No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-28 BZA MinutesTown of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Hearing and Meeting January 28, 2020 DRAFT PRESENT: Lew Billington Gary Bortz Toby Dean Betsy Lamb Earl Hicks OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner Jason Haremza Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Ted Dates, Steve Dayton, Andrew Harding, Aaron Moultrup The meeting was opened at 7:01pm. MEETING WITH STAFF Planner Haremza explained this time is to allow for any questions the Board might have on the materials for cases. Board Member Bortz asked for name tags for future meetings. Chairman Hicks said that Haremza will be keeping track of training hours, and upcoming trainings and mileage reimbursement were discussed. CALL TO ORDER Agenda item number five, “Review 2020 Meeting Schedule” was moved to before the public hearing. MINUTES APPROVAL MOTION: Approve minutes from the November 12th, 2019 meeting Moved by Bortz, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Bortz, Dean, Lamb, Hicks REVIEW 2020 MEETING SCHEDULE Planner Haremza passed out the schedule for 2020 meetings, which also shows the application deadlines. The advanced deadline allows for the required notification periods and for Board members to schedule their time. Bortz asked when the Board would receive materials, and Haremza thought two weeks 1  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES  in advance via email and slightly later for paper copies. Board Member Lamb asked about having applicants indicate how they would prefer to be contacted, and Haremza said he would add that to the form. PUBLIC HEARING Case #1, VAR-2020-01 Consider Area Variance Project: Addition to single family dwelling Location: 109 Loomis Court, Tax Parcel 2.-1-9.5 Applicant: Steve Dayton Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public hearing, vote on variance Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 650 (+/-) square foot addition to an existing single family dwelling. The property is in the Low Density Residential Zoning District, requiring a side yard setback of 50 feet. The proposed addition has a setback of 28 feet, six inches (28’6”). Therefore, the applicant has requested an area variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 600-6(b) to waive the side yard setback. Per the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (6 CRR-NY 617.5(c)(17)), as well as Local Law #2 of 1991, Section VI (Providing for Environmental Review in the Town of Danby), this project is a Type II Action and no further environmental review is required. Per an intermunicipal agreement between Tompkins County and the Town of Danby, the proposed action is exempt from county review under New York State General Municipal Law Section 239. The public hearing was opened at 7:22pm. Chairman Hicks explained the process for an Area Variance and the criteria considered. No Board members had conflicts of interest. Public Comment No letters were received from the public regarding this area variance application. Steve Dayton, representing Ithaca College, described the project. This is a new house the college purchased as a residence, but the house footprint did not include a gathering space. On the side of the house they chose, they thought the addition would fit in well. The materials being used with match the rest of the house. As it does not meet the setback requirements, they decided a variance was the best way to proceed. He introduced the two contractors present, Ted Dates and Aaron Moultrup, of Achitectural Concrete Plus (ACP). The architect on the project, Andrew Harding of AJH Design, was also in attendance. Lamb asked about the chosen location versus behind the house or on the other side, and Mr. Dayton said they looked at roof lines, room sizes and shapes, the septic system and leach field, logistics, and cost in 2  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES  making their decision. In response to a question from Board Member Billington, the septic tank location in relation to the addition and the limitations that creates were discussed. Lamb asked about the possibility of making it smaller, to which Mr. Harding said that this way it is serviceable to the dining room and kitchen. He said there is a lot of vegetation acting as a natural screen between this house and the two adjacent properties, and he noted the irregular lot shape and large easements for the power lines. Layout was further discussed. Hicks asked if there was any plan for the basement, and Mr. Dayton said not at this time. Board Member Dean confirmed that the addition is single story. Hicks noted there is a small part of the deck that violates the setback, but it is not substantial. Lamb confirmed they are not moving the entry. Bortz asked how many bedrooms there are currently, and was told three with two and a half baths; there would be another half bath added with the addition. Bortz felt this was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and the applicant had done a nice job balancing it out from the front view. Billington noted the tree berm along the property line, and Dayton said they should only have to remove three or four bushes to straighten out a drainage ditch. Hicks said that with the 50’ setback requirement being duplicated on a neighbor’s property, houses would then be at least 100’ apart. In this case, the neighbors are further away, so this intent is met. Dean noted the substantial woody area. The public hearing was closed at 7:49pm. Area Variance Findings & Decision The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Steve Dayton regarding the property at 109 Loomis Court (tax parcel 2.-1-9.5) for an Area Variance from the Zoning Ordinance Section 600(6)(b) requirement of a 50’ side yard setback. The property is in the Low Density Residential Zone. 1. The Board agreed that no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or any detriment to nearby properties. Bortz said he saw no detriment with the way it is laid out, the design balances the house out nicely in front, and it fits within the neighborhood. Dean agreed and said there are other large houses and odd-shaped lots in that area. Hicks said it fits in architecturally and, in terms of the intent of the code to establish a 100’ buffer, it would not visually have an impact on the neighborhood given that the other houses are already established. Billington said it was well-planned, retains the character of the existing house and nearby properties, and felt it would add rather than detract. Lamb agreed with the statements already made. 2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a feasible alternative of the variance. As discussed with the applicant, there were considerations of roof lines, the septic system, bedroom and room layout, and access. 3. The Board agreed that the requested variance was substantial. 3  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES  4  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES  Lamb noted that not all of the addition extended as far out into the setback area, so it was less dramatic. 4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Lamb noted the drainage ditch they will straighten is a small, man-made waterway, and Dayton said it was just to shed groundwater. Dean said the addition fits the area well and has extensive wooded area to shield it. He did not think you would see it unless you went to the end of the cul-de-sac. Hicks asked about parking for the 32 seats listed, and Dayton said that the driveway would not be augmented. There is only one other driveway on Loomis Court there and the road opens up at the end. 5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was self-created. Lamb felt the creation of the addition is self-created but the need for a variance is not. Based on the above five factors, the BZA determined that the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community. A 21’6” side yard setback from Section 600-6(b) of the Zoning Code was found to be the minimum variance that should be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Board did not add any conditions to the variance. MOTION: Approve the Area Variance Moved by Dean, seconded by Lamb The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Bortz, Dean, Lamb, Hicks ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:12pm. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary