 21, 2017 Present: Gary Bortz, Chair David Hall Earl Hicks Toby Dean Others Present: Acting Secretary Pamela Goddard Code Officer Paul Hansen Public Leslie Connors, Ted Crane, Steven Hollenbeck, Susan Perri, Nathaniel Greenspun, Dylan Hollenbeck, Kim Hollenbeck, Ellyn Selin, Steve Selin, Mike Amodie, Deborah Friends, Hunter Grigg, and others Statement of the Chair Gary Bortz informed the applicants that, while the Board of Zoning Appeals is a five member board, only four members were able to be present for these hearings. A majority of three votes is needed to pass a variance request. A two-two tie vote results in a non-approval of a variance request. The applicants have the option to have their variance requests heard at another time, when there is a full board present. Approve Minutes Gary Bortz asked for a voice approval of the minutes of the September BZA hearing. These minutes were approved unanimously. BZA Chair, Gary Bortz opened the hearing at 7:05pm PUBLIC HEARING, to consider a request for an area variance from the minimum road frontage of 200 ft. required in section 600, paragraph 5 of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance (the current parcel has 78 feet of road frontage), in order to construct a single or two family dwelling. This area variance request is for tax parcel no. 1.-1-12.7 at 560 West King Road; Steve Selin, Owner and Applicant. Further information, including access to application materials, may be obtained at the Town Clerk’s Office, 1830 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York, 14850. Public Comment One written comment was handed to the BZA Chair by Hunter Grigg. Mr. Grigg also made comments in favor of the variance request. Steve Selin made comments in support of his variance request. He and his family have lived on the property for approx. 15 years. When he bought the property the purchased included both 1.-1-12.5 and 1.-1-.12.7. In recent years he has started a farm. A Conservation Easement was placed on an adjacent parcel (1.-1-.3.32) of 25.98 acres. There are currently no dwellings on 12.7. Additional land was purchased and added to 12.7. This additional section is currently being used for various agricultural activities. The Selins wish to build a house on a the 12.7 in order to be closer to the apple orchard and other agricultural activities. In addition, the current home does not have enough space for two adults and two (soon to be) teenaged children. They would like to have a house which has more bedrooms, without adding to the existing house. Selin made a case that the best way to access the spot where they would like to build a new house is via the existing driveway at 12.5. They have made an easement agreement with the neighbor/property owner at 1.-1-2.1 where a proposed driveway would cross over that parcel and then back to 12.7. The driveway for 12.7 would be shared with the current driveway at 12.5. There was discussion regarding the driveway easement right of way with 2.1. The owner of that property, Hunter Grigg, was in attendance and available for questions. Griggs confirmed that he was comfortable with the driveway right-of-way easement, that this is a piece of his property which he does not use, the point of access is distant from his home, and he does not consider this a burden. Code Officer Hansen added that this sort of arrangement is not all that unusual and is not an impediment to issuing a building permit. There is still the need of a variance related to road frontage. Hicks noted that clear language regarding driveway maintenance and rights of way should be included in the easement language. Bortz asked questions regarding the point of access for driveway. Why couldn’t Selin use his own property, fronting on Sand Bank Road? That property has sufficient road frontage and no variance would be needed. Selin stated that fewer large trees would need to be cut and that the topography is more of a flat, straight shot from his preferred direction. In addition, there are complications in the 3.32 property as it is owned by a family collective. Selin made a case that the agricultural land (orchard) and conservation easement should be considered as proof of his intent to maintain open space, preserve farm land, and limit development in this area. He noted that the property lines for 12.5 and 12.7, with insufficient road frontage, were already in place when he purchased the land 15 years ago. Selin emphasized his intention to live and work on this land “for the long haul.” For these reasons, there should not be a consideration of “self created hardship.” Nathaniel Greenspun expressed his strong support from this variance request. Greenspun is a long time resident of Danby and is excited about the agricultural uses in this area. He supported the proposed driveway path, as someone with building experience. Susan Perr added support for the driveway being on West King Road, in order to avoid a line of driveways on Sand Bank Road once 3.31 and 3.36 are developed. This line of driveways would be in their “back yard.” Ted Crane spoke regarding the variance request. He stated that he did not have a strong opinion, for or against the variance request. He asked the BZA to consider whether the existing complex lots, flag lots, and land-locked lots should be taken into consideration? He asked whether there was a record of previous variance requests and what the intent was of the BZA at the time these lots were created? Members of the current BZA noted that this may have been done prior to zoning changes related to the required road frontage. The lots in question are not uncommon for the neighborhood. There was further discussion regarding the historical relationship of the parcels in question and the neighboring parcel. There is no known history of variance decisions regarding these parcels. Detailed research had not been done, but there is no evidence that the property had gone to the BZA in the past. In any case, that history was not deemed to be relevant to the variance request at this hearing. This is a pre- existing lot. No further subdivision is requested or anticipated. Selin further spoke to the question of intent for road frontage as a measure to limit density and development growth in Danby. He made a case that Conservation Easements are the best tool for preserving open space and agricultural land. The 3.32 property was the first CE in the Town of Danby. Therefor, he has already shown a commitment to preserving open space and the character of the neighborhood. He emphasized that he does not intend any further subdivision, only wanting to build a house on an already existing lot. The hearing was closed at 8:06 pm. Selin Variance Discussion The members of the BZA discussed the variance request. There were additional questions for Selin and neighbors. Hall stated that the request should be considered in the totality of Selin’s properties in that area. Hall’s view was that the request was well within the spirit of the zoning law and comprehensive plan, regarding bringing agriculture to Danby and preserving open space. Additionally, the house will be well back from the road and so will not change the character of the neighborhood. Bortz expressed concern about the driveway easements and the potential impacts to property owners in the future. He acknowledged that such easements confer with the deed, but expressed concern about who maintains the driveway in the future and that this could be a hardship in the future. Bortz’s view was that the property owners should have made arrangements for access to 12.7 when they acquired 3.32 and other land. Hicks also expressed some concern regarding driveway easements, that the language of the easements be very clear. He suggested language regarding this concern be included in any approval of the variance request. Dean noted that access through the Conservation Easement land and other easements for the location of the driveway was not really their area of concern. The question is whether to grant a variance to the required road frontage. He stated that he could see where Selin is abiding by the spirit of the Zoning Law to maintain rural character and low density. The board agreed that they had enough information to consider the request in relation to the standard five point test for area variance findings and decision: 1. Whether undesirable change would be produced in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties? Dean noted that the neighbors have expressed that this would not be an undesirable change, and so No. Hall and Hicks agreed. Bortz expressed some concern, but acknowledged that the neighbors are no expressing a problem. Bortz suggested that conditions regarding driveway easements be included in any approval. This might include a modification to the easement on 12.5 for driveway maintenance and meeting fire and safety code. Code Officer Hansen stated that enforcement of driveway maintenance and fire/safety code is unusual and would be difficult to follow through. There was further discussion of language for this condition. 2. Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance? Bortz expressed the view that an alternative could have been planned through another parcel. Hall stated that the alternative would create another “curb cut” and be less desirable that what is being requested. Hicks stated that other options had already been explored. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial? There was agreement that the request is substantial, but that other factors mitigated this concern. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? There was general agreement that this would not have any adverse impact. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? Bortz agreed that it was self-created but that this was not a deterrent to approving the variance. Other members of the board agreed. The Request for Variance was Approved There was a discussion of approval, with conditional language regarding easements for driveway access to parcel 12.7. Selin asked that the condition be worded in such a way that he would have the option of a driveway either through parcels 12.5 and 2.1 or through parcel 3.32. Members of the board stated that this was agreeable to them, as their preferred location for a driveway is through 3.32.  MOTION TO GRANT VARIANCE: The Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Danby approves the variance as requested, from the minimum road frontage of 200 ft. required in section 600, paragraph 5 of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance (the current parcel has 78 feet of road frontage), in order to construct a single or two family dwelling. This variance is approved with the condition that appropriate easements are in place, either or on parcels 12.5, 2.1, 3.32, to access the property. This area variance request is for tax parcel no. 1.-1-12.7 at 560 West King Road; Steve Selin, Owner and Applicant. Moved by Dean, Second by Hicks, the motion passed  Toby Dean AYE  David Hall AYE  Earl Hicks AYE  Gary Bortz AYE ! The BZA took a short break between hearings. BZA Chair, Gary Bortz opened the hearing at 8:30 pm PUBLIC HEARING, to consider a request for an area variance from the road frontage located on a public road maintained year-round required in section 600, paragraph 4 of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance in order to proceed with a minor subdivision of the property. This area variance request is for tax parcel no. 23.-1-10.2, located between Curtis Road and Hill Road; Deborah Friends, Owner, and Michael Amodie, Applicant. Further information, including access to application materials, may be obtained at the Town Clerk’s Office, 1830 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York, 14850. Public Comment There was no written correspondence related to this variance request. Michael Amodie made comments in support of his variance request. He stated that he wants to secure his rights to hunt, camp, and hike on the property. He has had an informal agreement with property owner Deborah Friends to use the property in this manner for as much as 30 years. This would protect his interest in the property should the current owner decide to sell the land. He further stated that he has no interest in building a permanent, year-round home or structure on the property. He intends to camp there a few times a year. He also owns land in Brooktondale. Mr. Amodie stated that he is aware that the property is on a seasonal road. Code Officer Hansen affirmed that a building permit could not be issued for a structure on a seasonal road. Mr. Amodie stated that, at most, he would like to build a lean-to or seasonal camp. Bortz asked “why not get a long term lease?” Mr. Amodie stated that he didn’t know much about how such leases work. Bortz stated that, depending on how the lease is written, a new property owner would need to comply with a long term lease. Bortz suggested this as an alternative to the variance request. There was some discussion as to what could be permissible on a long term lease. There was discussion regarding the classification and condition of Hill Road and whether it was possible to sell or lease land on parcel 23.-1-10.2 which fronts on Hill Road. Curtis Road is clearly marked as a seasonal road and degrades in condition past the cell tower. In its current condition, Curtis Road is not passable at the location of the proposed subdivision. Property owner Deborah Friends responded to questions regarding the property. She provided some history of subdivisions on the property and the use of the property by the Amodie family. Deborah Friends does not currently live in the Town of Danby. Steve Hollenbeck asked about Amodie’s intent with the land. Mr. Amodie confirmed that he intended to purchase some land where he could camp in the summer time and that he had no other interest in developing the property at this time. Hall asked the applicant whether he wanted to pursue the possibility of a long term lease, or a larger parcel which would front on Hill Road. Either of these options would remove the need for a variance. Amodie stated that it seemed to him that the current proposal was the easiest way for him to secure his rights to the land. If the variance request was denied, then he would explore the other options. Mr. Amodie stated that he is not in a rush for this land purchase, and would be willing to wait up to three months for a decision. The subdivision request has gone before the Planning Board the previous week, November 16, 2017. Minutes from that meeting were not complete and available for this hearing. Planner Randall drafted a memo to the BZA with information regarding the Danby Subdivision and Land Division regulations, which stipulate that a small-lot minor subdivision is permitted only if the parcel has not been divided in the preceding three years. The parcel in question had been subdivided in February 10, 2015. A delay of three months would put the parcel into the time frame where it could once again be subdivided as a minor subdivision. It was noted that there is still the condition that the subdivision be on a year-round road. There was some discussion of what the Planning Board recommendation had been. Hansen stated that the Planning Board had made a motion to deny the variance request. Or, had made a motion to approve on the condition that no permanent dwelling be constructed? Conflicting reports were shared by members of the public who had attended the PB hearing. Without a clear recommendation and approved minutes of the PB hearing, the BZA discussed adjourning the hearing without prejudice for a period of time. There was some discussion regarding why a “habitable structure” should not be constructed on a seasonal road. A “habitable structure” as one with water and septic systems. Code Officer Hansen explained the needs of road maintenance, fire and emergency safety, and other services for a seasonal road. There was some discussion of whether a subdivision, and creating a new lot, at the same time creates a new building lot. There were concerns about property rights and legal implications for the town. There is some need to clarify zoning, and whether a building permit may be issued, in relation to road classification. The ambiguity of the situation may require advice from the Town Attorney. There was further discussion of having a delay in the proceedings in order to have a more clear picture of what the legal implications may be of this variance request. This discussion included what ever discussion and concerns the Planning Board may have had during its proceedings.  The Request for Variance was Tabled The BZA agreed that the request be “tabled” without prejudice for three months, pending further information from the Planning Board and possible discussion of possible feasible alternatives between applicant and property owner. MOTION TO TABLE VARIANCE REQUEST CONSIDERATION: The Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Danby agrees to adjourn the variance consideration without prejudice, for a time period of at least three months, to consider a request for an area variance from the road frontage located on a public road maintained year-round required in section 600, paragraph 4 of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance in order to proceed with a minor subdivision of the property. Moved by Hall, Second by Bortz, the motion passed  Toby Dean AYE  David Hall AYE  Earl Hicks AYE  Gary Bortz AYE ! BZA Chair Bortz informed the board that he intends to step down as Chair of the BZA in 2018. The Town Board will need to appoint a new Chair for that year. !!! Adjourn The Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm !!!!!!!! ____________________________________ Pamela Goddard, Board of Zoning Appeals Acting Secretary